21 Feb

Some weeks ago my fellow tweep, writer and philosopher Dr Damon Young, posted this cheerful image of himself naked from the waist up on Twitter, and on his website.

Damon Young

It was around the time many of us were becoming highly exercised at David Koch’s unfortunate take on public breastfeeding. Breasts were a thing, or even more of a thing than usual because if it’s a thing you’re seeking, you can’t go past breasts.

This coincidence of Damon and David stirred my outrage, albeit for very different reasons. I’ve addressed my Koch angst here.

If Damon can plonk images of his torso all over the interwebs, I railed, without fear of any consequences other than some good-natured joshing, why can’t I? Because no matter how much anybody tells me I can, I don’t think it is actually so.

Damon’s image is unadorned, taken, I imagine, as he paused in his progress from bedroom to bathroom, his mind occupied, I later discovered, with his BMI. There’s nothing vain or self-conscious about the photo: he’s a bloke in his shorts wondering if he needs to take better care of his physical vehicle.

And here we careen into the first thing a woman can’t do that a man is allowed. If I were to post an image of myself in exactly the same state of ordinary (as opposed to contrived) deshabillé, clearly preoccupied (and not with showing myself off) I would likely bring torrents of nastiness down on my head. Why? How long have you got?

Most obviously, because I’d be transgressing the cultural expectation that when a woman shows her breasts she’s got to be sexy about it. We learned that from the Koch situation, with this male commenter making no bones about it. A woman shouldn’t just let her tits hang out, especially at the dinner table, if not for erotic purposes. That is, our tits are only for display when they are being usefully employed in sexually titillating somebody. Standing in your hallway, in your knickers, concentrating on something other than how desirable you have contrived to look in that moment, is likely to be regarded as disgusting. How can she let herself be seen like that?

Nobody says that about Damon, I’m willing to bet.

For a couple of weeks I yearned to post an image of my naked torso on Twitter and this blog, because why shouldn’t I? I was, though, both infuriated and appalled by the powerful ambivalence I felt at the prospect of thus exposing myself to the public gaze. I bet Damon didn’t go through this either, I fumed. I bet he blithely stuck up his picture and thought no more about it. I don’t begrudge him or any man that freedom: I want it for myself. I want to feel as safe as a man does about just being in my body, as it is, but when it comes to publicly revealing myself, I don’t.

I then had a Twitter exchange with Helen Razer in which we contemplated our breasts, confiding to one another and thousands of other tweeps, that we both believe them to be our best feature. Neither of us posted twit pics, however, as people do with their favourite kittehs and puppehs. We also discussed our skin, our feet and our arses, but no other body part, for me at least, has the same frisson. I’m a breast woman. The word alone stirs complex and mysterious emotion in me, all of it good. It’s not until breasts collide with society that they become problematic. Left alone, stripped of imposed culture, they are, quite frankly, gorgeous.

It’s my considered belief that Western culture is alarmingly dysfunctional when it comes to breasts. Author Sarah Darmody explores this normalised peculiarity in this readable piece, titled “Why are we so embarrassed about breasts?” Having lived in the UAE, Darmody is asked what she thinks about life in a society where women are forced to cover up. “What, you mean Australia?” she retorts.

Breasts are fetishised to a degree that is maddeningly unfair. The rules about which breasts may be displayed and how are so deeply ingrained in our collective psyche that to consider transgressing them fills a woman like me with something close to terror. For example, I will not usually go out of my house on a cool day without a bra or layers, in case my nipples expose themselves, hardened, as if with desire, through my t-shirt. This is falsely described as modesty, a commendable quality in a woman, I’m told. It feels like enslavement. It feels like repression. It feels like a shocking waste of my energy.

At the same time I don’t want to send the message of sexual availability hardened nipples signify, because that is a false message and I don’t need to deal with the repercussions. A woman’s day is full of such decisions, made largely unthinkingly, in robotic obedience to received wisdom we absorbed with our infant formula or mother’s milk. There are brave women who make it their business to thwart the ingrained conventions. It’s my goal to one day join them.

Damon’s self-exposure will do nothing to detract from his reputation as an erudite, intelligent philosopher, author and commentator. On the contrary, the image reveals another side to the scholar, one that is endearingly human. Were I, a female scholar, to publish exactly the same image of myself, I suspect I would incur all kinds of lewd and derogatory commentary, and I wouldn’t endear myself to anybody. Especially not my family who would be appalled, and likely wouldn’t find it possible speak to me for some time without averting their eyes.

If a female scholar, or any female exposes her breasts on the Internet, will that become the first thing anyone remembers about her? I suspect the answer is yes.

I’m very fond of my breasts. They’ve served me well, they’ve given pleasure to me and to my lovers, they’ve kept my babies alive and thriving, they continue to please the eye. They aren’t twenty anymore, but I’m told they still have a bit of phwoar factor. Be that as it may, the kind of exposure I’m talking about doesn’t require phwoar: I wasn’t planning a page three spread. I just wanted to do what Damon did.

Well, as you know, I didn’t. I feel like an abject coward. I still can’t even think about doing what Damon did without hot horrible squirmy feelings. If I did what Damon did I fear I would be doubly condemned, on the one hand for revealing my breasts at all, and on the other for revealing them in a non-sexy way, and with complete lack of concern for how they and I look.

It’s taken me weeks to even write this piece, not least because I understand that in the personal and universal hierarchy of women’s needs, the fact that I don’t feel free to do what Damon did isn’t in the top layer. Nevertheless, it does speak to the more urgent problem of how women are gazed upon, and how that gaze affects our way of being in the world.

Neither do I want to extrapolate my personal squeamishness to “women,” but there is no denying you hardly ever come across similar representations of a casually comfortable topless woman leaning in her doorway in her knickers.

Whining is unattractive, I know. But I don’t care. I want what he’s got. I want it really, really badly.

With thanks to Damon Young, whose latest highly acclaimed book is:philosophy in the garden - cover200x312


  1. Team Oyeniyi February 21, 2013 at 7:39 am #

    Exellent work, as always!


  2. Elisabeth February 21, 2013 at 8:16 am #

    When I was a little girl, maybe nine or ten, one hot summer day I sat around with my brothers in their bedroom. They had all taken off their t shirts to cool down. I did likewise until my mother told me to put my t shirt back on. I could not understand. Why shouldn’t I go topless like my brothers in the heat. I write this here to suggest how early the indoctrination arrives.

    My suspicion about the bad press breasts cop is because they are loaded, from the infant perspective as the initial source of nourishment and excitement. Breasts are loaded in the communal psyche as the giver and with holder of all that’s desirable and so we cannot view them through anything other than an idealised or denigrated lens. It’s hard to look at breasts the way we might at Damon’s torso.

    I’m with you all the way here, though. What a terrific post, wonderfully and courageously written.


  3. mamabook February 21, 2013 at 8:19 am #

    Thank you for writing this because I have had very similar thoughts about Damon’s pics. And even taking away the whole issue of the cultural issues around exposing women’s breasts, even if you took such a shot posing in a sports bra and shorts or similar, that picture would never be interpreted with the same easy good humour that Damon’s various photos of himself have been. You would be considered to be vain, conceited, hideous etc etc and your intellectual capacity would be called into question or you would be thought of as somebody who could not be taken seriously anymore and on and on it goes.
    I’ll stop there but glad somebody wrote on this!
    Michelle (mamabook)


  4. McPop February 21, 2013 at 8:30 am #

    Not to seem like a smartass, but how would this all play out if young Dr Young wasn’t wearing any pants?


  5. AnnODyne February 21, 2013 at 8:57 am #

    oh McPop (above) give me a break, as I came here to say
    re JW’s “Nobody says that about Damon, I’m willing to bet.” – that I am indeed thinking about Damon as beefcake yessiree. fit and smart too. oh oh oh.
    My puppehs are fabulous at 64 and I have posted them on my 2005 blog which started a contretemps between 2 female bloggers (one famous, whose own boobs inspired my posting; and the other a Phd). They were both vicious. I deleted and fled. Every time I see her own massive cleavage on ABCtv I want to rip that damn flower out of her hair.

    Now please do go searching for “Vivienne Westwood poses naked for Juergen Teller”
    as part of an exhibition called ‘Men and Women’…/vivienne-westwood-poses-naked .

    Do not visit the same news at DMail as the vile comments support some of the theories you have above.
    Great post thanks, as always.

    (now sit back and wait for The Usual Suspects – yes HG DQ etc -to take this topic to some other far away subject)


    • Jennifer Wilson February 21, 2013 at 9:28 am #

      Do you mean you deleted your photo of your breasts because two women were vicious about it?


    • Hypocritophobe February 21, 2013 at 10:09 am #

      Julia Gillard has the most disloyal looking breast outline in politics,how can she possibly be trusted?
      Which reminds me…………………

      (Happy now AOD? 😉 )


      • Jennifer Wilson February 21, 2013 at 10:32 am #

        HYPO!!! 🙂


        • Hypocritophobe February 21, 2013 at 10:41 am #

          And Abbott is a tit!


          • hudsongodfrey February 21, 2013 at 12:44 pm #

            There’s a corresponding line about budgie smugglers, but Anne’s going to kill both of us if we even mention it.

            Don’t mention the war! I mentioned it once but I think I got away with it alright. 🙂


            • Hypocritophobe February 21, 2013 at 1:12 pm #



          • atomou February 21, 2013 at 6:19 pm #

            See, that’s the problem with our political leaders: Abbott is a tit and Gillard is a dick! Wrong sex identifiers to the wrong sexes! No wonder the punters don’t know whom to screw!


            • atomou February 21, 2013 at 6:23 pm #

              Bugger it, Hypo!


              • Hypocritophobe February 21, 2013 at 6:42 pm #



              • atomou February 21, 2013 at 7:49 pm #

                I’ve responded to your “Abbott is a tit” but when I looked again, that delicious sentence was missing. Bugger it, what happened?


                • Hypocritophobe February 21, 2013 at 8:18 pm #

                  The sequence of responses to posts does go a bit troppo,especially when viewed outside of the logged in via Wordpus platform.
                  Too much hard work reading the times of each post to keep up, and outside Wordpus(normal browser setup) the reply button often does a runner.


                  • atomou February 21, 2013 at 8:27 pm #

                    Christ! Dysfunctional like our quasi-ALP!
                    Ok! I’ll… I don’t know WHAT to do but I’ll…


            • hudsongodfrey February 21, 2013 at 7:53 pm #

              I reckon they’d know who they wanted to screw if only they knew who they were being screwed by!


              • atomou February 21, 2013 at 8:03 pm #

                Or HOW to screw them! Gay and lesbian friends are telling me that they feel it’s unfair that sex identifiers are disseminated so arbitrarily. What was Zeus thinking, for Moses’ sake?


                • hudsongodfrey February 21, 2013 at 8:34 pm #

                  If only you’d go with Norse gods it would be so much easier to segue to the Almighty Johnsons, what with Johnson being a double entendre based on a slightly Americanised vernacular.,


                  • atomou February 21, 2013 at 9:40 pm #

                    You’re being a little too delphic for me, Hudso. In any case, I’m all Norsed out from another, mutually attended blog. But I love the Kiwis. Something Stephen Fry was saying about them the other day… nope, can’t ‘member.


