Senator Clinton and the Politically (In)correct Boob
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.
August 1st, 2007 at 2:34 am
GGreat post, Elisabeth! This is issue is important and very concerning. First, I can’t believe your comment got deleted by the WSJ! Second, in the WSJ article you reference, how can the journalist say Clinton’s cleavage was “unnerving” – did the writer really mean to use that word? The war in Iraq is unnerving. Our country’s homeless situation is unnerving. Our national healthcare system – or lack there of – is unnerving. But Clinton’s cleavage? Surprising? Maybe. But unnerving? C’mon. And the comparison of seeing her cleavage to “catching a man with his fly unzipped.” That makes no sense. That is a completely different scenario. I was also shocked to learn that women on the Senate couldn’t wear pants until the 90’s. What country do we live in again? Iran? No, wait. I think it’s called the US. -Whitney Keyes, Executive Producer and Host, http://www.WhitneyandWyatt.com
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:42 am
Maybe I need to see the video, but I looked at that picture as closely as I could and I didn’t see anything inappropriate. What’s all the fuss about? The fuss is her being a woman running for president and they’re trying to find any little thing they can to discredit her. So lame.
I agree with Whitney – what country do we live in again? We claim to be so great but we’re sooooooo prudish it’s ridiculous. If that happened in France or Sweden no one would have blinked an eye. It’s not like she was wearing a wonderbra for god’s sake!