Who can blame the staff of Facebook for removing any photo of a breastfeeding breast wherein the least bit of nipple and/or areola shows? After all, it’s right there in the U.S. Constitution: neither nipple nor involuntary areola, except as a product of pornography whereof the party shall have been duly aroused, shall exist within view of the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
We may bear arms, bear our religion, and bear a fifth of whiskey; we may even use bears to block our doors so troops cannot quarter themselves in our house during peacetime; but at no time shall we bare the breast. Specifically we shall not bare the female breast; specifically we shall not bare the breastfeeding breast; specifically we shall not bare the female breastfeeding breast when an infant is in the picture, because most men find it inhibits their arousal.
Think of the mayhem that would ensue if we allowed the female B-word out into the open. Just look at Europe, those threadbare heathens! Their car companies are on the verge of collapse, their currency is weaker than a spent whore, and only the richest have adequate health insurance. Oh wait — that’s America. My bad.
Nonetheless, heretofore and whatnot, breasts are bad. Horrible, disgusting, inhuman even. The male of the species and those females who have never seen their own breasts have rightfully decided in what context a mass of mammary can be displayed -– and it ain’t to feed infants. Seriously, folks, why do you think God gave us formula? Am I right, China?
The sole purpose of the breast is to be augmented, photographed in as unseemly a fashion as possible, airbrushed, placed on pages more glossy than a hooker’s lips, sealed in plastic, confined behind a barrier of particle board on a magazine stand (so children and men under 5’7” can’t reach it), and marked “Adult Reading Material.”
A public show of the breast leaves nothing to the imagination. I know when I see a fully exposed breast on the train or at the playground the only thought running through my mind is “For cryin’ out loud, I might as well be looking right into the labyrinth of the labia.” Sure, it’s true that many people, both men and women, wouldn’t know a vulva from a Volvo; but while some think this is rank ignorance, I think it’s insuring the mystique of the female form.
Unlike driving, smoking, and suing the guy whose house you broke into because he came between you and his Wii with a bat, breasts are a privilege, not a constitutional right. And with that privilege comes a unique responsibility and obligation toward its most loyal onlooker: man.
When a man kills someone, he goes to jail for murder. When a man takes money from his employer, he is charged with embezzling. But when a man does something illegal or immoral in response to seeing a bare breast — be it in the context of seeing a breastfeeding mother, spying on his neighbor, or viewing porn — he’s clearly under the influence. It’s not fair to expect men to know the difference between Heather the Harlot and Betty the Breastfeeder. It’s their biology.
Facebook is in good company with its obscenity rule, and the rest of us should take note. Airlines, local governments, and owner-operated businesses (who argue with local governments that their customers should be allowed to smoke but not breastfeed) are among the few in this country who are willing to take a stand against any customer who would dare bare.
People of civilized nations (you European and African types, I’m so not talking about you) like the United States and all Muslim countries know the real deal: if you don’t cover it, they will covet it — and that will be everyone’s undoing!Powered by Sidelines