dynamite_lady: (Default)
I'ma talk about BOOBS here, so if you don't want to talk about BOOBS for whatever reason look away.

Now the ice is broken, commence feminist ranting. ;)

I'll come right out and say I have small boobs. Until I was about 20 I had no boobs - I got mistaken for a boy if I wore trousers, even when the trousers were girly ones with a chain belt and I had long hair and painted nails and carried a handbag with a large flower on it. Then they grew, which could be down to eating more soy stuff but could equally be down to me being a late developer. I spent a lot of time and energy angsting about this from the age of about eleven, 'helped' by the fact that this became the latest thing for other kids to give me grief about. Nevermind that no other girl my age on the estate had boobs either, and that the boys had no idea which of us did or did not wear what passes for a bra at that age. The popular pinup at that time was Pamela Anderson and it was the heyday of Page 3, partly due to a backlash against Clare Short.

Those factors place me firmly in the target demographic for breast implants. I'll admit that the idea did occur to me, but in the end the idea of unnecessary surgery bothered me more than having small boobs. At some point I discovered that being mistaken for a boy could be useful (anonymity on a protest when you don't want certain people to randomly spot you in the street, or identify you as the person who gave a statement in the press - NOT for pulling straight women) or fun. Being tied to a gender binary sucks. But that's slightly beside the point here.

My point is, I chose not to have breast implants. This does not mean I have an intrinsic moral objection to breast implants. I'm squicked, sure, but my piercings bring out that reaction in some people. I firmly believe that body modification, whether it involves metal or ink or silicone or even obtaining a forked tongue, is a matter of personal choice. Breast implants are not intrinsically misogynist.

What is misogynist as all fuck is that a company thinks it is even vaguely appropriate to cut costs by putting TOXIC SUBSTANCES that haven't been passed for medical use into implants that are going to be put into women's bodies. That just shows total contempt. What did they think was going to happen? PIP should be the ones paying for the implants to be removed or replaced, yes even the ones that haven't caused problems YET.

I don't want to hear anyone saying that the women who got implants 'deserved' to have health problems as a result. That's bollocks. Assuming the women in question followed whatever guidelines they were given in the hospital, this isn't their fault. I wouldn't blame a piercer if my ear became infected because I was shite at cleaning a new piercing or bled because I hit it with the hairbrush - I do blame Claire's Accessories for the fact that the cartlidge piercing I kept scrupulously clean for two years didn't heal in that time. The difference is it wasn't sewn up inside my body so the solution was just to take the earring out - totally free and doable at home. Removing breast implants isn't, so the company responsible need to take responsibility.

August 2016

282930 31   


RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Page Summary

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 20th, 2017 06:12 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios