Body Dismorphic Disorder - here I come!

Body Dysmorphic Disorder - here I come!
There's something very dangerous happening in the world of women's under-garments at the moment.  This may or may not interest you boys, but for you girls, I think we need to discuss this.

It all started about 2 weeks ago when I decided I was in serious need of a few new brassieres.  I also had a sweet £40 Topshop voucher burning a hole in my wallet.  Put these two facts together and we got a shopping spree on our hands.  However, my plan for lingerie heaven was immediately scuppered after spending only 10 minutes in Topshop's (tiny) underwear section.  And the reason is this - take a look at the the following bras, all available from your local Topshop branch, and see if you can find the common thread between them all :



Anything you notice??  I took them from all different lines, "basic" "Fashion" "Something Special" - and yet there's one thing they all have in common. 

Padding.

In fact, every bra on the website has padding save for bandeau tops and about three bras that also have no under-wiring.  Other than that - it's pad, pad, pad.  Disappointed by this unneeded cushioning assault, I ventured off to another shopping mecca - Primark.  They have 6 walls of bras.  6 top-to-bottom walls. That's a lotta lingerie.  I figured surely they would be able to satisfy my want.   After looking around for a good 5 minutes to no avail, I asked an employee if they had any non-padded bras available.  She directed me to the maternity section.  That's it.  I was in a mild state of disbelief and deep frustration at this point.  I even joked with her, "My god, aren't ANY girls happy with what they have?!";  she looked at me blankly, and flatly said "No".  Wow.

And here's where I started to worry.  I ended up going to H&M, Miss Selfridge, and even New Look  (which took some bravery) and was presented again and again with the same dilemma.  My goal on that day was simply to find a pretty, non-padded, under-wired bra that was fairly cheap.  You know, a NORMAL bra.  A fairly elementary goal if you ask me and one which in the past had not presented a major predicament.  The only thing vaguely abnormal about my request was that I wanted it to be pretty.  Not plain white, or black, or nude.  Pretty.  It would seem this request of mine is impossible to satisfy.  There were a fair few fun and beautifully designed bras in all the shops, but they were ALL padded.  And I hope I'm not alone in finding this a terribly depressing and insulting discovery.
Basically these shops are telling young girls right from the start that their tits aren't big enough, regardless of the size.   Even the DD bras still had padding.  And those days of removable pads a lá Wonderbras are long gone.   This is sewn in, can't-remove-it, stuck-with-it-forever padding.  And this was the case in every high street shop I visited, nowhere gave any other choice, save for one or two deviations which normally offered no support (i.e. had no under-wire etc).  If you wanted a bra that did what it intended to and offered support, you had to get a padded one.  And that was the end of it.

Now, I get it if an insecure 13 year-old with bee stings for breasts wants a little extra help to match up to her friends.  Fine.  But beyond the age of 15, why any woman would desire to wear a padded bra is beyond me.  And in most of these stores, the clientele ranged in age from 16-40.   I mean these are women.  Grown, adult, mature, self-assured women.  And they're being bullied into buying a product which by it's very nature implies inadequacy.  So take a young girl in the bra-buying market, perhaps getting her first real bra at age 12/13 or so.  Picture her 10, 15 years later.  15 years of buying padded bras, 15 years of wearing a garment which forces a sense of physical deficiency on to her self-image, 15 years of being inoccuously told that she is never enough.  And we wonder why there are women in their 30's too scared to get naked in front of their husbands who have to draft in people like this:



The media is constantly being berated for portraying stick thin girls as the ideal form and giving women everywhere eating disorders, and meanwhile the bra industry is practically advertising for silicone and no-one's saying a goddam thing about it. 
To add insult to injury, I went into Marks & Spencer, surely the last bastion of sartorial sensibility, thinking of course I'll be able to find some respite in the Queen of Lingerie.   Yet again, the vast majority were padded.  But upon further investigation, I began to notice that on several styles and designs, only cup sizes AA-C were padded and on sizes D and up were normal, pad-free and abundantly more attractive.
Marks & Sparks is virtually saying to the customer, "If you have a cup size D or above, your breasts may be good enough on their own.  If you have a cup size C or smaller, then sorry honey, but you need to bump up up your lady lumps, girlfriend" .  As my, perfectly well-sized, breasts fall between a B and a C, I of course was one of the unfortunate freaks of nature who needed some help.  God forbid I actually prance about in public with my breasts as they are.  Heavens no.  And let's not bother taking into account that the average bra size in the UK is 36C, which means that apparently the majority of women's breasts aren't big enough.