    • doug quixote February 21, 2013 at 7:07 pm #

      Which subject would you like?

      Speaking personally, I like mammaries almost as much as mussels.



    • paul walter February 21, 2013 at 7:13 pm #

      Yes it did get derailed, because it seems to defy comment. Jennifer talks of the problems “we” face coping with tight nipples, but personally have never had this problem, so what do you say ?
      Seriously, the early posts hint at the trouble, the competing significance of breasts both to their bearers and men and children, not necessarily in that order.
      Sorry ladies, my body will tell me how significant a sweet pair of breasts are and let me tell you, this will have nothing to do whatsover with their lactatative function. That’s the way I am hard-wired, to the rhythmic caressing of the hard nipples of a sighing, desirous woman. Yes, that includes Julia Gillard’s norks, Hypo.
      Desire this strong defeats the human’s capacity for self control, risk and consequence are involved and hence shame at capitulation despite the need to avoid a compromising situation. Bras are meant to obscure the desirous nipple, but in fact ornament and emphasise breasts, so once again the juxtaposition of shame and desire, fight or flight, a real world phenomenon
      that pits the human instinct for control and safety against sexual desire and requires deft negotiation for survival and comfort. The pay offs are great, so are the pitfalls and consequences..


  6. hudsongodfrey February 21, 2013 at 10:38 am #

    I really don’t know the answer to this question so it is probably going to be the right one to ask, and I hope I get some answers to it, especially from women.

    You may not want to see Damon’s nipples, but maybe if his penis was visible perish the though Mr Happy actually came out to play, ran one up the flagpole and saluted the flag, then he would have been considered to have exposed himself. So ladies, would you be curious about that. Would you feel you’d gained a more intimate knowledge of its owner if you’d viewed the standing member? That’s kind of the question I wanted to ask….

    Because I guess nature, nurture or somewhere in between most guys would probably say yes we want to see your boobs. Some might even say please, while “show us your tits” isn’t the bogan chorus of events like Summernats for no reason.

    Moreover once we’ve seen your nakedness in any degree liable to be considered somewhat intimate we own a memory that to some degree carries an appreciation of your physical attractiveness. Or to reduce back to the level of coarseness of the wet t-shirt contest, numbers will be held up.

    Some of this is sexist, and by that I mean to say I’m not ignorant of the existence of hen’s parties and know this stuff goes both ways. But it is I think real and in part something we’d possibly like to change if we’re to value each other for attributes that are less shallow than the animal urges an appreciation of physical attributes might arouse.

    Hell! Even I look at Damon’s physique by comparison with my own and size up his potential as a sexual competitor. Never mind that the guy is known to me for his writing at an intellectual level which might just shade me by a clear country mile. Does that stuff really not matter?

    And what if we make the huge social change that involves ending the demarcation against half the population showing the last two or three square inches of skin we still don’t permit? I’ve heard it put in aid of making a similar point by intending to convey a particularly provocative pose, “you’re not really naked unless I can see your asshole as well”. And at that point the question isn’t do you want to see my knockers, it’s will there be NO mystery? Because I want to end this by saying that to some of us the deshabillé has the greater phwoar factor if it separates us momentarily from the unadorned vessel of the mind I admire in Jennifer or Damon quite apart from how her body is or isn’t clad.

    And the reason I think is simple. We humans find it hard to look at the object of physical attractiveness without sexual preoccupation, and are on occasion joyously spared inappropriateness that might simply get in the way of more interesting kinds of intercourse 🙂


  7. 8 Degrees of Latitude February 21, 2013 at 12:08 pm #

    Surely the “phwaar!” factor encompasses more than just the base sexual titillation of exposure? My Primary Question (asked of myself,not the possible object of desire) has always been “What shall we be able to talk about afterwards?” And anyway, I’m more of a leg man, myself.

    So, risibility aside, what is the issue here? There is nothing wrong with being naked, or partly so. But we have to concede that our intellects give us rules to apply to normal everyday life, and one would hope some measure of common sense as well. As always, our actions should be guided by our assessment of what impact those actions might have on other people. It is not all about Me Me Me.

    It’s a fact that women’s breasts are subjectively sexualised in much – if not all – of human society. Whether this is fair, or logical, is surely rather beside the point. It’s also a fact that the overwhelming bulk of sexual presentation in the media and beyond is orchestrated by men for the interest of men. Sadly, it’s also true that a lot of men behave like infantile tits where sightings – by chance or design – of women’s bodies are concerned.

    I don’t object to exposure and most certainly not to the natural and nurturing practice of breastfeeding (in public or otherwise). But as a general rule I wouldn’t want to hang out in all the wrong places just to make a point, or because it’s logically my right to do so.


  8. Hypocritophobe February 21, 2013 at 12:36 pm #

    Koch aside, one part of the equation is that when a woman ‘exposes’ herself, she runs the gauntlet of many factions of women from prudes to feminists claiming ownership of the woman’s nudity.Breasts and and other.
    And a fair share of her female critics will heap all the blame on men,for even daring to look or talk about it.
    It’s a bumpy pink mine-filed.
    (I guess that’s what JW just said,huh?)


  9. Anonymous February 21, 2013 at 12:42 pm #

    Today of all days, the word “breast” just brings tears flooding back to my eyes. This morning I discovered that one of my beloved chickens had been reduced to an incomplete and dismembered carcass, sinew, disturbingly widely-scattered feathers, and her adorable little yellow feet, still with dirt under her nails from scratching in the garden just yesterday. I had planned to bolster her coop’s security measures this weekend following my having spotted a fully-grown lace monitor trying to get it the other day. But it appears my delaying of something self-evidently urgent has culminated in the worst possible outcome, just in case I needed any further proof of why I shouldn’t have kids.

    I wrapped her remains in one of my favourite shirts, arms tightly around her, and buried her in a place that can be seen from the living room. RIP Nina.

    Perhaps even worse, her compatriot Gertrude was obviously there to witness the whole thing, and was mute with shock. She will be living in the bathroom from now on.

    Sad day.

    Interesting article though, and I might respond later. One point I thought was worth making now though was in response to this: “there is no denying you hardly ever come across similar representations of a casually comfortable topless woman leaning in her doorway in her knickers.”

    How about in fahsion magazines mainly written for women, like Vogue, or for young people, like Frankie. Sure, these are models endowed with socially acceptable proportions. But aren’t they at least meant to make people aspire to *feel* like them when they wear the same clothes?


    • samjandwich February 21, 2013 at 12:45 pm #

      Oh whoops forgot to log in.


    • Jennifer Wilson February 21, 2013 at 3:47 pm #

      No, I don’t mean posed casual as in Vogue, I mean authentic casual like Damon.

      But hell’s teeth, that’s a terrible story about poor Nina. You can’t leave Gertrude on her own though, you’ll have to get her another companion.

      The weekend after the Big Storm on Tamborine Mountain, border collie Lily Dog (not my dog, just related) beheaded three little chickens in a split second when somebody’s back was turned (not mine, thank gods) and nobody could bring themselves to speak to her for days, though I fought hard for her, explaining a dog does what a dog does & it was human error leaving the chickens in her path. Anyways, they immediately got three more chickens, Snap, Crackle, & Pop, to keep the survivor, Obama, company. They all lived in the bath for ages, they may still be there.

      Oh, what a sad day indeed. 😦


      • Hypocritophobe February 21, 2013 at 3:52 pm #

        Off topic I know Jennifer, but this could cheer you up,(I hope)


      • samjandwich February 21, 2013 at 4:47 pm #

        I don’t get why chickens have a reputation for being scaredy. They’re actually quite brave – just very vulnerable:-(

        I tried poking the lizard with a stick, but it didn’t seem to mind. Ultimately I figure it’s the original inhabitant of the land – so instead of endangering Gertrude I’m contemplating donating her to a more suburban-based friend.

        As to this: “No, I don’t mean posed casual as in Vogue, I mean authentic casual like Damon.”, I would say it’s a chicken and egg thing! Do we accept Damon simply because we’re used to seeing similar portrayals, or is it our acceptance of similar portrayals that lead Damon to follow suit.

        Again, my sense of humour being another reason why I shouldn’t have kids. Boohoo.


        • Jennifer Wilson February 21, 2013 at 5:15 pm #

          Never poke a lizard. That is all.


          • Hypocritophobe February 21, 2013 at 6:19 pm #

            …or, ‘eye off’ a newt!


    • hudsongodfrey February 21, 2013 at 5:07 pm #

      Sorry about you hapless chicken there Sam, so foul yet fair day you may not have seen I’ll wager. Do get a replacement, and maybe build a sturdier roost, I don’t know that you’ll want chooks in the bathroom for very long.

      Foxes in all probability! They’re genocidal manics of beasts and will kill a whole shed full of chickens to take one or two. They make an awful mess and sadly the gene’s in the domestic dog as well, but if he’s fed then he’ll catch and gnaw on the remains of one then get sick of having a gut full of feathers and leave most of it. Cats as well! We have a possum despatcher, and it seems to kill for the sake of it. Turns up in the morning with a carcass, a seeming grin and the notion that we ought to feed it for its trouble. I know they’re protected and kinda cute but don’t blame the cat, the population of possums is at almost plague proportions, so something’s got to give and I hope it won’t always have to be my figs.


      • samjandwich February 21, 2013 at 5:15 pm #

        Thanks Hudson.

        I’m quite sure it was a lace monitor though. I’ve seen it sneaking around recently. Quite a magnificent creature really, and a local at that. My fault entirely for putting domestic fowls smack bang in the middle of the circle of life.

        No wait! that sounds like an excellent segue into a discussion about nipples.


        • hudsongodfrey February 21, 2013 at 6:12 pm #

          I think I could keep you in a steady supply of possums if it helps 🙂


          • Jennifer Wilson February 22, 2013 at 8:08 am #

            All of you political junkies go have a look at David Horton’s latest blog:


            • hudsongodfrey February 22, 2013 at 10:07 am #

              Thanks Jennifer,

              I’ve posted in a similar vein on David’s Blog….

              I think political parties can be a bit like football teams. There are a few members but a lot more supporters. David argues there are several categories of party faithful, I think alluding to what the members have in common. But that probably leaves a larger number of people who make up the electorate wondering about where they fit in. Which is fine, but I’d add that in order to convert two parties into three, (As David recommends) it seems to me that the big challenge is to get enough people to vote for that third party. is it not?

              So if in any way it helps to end a certain amount of speculation in these pages I do hope Labor can do something between now and election time to win back my vote, because I think it’s no secret I’ll otherwise be voting Green. And while I know many of you may not be able to say likewise and should make up your own minds, I live in a safe seat where I very much doubt my vote is in the context of much more than a protest.


              • Hypocritophobe February 22, 2013 at 10:41 am #

                It needs to be kept in mind that the Nationals (most have breasts) already exist as a third party and the Greens (also a lot with titties.Quite a few pop them out or have in the past) are a balancing force the other way,in a broad manner.

