boobies and agricultural revolution and stuff

The other day I was watching the news. It's been a couple of months actually, so you can imagine the pace my brain works at. Anyway, I was watching the news and there were these feminists, and they were swimming around in a public swimming pool with their boobs hanging out. I like boobs. I like them alot. But you know that when feminists are eager to show you theirs they have some sort of twisted and ridiculous agenda. And as always they did. They wanted to desexualize breasts. Titties are just meat, nothing sexual about that, or so these particular women would claim. The whole thing was laughable. While nobody really knows why men get aroused by looking at supple well formed mounds of pink flesh, with erect nipples surrounded by a perfect areola, it is hardly a logical phallacy to assume that topless women is hardly the way to reverse this reaction. Like I said, I like boobs - and I'm not the only one.

Anyway, while I was actively face palming I started thinking about this strangely irrational phenomenon, and where it came from, and as with everything else that is mind numbingly illogical in western society I ended up with the Bible.

Back in the days, the Bible teaches us, we were without sin and careless and free, and living in the garden. But then Eve, that terrible slag, had to go and eat the fruit of the tree of life, and present it to Adam just after having digested her helping. And God was severly pissed off by this, as he had clearly instructed them not to do so. They blamed the snake, but still got the boot and were cast out, and the garden was guarded by angels on steroids and a burning sword and stuff. You know the story. They sinned.

A common interpretation is that this is a parable for discovering sexuality, and a quite obvious one at that. Eve talks to the snake, and eats the fruit, then Adam eats the fruit and not long after they have children. Interestingly enough, this fall is also marked by the sudden need to hide their nakedness. Before Eve discovered the alluring snake and put stuff in her mouth she had no concept of nudity. And please do note how Rubens made Eve direct her gaze directly at Adam's serpent, while touching her mouth. No fellatio implied? (Though I suspect it was of a rather unimpressive girth and length, considering how little foliage it takes to hide it. Luckily for Adam he didn't have any competition around.)

The interesting bit is that this naive perception of covering up as a sign of sexuality is carried over by a bunch of highly educated atheist marxist inspired women in the present secularized society. Probably by way of Rosseau, and his noble savage. For some reason western culture and thought has obsesssed over the appearantly dichotomous "barbarian, natural, savage, primitive" on one hand and "culture, civilization, unnatural" on the other hand. Western culture is of course very much into dualism, and the duality of nature vs culture corresponds very well with religious concepts of body vs spirit, or even our mythic structures concerning the rise of civilization from a foraging nomadic existence via the agricultural revolution and into modern society.

Now this is where it gets all feministy and exciting. If we accept a pair of quite common notions atleast. Pre-agricultural society is generally held to have been a matriarchy where the gods were mostly feminine and the waxing and waning moon was a symbol of feminity and the feminine attributes of making babies and all that. As a contrast to this the agricultural revolution came bundled with patriarchy, male gods, sun worship and belief in sperm as the true origin of children (the homonculus theory). Just think of the potent freudian symbology contained in the image of a young strong muscular man driving his plow through the fertile fields of mother earth, and planting his seed in the hole. (When did this blog turn into pornography anyway?) Historically it's a massive over simplification, but as a mythic superstructure it is valid.

Okay, I've strayed pretty far from feminists swimming around with their mammaries exposed, but hang on just a bit further. Both the Bible and modern feminist theories tell us that there was once a pure and better way of life, and then there was a cataclysmic event (in spiritual and cultural terms) and we lost our innocence. It's easy to see how natural and unclothed becomes innocent and free in this sort of logic, and while I share some of these notions it's also an example of intellectual irredentism, for lack of a better term. Naive by any terms. What we also see is that some feminists also manage the logical leap it is to mix this all up with some culturally subconscious notions of sin. Having sexual thoughts about naked women is evidently a sin, and that is certainly not a marxist atheist educated way of thinking. While marxists certainly have their share of strange ideas, this is not one of them. Quite the opposite. The idea of sin linked with sexuality is a christian invention. Pluck out your right eye and cast it off! The difference between the feminists and puritanical christians lies in their proposed sollution to the "problem". The puritans covered their loins and petitioned the lord with prayer, as they say, while the feminists want to teach us men that their boobs are just udders and about as exciting as watching the laundry dry. Yet for some reason they don't like it when you as a man look at pictures of naked women. One should think that the more you look at them, the less exciting it gets. Atleast that's the exposure-thesis they seem to operate on when they burn their bras and swim around topless.

I don't get it. But I know one thing. I like boobs, and I can't complain about women who want to show them to me. Even if their reasons are distorted, incomprehensible and naive. Tittie power! Or something...