And that's another thing - this is also a class issue.  The only way to avoid this padded monopoly is to invest a great deal in one's lingerie.  Rigby and Peller don't offer too much in the padded region, and in several shops you CAN get unpadded options; if you're willing to shell out upwards of £40.  Topshop offers some lovely unpadded bras as well - at £60 a pop that is...
This, then, basically implies that if you're rich, you're happy with what you have, but if you're poor you're not.  Because of course all working class girls want to get fake tits anyways, right?  So of course they all want padded bras, right?  There's no way Tracey from the council estate in Colchester can be happy with her B cups.  But Natasha from Chelsea, she can afford to have the self-confidence needed to survive wearing non-padded bras, purely because she can afford it. 
Of course, if you know me at all, you're fully aware that the debasement of the working class is not something I particularly fight against.  Usually I agree with it, in fact.  However, in this case it's not just poverty-stricken taking the heat, it's anyone who isn't wealthy.  It's every girl I know.  It's me, goddammit.

The entire horrible situation has left me rather aghast.  I managed to (after SEVERAL hours) get 3 bras, all from Marks and Spencer, which were fairly pretty, non-padded, fit me and were reasonably priced (mainly because 2 were on sale).  But it was not a pleasurable experience and was certainly not easy. And the really pretty bras were, yet again, about £40-50 each.  What I don't understand is how this has happened??  When did these shops decide we all have small tits?? 
And why is this only for women?  If we're being told by every brand that our chests do not measure up,  why aren't the guys getting this shit?  I don't see padded men's underwear filling up the shelves in Topman.  In this age of skinny jeans where one's manhood is rather more on display, surely this is a wasted marketing gem?  Don't boys deserve a little added insecurity as well??
And, on a lesser note - speaking of boys if you ask most of them they will tell how much they dislike padded bras.  And I totally agree.  They are terribly unattractive garments.  They don't look good, they're not nice to feel when hugging a girl, they look embarrassingly obvious when a girl lies down, her knockers fall back and the bra doesn't, and they're not actually fooling anyone.  So ladies - stop buying these things.  Write complaints.  Boycott these stores.  Start petitions...Viva brá
Revolucion!

Plus everyone sweated and looked silly

SCREW

Anti-iPoders

I was speaking with a friend of mine about dear old PinataPinata, my dearly departed old band which I still long for. We got to talking about the musical dynamics of the group and I explained that as we had no drummer and only one guitarist on stage, we ended up having the backing track on an iPod for performances, which at the time we still vaguely in homage to TestIcicles. A look of horror fell on her face just then, and it turns out not only was she offended by our use of a backing track live (an understandable complaint) but by just the sheer fact that I own an iPod (though I no longer do). And I then realized I've had a similar debate before. Several times before. For the last 15 years. Basically ever since I gained enough musical knowledge to start discussing it with others and inevitably, using it as a judicial force with which to decide whether or not I want to know someone. Which is precisely what was being done to me, except this time I wasn't being judged on what music I listen to, but on how I listen to it.
I've never quite understood this debate, which always seems to revolve around vinyl and it's superiority to all other musical formats. In my view, it doesn't really matter a great deal what you listen to music on, vinyl, cassette, cd, mp3 hell, even minidisc. Yes, vinyl may be the cooler of the bunch (bar reel-to-reel) and it certainly looks the best, but this alone does not make it intrinsically better. It's simply different. I know it has all those lovely scratchy noise that makes it sound so authentic and vintage, and the gatefold can be a real turn-on, but the songs themselves are the same. And one could argue that with digital quality we can here more of the music. Also, though I totally understand having a hard-to-come-by 1954 collectable, buying the latest U2 album on vinyl does seem rather pointless. Not to mention the limitations vinyl posits on one's listening due to its lack of portability. It's super to have friends around and just play records all day, but if it's a sunny afternoon and you want to stroll in a field while Nick Drake hums you a ditty, you're fucked. It's not that I see anything wrong with vinyl, quite the opposite in fact; I just don't see how it being older makes it better. I mean christ, nowadays listening to a cassette tape is somehow cooler and better because it's retro. So this format judging - is it any worse than my judging someone else on his or her musical tastes?