                (Still on topic)

                I shall check out Mr Hort


                • hudsongodfrey February 22, 2013 at 10:42 am #

                  Attempted relevance noted 🙂


            • paul walter February 22, 2013 at 10:49 pm #

              Interesting you should mention David Horton’s site. It was yesterday or the day before I read it and decided it was so complete as to require no further comment.
              But I think hudsongodfrey and Hypo in particular, took it a step further.


      • Hypocritophobe February 21, 2013 at 5:21 pm #

        For years word on the lace monitor’s street had said that chickens were quite good tucker.
        Tasted sort of like half reptile half fish.
        We can assume that one of them will report his findings back to base.
        Monitors take bird nestling and carrion, rabbits from burrows,(seen them do it) but I didn’t know they liked fast food chook, dine in!
        Improve the chook yard, or feed the monitor something which tastes better than chook and feed it often.
        Win win.

        But in reality, you might never see the lizard again.

        RIP Nina.


        • hudsongodfrey February 21, 2013 at 8:36 pm #

          Oh I dunno, on current form you could’ve been making a slightly different reference to a Lizard!


          • Hypocritophobe February 21, 2013 at 8:45 pm #

            Moronosaurus Rex


            • hudsongodfrey February 21, 2013 at 9:27 pm #



              • Hypocritophobe February 21, 2013 at 10:17 pm #

                Monogomasaurus Sex


                • hudsongodfrey February 21, 2013 at 11:33 pm #

                  Paid 🙂


                  • Hypocritophobe February 21, 2013 at 11:44 pm #

                    Glad youre back,
                    Looks like we are in deep doodoo for going well off topic,so while I have your attention, go back to that site you liked(dog one) and check out the other funny stuff,including this.


                    And then run and hide before we get six of the best for dragging the punters away from the fun bags!


                    • hudsongodfrey February 22, 2013 at 10:09 am #

                      The cat’s a loner, but it captures my dog to a tee 🙂


  10. Hypocritophobe February 21, 2013 at 6:18 pm #

    Potential Song of the Day

    Kelis – Milkshake Lyrics
    Artist: Kelis

    My milk shake brings all the boys to the yard,
    And there like,
    Its better than yours,
    Damn right its better than yours,
    I can teach you,
    But I have to charge

    I know you want it,
    The thing that makes me,
    What the guys go crazy for.
    They lose their minds,
    The way I wind,
    I think its time

    La la-la la la,
    Warm it up.
    The boys are waiting

    My milk shake brings all the boys to the yard,
    And there like,
    Its better than yours,
    Damn right its better than yours,
    I can teach you,
    But I have to charge

    I can see you’re on it,
    You want me to teach the
    Techniques that freaks these boys,
    It can’t be bought,
    Just know, thieves get caught,
    Watch if your smart,

    La la-la la la,
    Warm it up,
    La la-la la la,
    The boys are waiting,

    My milk shake brings all the boys to the yard,
    And there like,
    Its better than yours,
    Damn right its better than yours,
    I can teach you,
    But I have to charge

    Once you get involved,
    Everyone will look this way-so,
    You must maintain your charm,
    Same time maintain your halo,
    Just get the perfect blend,
    Plus what you have within,
    Then next his eyes are squint,
    Then he’s picked up your scent,

    Warm it up,
    The boys are waiting,

    My milk shake brings all the boys to the yard,
    And there like,
    Its better than yours,
    Damn right its better than yours,
    I can teach you,
    But I have to charge.


  11. doug quixote February 21, 2013 at 7:02 pm #

    A great pity it is, on many levels.

    The problem is that female breasts are seen as sexually interesting in western cultures, even though many other cultures seem to regard them in a more utilitarian fashion – one obvious example is Australian aborigines, who were totally naked in all weathers and climates, before the Christian wowsers got to them.

    I would love to admire your breasts, Jennifer, but it seems there is no tit for tat. 🙂


  12. Ray February 21, 2013 at 11:47 pm #

    During the 70’s many of my female friends inspired by feminism decided they would start going topless. By doing so attitudes started to shift. Then for some reason women backed off sometime in the late 80’s. I don’t know why.

    Breasts will continue to be sexualised just as long as women themselves treat them as sexual objects; as long as they accept that they are somehow provocative or obscene.


    • Hypocritophobe February 21, 2013 at 11:53 pm #

      I blame my mother.She got me hooked on them at a very early age.I have been addicted ever since.
      Go figure.

      Enter Benny Hill:

      It’s a Tit-anic struggle which I can hardly keep abreast of.

      Time for a trip down Mammary Lane.


    • Ray (novelactivist) February 22, 2013 at 12:22 pm #


      I should add here that a shift in attitude requires action not words. Women will liberate the breast by actually liberating the breast, not by talking about liberating the breast.

      Somehow women have lost the courage to act.


      • Ray (novelactivist) February 22, 2013 at 12:29 pm #

        And a further addition, these women I knew did not all have perfect breasts, but that was the WHOLE point – to expose the reality.

        The shift in attitude in the 80’s was the belief that exposing the breast was only for women (especially young women) who had perfect tits.

        Why do women so readily buy into body shame?

        In NY there is an annual topless rights rally. There seems to be nothing of the kind in Australia. Why aren’t women making this an issue? Seriously, why?


      • Hypocritophobe February 22, 2013 at 12:36 pm #

        Agreed, and one of the first points I made.^
        That other groups(especially some of the loudest female factions at each end of the spectrum) lay claim to other women’s body parts, while claiming that ‘men own all women’s bodies’ is front and centre, or their campaign.

        Shows us your tits,with ‘your’ being the operative word.

        An example is the furore that arises over the principle of slut walks and the very audacity of using ‘slut’ in the first place.

        “Permission to expose my own body, cap’n”


        • Ray February 22, 2013 at 4:05 pm #

          It’s actually legal to go topless on most beaches so there is no risk of a fine. Despite this (a right won by women actually going topless) women choose not to go topless. Go figure.


  13. samjandwich February 22, 2013 at 7:25 am #

    Good morning,

    On topic: I wonder whether this is to do with one’s level of self-awareness.

    I find it slightly ridiculous that Damon Young would post a selfie of himself when his hairy stomach looks like an outgrowth of necrotic tissue from a poorly-cauterised perforation, and his pale and distended nipple set into his lumpy and unkempt torso is such a mockery of the attractiveness it may once have had. If only he knew how utterly awkward and silly he looks he wouldn’t be doing this.

    At least Jennifer since you know yourself what you look like naked, and because you’re attuned to the way other people think, you have some notion of what people’s reaction would be if you did likewise. Foist anything on the public that’s less than perfect and you’ll get disparaging comments.

    This may be a largely cultural phenomenon, but it’s our culture. So get used to it!


    • Jennifer Wilson February 22, 2013 at 7:43 am #



      • hudsongodfrey February 22, 2013 at 10:27 am #

        I think Sam’s onto something about the self critical aspect of human nature but may right in saying that we do have to get used to it in that we hope to be comfortable with ourselves. But yeah, ouch is right and it makes me think…..

        Why is it for example that we somewhat admire standards of physical beauty among famous people and entertainers and yet I can think of several comments I’ve heard and read about the Madonna’s or Lady Gaga’s bodies that must be among the most hurtful things anyone could say of another person. I think there’s a reason to want to feel more liberated from our clothing, but that perhaps it doesn’t extend to wanting to expose yourself to that level of derision.


    • doug quixote February 22, 2013 at 8:00 am #

      A bit harsh, Sam! Damon is to be commended for his bravery in posting it. There has been a movement trying to get women to accept their own less than perfect bodies for what they are, without the need for plastic surgery, stomach stapling, dangerous diets and the like.

      A man posts a rather normal-looking torso and you want to deride the image?

      Impliedly, you would join the chorus criticising anything less than a Hollywood image of perfection. I hope I am wrong in that analysis, but perhaps you should reconsider.


      • samjandwich February 22, 2013 at 12:02 pm #

        To be honest Doug, I was engaging in a little bit of trolling, of the sort that I imagine women who post naked photos of themselves might receive. I think the concept of giving men a taste of their own medicine is quite interesting.

        And here, I have to say that I think I’m basically in agreement with Jennifer’s article, ie that there really is no good reason why this situation should be different for women than for men. Self-awareness is one side of the coin, but the other I think can probably be described as patriarchy giving rise to an “emperor’s new clothes” phenomenon – that is, a latent social inhibition against feeling/being critical about men’s bodies..

        But of course that’s just an extension of a more generalised approach of pointing out the negatives. What I don’t quite understand is how can you draw a distinction between appreciating someone’s body for its intrinsic aesthetic qualities, and knocking them by comparing them to someone who’s better-looking. What makes a person go for one but not the other? Or do we do them both simultaneously?

        And in answer to my own question, the scientist in me would say that being surrounded by images of beautiful people – which is a difficult thing to avoid in contemporary Australian society – leads to the development of neural pathways attuning us to instances of physical beauty. But perhaps we can override these when we put our minds to it. Hey, objectively it’s undeniable that my girlfriend isn’t the best-looking woman in the world, but I still think she’s hot!


    • Hypocritophobe February 22, 2013 at 10:12 am #

      Given your obvious terror I vote you find a suitable org who deals with petty outrage regarding other peoples physical assets and their choice to do what they wish those private assets.
      A few such orgs come to mind.

      To Damon, I offer thee>>>>some mirror music>>>

      (Right Said Fred)

      I’m Too Sexy (Lyrics)

      I’m too sexy for my love too sexy for my love
      Love’s going to leave me

      I’m too sexy for my shirt too sexy for my shirt
      So sexy it hurts
      And I’m too sexy for Milan too sexy for Milan
      New York and Japan

      And I’m too sexy for your party
      Too sexy for your party
      No way I’m disco dancing

      I’m a model you know what I mean
      And I do my little turn on the catwalk
      Yeah on the catwalk on the catwalk yeah
      I do my little turn on the catwalk

      I’m too sexy for my car too sexy for my car
      Too sexy by far
      And I’m too sexy for my hat
      Too sexy for my hat what do you think about that

      I’m a model you know what I mean
      And I do my little turn on the catwalk
      Yeah on the catwalk on the catwalk yeah
      I shake my little touche on the catwalk

      I’m too sexy for my too sexy for my too sexy for my

      ‘Cos I’m a model you know what I mean
      And I do my little turn on the catwalk
      Yeah on the catwalk on the catwalk yeah
      I shake my little touche on the catwalk

      I’m too sexy for my cat too sexy for my cat
      Poor pussy poor pussy cat
      I’m too sexy for my love too sexy for my love
      Love’s going to leave me

      And I’m too sexy for this song


      • atomou February 22, 2013 at 11:03 am #

        By the way, my other name is Damon and I find your lyrics sooooo accurate! I shall ask my muso nephew to sing it, record it (CD it?) and You Tube it!
        Hypo, I think you’re a genius – though crap with apostrophes and the like! Are you engaged in some campaign to eradicate them… and throw thousands of pedants like me out onto the scrapheap of irrelevance?
        Please say NO!


        • Hypocritophobe February 22, 2013 at 11:27 am #

          Agh Damon,
          (I’ll try to stay on topic during our conversation)

          I thought I was pretty good with apostrophes.(if you squint your eyes and look at them up close they look like distorted norks)
          (Must admit the plural of some things has me scratching my head sometimes) Show me a few of my apostrophe errors so I can heal (breast milk heals) myself.

