Can tits ever really be bad? The short answer is yes. But I am not going to give you that concise reply. Instead I will blather on about the history of breasts, Freudian theories of desire, and the politics of breast implants, all the while waxing poetic about my own lovely lady lumps. [What again?].

Breasts are unique cultural objects, unlike any others. Of high status, they are often equated with the female body itself. In contemporary western society to have breasts is to be female, a belief which is unfair, not only to women without breasts, or with very small ones, but to mammaried men as well.

This Chinese man, with the largest natural breasts in the world, has got it goin’ on, right PDDs?

Why is identity equated with a bit of tissue, you might ask? Don’t fret, my loyal followers, for the heroic Sigmund Freud can answer your question, using a concept that he calls anaclisis and I call ana-fabulous. According to this psychoanalytic theory, humans are born with self-preservative instincts, including those of ingesting and excreting. During infancy, desire can easily be ‘propped up’ or ‘leaned against’ the pleasurable fulfillment of these instincts. The satisfaction of hunger derived from breast feeding, for instance, can be associated with physical satisfaction generally, transforming both mouths and breasts into erotogenic zones. Same goes for the anus. You still with me? As ‘adult’ sexuality develops—I admit that Freud starts to lose even me with this cloudy notion—the sexual drives are redirected to the genitals, but these earlier stages remain embedded in fantasy. And fantasy is obviously more important than reality, shaping culture and re-shaping women’s bodies in ways that can be both good and bad, as discussed below. Flashback alert: I am now sitting in a graduate seminar with Professor Kaja Silverman, reading Laplanche and Pontalis’ interpretation of anaclisis, marvelling at its explanation of the delicate interaction between biology and psychology. My ‘aha moment’ is almost overwhelming, kind of like when Oprah first read The Secret.

This picture of biology cloaked in culture is for RenMan, who openly admits to loving monkey nipples.

Freud’s brilliant mind suggests that tits have always been erotic, at odds with the standard history of the breast produced by such scholars as Marilyn Yalom (1997) and Margaret Miles (2008). According to them, the female breast was predominantly a religious symbol during the Middle Ages, not becoming thoroughly sexualized until 1750. For most of human history, the survival of the species was quite literally based on the ability of the female body to provide food, making breast feeding a generous, even sacred, act. Today this is no longer the case, at least not in so-called ‘developed’ countries. In these civilized zones, maternity is devalued, and lactating breasts are often considered disgusting, hidden from public view, and then ‘restored’ with post-pregnancy surgery. These days, the holy mother herself would be criticized for showing off her pap in the flagrant display pictured below.

Jan van Eyck, Madonna Lactans, 1430. For God’s sake, put a blanket over that thing!

What’s more, the Roman maiden Pero would be charged with perversion and thrown into jail with her starving father, instead of receiving praise for her selflessness in a best-selling book by Valerius Maximus.

Women’s breasts save the day in this 17th- century print.

Breasts are no longer a life-giving force on which men depend for their existence; they are sexual objects to be displayed on command for men, in exchange for Girls Gone Wild t-shirts and other cheap baubles. Yes, indeed, women are much better off now than they were in the Middle Ages and early modern period. Not.

Although the hapless and potentially regretful girls on Girls Gone Wild adopt the stance of ‘rebellious youth,’ they are actually being good girls, offering up good tits to adamantly heterosexual men. These bare-chested co-eds are ‘people pleasers.’ In contrast, those ladies who withhold their lovelies are bad girls, using their tit power against men in a bitchly fashion. Just consider the ‘machine gun jubblies’ pictured above. Here we find the penultimate image of bad tits: as a feminine masquerade designed to trap and then conquer men. Breasts are women’s secret weapon in the sexual battlefield, which is why they should always be clearly visible—ie non-concealed weapons—and handed over immediately to the authorities so that no one gets hurt. Don’t get me wrong; I am not doubting the reality of women’s unfair sexual power, especially since my personal experience confirms it. Whenever I reveal my breasts at home, my LSP becomes transfixed, compelled to move toward them in a Frankenstein-like manner with hands outstretched. This has happened every single day for the past 25 years. Really? I can only express bafflement at my instant control over him because there is no part of his body, which if suddenly exposed, would have a similar effect on me.

Worship me. Give me money. Do my laundry. Etc.

You will be glad to hear, my gentle and perhaps mildly aroused readers, that I am about to reach the thrilling climax of this post, where I will consider the thorny question of breast augmentation. I have been thinking about this issue for two reasons. First, I recently watched Bad Teacher, a funny movie about a lazy woman who seeks money for breast implants so that she can compete with better endowed lady-sluts and find a man to take care of her financially. Secondly, I have been listening to a friend of mine—previously unmentioned on this blog site—describe her pursuit of breast surgery, which includes filling out forms, meeting with doctors, and increasing her credit limit. Despite trying to be sympathetic, I cannot understand why she wants to pay $10,000 to have sacks of liquid jammed into her sliced-open and then sewn-back-up-again chest. This seems like a painful and expensive assault on her already-very-attractive physical form, one that would have to be repeated every ten years. ‘You have nice breasts and have no idea what it feels like to be an A-cup,’ she protests. Actually I kind of do, for when I dieted down to 118 pounds for my competition last year I was relatively breastless. Still she has a point. I am happy with my re-fattened girls (pictured above) and with my body in general. Apparently I am in the minority. Sigh.

My main bug bear is with the reasons women give for augmenting their breasts: ‘I bought these tits to be more competitive in bodybuilding shows,’ or, ‘I am in the porn industry,’ or—and this is my favourite one—‘I did it for myself,’ …awkward pause…’you are just jealous!’ [Aside: I will not be addressing the reasons why straight men might support breast implants, for in this particular instance I do not give a shit what they think. Please check back with me guys, when expensive and painful artificial penis implants are obligatory in order to be considered desirable]. Now to those defensive ladies: I generally call bullshit. While I am somewhat convinced by the ‘job requirement’ argument, I cannot countenance the neo-liberal, self-help, consumer choice claim. Oh, so you underwent major surgery, enduring complications and pain because you just happened to feel like it? Please admit that you have participated in a commercial transaction designed to increase your market value. This investment will pay off in physique culture and the porn industry, but is unlikely to reap rewards in today’s marriage mill. Presenting yourself as a pair of tits will not snag you a reliable and caring boyfriend. It will simply attract even more of the usual shitheads. Nor will a larger bust increase your self-confidence and self-esteem, for these qualities cannot be purchased.

I am thinking that a number of readers—especially those with substances already added to their bodies—might find me a little opinionated on this matter, wishing to disagree. Please feel free. I welcome debate. In fact, I have been challenging myself on this issue for the past few months, wondering how I can support some cosmetic procedures and interventions while opposing breast augmentation. For instance, what about breast cancer survivors? Well, I think that breast reconstruction is a different matter and should not be conflated with more strictly cosmetic operations. Still, wouldn’t it be great if women’s changing breasts, which sag after breast feeding infants, bear stretch marks after gaining and losing pregnancy weight, and reform after having tumours removed, were simply acceptable, even gloriously loved? Now I am living in a breast fantasy. Although I plan to write another post about supposedly ‘good surgery,’ let me conclude by saying that breasts cannot be lumped in with other body parts. Given the biological, social, and sexual status of breasts, they can never be considered neutral, personal possessions. Choosing to alter them is a deliberate cultural act that sends clear messages about sexuality and identity, messages that individuals neither create nor control.

Cameron Diaz in Bad Teacher, a film which ultimately sends a strong anti-breast implant message, suggesting that they cause harm to women and girls. Note the position of the dodge balls in this still image from the film.