Yes. It is.

A little bit. I'll admit that whether or not someone likes New Order or Don Henley doesn't actually tell you a great deal about them as a person, so using that information to judge them can be deemed slightly ridiculous, superficial and just plain stupid. Despite how accurate it can often prove to be. However, the reason musical taste is such a valid ruler with which to measure others is because people who like terrible music are going against human nature. All ears are generally constructed the same, and in a very basic sense, all ears like and dislike the same noises. Of course, this is affected wildly by culture, society, rearing etc. but still, anyone who likes truly, truly awful music, like say Eiffel 65, is going against instinct and therefore they must be an idiot. All of our ears hear the same in general and there are some sounds that are just naturally displeasing.
This can be seen in those tedious "5 minute interview" sections in magazines in which no-longer-famous celebrities and reality show stars get asked arbitrary questions which they then answer in an affected and hackneyed 'quirky' manner. Inevitably they get asked, "What's your favorite sound?" and to this they answer, to show their inherent depth, "A child's laughter". Then, when asked, "What's your least favorite sound?" they of course reply, "A child crying", a reply so insipid, I find myself compelled to go find a crying child and really give it something to cry about. And while it's all very funny and ironic and edgy to say we love the sound of a child crying, really when you get one of those screaming bastards behind you on a bus it's agonizing.
Now, a case could be made that this is more to do with our emotions and instinct, that as it's one of our own species in turmoil, we instinctively want to end their pain etc. However, normally I want to rip their fucking heads off and shove it down the throat of the apathetic and inactive parent who is usually sat seemingly unaware, next to the screaming mess, blithely looking out the window, no doubt contemplating his/her worthless existence rather than that of their evil spawn. I never feel a great need to go hug the little shit. I just want it to shut up.
Same thing with sirens, when you hear an emergency siren it's never pleasurable. It's terrible and startling, hence why they exist. Because all humans detest that noise, it will definitely serve its purpose to get our attention. This can't be argued against.
Likewise, there is a reason background music can be background music, because it's inoffensive. It may be dull and bromidic, but it's calming to the human ear. As such, I may complain that the latest Keane track offends me, and it does, but it offends me intellectually rather than aurally. As I hate it so much, the sheer sound of it angers me. Particularly if I have to hear it 6 times a day thanks to the radio at work. Though were I to somehow listen to it on a pure aural level, as just sound, even ignoring the meaning of the words, I'd be hard-pressed to pick out a note that was actually bad. It's what the song symbolizes for me, how much I dislike the members of the group, how dull the lyrics and musicality are, how over-rated the effort is - all these qualities that I've attached to the song, so that when I hear even the first few notes I am in a state of distress.

This is why I understand people who are into bands like this:

who make utterly awful sounds. The music is actually painful and headache inducing, yet that's half the point. A band like Gorgoroth can be horrific because that is their pure aim, they look disgusting, they preach disgusting and they sound disgusting. A Gorgoroth fan wants his/her music disgusting. It's an entire culture, a school of thought, a way of life. Much like punk or goth or even, dare I say it, emo. Gorgoroth are the musical equivalent to genital piercings - I don't ever want to get involved with them, but I can understand why others would.

However, the same cannot be said for songs like this, for instance, which is just plain aggravating. As is the case for rave music, which was and still is utterly painful. I mean hell, people freely admit they have to be on mind-altering narcotics to change the chemicals in their brain in order to enjoy the music. Does that not tell you something? And this is why I hate that music so much, because it's human nature to hate it. And there's absolutely no meaning behind it for people to latch on to. The only "culture" it dictates is that of dancing while on drugs.* Something American Indians were doing hundreds of years ago - this is hardly a revolution. Upon hearing one of these awful songs out of context, surely the only feeling it conjures up to a fan is perhaps a hazy memory of the previous saturday night. Not exactly a ground-breaking allusion.

Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against vacuous, meaningless music per se. Pop music is my friend, my favorite singer is Sinatra and though he had his moments, his music was hardly reeling with insurgency. Same thing with Madonna, Michael Jackson, Paula Abdul etc - its just good music. Hell Brian Wilson is seen as a musical genius (which he is) and yet most of his songs are about beaches, surfing, girls and California. Not exactly pioneering topics. Just well crafted pop and it's wonderful. Which is something that I'm fairly sure cannot be said about anything produced by Brainstorm Crew or Paul Van Dyk. Both of whom I'm pretty sure sound equally as shit on vinyl and mp3.

*And don't even start trying to convince me that rave was about sticking it to the man, anti-Thatcher and revolution. If you can look at a bunch of 20 year-olds in bad clothes, fucked on ecstacy screaming, "Aciiiid!" and seriously tell me that's about anything more than having fun and possibly annoying their parents while their at it, you must be retarded.

I just wanted to order that life...

Having had a conversation revolving around this topic recently, I feel it's time I asked the opinion of others as well. Where does one draw the line between embellishing a story for added entertainment value and blatantly telling falsities in the place of any amusing anecdotes in your dull life?

I've been an embarrassed witness, more times than I care to admit, to friends publicly recanting charming stories of their previous night/week/month/year's adventures and slipping in more than one fabrication of events to up the ante. I, as a bystander often aware of the complete truth, usually find this an awkward and uncomfortable situation with which to contend. But at least in most of these cases, the general story being told is on the mark factually and there is only a peppering of fiction tossed in for flair. And I guess this I can tolerate, if not condone. However, I've noticed recently that several friends of mine are veering into the slightly more nefarious area of out-and-out lying. For instance, when someone asks an individual they've just met what it is they do for a living, the tendency is to big up the cool things one does on the side (ie - band/photography/art/fashion/writing/modeling etc.) and play down the real way they make the majority of their cash (ie - working in an otherwise rather dull and soulless job). This I fully agree with, why not show the best sides of yourself? Let them in on the truth once you know their worth it.

However, lately I've been witness to people completely making things up. Rather than simply bigging up the interesting facets of their working lives, people are now completely fabricating jobs and lifestyles based on what they wish they were doing. So if someone thinks they should be a film-maker but has so far done very little/nothing about this, they are simply pretending otherwise. Telling new people they meet, "Yeah, I'm working on a film at the moment, as well as writing a few scripts and producing some work for other people. It's tough, but I think the way things are going I should really be getting somewhere within a couple years. I'm doing some music videos as well...". This is not simply a stretch, this is completely false. They are basically describing their dream to someone else, but playing it off as reality.
What's most interesting though, is that I often get the feeling that the only reason people want these supposed "cool jobs" is not because they feel they'd excel in such fields, or that they are particularly talented, but simply so that they can tell other people what their job is.
It's like that scene in Swingers when he orders the Glenlivet scotch drink in the casino, and then later quietly admits he didn't even want it, he just wanted to order it. I wonder how many people I know are gonna hit 40, find themselves still fighting to get in on the creative/art/media scene and then realize that they didn't really want that job anyways, they just wanted the business card to pass out.
A lot of jobs that sound really "cool" are actually quite boring and filled with obsessives who have no life outside of that profession. It can be quite depressing when you meet people whom you think will be just like you, but who in actual fact are like 30% of you exploited and enlarged into 1 person. It's disconcerting, disheartening and it does force you to question your motives.
There's no shame in working in an office, making a decent wage. And anyone that tells you otherwise is either A.) Stuck in a job they despise, probably retail, the only respite of which is telling themselves it's somehow better than "working in some nameless corporate box" or B.) under 21 and still living the "I could never do that office, 9-5 shit maaaan" dream*.

Perhaps people should be more confident within themselves; perhaps they should question what it is about their lifestyle they are so ashamed about; perhaps they should stop lying about what they wish they were doing and either start doing it or at least admit to themselves why they are not; or perhaps most importantly, people should simply surround themselves with failures.

In the company of the middle-aged and unemployed, a job as line manager at the local Starbucks at age 29 doesn't seem so bad...


*Which, interestingly, I never had. From a young age I saw nothing wrong with working in a comfortable chair at a nice desk making money. I always really enjoyed school as well. Maybe these two go hand in hand with each other. Sitting at a desk seems to suit me fine.

In only a couple hours I will be getting a Hollywood bikini wax.  I will have even less hair than the ladies you see above.


