How is 'breast' a word worth censoring in the title?.

Firstly health awareness programs have in the past appealed to a persons sense of responsibility. Just look at the worksafe ads for dads, whilst the breast cancer program takes a different angle.

<When we place women’s value in the maintenance of their sexualised body parts,>

there is a truckload of research on how women feel about their self image after having a mastectomy and this research was done prior to the current campaign that the author finds so objectionable.

Secondly surgeons, in the past tried their best to preserve the breast where possible, and women have reconstructive surgery.

Many women themselves place a big value on keeping their own body parts intact.

In fact the loss of any body part(not just breasts) or scaring can have an affect a persons sense of selfworth.

Talk to paralegics or quads, amputees.

<rather than their subjectivity, we license insidious forms of physical, structural and mental violence.”>

With out actually saying it Melinda, implies that male sexual gratification or desire is a bad thing, her own subjective bias is showing as she herself licenses insidious structural and mental violence.

<One of the most ironic effects of boob-centric breast cancer campaigns is their complete exclusion of breast cancer survivors who have had mastectomies.> This is a lie.

There has been a breast cancer campaigns in the past that did feature women who had had mastectomies. I remember seeing the pictures of women with one or both breasts removed, and thinking how brave and courageous they were to do this.

Myrna Blythe author of Spin Sisters, wrotes about how women of the media sell unhappiness to women.

“Believe me, I know the formula: disease and diets, sob stories and social issues, and stress, stress, stress. And I know the impact such a formula can have on one's ideas.."
http://www.bookreporter.com/reviews2/0312312873.asp

<“Women’s magazines can be like bad boyfriends. They’ll tear you down, then spend pages trying to build you back up.”>

Is this not, as Melinda says, <we license insidious forms of physical, structural and mental violence.”>

Depending on words or phrases used different meanings or connotations can be implied. For example Melinda uses ‘groping’ instead of “touching tenderly” so by using the word groping she insidiously implies violence. Then she progresses to fear mongering and generalisation <Thousands of violent acts against women, including battery, rape and murder, are committed because the perpetrator views his victim as nothing more than an object created for his pleasure.> Please note that she follows the formula as set out above.

According to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, on the physiological level, sex shares, the same space and food, water, breathing, sleeping and excretion. On the level of Loving/belonging sexual intimacy, it is equal with family and friends.

Without doubt, heterosexual men are attracted to women’s bodies, and there is a huge industry that exploits this attraction, and some or a lot of women both desire and resent this. One can find comments made by women, that if their partner does not try to have sex with them, they feel that they are unattractive or rejected.

Sexual attraction (objectification) is part of the formula for developing relationships and maintaining them. It wasn’t that long ago that feminists, claimed that marriage was a patriarchal construct designed to keep women oppressed, yet it is amazing how many of the oppressed, today, still want to marry an oppressor.

Melinda wrote, “men use women’s bodies for their pleasure”, and yet often the feminist literature, seems to take the view that women do not ever receive pleasure or enjoyment from such acts. Sounds a bit like the old Victorian oppressive morality

Frankly I find it irritating that this author prattles on about the sexualisation of an advertisment about breast cancer.

Any advertisement that draws attention to any cancer is worthwhile if it encourages donations to cure or prevent cancer, be it breast or other. If they highlighted the fact that prostate cancer makes men impotent,so much the better if more donations are forthcoming.

Pity she would not spend her time highlighting some real issues such as forced marriages and FGM. Surely she must realize that little girls, here in Aus, are held down while pieces are cut off their genitals and those a few years older are forced to marry some old bloke because that is what her father wants.

The politicians have made themselves feel good by making both against the law, but have never enforced the law.

We as a society turn a blind eye to these activities because they are cultural. How about some critisism and action here.

Yeah well, A few years ago I had a testicle removed as a result of prostrate cancer, vain enough to have a falsie implanted to keep the boys looking equal, but never noticed any sexualised advertising of men's dicks - not sure how I'd feel about it if we were subjected to dick pics the way we are to hooter snaps.

While I find Melinda T-R a tired old bore on many subjects - my girlfriend hates her, I don't see how pandering to us men helps to create concern and sympathy for cancer sufferers. We see cleavage and breasts used for advertising every from shaving cream to cars, so using a sexualised approach to cancer awareness not really getting the message across - who thought this campaign up? Hugh Hefner?

I am in remission, have been for years am grateful for every single day, would love to see a campaign sexualising dicks for prostrate cancer awareness.

Aaaah, but that will never happen. To other men who think it is all a bit of a 'hoot' try to consider how women might feel - sh^t, strike that, just imagine if it is your sister or daughter - think about her breasts for while.

Well I thought the video offensive. All the men in the ad were portrayed as being stupid. This occurs so often in the media that I am certain that portraying men in this way must be taught to media students at university.

Something overlooked by the author are the ads for Girls Night In run by the Cancer Council, which are often offensive. A series of these ads had a man tied by the hands and feet and gagged and left in a cupboard.

This appeared in full page advertisements in a number of women’s magazines, but it is an illegal act displaying domestic violence carried out on a male.

After all has been said regards domestic violence, not one academic feminist in any Australian university complained about this ad, which only goes to show.