My breasts have been censored in Arcata, California.
It’s not the first time my breasts have been censored even when they weren’t exposed. Newspapers have refused to run the cover photo of my sixth CD, Whole Lotta Love, in a couple of narrow-minded cities. Some papers and magazines have even refused PAID ads by my record company if they used the cover photo. One reviewer liked my CD but remarked “the cover photo is obscene and in bad taste.” (Hey, I’m sorry my God-given body offends you!) And now, the poster for my Feb. 7 show in Arcata at Mazzotti's was apparently too hot for this restaurant. They hung up the poster in front with a large bar across my cleavage, in an apparent attempt to cover up my 44 GG bounty.
I am always amazed as to what constitutes obscenity in this country. Why is a fat girl's cleavage more offensive than a thin girl's cleavage? Cher, Madonna, Brittany Spears, Liz Hurley, Halle Berry and countless others have all worn dresses cut so low that another inch would show their navel, pubic hair or lack thereof. They parade around on prime time awards programs and are never censored. It isn’t even considered unusual.
But if a fat girl does it, suddenly we have crossed the line of decency. I can’t help it that I have more flesh than thin people. Clothes just look different on me. There is more of me to cover and more of me that shows when I am in the same styles that skinny women are wearing. Why is cleavage any more offensive than a belly shirt or a pierced navel? I happen to think it’s all beautiful but that cleavage is especially luscious. And in a day and age when women are paying thousands to buy larger breasts, why on earth would we want to cover them up?