I'm getting it all off.  For fun.  I figure girls should mix it up once in a while.  Let the bitch grow out, then rip it off, sometimes totally, sometimes a little, grow it out again, then rip it all off again.  Keep him guessing I say, no one wants boring pussy.

Anyways - I'm getting it done at HQhair, (as seen on various channel 4 programs like How to Look Good Naked!) and as you will see if you look at their price list, they offer Brazilian and Hollywood waxes.  The Hollywood is £10 more than the Brazilian.  I wondered what the big diff was as I've always been somewhat confused about this and there are disparate opinions on the topic.  There is a school which believes  a  Brazilian is "everything" off; there are others that think Hollywood is "everything off" and Brazil is "nearly everything off, leaving a landing strip".  It's confusing arena; 5 years ago there was only regular bikini wax and the Brazilian, brought to fame by good ole Sex and the City.  But then this Hollywood shit came along and everything got hella confusing. 

I looked around on SEVERAL websites for clarity and I tell you, it is not easy to find out what these waxes involve.  Most websites tend to go with the second definition, that Brazilian is nearly everything, Hollywood is totally everything.  But herein lies a major problem - what the fuck does "everything" mean?

On some websites "everything" means genuinely, everything.  So you are left with no hair down there, ANYWHERE down there, in the front or back.  We're talking porn star hairless.  This is normally what to expect from a Hollywod. This is what I'm getting tonight.  Other sites say "everything" and mean only everything in front, so back-door is left natural and free flowing, if you catch my drift.  
But then if Brazilian is "everything except for a landing strip" (which is how most websites describe it) which "everything" does this refer to?  Because if by "everything" they are using the first definition I gave, same as a Hollywood except leaving a landing strip, then what on earth is the extra £10 for a Hollywood for?  If the only difference is a small landing strip which could be whipped off with one strip of wax, is that really worthy of a further £10?

So, one would now assume that Brazilians don't really get rid of "everything" as they say.  But I defy you to try to find out.  The problem you will come across is the same difficulty I encountered while trying to answer this question myself over the week.  Salons refuse to define what they mean by "everything".   And the only reason I can come up with is embarrassment and prudishness.  As though we're all giggling pubescent 13 year-olds, they will continue to define wax treatments through a series of meaningless phrases like "everything" and "down there".  For christs sake, I'm an adult, they're adults, I'm about to ask them to get up close and personal with the most intimate part of my body to start ripping hair out of it and we're tip-toeing around semantics??  Just come out and say it -
pubis
labia
perineum
anus
inner buttocks

Is this really too hard?  Is it because we're girls we can't say these things?  I mean, they're gonna be down there anyways, can they not speak of it at least?  It's like the old saying they give to teens about sex - if you're uncomfortable discussing it, you probably shouldn't be doing it. 

And by the way if you are reading this, are over 15 and became uncomfortable with those words, you too need to grow up a little and get overs.  I just don't get it.  Boys don't have to put up with this shit, on the men's waxing menu, the option listed is "back, sac and crack"; No doubt AT ALL about what that involves.  Slightly crude I admit, but at least it's clear.  Can the same not be done for us ladies wanting to go brit-brit on our va-jayjay's?

As a result, I decided to go the whole hog and get the lot of it off.  I shall be asking them precisely the difference between the two myself tonight, perhaps to distract me from the pain.  Then I shall be heading straight to a lingerie store and trying on all manner of skimpy underwear just because I can. 

I'm currently in the midst of writing a lovely entry. A proper entry. Two entries in fact. Your cup of literary intellectualism joy shall over-runneth soon.

In the meantime, here are some interesting facts about yours truly:

5 Films I have no desire to see:


1. Even though it's co-written by Roger Avary, even though it has a great cast, even though Angelina is in it*, I'm not a fan of this realistic animation last seen in The Polar Express and it looks horribly dull. The more i see that guy yelling, "I am Beowulf!" in the advert, the more cemented my disinterest becomes.




