|
The Times Online just wrote an entire article dedicated to breasts. They give the rundown on what men look for in a pair these days, and compare it to what was considered attractive in the past.
It’s a trend that changes with the times. What we consider appealing now varies with what’s in style, what’s possible through cosmetic surgery, what’s portrayed in the media, and specifically, what kind of bosoms celebrity idols have.
10 journalists give their take on breasts today and the roles they played in the past. They look at the real, the fake, the big and the small. Most notable, however, is that they aren’t all men, so it gives a well-rounded (pun intended) look at what a knock-out pair of knockers are in different societies, from North America to Europe and even the Middle East.
One female journalist reports from Islamic war zones, “True fundamentalists are not supposed to look at a woman’s face, which means that they often stare fixedly at breast level, instead. Sometimes it irritates me so much, I wonder about directing my questions to their crotch, but I’ve never quite had the nerve.”
Another journalist looks specifically at breasts in art, and how they have influenced master pieces over time.
But the modern-day bosom is rarely contained or discreet – it’s pumped up to bursting with chicken fillets and two kinds of tit tape, if not surgery, and it’s right there in your face. Cleavage is something I have come to dread. So many breasts now are like weapons of mass destruction (look at Victoria Beckham’s, with the door-bell nipples – what are they made of, titanium?). These breasts aren’t of this world, never mind sexy.
I keep thinking of Agnetha from Abba, bouncing in her turquoise satin two-piece, and Pan’s People spinning round the Top of the Pops stage in slivers of chiffon. A 1970s bosom was soft, natural, always braless, and 100% feminine. Now, breasts are like urban armour, and they’ve lost their charm. Kirsten Dunst has 1970s breasts, but she’s about it.
(timesonline)
|