When you think about it - and let's face it, chaps, when do we ever not think about it - tits are an odd part of a woman's anatomy to arouse as much sexual interest as they do. I mean, we don't get turned on by shoulder blades or elbows. I suspect that that old fraud, Freud, had a theory for it but we can leave that to him and his fellow yo-yo players whilst us chaps just go on enjoying the sight and, when we are lucky, the feel of a woman's breasts. I raise this delicate subject not out of my usual pruriance but because you simply cannot escape the subject on the news these days.
Apparently, chaps, and I know you will find this hard to believe, some women try to pull a fast one on us men by inserting glutinous globs of jelly into their breasts to make them bigger. I know, I know, the sheer deceit is absolutely shocking! I heard of one young woman who, silly, foolish girl, said it was no different to us chaps sticking a pair of rolled up socks in our Y-fronts when we all know that is totally different.
Anyway, and to be more serious, it is possible that some of these implants are leaking and may cause serious medical problems for the ladies concerned. At this point we enter a tricky area of medical and financial ethics. The women concerned paid a considerable amount of their own money to have this procedure in the first place but now there is talk of them asking for the NHS to put it right at the taxpayers' expence (or my expense as I prefer to think of it). Obviously my first reaction is to refuse but then the tricky ethics begin to crop up. Should the NHS refuse to put right the medical damage caused by people's stupidity? Should 'fatties' be refused treatment for diabetes? Should drunk drivers be refused medical attention when they crash their cars? Even more important, in fact, crucially important, should old men, who should know better, but who step across a bouncy mattress after changing a light bulb and then miss their footing on the stool and crash to earth pulling and straining every ligament and tendon in their body, such that, even after three months they are still in agony - but bravely borne, mind you - expect treatment for the NHS? I think I can give that one a resounding 'YES'!
So I suppose, those silly, naughty ladies who tried to fool us chaps must be treated with the same care. If any of you live locally, I am available for consultations!
ADDITIONAL: As sex has reared its ugly head and perhaps some of you chaps, and even some of the ladies, might be sexually aroused, please pop over to the blog of my e-pal, A K Haart, who has, via the words of Marcus Aurelius, the equivalent of a bucket of cold water!
"I mean, we don't get turned on by shoulder blades or elbows."
Speak for yourself. Since you had that fall, you have probably lost a bit of interest.
Posted by: Whyaxye | Friday, 06 January 2012 at 09:57
God almighty, I am sick of tits. I am addicted to tumblr, and you cannot imagine the tit-count. It has caused me to ponder the profound preoccupation we (meaning, you) have with tits.
I even asked my husband if he ever gets tired of looking at tits. Being a diplomat, he said carefully: "I'm not tired of looking at women."
My conclusion is, We all want mommy.
As for taxpayers' money, if you have to pay for smokers who have lung cancer, you must also pay for the tits.
Posted by: Sister Wolf | Friday, 06 January 2012 at 10:03
I worry about you sometimes, 'W'!
'Sis', my admiration for, and jealousy of, your husband has increased even further. He should work for the State Department! However, as for your last sentence, I suppose, in a way, I have been paying for tits for most of my life - not that I'm complaining, mind!
Posted by: David Duff | Friday, 06 January 2012 at 10:20
Just my 2¢ but anything more'n a mouthful is a waste of either silicon or saline. Money too, in my opinion. But then (now I'm uncertain whether to type this with Sis Wolf lurking about and with some awareness this may have a touch of irony but).
For me, it's not so much what's, er, upfront that counts.
Ladies, ladies... now don't go to thinking that! I'm just more than a strict, well in the sense that Bentham never to my knowlege ever wrote on the subject, anyway, I'm just utilitarian.
Meaning - I prefer a smaller area (nicely rounded yes) by which I may ensure the most, er, profitable positioning.
Posted by: JK | Friday, 06 January 2012 at 17:46
And I'm not even going to touch this one.
Work it out for yourselves.
Posted by: Andra | Friday, 06 January 2012 at 19:35
Blimey, I start with tits and end up with philosophy!
Andra, it's very lady-like of you to withdraw whilst you can.
Posted by: David Duff | Friday, 06 January 2012 at 21:46
I'm very rarely accused of being a lady.
I'm not even sure it's a compliment.
Kindly cease and desist from using such terms around me.
Posted by: Andra | Friday, 06 January 2012 at 23:07
Ah, but Andra, there are ladies and then there are ladies. In my eyes, you are a lady.
Posted by: David Duff | Saturday, 07 January 2012 at 08:49