She comes in colours everywhere

[robinturner]

I am currently listening to FashionTV. Yes, that's listening, not watching. While fashion shows often feature horrendous clothes, they usually have good music, so I'm listening to it in front of the computer while models strut aimlessly in the living room.

Occasionally when I pass through the living room I see something nice, but on the whole I don't find models attractive. I mean, why would I be attracted to a sulky, scraggy thing a foot taller than me? On the other hand, I chanced on an advert for the Pirelli catalogue, which cleverly, if not entirely subtly, juxtaposed pictures from the news (tanks etc.) with, well, breasts. This brings home the simple message "breasts are good." Compared to tanks, they certainly are, though I still fail to see what it has to do with tyres. Breasts make me want to revert to a simplistic G.E. Moore-type intuitive ethics: some things are simply good, and we know it without having to go into ethical calculus or Kantian imperatives. For more on this,see my old diary entry, Ethics on the Beach

Comments

tanks ... for the mammaries ? (ok, groan ...)

[kesey.livejournal.com]

tanks and breasts, breasts and tanks. but of course! a perfectly natural combination. as for me, when i think of breasts, the only "tank" that comes to mind is the "tank top," :



(click for the big picture)


hmmmm ... that might get my attention long enough to consider some tyres. on the other hand, i suppose i'd be a bit distracted .. just a bit ..

ethics...

[earthemp6.livejournal.com]

I just read "Ethics on the Beach" from the link you posted. Interesting, thanks for that. The only study of ethics that I have been exposed to are from 'An Introductory Survey OF Ethics' by Durant Drake. As this was only because I was obligated to proofread all 400 pages. Anyway, I wanted to tell you that there is indeed a third use for breasts beyond the 'practical and aesthetic' and while this is not from an ethical standpoint, it is nonetheless from a psychological one. The evolutionary theorist Desmond Morris has numerous theories explaining why female humans have such unnecessarily large shapely breasts (as opposed to other mammals whose mammary gland provide for the same functions for their offspring). It's a lot to get into here, but the point is, they have many functions beyond those you have stated. I have seen the Pirelli piece on FTV. I found it quite beautiful (even though it should have offended my feminist sensibilities). Didn't you find it to be more of a statement? It was the objectification of breasts, there was almost nothing sexual about it. That was quite disturbing. Seeing a crane destroy the Berlin wall, and then the next second, a tasteful flash of a nude body. But then, FTV has always managed to get away with the most outrageous things...
I understand your comment about the music. I like the subtle trance-like syncopated rhythms, it is indeed good background music to the trivialities of life...
I'm sorry, I should introduce myself. I am Sabrina, and it is very nice to meet you. I enjoy the intellectual commentary you have in your journal and have added you to my friends list, I hope you don't mind.

Re: ethics...

[solri.livejournal.com]

Nice to meet you too - I have reciprocated listwise.

I read Desmond Morris years back and remember him speculating that humans' comparitively large breasts were designed to imitate buttocks as a sexual signal after the transition to an upright stance. If this is true, it could explain why women have such a hard time of it - to make breasts resemble buttocks involves defying gravity. In any case, youre certainly right that breats, like most things, have many functions - that's one of the problems with teleology.

As for the Pirelli ad, I have to admit I wasn't watching very carefully, as I was just passing through the living room at the time. I've never been able to work out what objectification actually means.