
Okay, I agree that Senator Clinton’s cleavage isn’t really newsworthy (her dress much tamer than nearly all mainstream lingerie advertising), but boobs in the news are my business. The Washington Post recently ran a lengthy article noting the appearance of décolleté on the otherwise often conservatively-dressed Clinton. Her campaign staffers responded with indignation, asking supporters to elevate the political discussion beyond dressing her chest, but not missing an opportunity to ask for contributions to her campaign chest. At least that was CNN Newswire’s take on the topic, the day I decided to leave my brief comment on the power of boobs in our society. But alas, The Boob Lady’s ™ post was promptly deleted. How did I offend? Judge for yourself:
Advertisers use cleavage to sell everything from bras to beer. It’s created by pressing breast flesh together; not by letting breasts rest naturally (sans bra) on a woman’s chest. Many people find it difficult to ignore this type of breast exposure; even more so if it’s attached to a celebrity. An over-abundance of cleavage in the media hasn’t lessened its appeal, either. If it had, there wouldn’t be an on-going market for bras and other foundations that create such special effects. Studies show that even the size of a woman’s breasts can impact how she is viewed in both a professional and personal setting. Boobs are powerful, and–by definition—can turn otherwise intelligent people into complete “boobs.”
The real story may be that Senator Clinton was just having a bad bra day. (Like most women, she probably wears hers too big in the band and too small in the cup.) Had she worn some other foundation, we might never have had that ever-so-slight peek at her girls. Then we’d be engaged in intelligent discourse about her position on the education bill (the topic of her speech), rather than what she wore to the podium. Yeah…right.