          The song already exists so you may have copyright issues.
          Don’t you remember the One Hit Wonder band,”Right Said Fred” suffocating the airwaves with it?

          Gawd I think I may have Teretz (baps) Syndrome


          • atomou February 22, 2013 at 11:50 am #

            I thought tourette syndrome was one of the compulsory prerequisites for writing on blogs. “No tourettes? Piss off!”
            It would navigate this topic to shores too distant from those upon which JW landed us, Hypo so I’ll just make this teeny weeny comment:
            Apostrophe is used when a letter has been… apostrophised…
            Ok, ok I’ll get back to english. It enters the word when a letter has been chucked out through sheer usage. This generally happens when the word is a noun and it possess something, eg: Damon’s tits are showing, JWilson’s tits are not for showing, this apple’s skin is peculiar. Now all these nous are in their singular form. In plural, you’d see, the girls’ dresses are colourful, the boys’ toys are stupid, the tourists’ quarters are adequate.
            Also in cases like, I’d (apostrophised here is woul), It’s (as in “it is,” otherwise it mean “belonging to it”), I’ll, I’m, etc.
            Get it? Something has been apostrophised.
            Sorry for the trip, guys!
            My addy is on my website, if you wish to journey further.


            • doug quixote February 22, 2013 at 7:01 pm #

              Basically pronouns like its and his and hers do not need apostrophes to indicate possession : thus “the lizard lost its tail” – no apostrophe.
              The cause of difficulty is that the contraction for it is is it’s which people mistake for a possessive.

              Many seem to think that any final S needs an apostrophe : thus “tomato’s” – a real blooper.


              • georgetheodoridis February 22, 2013 at 7:11 pm #

                “…which people mistake for a possessive.”
                And that’s my point about teaching this grammatical phenomenon this way, DQ. the apostrophe is not about possession but about a letter missing; replaced by an apostrophe. Whether it is a possession (in possessive case) or a simple contraction, the apostrophe represent a missing letter. One that has been eroded with constant use. No pronoun takes an apostrophe, possessive or otherwise: hers, his, its, ours, yours, theirs because it isn’t about apostrophes. I had wonderful results in my classrooms by simply removing that concept.
                BUT, I still see grammar book after grammar book getting into Gordian knots trying to explain possessives and contractions.
                Ah, well!


                • doug quixote February 23, 2013 at 11:25 pm #

                  Further up the blog there was a reference to the “oatmeal” site – this bit seems to be relevant!



                  • Hypocritophobe February 24, 2013 at 12:16 am #

                    Nipples with piercings can sometimes look a bit like apostrophes


                    over to the, GPO

                    (Greek Pedantry Officer!!)


                  • Hypocritophobe February 24, 2013 at 3:30 pm #

                    This is a caption lifted from the ABC news site.

                    Good luck punctuating it.

                    ” The clean-up continues after a storm that ripped off roofs and entire storeys off houses.”


                    • hudsongodfrey February 24, 2013 at 6:07 pm #

                      Whatever happened to rooves?


                    • atomoua February 24, 2013 at 6:27 pm #

                      Last I heard of rooves is she lost her G and is now too embarrassed to be seen in public. I mean, wouldn’t anyone?


                    • doug quixote February 24, 2013 at 7:01 pm #

                      Yes indeed; who write this crap? Even the autocue readers seem embarrassed at times to read the crap they have to emote upon!

                      (As an aside : If they ran through their lines before going to air, it might help with their phrasing. )

                      I suppose it reflects the dumbing down of education over the last several decades.


              • Hypocritophobe February 22, 2013 at 9:44 pm #

                What if your tomato’s bruised?


                • atomou February 22, 2013 at 10:14 pm #

                  You should never bruise your tomato! But if you do, it won’t be the tomato’s fault (original spelling: tomatoes fault) and then you could ejaculate: Ah! My tomato’s bruised! (old and new spelling: my tomato is bruiséd, M’Lord!


                • doug quixote February 22, 2013 at 10:47 pm #

                  Nor should you bruise a breast (see, a return to the topic)

                  Beautiful firm juicy ripe plump and gorgeously rounded, with a colour that simply invites demands and challenges you to munch on it . . . yes, a tomato is a wonderful thing 🙂


                  • Hypocritophobe February 22, 2013 at 10:56 pm #

                    And breasts, like tomatoids, (tomatum) have a vast array of types, shapes, colours and flaves.(100’s)
                    What breasts correlate to the Grosse Lisse, the Ox heart, the cherry tomato, beef steak, kumarto?
                    Isn’t there a twomartoh festival somewhere, where bruising abounds? Both breast and fruit?


                    • atomou February 23, 2013 at 3:58 am #

                      MRS. PILLETTI
                      I say, why don’t you go to the
                      Stardust Ballroom? It’s loaded with

                      Marty regards his mother for a moment.

                      It’s loaded with what?

                      MRS. PILLETTI

                      Ha! Who told you about the Stardust

                      MRS. PILLETTI
                      Thomas. He told me it was a very
                      nice place.

                      I bruised a tomato once. Long time ago. We were dancing to some Sinatra song at the time. Bruised her ever so gently. Pleasantly, really. She whispered, “thanks, sweetheart.” Then we got married and now she bruises me. Ever soooo gently. Pleasantly, really and I say, always I say, “thanks, sweetheart.”


  14. Elisabeth February 22, 2013 at 9:55 am #

    Why do I find the conversation here increasingly frustrating? It’s not just that it veers off topic. That often happens and is generally fine, but there’s a mocking tone, a posturing. I can’t quite put my finger on it but it seems to me it does not attend to the genuine concerns that Jennifer raises in her post in the first instance.

    I suspect breasts do make some folks anxious, and bring out the infantile. Humour is after all a defense, however sometimes necessary.


    • Hypocritophobe February 22, 2013 at 10:16 am #

      I agree with you.It’s what brings me here.
      If you could describe in 25 words or less how/where you would like each topic to go and not go, I will comply with your every wish.
      I’m the first to agree that sarcasm and free speech are overrated and that there’s no such thing as tongue in cheek.


      • atomou February 22, 2013 at 10:58 am #

        “… tongue in cheek…”
        Unless of course it’s your lover’s tongue in your cheek; or vikkus versallus!


    • hudsongodfrey February 22, 2013 at 10:41 am #

      Mocking isn’t I think an apt description at all of what’s been said here?

      …. Argue if you will that farts and dicks aren’t funny either, just stay aware from comedy venues thereafter, because fart jokes and dick jokes are firm comedy staples.

      There’s enough serious stuff in the world and some thoughtful comments here, but you have to have a sense of humour, and I think my old mate George Carlin explained it best.

      There were seven words you couldn’t say on television back in the 70’s, and according to George tits was one of them.

      “Wow! …and Tits doesn’t even belong on the list. That is such a friendly sounding word. It sounds like a nickname, right? Hey, Tits, come here, man. Hey Tits, meet Toots. Toots, Tits. Tits, Toots.
      It sounds like a snack, doesn’t it?
      Yes, I know, it is a snack. I don’t mean your sexist snack. I mean New Nabisco Tits!, and new Cheese Tits, Corn Tits, Pizza Tits, Sesame Tits, Onion Tits, Tater Tits.
      Betcha Can’t Eat Just One.”

      So I’m sorry for any inappropriate levity unintended or otherwise, but if you don’t read or hear those words from Carlin with tears of mirth running down your cheeks then your soul is probably forfeit 🙂


      • atomou February 22, 2013 at 11:10 am #

        Tits and dicks -and clits! If anyone squirms at the utterance, the silent blog word, the theatrical presentation of them, then they should check out the works of Aristophanes (begin with his Lysistrata) and how they were presented to the audience of 5thC, BC, Athens, translations of which may be perused here:

        @JW: Sorry if I’m abusing the blog by advertising mine. If you like, you can chop the addy off. I’m an understanding fellow!


        • doug quixote February 22, 2013 at 7:08 pm #

          Perfect Atomou. I love Aristophanes. The BACWAs could hardly wait to bowdlerise his plays.

          The bastards even favoured careful Bible translations and avoidance of certain passages : censoring and banning their own holy book!


          • georgetheodoridis February 22, 2013 at 7:24 pm #

            Quite so, doug.
            The world was free to laugh then.
            I had to study this stuff back at Uni in the days when the only translations available of this guy were so bowdlerised one wondered what was comedic about them! Couldn’t wait to get to read over the real texts myself and translate them properly!
            However, as for the BACWAs: They certainly exist but we must not think that those who rail against sexual exploitation -of anyone but particularly of children, as well as people with disabilities (physical, as well as mental) are also BACWAs.
            Those who wish to flash their dicks, tits and clits my do so at their own discretion (or lack thereof) but they must not insist that others do the same, or disparage them if a sense of decorum and modesty prevails in their character. Most certainly, they must not force, cajole or trick minors or anyone else, fr that matter, into flashing their bits.
            The world is not about single individuals who hold single morals or whims. Due deference must be paid to dissenters.
            Kids are certainly out of the equations, so far as I am concerned… Why are we making so much fuss about Catholic priests? Why has the Pope done a Pontius Pilate?


            • doug quixote February 23, 2013 at 12:22 am #

              “Why are we making so much fuss about Catholic priests?”

              Could it be that they are the very epitome of hypocrisy?

              Stand up there in the pulpit and tell the flock that they are sinners and preach to the world at large how to behave?

              Anything to do with it, do you think?

              Pell for Pope : Sanctimonious I is just the man they’ve been waiting for. Pompous, self opinionated, self satisfied, arrogant, sneering – and sanctimonious. Perfect.


            • Hypocritophobe February 23, 2013 at 12:45 am #

              “Why has the Pope done a Pontius Pilate?”

              How about,
              Why has he snatched it so close to the upcoming Royal Commission?

              Or moreover, why hasn’t the MSM bothered to ask the same thing?


              • atomou February 23, 2013 at 10:32 am #

                No question about it! Jesus would be extremely angry. Zeus-like fumes would now be issued from his usually serene nostrils.
                These anti Christs will burn in hell for all eternity… like Abbott and his whole menagerie and Gillard and her whole menagerie and like Berlusconi and his whole menagerie and like Merkel and her whole… They’re all going to be cast into the ever burning flames of Dante’s hell!
                Mark my word! I know, because Zeus told me!

                Silly goat Pope! He suddenly(?) realised that the mountain which he managed to climb is not the lofty peaks of heavenly purity but a huge mountain of dung! He is propped up by dung beetles, venomous serpents and escapees from Sodom and Gomorrah!

                Mark my word…
                Better take my meds now!


                • hudsongodfrey February 23, 2013 at 11:16 am #

                  Want do digress? Oops too late.

                  Maybe we’d ask that rhetorical question, if god didn’t want same sex couples to marry, then why did he make them gay?

                  That kind of rhetoric notably doesn’t extend to asking whether god made priests into abusers. And nor in my view should these kinds of excuses for logic be used by rational people…. yet this is precisely the kind of appeal to divine forgiveness that the church seems to want to invoke.

                  Mostly our emotional intelligence sees through their deceit anyway, but clearly even if you believe you have to make reparations to your god nobody accepts that forgiveness can be granted without making proper reparations to your victims. That’s basically the core of their hypocrisy and should be known and articulated as such.

                  As for throwing people into infernos, please do remember to take away the black stuff Berlusconi puts on his head, because even in hell he’d be somewhat pleased if only he cut a better figure than his cohorts!


                  • atomou February 23, 2013 at 11:42 am #

                    Bonjour, Hudso!
                    Well, you’re trying to conduct a theological argument with a believer. You cannot succeed in that because theology is a swamp. You think you found a rope to which you can fasten your body and pull your self out of that mire but it’s a rope fastened to nothing so you find yourself sinking into deeper poo.
                    There is no god and therefore I do not engage in godly debates. I live that to the priests and Jesuits and other logic corrupters. My efforts will be directed to Govnt’s trying to get them to remove that cancer from the policy making body.

                    As for Berlusconi, my hell is so total that the vulgar nincom poopoo will be too busy tenting to his excruciating blisters, to worry about who’s looking at his cranial hair!

                    I simply cannot believe Italy… though, I simply cannot believe by birthplace, Greece, either! But I won’t go treading that ground today.


                    • atomou February 23, 2013 at 11:43 am #

                      “my birthplace” not “by birthplace.”


                    • hudsongodfrey February 23, 2013 at 12:14 pm #

                      The inference was to the very hollowness of said theology, though I expect that in needing to point out I am duly criticised since I did not convey well enough my intent.

                      As for miner typo’s I find a few errors in my own writhing from time to tome, and usually exhume my reeders will full on the gaps. 😉


                    • atomou February 23, 2013 at 12:25 pm #

                      “Typos” not “typo’s”


                    • doug quixote February 23, 2013 at 12:34 pm #

                      Never a truer word spoken. They may pretend to engage in logical argument for a while, but ultimately it becomes “Well God said so, so there!”


            • hudsongodfrey February 24, 2013 at 1:13 pm #


    • paul walter February 22, 2013 at 2:37 pm #

      Thank you, again.


  15. Elisabeth February 22, 2013 at 12:01 pm #

    The women with the breasts can’t get a word in edgewise. It’s as if the post’s been hijacked by multiple bare chested Damons.


    • atomou February 22, 2013 at 12:08 pm #

      Only because we’re green with envy about Damon’s chest and red with lust about women’s breasts.
      Incidentally, I only call them breast while they’re breast feeding. After that, they’re tits!


      • atomou February 22, 2013 at 12:08 pm #

        Or before…


    • samjandwich February 22, 2013 at 12:32 pm #

      I like your observations Elizabeth, and I tend to agree. On the mocking tone thing, I must say that one thing that draws me to Sheep (how aptly-named it is!) is that, apart from the fact that I think Jennifer’s fabulous, I think it supports and promotes a kind of elitism.

      Which is to say, I think it promotes the living of a thoughtful life, where people should be entitled to be free to be themselves only if they measure up to certain standards of intellectualism-over-ideology, but simultaneous rejection of the “knowledge is power” school of thought. We don’t care if our knowledge is lacking or if there are things we don’t know, because a) all knowledge is slightly artificial anyway, and b) we know that we could understand anything we deign to look into.

      Secondly there is an acknowledgement of the depths to which people can sink, and the damage it can do, if they don’t think about what they’re doing. I don’t want to shy away from finding out what goes through the mind of someone who’s being tortured or sexually abused or eaten by wild animals, nor from what’s going through the mind of the person doing it. because harnessing these things is the only way they’re going to be stopped.

      Lastly, there is a certain mirthful self-loathing at the ridiculousness and fragility of our existence – and so we tend to be able to mock ourselves harder than anything else. So when people say things like what we see in the preceding comments, i think there’s actually quite a large element of self-mutilation in there.

      So I think the mocking tone is not necessarily a negative element.

      Essentially though, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: having a clique of the usual suspects dominating the commentary does tend to discourage others. I’m almost as guilty of this as the next bloke, and I try to resist, but sometimes you just gotta get it out! and if there’s one thing I’ve learnt more than anything, it’s that changing other people’s minds is the hardest thing in the world to do.

      how’s that?


      • Hypocritophobe February 22, 2013 at 12:54 pm #

        You might be onto something.Maybe those who dominate the discussion should do what all the other internet trolls do.Post under 700 differnet names to troll endlessly and create the impression that there are millions of like minded people,when in fact,it’s just one narcissistic windbag trying to invert reality, under a sock puppet front shop?
        I cite the Drum as a perfect example of this phenomena, and some of the regulars here also note similar mindless trolling elsewhere,Bob Ellis'(help me Damon,is that the right use??) site included.
        I take your point about it Sam(no really I do) but if people are surfing for Avatar counts over content, that’s their problem


        • atomou February 22, 2013 at 1:01 pm #

          Apostrophe correctly placed. May I, while I’m here, suggest also that you leave a space after punctuation marks, brackets and other stylistic implements?
          A matter of aesthetics and visual decor.


          • Hypocritophobe February 22, 2013 at 1:25 pm #

            After such a such a beautifully structured, worded and delivered paragraph, how could I possibly refuse?

            I didn’t have time to wrap it.



            • hudsongodfrey February 22, 2013 at 1:33 pm #

              Surely Frank Zappa’s Apostrophe is the only one that counts 🙂


              • Hypocritophobe February 22, 2013 at 1:53 pm #

                ( ..and the Mothers?, )

                ( How ‘ s that for spaces Damon ? )
                ( Hey,does that make you a Space Nazi, a Space Sheriff or a Space Cadet?? )

                Mothers / breasts – still on topic.


                • atomou February 22, 2013 at 2:11 pm #

                  Honestly! I don’t know why I ever came to this blog. You’re all soooo cheeky!
                  Ah, now I remember! You, Hypo, pulled one of my posts from the Drum and exhibited it as an example of “someone who gets it!” Must admit, it brought tears of gloating to my eyes!


                  • Hypocritophobe February 22, 2013 at 2:23 pm #

                    It was a bloody good take on how the T (w) ITS in the ALP have ma/- NIP-ulated the electorate with deceptive and duplicitous behaviour.
                    (Worse now since ‘Howe Nowe’ has claimed ownership of ‘Red Cow’.)
                    (I wonder if anyone else has noticed how creepy that blatant possessive behaviour has all become?)(Who’s milking who?)
                    Anyway I think that post of yours nailed it.
                    (Give yourself an apostrophe on the back)
                    That’s why I brought it (your post) here .Let’s hope it rubs off on a few others.

                    ( rubs off on others- right on topic!, and not a second before time)


                • samjandwich February 25, 2013 at 12:50 pm #

                  Well I’m only interested in two things and that’s titties and beer, you know what I’m saying?


                  • Hypocritophobe February 25, 2013 at 1:19 pm #

                    Oktoberfest is for you!


                  • hudsongodfrey February 25, 2013 at 1:41 pm #

                    The title of another Frank Zappa song 🙂


              • doug quixote February 22, 2013 at 7:17 pm #

                Very much so : The Mothers of Invention.
                When I was young and innocent (yes, I was once!) the Dutch group Focus put out an album : “Mother Focus” – it took a long time to work out how it should be spoken . . . 🙂


                • hudsongodfrey February 22, 2013 at 7:31 pm #

                  Shouldn’t have taken THAT long!


            • georgetheodoridis February 22, 2013 at 1:54 pm #

              See, that’s what upsets me and other scrupulous apostrophises:
              Oxford separates the use of apostrophe into two distinct types:

              Using apostrophes to show possession
              Using apostrophes to show omission

              Wrong, wrong, WRONG and WRONGER!
              The word, as I said earlier, means a replacing of a letter with an apostrophe. A chopping out of something. Something (one or more letters) have been worn off and fell off a word. Thus, it is always about an omission.
              In the case of possession (Possessive Case, or Genitive) the letter “e” has been scraped out by frequent use. Like unwanted rust dust. In the case they give:
              “Ben’s party,” the apostrophe has replaced an “e”. It used to be “Benes party” and since no one since the days of Chaucer and Shakespeare says “Benes” grammar needs to show a difference between “Ben loves pumpkins” (Nominative, Subjective Case) and tother, Genitive case. In the other case, which Oxford calls “omission” “Ben’s gone fishing” again, a letter has been taken out, this time, the “i”.
              It is always a case of omission.

              But, of course, I am a magnanimously forgiving pedagogue, so, by all means, do let your keyboard do as it will. It is after all, an instrument of the Wall Street Devil!


              • georgetheodoridis February 22, 2013 at 2:05 pm #

                Oh, and about names and words that end in “s”.
                The example given by the Oxford twits is Charles, Dickens and Thomas. Here, the names are weighed by an added “s.” WTF for? We know that “Charles’ peanuts” are peanuts belonging to the prince and “Dickens’ peanuts” to Dickens. The same with the nuts belonging to a certain Thomas. Absolutely no need for the indecorous extra “s.” Why go into all that turbulent exegesis distinguishing names with a silent s from those with an audible s? Pure, confusion! Bugger it off!

                Oh, and while I’m at it, let me gloat (gloating being the quintessence of my character): I have on my wall two frames with letters from the publishers of OED (the latest, 2nd edition -the full, 20vol one) thanking me for bringing to their attention two glaring errors…
                So, have no fear about accepting my word(s) on stuff about english grammar.


              • Hypocritophobe February 22, 2013 at 2:34 pm #

                You are simply plain wrong.
                Clearly, Benes meanz Heenz.


                • atomoua February 22, 2013 at 2:50 pm #

                  And here’s an interesting question for you, Hypes: What’s correct, Heinz’ or Heinz’s, ey?
                  …and it’s Barney’s beans, not Heinz’ barns!

                  Shut up, willya, I’m bloody busy!

                  By the way, buggered if I know how I end up with two nice -well one is my real name. I mean I care not but, WTF?


                  • atomou February 22, 2013 at 2:51 pm #

                    Nics, not nice! (auto correct crap)


        • paul walter February 22, 2013 at 5:54 pm #

          And who amongst us has not been a victim of that sort of ambush? Mobbing is a favourite tactic as well. Not argument by reason, but sly tactics to induce apathy.


  16. Elisabeth February 22, 2013 at 1:11 pm #

    I have this vague fantasy of sitting here at my little desk writing to all you people out there, whoever you are. And I sort of assume to know who you are through your words. But of course I don’t.

    I, too, think Jennifer’s work is fabulous. I don’t know Jennifer otherwise but her ideas resonate, especially this one. I know a little of Damon and I admire him too but not the way I admire Jennifer and I’ve got a bit of a bug bear going in my head at the moment about the way the boys always seem to make the most noise and the girls are fearful of speaking out for fear of being ridiculed or told to shut up.

    I don’t see it as simply as that a lot of the time but we do have a gender imbalance in this world and when some of you say it’s time for women to protest, to bare their breasts as it were, it’d be so much easier if as Jennifer suggests we women did not feel so weighed down by these hidden and mostly unspoken attitudes. Good on Jennifer for giving them voice.


