Chris Jepson: It all goes

The look. Anyone of a certain age is familiar with the famous 1957 photo of a judgmental Sophia Loren looking askance at Jayne Mansfield’s pillowy breasts as they all but fall out of her gown. It was observed of Jayne Mansfield that the “girls” arrived before the rest of her.

These are telling times for breasts and for those who appreciate them.

By way of example I offer the recent Golden Globes Awards ceremony. The actress, Jennifer Lopez wears a revealing Zuhair Murad gown exposing – vertically – nearly half of her breasts. I am impressed. Aside: the best Jennifer Lopez movie is the 1998 release of Steven Soderbergh’s “Out of Sight” with George Clooney. But back to bigger issues.

It’s a bit of cliché that men have an affinity for breasts. We’ve heard many times the female complaint of, "Hey, buddy, up here!" Ah, what’s a man to do? And in what context?

I think it’s safe to say that “some” women are more comfortable taking the “girls” out for an outing, out-for-a-walk so to speak. The dichotomy for men is not whether one looks – we really are challenged that way, not looking – but whether or not to be observed looking. It’s understandably considered verboten to gawk at work. Gauche would be the appropriate word. You could argue (and legally, attorneys will) that not only can “looks” kill they can get you in legal hot water (harassment claims, etc.).

Let’s set aside the workplace issue of the male/female dynamic, that one’s physical qualities have no place determining employment opportunities and/or in performance reviews. Of course, if we lived in the best-of-all-possible worlds that would be the standard but as we do not . . .

What I am interested in exploring is our fixation (societal, historical) on female breasts. It was observed in 1990 on NBC that, “The breasts, the hallmark of our culture. You cannot sell anything in America without the breasts.” Now why is that? Everywhere you look in America you visually bump into bosoms. Arguably, advertising requires eyes to see it. Evidently a set of Grand Tetons helps secure a look.

Women quite legitimately do not want to be marginalized or reduced to their physical attributes. Neither do men for that matter. I, for one, know that the sexiest organ any woman possesses is between her ears. But as T.S. Eliot observed, “Uncorseted, her friendly bust gives promise of pneumatic bliss.” It takes two to tango, as in mind and body.

So, back to Jennifer Lopez, who walks out on the Golden Globe stage as if auditioning to be Helen of Troy. Her co-presenter, actor Jeremy Renner, quips the obvious by referring to her cleavage as “globes.” Haha! Love it. I would have added “Golden.” Some were offended. But they must be the same who object to calling a spade a shovel. No, no, one can look but not dare comment. Or, rather.

Actually, there is a bit of a dichotomy. Write all you want about Lopez’s “physicality” but don’t actually look. A gown such as hers, accentuating her, uh, “attributes,” just begs for some wag of a red carpet commentator to observe, “Oooooh. Outstanding gazingas, Ms. Lopez. So very glad they’ve joined us this evening. Bring them here often, do you?”

The perceptive Cole Porter wrote, “In olden days a glimpse of stocking
 was looked on as something shocking,
 but now, God knows,
 anything goes.”

It all goes and ain’t it grand. Life is.