36-24-36

Our US culture worships females with 36-24-36 measurements, but often can’t bare to look at them.

Hola a todos. As the reader may know, we live in a very prudish society here in The Cesspool/Los Estados Unidos/the US. A society very afraid of seeing the human body, and especially women’s breasts — it’s as if no one has ever seen women’s breasts before and deeply fear them — and so many people have body-image issues. “Cover up, cover up, don’t show any skin,” and that’s especially true for guys.

I was reading an article about some women going topless at a beach on the East Coast en Los Estados Unidos/the US only to be hated on by most people — except for young guys — because the women were showing their breasts, including the ever-feared nipples. Horrors! Imagine having to see nipples! Nipples of all things! And as usual, the (conservative) prudes screamed, “WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN?” Well what about them, prudes? Is a child harmed in any way by seeing the human body and in this instance, two breasts on a woman’s chest? I. Don’t. Think. So.

Get. A. Grip.

I would like to remind people that children are born with a “clean slate.” Children are born without any prejudices of any kind, without any hang-ups and without any “issues” that twisted adults have been brainwashed/programmed with. If a child’s mind hasn’t already been contaminated by some prudish so-called “adult,” and if the child even notices a woman’s breasts, the child would see her breasts no differently than the child sees the nose on her face, or sees her arms or any other part of her body. Until a child has been programmed/taught by some uptight, prudish, messed-up humans with body image issues that it’s “bad” or “naughty” (roll eyes) to see a woman’s breasts, the child will have absolutely no problem seeing the breasts and will think nothing of them. When children look at men’s breasts there is no big deal at all about that. And in some cases, “man boobs” can be bigger than women’s boobs.

I saw my grandmother’s breasts a few times by accident as a child when she was staying with our family on occasion and changing her clothes. Seeing her breasts didn’t have any negative effect on me at all. They were just rather large breasts. No big deal. But that changed when she scolded me — as I happened to walk through the room she was in on my way to another room — and she told me not to look at her when changing her clothes. That was a big mistake on her part. It backfired on her. By her scolding me, it made me more curious and made me want to look at her. If she had said nothing, I would not have been curious. But because she said something about it and didn’t want me to look at her, I wanted to see whatever it was that she didn’t want me to see and was so off-putting. And that’s the way children are. So it’s the children in adult bodies — the screwed-up parents and/or grandparents with body-image issues and/or who see parts of the human body as entirely sexual or “naughty”/bad — who have the problem with this. So all of this nonsense about “what about the children?” is just a pathetically lame excuse used by septic prudes so that they, the so-called “adult,” don’t have to see boobs because they have been brainwashed to think that “boobs are ‘naughty.’” As if boobs are only connected with sex. And the same twisted people often think that sex is bad. The so-called “adults” are the ones who have a problem with seeing boobs because of their messed-up upbringing. It’s as if most women are ashamed of their own breasts and their own body.

I’ve never found women’s breasts particularly attractive — but I have no problem looking at them — especially in sex video scenes where the female’s boobs look like two floppy balloons hanging down off of her. I don’t find that a sexual turn-on at all. But breeder guys do. They’ve been brainwashed that they are supposed to be into boobs and vagina, whether or not they find boobs or vagina “hot.” To be considered “normal,” breeder guys have also been indoctrinated that they must be into having oral sex with vagina, although that’s a real turn-off for some breeder guys because they say it’s like licking a toilet seat because the vagina is located right next to the anus. And these breeder guys say: “Yuck, nasty.” Breeder guys often call a woman’s boobs “her rack” as a sexual turn-on. So again, breeder guys think they must be into boobs and vagina in order to be considered “normal.”

Why do most people become prudes after they have a child?

That’s the way it seems. After someone has a child they become a rather conservative prude, even though they may call themselves “a liberal.” Well, these days, people call themselves anything whether it has any basis in reality or not. But these people weren’t a prude before they started squeezing out babies. They seem to forget what they did in their past and now want to forbid their child from doing what they did. They’re call Hypocrites. Why was it all right for these so-called “adults” to do what they did in their past, but it’s not all right for their child to do the same? And you tell a child that s/he shouldn’t be looking at something and the child will be even more curious about it.