    • Hypocritophobe February 22, 2013 at 1:22 pm #

      So what you are saying that unless you see the appropriate amount of female posts,or domination by feamle posts, then the lack of female posts indicates a whole lot of potential posts steering clear for fear of something?
      Oppression,is that it?
      Free speech so long as it has female genitalia?
      Did I miss the sign?
      Pardon me Liz. but I think your hang up is showing.And it comes acroos in your words.
      “I’ve got a bit of a bug bear going in my head at the moment about the way the boys always seem to make the most noise and the girls are fearful of speaking out for fear of being ridiculed or told to shut up.”
      “The women with the breasts can’t get a word in edgewise. It’s as if the post’s been hijacked by multiple bare chested Damons.”
      Which women?Where? Who?
      I’m sure if women/girls want to say something,there aint nothing but themselves stopping them.
      I noticed in other places/times where Jennifer published articles there was a ‘claque’ who also inferred in no uncertain terms that for Jennifer to allow such discussion to be inclusive of all genders, that somehow it aligned firmly her with the patriarchy.
      To which I say, yeah, whatever,


  17. Elisabeth February 22, 2013 at 1:31 pm #

    I’m not advocating domination by anyone, just a deeper sense of equality. It would be ghastly if the only ones speaking were women.


    • Hypocritophobe February 22, 2013 at 1:48 pm #



    • paul walter February 22, 2013 at 3:09 pm #

      Elizabeth, that was an unusually unhelpful comment from you, the “ghastly” proposition s what you seem to be advocating.
      You are damned if you do comment; damned if you don’t and it doesn’t matter how honest your attempt is, you are just a “bare chested Damon”, particularly when you add a comment to revive a stalled thread..
      Perhaps the problem resides in the moderator, seeming at times reticent at adding as to her own threads, you wonder if the interest is there.
      If women are too gormless to bang off a few thoughts via their word processors, this is not the problem of male participants, you will wear the consequences for your apathy, not men.
      As it happens, you will see the person who comments most frequently is likely a women, the unabashed Hypocritophobe, who at least was honest enough a person to repudiate Elisabeth’s comment in the way I would have had I been here sooner.


  18. Elisabeth February 22, 2013 at 3:00 pm #

    Before I sign out in despair, here’s a good one, however seemingly off track. It has to do with irony and representation:

    When I spoke earlier about my bug bear over the noisy boys it was ‘to acknowledge an urge… not necessarily to endorse it.’ You’ll find this quote within.


    • atomou February 22, 2013 at 3:34 pm #

      Don’t like it, Elizabeth!
      The git (Sam Leith) is treating the word “irony” sarcastically.
      I am moved by a sort of agonising mental allergy every time the word royalty is mentioned. I am moved to avert my eyes and ears.
      Royalty, royalty wannabe, royalty couldabeen, royalty idoliser, fantasiser and royal fertiliser. Completely switch off them, like I switch off whenever any “reality” show pops up before my retinas, particularly those that deal with the goings on in the labour wards and surgeries, which seem to be aggressively burgeoning on telly at the moment.
      And I am not at all sure you are being fare to the males or the females who visit this blog. How many of each I wonder.
      How, exactly are the women (the owner of this space being one) suppressed in any way by the males (I being one) on this blog? Which woman has been disparaged and by whom, exactly? I’me very new here but before I decided to allow clear view of my thoughts, I have read almost every one of JW’s articles, and a huge percentage of the comments. It might well be that, being the stereotypical male chauvinist, such expressions of sexual prejudice has escaped me but, I can assure you, I am surrounded by militant (though extremely gentle, I rush to add) women who’d tear all my keyboarding fingers out the moment they suspected even the slightest hint of a chauvinist expression.
      Do tell us what was said by whom, when.
      Or, better still, direct your anger towards that nasty man person whenever this injustice happens.


    • Hypocritophobe February 22, 2013 at 4:06 pm #

      “Before I sign out in despair”
      I presume the awful oppressive ‘despair’ that the girls haven’t bothered to roll up?

      I think you need to be more patient, Liz.(or rally the posse)

      (And at the risk of fingernail removal as per atomoues post)

      Women often take longer to get there

      Perhaps if JW had inserted the words ‘Kochy’s back’ in the title we’d be drenched in that posse.


    • samjandwich February 22, 2013 at 4:07 pm #

      [shakes head and throws hands up]

      Watch it guys – excess testosterone will make your nipples shrink.

      Don’t know why I’m saying this Elisabeth but, apologies, and take care.


      • paul walter February 22, 2013 at 5:04 pm #

        You are so, so wrong, Jam Sandwich. So many things mean different things to different people and for quite valid reasons allround.
        I took the thread to be an exploration of this, therefore people interested had to comment to unpack the attitudes and consider how the various impressions related, not an ambush
        On the rare occasions Elisabeth comments there is usually some thing to consider, but on this occasion it seemed a prejudiced comment.
        Don’t Jam Sandwich and
        Elisabeth understand that not everyone sees something the way they see it and the reasons for this might might be quite legitimate.
        If you cant consider someone else’s viewpoint the way you expect others to consider yours, maybe it’s you who should be offering an


        • samjandwich February 25, 2013 at 1:53 pm #

          I don’t think I’m wrong, Waul Palter, I think I’m highly attuned to the dynamics of interactivity – and may I say that if you think different things mean different things to different people then I can’t quite understand how you can be so single-minded in your beliefs!

          Who’da thunk Sheep would become a boys’ club, of all places!


          • Hypocritophobe February 25, 2013 at 2:09 pm #

            See those who must keep referring back to the dichotomy of gender based arguments are slaves to the concept.
            I was blissfully unaware that there was a gender rule here, a Post Frequency Monitor, or Avatar snobs.
            Is there canned laughter too?


            • samjandwich February 25, 2013 at 3:34 pm #

              And this despite the fact that you have four eyes and two giant tongues that you’re forced to carry around lest they drag on the ground!!


          • helvityni February 25, 2013 at 3:51 pm #

            Sam et all you other blokes here.

            Elisabeth has written about her experience here on her blog: Sixt in Line…have a look.


            • Hypocritophobe February 25, 2013 at 4:42 pm #

              Thanks Helvi,
              (Now content warning.
              I will post under one of the following themes.You will find the list at the highest point, the very top of this page.
              Readers must choose for themselves-
              (Politics, Society, Satire, Fiction, Fun Stuff)

              What I read was three key things.
              “I’m telling ”
              I think “she infers she was bullied”

              and this is the bit I agree on,
              there are bigger issues to worry about.

              Elisabeth began to make claims, assertions,opinions if you like,like this one:
              “Why do I find the conversation here increasingly frustrating? It’s not just that it veers off topic. That often happens and is generally fine, but there’s a mocking tone, a posturing. I can’t quite put my finger on it but it seems to me it does not attend to the genuine concerns that Jennifer raises in her post in the first instance.

              I suspect breasts do make some folks anxious, and bring out the infantile. Humour is after all a defense, however sometimes necessary.”
              “The women with the breasts can’t get a word in edgewise. It’s as if the post’s been hijacked by multiple bare chested Damons.”

              She makes the claim that women (which women where) were being held back (as do others) which I refute.I cannot argue that there less female comments and even some of what some may consider puerile comments.
              But did I miss the Terms and Conditions clause for all this stuff.

              And then there is this little dig from her own blog.
              “I do not know in fact whether the commenters on Jennifer’s blog are male or female because they do not represent themselves as a rule by their own blogs. Many comment only and hide behind avatars and often unusual names.”

              So is that sexist or elitist jargon? She says that gender doesn’t matter but does.?

              Paul Walter summed it up for those who care to reread up above.
              Elisabeth also mentions ‘a forceful in their views’ scenario.
              (Is that blog speak for bullied?)
              Elisabeth can also be forthright f she chooses, as can anyone, should THEY choose to be.Which is where Pauls’ remark about apathy rings true.
              “If women are too gormless to bang off a few thoughts via their word processors, this is not the problem of male participants, you will wear the consequences for your apathy, not men.”

              Also from Elisabeth’s blog,
              “It’s not the first time I’ve found myself risking decapitation for daring to speak out, and it’s not the first time I’ve wondered why it is that the very thing I’m protesting about seems to happen.”

              Nice embellishment.

              If nothing else Elisabeth’s widely read blog might see an avalanche of concerned women visit NPFS, armed with scalpels to provide free humour bypasses, and offer laundry services to clean up the discussion, and sanitise the content.

              Gerard’s comment was a doozy!!
              I think I might buy him a Whoopy cushion for his birthday.When is it Helvi?


              • samjandwich February 25, 2013 at 5:59 pm #

                Thanks for the head’s up Helvi. Who also would have thought that anything that gets said in a blog comments thread would be considered to have any significance whatsoever?!

                Oh but Hypo, you’ve missed Elisabeth’s point, which I thought was quite a brave one to make:”Now I’m less fearful but still conflict can cut through me even as I tell myself it does not matter a jot. ”

                The reason I think it’s important to be measured in the way you comment is that, would you believe, people do actually find it intimidating when the place is dominated by a clique of regulars who seem to be running the show, especially when their criticism of discordant views descends into bullying. And as a result, people who might otherwise have really interesting things to say become reluctant to put comments in, and we all miss out. Imagine, if you went into a bar and there were a whole lot of blokes in there with grey beards, bandannas, sunglasses, and little black leather waistcoats with “No Place For Sheep”, and perhaps a little ovine-inspired insignia embroidered thereon, making disparaging comments at you as you came through the door, would you go up to them and tell them all your secrets?

                That’s to say, contrary to Paul’s grumpy old misogynist ejaculation “If women are too gormless to bang off a few thoughts via their word processors, this is not the problem of male participants, you will wear the consequences for your apathy, not men.” it’s actually everyone who misses out, just because of a small number of people’s inability to take responsibility for their own actions.

                Still, this whole episode has been really quite enlightening!


                • Hypocritophobe February 25, 2013 at 6:40 pm #

                  What’s the name of the pub?
                  The Collective Shout?


                  • samjandwich February 25, 2013 at 10:35 pm #

                    Hmmm you know that’s not bad!

                    The suckler’s arms is the best I can do for now…


                • paul walter February 25, 2013 at 6:45 pm #

                  The argument fails on the preposterous analogy, apart from the prejudgement and spite that drives it.
                  But this poster forgives the adhominem because the argument already fails the test of syllogism.
                  Your comment makes it enlightening as to the extent that ignorance and personal prejudice can drive thinking.
                  Who actually are you Jam Sandwich, hiding behind that meat puppet?


                  • paul walter February 25, 2013 at 6:55 pm #

                    Thinks I can’t tell the difference between shyness and dissembling…puhlease.


                    • paul walter February 25, 2013 at 10:30 pm #

                      I can see a problem here.
                      People are going to think Elisabeth is a subject of animus when she has not even been on my radar.
                      I actually have others in my sights when it comes honesty versus naivety.
                      I generally have a lot of time for
                      Elisabeth’s comments on the rare occasions she contributes, this time I queried some thing she said that seemed discordant.
                      She has chosen not to continue the discussion; that’s fine by me.
                      At least she usually doesn’t waste the NPFS site with insincere bunkum like some others I could to name.


                  • Hypocritophobe February 25, 2013 at 6:59 pm #

                    To me the more I read of Elisabeth’s stuff the more a theme develops.

                    “For the past thirty or so years I have viewed my own life similarly, though in recent years I have become more ‘selfish’ to use a word I loathe. More like a man, perhaps.”


                  • samjandwich February 25, 2013 at 10:29 pm #

                    Well if I’m prejudiced and spiteful towards abusive people then I’d say that’s a big tick for me, Waul Palter!


            • hudsongodfrey February 25, 2013 at 8:34 pm #

              I initially felt a bit annoyed if she meant me but didn’t simply address me by replying to my comments. But then I looked at Elizabeth’s blog and noticed that either by choice or dent of technology the facility to reply to others does not exist there. Odd I thought, but maybe a flat structured thread is just what she’s used to.

              What equally oddly she doesn’t seem to be familiar with is the level of free flowing banter, some of it comical, between posters on blogs like these.

              All I know is that if I felt I’d been bludgeoned by comments as tame as these I’d never have survived any exchanges on Bob’s blog at all! And I don’t mean at as a slight on Elizabeth, but I do urge her to take a wee trip over there and feel the real willingness of some of those conversations. We really are the nicest people by comparison 🙂


              • Hypocritophobe February 25, 2013 at 9:03 pm #

                As I have said before I have seen a shit load worse at the Drum when JW took on some very contemporary issues.
                Probably none mores than those relating to feminism and the gentle art of religion.Go figure.
                Sam does have some valid points about internet etiquette, but there is also a time and a place.
                In amongst the rough and tumble there are some very valid points and some funny stuff satirical etc.But equally if we all agreed what then?

                And BTW FYI to anyone reading, and sitting trembling on the sidelines,

                Apparently there are more than 2 recognised genders, for those struggling to pigeon hole those nasty anonymous ‘strangely named’ Avatars out their in Webboslovakia.


                • samjandwich February 25, 2013 at 10:12 pm #

                  Yes well, suffice to say the main reason I don’t read the Drum any more is because it’s full of nutters.

                  And actually I’ve just realised, JW shares her initials with my ex-girlfriend. Maybe that’s why I like her so much!


              • paul walter February 25, 2013 at 10:33 pm #

                Two aspirin and a lie down for them, eh hudson godfrey?


                • hudsongodfrey February 25, 2013 at 10:57 pm #

                  Oh I dunno, I went over to Elizabeth’s blog and made sure a different perspective was represented, so maybe I’m as guilty of caring less and anyone!

                  Fact is I think that the answer to free speech is n=more and BETTER speech, despite those among us who’d rightly call me verbose at times. We may be different as individuals, but to say that men are disqualified from some notion of “too much comment” on a particular subject , namely this article, then I’m going to find that better speech in quoting Karl Popper at you, his theory of the Paradox of intolerance makes instructive reading…..

                  “We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.”


              • helvityni February 25, 2013 at 10:49 pm #

                Hudson, I know you have been bashed about, and so have I.
                Gerard used to say why do you go there, when he saw me in tears. I made a decision not let them crush me, first i just copped it , then I started to fight back…now I don’t care, I realise internet is full of nasty, or just unhappy people…

                Anyhow Hudson, maybe some people just have a problem with the letter H.


                • Hypocritophobe February 25, 2013 at 10:53 pm #

                  I blame Rimmer


                • hudsongodfrey February 25, 2013 at 10:58 pm #

                  That’s what it is. If I change my name to Gerard I reckon I’d avoid a lot of trouble 🙂


                  • Hypocritophobe February 25, 2013 at 11:06 pm #

                    Not so,HG
                    Gerard is clearly the anti Christ, which is why no-one takes him on.

                    If you take the letters, as an anagram, and extend one of the ‘r’s to become an ‘n’???



                • helvityni February 25, 2013 at 11:05 pm #

                  Hypo, I don’t know who this Rimmer is, and I’m too tired to find out.
                  Let’s just say: eff off Rimmer.
                  And Hudson, you are not too verbose, eff off anyone who says so 🙂


                  • paul walter February 25, 2013 at 11:15 pm #

                    Rimmer is a character from a tv sci fi satire, a completely pathetic individual like David Cameron, the brit PM.
                    The name Rimmer itself alludes to the felcherist sort of individual the character is.


                  • Hypocritophobe February 25, 2013 at 11:25 pm #

                    My deepest apologies ma’am.
                    Would that it be that my memory was as long as thee, and my standards so straight and narrow.
                    And praise the diligent plumber, that the water in my shower should never run so obliquely.
                    To be, or not to be, that is the question:
                    Whether ’tis Nobler in the mind to suffer
                    The Slings and Arrows of outrageous Fortune,
                    Or to take Arms against a Sea of troubles,
                    And by opposing end them: to die, to sleep
                    No more; and by a sleep, to say we end
                    The Heart-ache, and the thousand Natural shocks
                    That Flesh is heir to? ‘Tis a consummation
                    Devoutly to be wished. To die to sleep,
                    To sleep, perchance to Dream; Aye, there’s the rub,
                    For in that sleep of death, what dreams may come,
                    When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,
                    Must give us pause. There’s the respect
                    That makes Calamity of so long life:
                    For who would bear the Whips and Scorns of time,

                    To be or not to be continued……………….


  19. helvityni February 22, 2013 at 4:07 pm #

    Jeannette Winterson writes about breasts in her unique and imaginative style:

    “They were not marvellously upright, the kind women wear as epaulettes, as mark of rank. Neither were they pubescent playboy fantasies. They had done their share of time and had began to submit to gravity’s insistence. The flesh was brown, the aureoles browner still, nipples bead black. My gypsy sisters I called them, though not to her. I had idolised them simply and unequivocally, not as a mother substitute nor a womb trauma, but for themselves. Freud did not always get it right. Sometimes a breast is a breast is a breast” .


  20. gerard oosterman February 22, 2013 at 5:11 pm #

    If you want to put a cat amongst the pigeons, try and convince people that naked torsos are alright in any shape or form, even of naked torsos from the navel down to toes. It’s all bad and very anti proper Anglo with cold showers and corn pads. But…the roar of indignation when it comes to the naked bodies of children, well..that’s when the shrill voices of the ‘pure of heart’ really get loud. They are all perverts and deviants, they’ll shout. They prey on kids at schoolyards etc.. mantra.
    Somehow the nakedness from adult to child gets loaded up with all our warped ideas of …of what?…nakedness is bad, dirty and even loathsome the younger we get?
    Mention the art of Bill Henson and things rapidly get back to the age of Portnoy’s Complaint or DH Lawrence of Lady’s’ Chatterley’s Lover. We are lucky to have Hetty Johnson, Pell, Fed Niles and… MTR.
    The anti-nipple brigades are nothing compared with the wrath of the pure at heart when it comes to nudity of the child in any shape or form especially in art.


    • hudsongodfrey February 22, 2013 at 5:16 pm #

      Couldn’t agree more when it comes to being anti BACWA (it’s a proper acronym and everything you can look it up ), but I also see the point of view of anyone who’d like wear a minimal covering if only to be able to mix in polite company without a level of discomfort.

      Ray? I think you’re being summoned.


      • Hypocritophobe February 22, 2013 at 5:26 pm #

        So what should we call North Korean BACWAs ,HG?

        (without obviously making them push the big red button,that is)


      • helvityni February 22, 2013 at 5:41 pm #

        I been to barbecues where men in shorts, with massive man boobs (uncovered), no bro, no t-shirt have been offering me steak and beer. I’m no prude but the sight of those dangling man boobs is offending my aesthetic sensibilities…and putting me off my oats.

        George Costanza’s pappa where are you,how is your bro business going, please come to Oz.


        • paul walter February 22, 2013 at 5:42 pm #

          You forgot the male “apron”, the midriff.


        • Hypocritophobe February 22, 2013 at 5:53 pm #

          This mining boom is a godsend for grave diggers, during this obesity epidemic.No need to fill the mined-out pits in straight away.Chuck the bloated bodies in and throw a bit of top soil over the top.

          Win win.
          Helvi, what you should do, if the sight offends you that much, is grab a red hot mystery bag off the barbie and thrust it nipple-ward at high speed (make it look like an accident).Sisssssssssssssssssst!!
          After a while your reputation should precede you and the pseudo-sumos should cover up, or not invite you!
          A sense that a blistering nipple and the subsequent itchy peeling scab would bring tears to anyone’s eyes.
          Have you come across any nubbins yet?


        • hudsongodfrey February 22, 2013 at 5:56 pm #

          Yeah there’s nothing worse than a fat bloke with a gut and wearing smugglers so that from the front you can’t quite tell whether they’re there or he’s naked!

          Now I’ll wager you’re off your oats!


          • Hypocritophobe February 22, 2013 at 6:10 pm #

            At least there’s a chance of out running them, and there deliberately exposed ‘breasts’.(on topic)
            This ungainly thought is probably why Damon chose to shed the insulation.

            HG any chance you could photo-shop Tony Abbott’s head and some red budgie smugglers onto the Damon shot above, to see whether we have a potential challenger to Abbott?

            Helvi’s oats are probably rolled by now.
            Cold porridge.


            • hudsongodfrey February 22, 2013 at 7:28 pm #

              You mean like this 🙂


              • paul walter February 22, 2013 at 7:30 pm #



                • Hypocritophobe February 22, 2013 at 9:51 pm #

                  The expression on your Avatar says it all,PW.


              • Hypocritophobe February 22, 2013 at 9:48 pm #

                Oh you genius, HG
                Made my day.
                Nearly choked.I can see that getting shared around the place.


                • hudsongodfrey February 22, 2013 at 11:00 pm #

                  Thanks it wasn’t easy!

                  There a fair amount to subtle trickery in trying to make that work, even when I allow a little leeway for a couple of semi deliberate errors, because it actually works better as a joke when people know it’s faked.


          • Ray February 22, 2013 at 11:01 pm #

            Yes, it’s only for the young and beautiful.


            • hudsongodfrey February 22, 2013 at 11:07 pm #

              I was clearly mistaken anyway the my picture of Damon become Abbott taking a selfie clearly demonstrates!


      • doug quixote February 22, 2013 at 7:31 pm #

        It is? I hoped it might be, but where is it listed, HG?

        It started life as CABWA (censoring and banning wowser agenda) but BACWA sounded more onomatopoeic, I thought.

        (BTW Bob Ellis seems to like your posts lately 🙂 )


        • hudsongodfrey February 22, 2013 at 7:34 pm #


          • doug quixote February 22, 2013 at 10:58 pm #

            Isn’t it wonderful when one’s children make their way into the world!


            • hudsongodfrey February 22, 2013 at 11:01 pm #

              Don’t get too carried away, after all who do you think submitted it 🙂


              • Hypocritophobe February 22, 2013 at 11:10 pm #



              • doug quixote February 23, 2013 at 12:04 am #

                I am deeply grateful!