2. Tim Burton and Johnny Depp. What a team. They can do no wrong. They've made 4 whole films together (EDIT FOR STEVE - Not including The Corpse Bride as it's only Johnny's voice) only one of which was truly great, and two of which were truly awful. Yet because Tim Burton fans are obsessive, they will be cumming in their pants over this movie and will race off to buy tickets as soon as it's released before they then save up to go see the 3-D Nightmare Before Christmas at their local Imax (which, btw, I also have no desire to see). Go watch a trailer of Sweeney Todd and pay close attention to when Johnny "I'm so cool I don't even LIVE in America, I just rake in millions from one of it's biggest corporate rapists of wholesomeness, Disney" Depp starts inexplicably singing about getting "his vengeance". Now try to imagine paying to see him do that again.




3. I never read the books, I don't like fantasy, it reminds me of The Never-Ending Story too much (the poster that is) and perhaps it's just because I'm a girl. And I'm not even one of those cool girls who really loves Star Wars and collects Lord of the Rings stuff either. I think all the boys I know should just go watch this together, cos that would be a really great way to spend an afternoon. Male bonding at a fantasy film. I'll even bake you all some cookies like a good girl.






4. Again, great cast (though this is becoming more and more meaningless with regards to a films quality these days) and maybe if I was 5 I'd want to see it. Or maybe if it was a made-for TV movie that they played on December 23 I might be inclined. Again I don't like fantasy, the plot looks incredibly predictable and unsatisfying. But most of all, look at Robert DeNiro's face in the poster. Does that make you want to see this film?






5. Thank you Fox, for sullying yet another childhood favorite by insisting that all children's characters must be updated to be "urban" in order for today's kids to enjoy them. Hence throwing on some shades and bling on my beloved chipmunks. Incidentally, this is brought to you by the same fuckwits that royally screwed up Garfield's big screen debut. Perhaps the saddest part is that the otherwise relatively credible Jason Lee has gotten involved with this mockery.




5 Films I have a desire to see:


1. I'm a big Wes Anderson fan, but to be honest, I haven't much hope for this film. I think his last film was heading towards triteness, and I think this one will be hitting the nail dead on. Way too knowingly quirky, way too "naturally" acted to the point it looks badly acted. Each character with far too many nuances to flesh out in 2 hours. All 3 actors competing with who can walk away as the coolest (surely Shwartzman, he's been doing this schtick his whole career. Wilson had a chance 'til that pesky suicide attempt. Major cool points lost). But then I read that prior to the film, theater audiences will be treated to a short film starring Natalie Portman and Jason Shwartzman in which Portman gets naked. Apparently we don't see everything, but she does get naked. Miss."I'm way too dignified and HARVARD to get nudie" gets 'em out. I'm buying a ticket!





2. It's Christian Bale, Steve Zahn and Werner Herzog. What, really, can go wrong?



3. To be honest, Chris McCandles always struck me as a spoiled, ungrateful prick. Run of the mill trustafarian who acted like a know-it-all asshole and got what was coming to him. But as much a I hate to admit it, because he's such a holier-than-thou bore, I have liked all the Sean Penn-directed films I've seen. Plus, I like Emile Hirsh, And I can easily see him reaching maximum density weight-wise within the next 10 years, so I may as well see him now at his "hottest" (according to Hollywood-buzzworthy-status) and while still getting good roles.






4. Plain and simple, I like the people involved in this film. I like Ellen Page. I like Michael Cera. I like the director. Knowing my luck I'll find it perfectly average and disappointing. But I'm holding out hope... And the trailer looks good!





5. Who in their right mind ISN'T excited about this film. The only downside is, with this much hype, can it actually live up to our exalted expectations? I hope so. The teasers and trailers so far look super duper. I like the idea of it being filmed on personal video cameras and digital point and shoots. Yadda yadda, so far so internet phenom. I do however have one rather major qualm - the title: Cloverfield?? Clover-fucking-field? REALLY? Is that the best we can do?? Still, I await with baited breath.


So there you go.
My current film views.
While I'm still in the midst of writing my opus on FAT, I may return for my Best and Worst of 2007 list. Work has suddenly become terribly dull this week as my best-good-times-at-the-office pal is AWOL, so I shall have more time for LJ shit.

Stay tuned for more!


*But she is not naked in it. This is not Angelina's naked body. It doesn't even look like her naked body, as anyone who's seen Gia can attest to. She has not suddenly gone from a thin, boyish, long-limbed with big tits figure to a curvy and perfectly proportioned one over night.