Some people should not be parents frankly because they don’t have a clue how to be a parent, and I’m not talking about love here. All they do is pass down generational prejudices, body-image and sexual hang-up issues and prudish beliefs that they’ve been brainwashed with from their parents. These are some of the same people who start spelling sex words when talking with their close friends and when their child is around. It’s as if these parents don’t think their child will be curious what their parent is spelling. For example, the parent will say to a close amigo: “We f-u-c-k-e-d last night while watching that s-e-x video you loaned us.” The child then might ask: “Daddy, what are you spelling?” Had the dad just said the word “fuck” and “sex” to begin with he wouldn’t have been questioned by the child. Parents fail to understand that when a child does not know the definition of words (such as the meaning of the word “fuck” or “sex”), the child will not know that the word “fuck” or “sex” is any different than the word “table” or “book,” nor will the child give any special attention to the word “fuck” or “sex” in the sentence because, again, neither word has any (special) meaning to the child. But we have no shortage of clueless, moronic parents in our US society. And if the child already knows the meaning of the words “fuck” or “sex,” then he’s already way ahead of you prudish mommy and daddy, if you get my point. Many children learn about sex and sex language very early, from their amigos, from school, and what they happen to overhear from their parents when their parents are not sanitising themselves in front of their children.

And I would also like to point out that these prudish parents are often some of the same basura that call themselves a Christian. These fake-Christians — they’re often what I call “Navidad/Christmas and Pascua/Easter Christians” meaning they only show up at church twice a year — say that their Christian God made the human body and that God is perfect. Okay, hold that thought. I’m going to expose some gaping holes in your Christian theology. Apparently they think their God made something “evil” and “naughty” because they are so terribly afraid of seeing women’s boobs and nipples that their God made, according to their beliefs. But men’s boobs and nipples are perfectly acceptable for children to look at. Again, the hypocrisy is noted. And people are not born with clothes on to “cover up” what their “perfect” Christian God made. So, why are these fake-Christians so terribly afraid of seeing what their “perfect” God made? Hmmmmmmmmmm? Obviously they think he made something bad/”naughty” and that’s why they fear children looking at the human body that they believe their perfect God made? Again, their hypocrisy is noted. I would think fake-Christians would like to show the wonder, “the miracle” that their God made known as the nude human body, rather than desperately wanting to cover it up from head to toe as if it’s “evil” and “naughty.” What is it about a woman’s breast that is so off-putting and that “we” can’t show it in public? Is it the thickness, the density, or the ever-feared nipple? Or how big the discoloured circle is around the nipple? Is it the colour of the breasts and the woman who is attached to the breasts? Ah, maybe. When National Geographic publishes articles about Africa, they are perfectly fine with showing brown and black breasts hanging off of women (nipples, circle and all!) But when we’re in The Cesspool/the US or an Asian country, no breasts are ever shown. Extremely Taboo in the Prudish US of Hypocrisy.

Well, I have absolutely no patience for prudes. None whatsoever. Prudes are part of what is wrong with the US. This is such a backward, puritanical nation. So afraid of seeing what “their Christian God” (according to them) made in what they erroneously claim to be “a Christian nation.” Ha! I’m tired of reading frequent headlines about some woman who had a “wardrobe malfunction” or “her dress was too revealing” and other nonsense. I never hear the same said about guys, that “his shirt was too revealing” or that “he had a wardrobe malfunction.” I read a headline the other day about a woman who was breastfeeding and some busy-bodied prude interrupted her by asking, “Could you please stop breastfeeding your child? You’re making many of us uncomfortable.” Well that’s your problem/issue do deal with isn’t it? If breastfeeding is making someone uncomfortable, that’s the prudish problem of the person who is feeling uncomfortable. Not the mother who is breastfeeding.

Then there are the prudes that want to “cover up” public statues showing the naked human body. It’s a statue people. Get. A. Grip. What harm is that statue going to do? And if you don’t want to see the statue, pivot your prudish head in the opposite direction. Can you not do that? But what is most often the case with these prudish trash, is that they stand there with their hand over their gaping mouth and their eyes bugged-out while they stare and stare and stare at what they claim they find offensive/repulsive. Well, what they’re staring at for minutes at a time must not be that “repulsive” to them since they stare at it for such a long time, probably to get a good mental image of it so they can go home and think about it when they’re masturbating. And how much “porn” do they look at online?

This reminds me of when we had the ugly and hateful campaign for the ludicrous city-wide nudity ban in San Francisco — which was approved by the way — because of a few nudists (1-5 people occasionally, including some women) in San Francisco’s Castro, the former Gay Mecca, and a barrio/neighbourhood with a long history of occasional public nudity. I should also point out that the campaign for the city-wide nudity ban was led by what remains of the now very conservative and prudish Queer/GTBQL community in San Francisco’s Castro. I observed some gay guys sneering at and bullying the few nudists in Jane Warner Plaza at Castro/Market Streets. Those gay guys had forgotten or didn’t even know their own Queer history and the Queer history of the former Gay Mecca with its public nudity. If one didn’t know any better, one would think these bullying gay guys had just gotten off a plane from some conservative backwater cesspool by observing their immature and obnoxious behaviour. And the stuff the conservative basura were making up about the nudists was absurd. They wrote of how “repulsed” they were with the nudists and how they saw “semen coming out of the penis of the nudists.” Oh lord. How’d you happen to see that? Well, they must not have been that repulsed by it if they were able to get such a microscopic, close-up look — did they stand directly in front of the nudist and look down at his penis and examine it for semen ? — and keep staring and staring and staring and staring to supposedly see semen or pre-semen coming out of his flaccid penis? None of which was true of course, but the conservative basura are well-known for their outrageous fictional stories they create whenever they hate on something (and they’re constantly hating on something; they couldn’t even exist if there were not some person to hate on), while they watch hours of internet porn looking at women’s breasts, as well as penises oozing and ejaculating semen, and other sexual interests. One of the local conservative merchants, the prudish owner of a certain well-known store in The Castro that was here all during the Gay Mecca days, said she didn’t want her granddaughter seeing naked people when she was coming home from school. Then move witch! (No disrespect intended to genuine witches). There are planes leaving San Francisco daily. No one is forcing prudish you and your granddaughter with your absolute fear of seeing the human body to live here. You would be much more comfortable in some backwater cesspool conservative hick town.

Should guys start wearing bras to cover up their breasts/their “evil” nipples? Hmmmmmmmm? A woman’s breasts are no different than a guy’s breast other than the woman’s breasts are generally larger — but not always — and they either protrude or sag. Because a woman’s breasts protrude that makes them “evil” and “naughty” and causes prudes to fear them? Loco. Yet another double-standard here in the Prudish US of Hypocrisy. I would like to think that maybe one day in some future decade this prudishness will all disappear. But I’m a realists, and I don’t see that happening. Instead, I see the Prudish US of Hypocrisy going in the opposite direction and heading towards Dark Ages II.

For example, while completing this article I read the following:

“The Wedgie Bottom Is the Summer’s Most-Controversial Bikini Trend”
(roll eyes) It seems that the prudes in the US have something else to complain about when it comes to seeing the female human body. They are not happy with the “wedgie” bikini bottom. It’s referred to as a “cheeky bikini bottom” that’s in this Summer (2017). Apparently some females are wearing a regular-cut bikini bottom and scrunching it up into “cheeky area” (gasp!) and this disturbs the prudes enormously, even if she is 36-24-36. Their prudish eyes are unable to look anywhere else but that woman’s buttocks. As I said, we’re heading towards Dark Ages II rather quickly. Chau.—el barrio rosa

9 comments on “36-24-36

  1. Ed in the Castro

    FYI: I think the Castro is turning into another Cole Valley. I went to the gym this morning and it was 100% straight AND I’ve never seen as many babies and baby strollers in one place in my life. It was depressing.

    1. castro local

      hi ed, there was one queer guy walking around in the ‘stro this morning and that was me but i agree it was depressingly str8 out, and all the babies despite increasing climate change!! i take it this city has abandoned all forms of birth control.

  2. Chris

    A friend of mine is a single parent and spells sexy words when his kid is around. I’m going to raise some of these things with him. See what he says. Can’t wait to see his face.

  3. California Poppies

    Interesting that the prudes only “care” about the children when it comes to something like this. Any other time they vote for politicians who vote for cutting programs that help children, like Head Start. Where is their “concern” for the children then?

  4. D8

    Re the SF nudity ban. That was such a depressing time. I wasn’t a nudist but I supported the few nudists around. They didn’t harm any one. I was shocked at the gay community’s support for that, as well as the merchants. It was like they just arrived here. Some friends of mine who moved from here to Florida said they couldn’t believe San Francisco would do such a thing. I said “the city has changed.” They haven’t been back to visit. Neither of the opportunist politicians who ultimately were responsible for the nudity ban live here now.

  5. E in (Dark Age) Sunnyvale

    Hola,
    Nice article on a subject that is kind of near and dear to my heart: boobs. I kind of have a somewhat unique perspective here being trans. One of the effects of feminizing hormones is that, of course, you develop female secondary sex characteristics – boobs. At one time, it would’ve been legally ok (though not always socially ok as you’ve pointed out) to remove my shirt in public. While I was, um – “developing”, I wasn’t quite sure at what point it would no longer be legal for me to take my shirt off. Not that I made a habit of stripping in public (except at nude beaches in my younger days when I was less worried about melanoma), but I’m curious too what it is that offends prudes so much; at what point in their development does the “offensiveness to USians” begin?.

    Anyway, the human body is a beautiful thing (especially when properly cared for), and we all have one. There’s nothing “sinful” about it. I often wonder if some of these prudes wear swimsuits in the shower… afraid to get a glimpse of their own nakedness in front of the mirror.

    Free the TaTas (and whatever else!)
    ~E

Fin. The End.