                • Hypocritophobe February 23, 2013 at 12:09 am #

                  You are Chew-BACWA


                  • doug quixote February 23, 2013 at 8:07 am #

                    Don’t you ever sleep? Is there a gong which goes off loudly whenever someone posts a reply? Just hope the Yanks and Poms don’t find this blog, or you’ll be on 24/7!

                    Now, back to breasts : the BACWA types are deeply offended by the presence of nipples in particular; especially those possessed by about 3.5 billion people on this planet.

                    All 3.5 billion of them, even the 7 year olds. The very depiction of such body parts, about 7 billion items given that they tend to come in pairs, deeply offends them.

                    Not to mention the mussel-like organ of which there are 3.5 billion on the planet, usually found between female legs (also around 7 billion of them) which so deeply offends their sensibility that they can’t even call a cunt a cunt.

                    “Ban them! Censor them! Make sure no one has the least chance of any enjoyment or pleasure out of them!

                    Ahh yes that’s good. Now where’s my hair shirt and whip? . . . “


        • hudsongodfrey February 22, 2013 at 7:34 pm #

          And yeah but he’s not invited me to lunch yet 🙂


          • Hypocritophobe February 22, 2013 at 9:50 pm #

            Looks like it’s only ever meat and 3 veg, anyway.


            • helvityni February 22, 2013 at 10:50 pm #

              Lot of fuss about nothing; little boys turn their interest from potties and poo into boobs as they grow older (not wiser)…WOW, giggle, giggle…giggle…


              • paul walter February 23, 2013 at 5:47 pm #

                And who are the crafty little minxes who egg them on?


                • helvityni February 23, 2013 at 7:36 pm #

                  Isn’t up to the man to be clever enough and not to go just for someone’s cleavage,for the girl’s dangling body parts, isn’t wiser to go for the whole package; the brain ,the heart and, if it is important to the bloke, the body parts as well…


                  • Hypocritophobe February 23, 2013 at 8:14 pm #

                    Helvi did you check out HGs photo-shopped photo of Damon yet?
                    If so…

                    What did you think of the demure look on Mr Rabbits dial?


                  • paul walter February 23, 2013 at 8:24 pm #

                    Mind says yes, body says no. Same as you see woman involved with exciting cads rather than far better types who have to battle for attention rather than have it feverishly dumped at their ungrateful feet.


      • Ray February 22, 2013 at 10:58 pm #

        Summoned eh? Try this ad. Perfect methinks.


        • hudsongodfrey February 22, 2013 at 11:05 pm #

          Good stuff. Maybe the kids can teach us adults a thing or two 🙂


  21. gerard oosterman February 22, 2013 at 10:53 pm #

    Not surprising that women with opinions are staying away from this kinder garden.


    • doug quixote February 22, 2013 at 11:01 pm #

      Women with opinions? Are there any who don’t? 🙂


      • Hypocritophobe February 22, 2013 at 11:20 pm #

        I would love to see the machine that can measure and quantify the claim that ‘a group, any group is staying away from a site’
        Maybe I should start saying good things about political parties and their leaders who currently wait on death row, and see if the room temp warms up a bit?

        I never saw such ‘holding back’ by women when they hammered JW on the Drum when she broached contemporary and ‘out there’ issues.
        Perhaps that’s because those posters thought the ABC was neutral turf, where their perceived ideological enemy would not know the details behind the pseudo, and they could really arc up?


        • helvityni February 23, 2013 at 10:32 am #

          Hypo, I certainly did not hammer Jennifer on ABC,using my own REAL name I always defended her,it did not make me popular among so called old mates.I also don’t believe in bullying.


          • Hypocritophobe February 23, 2013 at 12:15 pm #

            Kudos to you Helvi.I believe you.
            My point is a claim has been made that women are timid creatures staying away in droves because of testosterone.
            I’m saying going on what I know if a woman wants to say something on these subjects she usually does,and the web has amplified that freedom ten fold.
            And I am simply challenging the concept by asking the proponents to quantify it.


            • helvityni February 23, 2013 at 12:34 pm #

              Thanks for that ,Hypo. I also like to know with whom I’m battling with, I think it’s more honourable that way. Having one person under multitude of pseudos attacking you is like having to battle with windmills, therefore I’m trying to keep away from those kind of posters and leave the windmills to DQ…one name, one pseudo, the rest can go to hell…or to heaven, whatever is worse. 🙂


              • Hypocritophobe February 23, 2013 at 8:55 pm #

                I tried to post a comment over at Ellis yesterday about the WA election, but when I checked today it had been moderated out.
                I won’t go back again.
                Last time it was his stupid upload system failure.I think he must have sooked this time,because I told him he had pretty much jinxed Labor by tipping them to win.Either that or he is jumping at shadows of potential trolling.As much as I’d like it to be the result there are two things stopping it.Bob’s bold broken mirror prediction and lack of votes.
                Hope he proves me wrong but I won’t be darkening his musty smelling doorstep again.
                He seems to have a crush on Pretorius, that’s for sure.
                I think Pretorius was born with deformed legs but two intact ‘nipples’, which obviously makes him incapable of murder.


                • hudsongodfrey February 23, 2013 at 9:19 pm #

                  I get that it makes some kind of sense to offer a defence of due process in the Pistorius case if only to rebuke those who seem almost too keen to condemn him on the evidence of his gender alone. But some of what has lamely been offered in his defence beggars belief. It overcompensates by attempting to defend the indefensible. On the facts as we know them a charge of manslaughter at the very least seems inevitable. To go either side of that reveals less about the subject than the speaker since they’re clearly indulging in the kind of speculation which reveals some kind of agenda.


              • paul walter February 23, 2013 at 9:43 pm #

                You get sick of the silly sock puppet stuff, do you helvityni?
                It’s an obnoxious tactic, isn’t it?


      • gerard oosterman February 23, 2013 at 9:55 am #

        There are certainly men without.


        • hudsongodfrey February 23, 2013 at 10:17 am #

          Yeah but they’re all married!


          I thought we we’re going to discuss politics!


  22. Hypocritophobe February 22, 2013 at 11:04 pm #

    the serious adult tone of European disdain descends like autumn leaves, but lands with a muffled thud, and like a GPS co-ordinated cold spoon it settles with pin point accuracy on the nipple of the unbridled levity of an approaching weekend.

    Punctuate it however you want.


  23. helvityni February 23, 2013 at 3:05 pm #

    For all you nipple obsessed;

    Say NIPPLE hundred times..
    Say NOSE hundred times…
    Say NECK hundred times…

    They are all just body parts starting with the letter N, all useful…none of them NAUGHTY…


    • hudsongodfrey February 23, 2013 at 9:49 pm #

      Yes but if you repeat NAUGHTY NIPPLE, NAUGHTY NOSE and NAUGHTY NECK enough can you brainwash yourself into a state of permanent titillation?


  24. Hypocritophobe February 24, 2013 at 6:15 pm #

    No Reply Button

    “hudsongodfrey February 24, 2013 at 6:07 pm #

    Whatever happened to rooves?”

    Whatever happened to English?
    Whatever happened to proof reading?
    Or employing people who could grasp all of those concepts?


  25. paul walter February 25, 2013 at 8:08 am #

    The bloke in the photo looks like Christopher Pyne, even the expression is irritating.


    • helvityni February 25, 2013 at 9:40 am #

      That’s what I thought, Paul, but was too shy to say it…I found it a silly picture, why would anyone be interested in seeing it.
      I think our young Philosopher is getting a bit up himself.


      • Hypocritophobe February 25, 2013 at 10:05 am #

        I must have missed the Morning Show guest spot and 10 metre billboard version of this photo.
        (I presume you guys are seriously tongue in cheek)

        I’d hate to think this was the beginning of a cyber ‘bullying’ campaign!


  26. Hypocritophobe February 25, 2013 at 9:38 am #

    I believe you’re wrong.
    There is NO comparison.I feel an apology is due,pw.


    • paul walter February 25, 2013 at 10:05 am #



      • Hypocritophobe February 25, 2013 at 10:06 am #



  27. paul walter February 25, 2013 at 10:13 am #

    Which reminds me.. Helvi, I see, has visited Table Talk, so knows about the ABC story this morning involving the decrepit Burlesquoni in Italy at a polling booth, set upon by three topless feminist who had literally come out swinging, but were hauled off by the carabinieri without even a poke in the eye for the ex-president.


    • Hypocritophobe February 25, 2013 at 11:56 am #

      Berlusconi for Pope!!


  28. paul walter February 27, 2013 at 5:45 am #

    Huffpo Newsflash!

    Hollywood erupts as religious right condemns Hathaway for
    “erect nipple” frock at Oscars.
    The poor thing.
    Couldn’t have dreamed all those men would only be looking at those taut rosebuds proudly announcing themselves through a cunningly designed gown alleged to cost several percent of GDP.
    Who can understand them?
    And boyo, its not just the religious right, you oughtta read some of the comments by women as to their sister’s couture tastes, at various different sites.


  29. M.E. In The 21st Century March 2, 2013 at 9:26 pm #

    Reblogged this on meinthe21stcentury.


  30. mflahertyphoto March 9, 2013 at 6:37 pm #

    So you want what this guy has huh? Well go ahead if you don’t care at all how you’re perceived. The fact is that any man who displays his naked chest outside of the beach or pool is a doofus, plain and simple. The people I have known and know now would all think so. It is considered extremely stupid and classless for a man to deliberately go shirtless, again outside of a swimming environment. That doesn’t stop some young and dumb guys from doing it of course, but they aren’t attracting the right kind of attention believe me. I don’t know what environment you grew up in, but that’s how I grew up. The same goes for women. The exception is for swimming environments, where it’s really considered bad taste in most countries to bare your breasts at the beach or pool. In a few other places it’s okay, and when I’ve been in France I quickly got used to it. I didn’t find it particularly arousing but it was certainly different to my eyes. I think breastfeeding in public is fine too. Yes breasts are sexual, but that’s so ingrained that to fight against it seems rather pointless. And when you say it is okay to expose them as long as it’s in a seductive way, please don’t try to say that applies to the bare breast, nipple included. That would be porn. Seductive exposure of the breast always is partial, no nipple involved. Not sure where you get your ideas, but the whole premise of this post seems to be based on strange suppositions.


    • atomou March 9, 2013 at 7:11 pm #

      Yeae, you’re da man, man! You’re da one we need to tell us where in the sand of BACWA we need to draw the line. I was soooooo confused till now.
      Thanksalot, man!
      Phew! My hansonian day is made! Long live the Dicky Tators!



  31. April 17, 2014 at 12:48 pm #

    Very soon this site will be famous among all blogging and site-building people,
    due to it’s good articles or reviews



  1. A Couple of Talking Points « 8degreesoflatitude - February 21, 2013

    […] Jennifer Wilson, who blogs (very nicely) at No Place for Sheep, posted a piece today about women’s breasts and their right to exposure. Her post is here:…. […]


  2. This does not feature female nipples, or, go ahead, suck my toes… | No Place For Sheep - March 21, 2013

    […] you may recall, ’twas the blatantly hard-nippled philosopher who inspired the post Breasts Nipples Breasts etc, in which I rail aginst the inequality that allows men to confidently post images of themselves […]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: