Image Source: WENN.com

“Who owns the breast: child or husband?”

This is the tongue-in- cheek yet provocative question raised recently in Street Talk Naija, a Man on The Street sort of Nigerian web series, which you can watch on YouTube. Speaking with both women and men, the responses were pretty evenly split: half of the folks saying that since the primary purpose of the breast was for feeding, it therefore belongs to the children, while the other half argue that since the woman belongs to her husband, he “owns” everything about her, including her breasts.

Of course, while watching this, I had already summarized this to be a trick question. I mean, we all know that the woman owns the breast. After all, it is attached to her body so – husband or not – it is hard to claim ownership of something that is not in your physical possession. Likewise, just because breasts are also mammary glands doesn’t mean that women are not using the breast right if it’s for purposes outside of being a food source for a baby. Some women do get sexual pleasure from their breasts, and in fact, recent studies have found that ni**le stimulation activates the same brain areas as vaginal and clitoral stimulation. How and in what way her breasts are being used is solely up to her. The funny thing is that as obvious of a point as this was to me, not too many people in the video actually echoed a similar sentiment.

Yet before we attribute this to the backwards thinking of some indigenous Africans (because I know how some folks think), we in Western societies too find ways to enforce, albeit subtly, this belief that the use of a woman’s body is not of her own fruition. And it is a major reason why some folks responded with flat out ridicule when Angelina Jolie announced that she had both breasts removed in hopes of preemptively striking against a hereditary and aggressively deadly form of breast cancer. Nevermind her very real health concerns, keeping a pair of perky breasts was deemed by some as much more important. The negative reaction to her announcement should serve as a reminder that the female form, particularly the breasts, are still very much treated as public domain, created for the sole purpose of sexual arousal – regardless if she sees it that way or not.

Such as the case of Holly Van Voast, a Bronx photographer and performance artist, who filed a federal lawsuit against the city of New York for being repeatedly detained, arrested, and on one occasion, institutionalized, for daring to bare her breasts in public. The easy answer is to say, “Well of course what she did was lewd.” However, the same city, which saw Van Voast topless as obscene and sometimes mentally ill, had a completely different standard for men of all body shapes (including breast-size), who are free to walk around topless without repercussions, including the N*ked Cowboy, a pasty-skinned guy who walks around Time Square, strumming his guitar in just a pair of tighty-whities and cowboy boots.

It is also this double standard when it comes to displays of the female breasts, which has inspired Go Topless Day. According to Policy Mic, such a day looks to bring awareness to the need for gender equality in public decency laws, by protesting across the country in – you guessed it – no tops at all. And according to the New York Times, the Van Voast lawsuit, which was filed on the grounds that the public decency laws are bias, might have been the inspiration behind a recent shift in policy in the NYPD, which is now instructing its 34,000 police officers to stop arresting topless women for indecent exposure.

Despite the shift in NYC laws, women who opt to bare their chests still face an uphill battle in having their bare breasts not viewed as criminal or as a spectacle as demonstrated by video of last year’s Go Topless Day in New York City. In it, men followed around a bunch of topless protesting woman, drooling, ogling and taking pictures. Even as these women hope to convey a much bigger message of ending the need to make natural body functions and form dirty or illegal, the reality is that you can’t change the mindset of some, who still insist on putting their own definition on it – at least not right away. Up until the mid-1900s, men could be arrested for going out in public topless. Today, we have Rick Ross and nobody blinks an eye. Perhaps if more women are willing to bare it all in protest of these ridiculous laws, and more importantly, this mindset, it might change how we as a society view breasts. Basically, as a source of many things, from the giver of life and nourishment, to a part of our sexuality, to being the source of nothing at all.

Angelina Jolie on April 11, flanked by G8 ministers including Secretary of State John Kerry. (AP Photo/Alastair Grant, pool)

Angelina Jolie is a siren, a vixen. Exotic and curvy by Hollywood standards, she made a name for herself slinking across red carpets and film sets as the walking embodiment of sex. She’s the dark-haired beauty who stole the sexiest man in America from America’s blond sweetheart.

She’s the stuff of Hollywood legend. Making her announcement that she recently underwent a preventive double mastectomy all the more jarring.

In a New York Times op-ed, Jolie describes her decision-making and treatment process following the discovery that she carried a “faulty” gene, BRCA1. The presence of which sharply increases her risk of developing breast cancer and ovarian cancer (her mother passed away from ovarian cancer at the age of 56 after battling the disease for a decade).

“On a personal note, I do not feel any less of a woman,” she writes. “I feel empowered that I made a strong choice that in now way diminishes my femininity.”

Jolie didn’t have to go public. Not even a whisper of her condition had leaked to the press. She could have had reconstructive surgery, walked the red carpet and rolled her eyes as blogs wondered if she had a boob job. Instead she used her personal struggle and celebrity to give a platform to a serious issue.

This approach falls in line with the humanitarian Jolie has become. An evolution that began when she started working with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees after being exposed to humanitarian crises while filming the Lara Croft franchise.

“She’s the biggest name of all, and I think given her prominence and her visibility not only as a famous person but also a beautiful actress, it’s going to carry a lot of weight for women,” said Barron H. Lerner, a medical historian and the author of “The Breast Cancer Wars” told the New York Times.

The cost of testing for mutations of BRCA genes comes in at more than $3,000. Why the high price tag? The biotech company that discovered the gene filed a patent for it in 1995, giving them a monopoly on products that can test for mutations. The Supreme Court is still deciding whether a corporation can file a patent based on a gene invented by Mother Nature and present in every single cell in every single person on earth.

Jolie’s situation is seen as special and high-risk by the medical community. Mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 are estimated to cause only 5 to 10 percent of breast cancers and 10 to 15 percent of ovarian cancers among white women in the United States. But statistics for other racial and ethnic groups are not available. Odd, given that African-American women are more likely to die of breast cancer than their White counterparts.

Studies show that few Black women younger than 50, a population disproportionately afflicted with and dying from early-onset breast cancer, undergo genetic testing. Only one third of Black women aged 50 or younger who met national guidelines for genetic testing for breast cancer had been referred for such testing.

Moreover, the high cost of healthcare in this country — and the fact that many still lack coverage — make it cost-prohibitive for many to take basic tests, like a mammogram, let alone receive treatment.

Family history and financial status are thought to influence their treatment choices. “Through our study, we determined that 34 participants met national guidelines for BRCA testing,” study co-author Tuya Pal, M.D. said. “But only 13 reported that their health care providers referred them for genetic counseling and/or testing.”

Now that Jolie has the world talking, maybe the issues surrounding breast and ovarian cancer will get more attention.

—

C. Cleveland covers professional development topics and entrepreneurial rebels who blaze their own career paths. She explores these stories and more on The Red Read, Twitter (@CleveInTheCity) and Facebook (/MyReadIsRed).

WENN.com

Hollywood bombshell Angelina Jolie revealed today in an op-ed post that she did for the New York Times that she underwent a double mastectomy procedure over the last few months. In the piece, titled My Medical Choice, she explains that the major decision was made after Jolie was told by doctors that she had a “faulty” BRCA1 gene which could increase her risk of developing breast cancer, and even ovarian cancer greatly. Jolie watched her own mother die from cancer, ovarian cancer, in 2007 at the age of 56 after a ten year battle. Here’s some highlights from her very poignant article:

“My doctors estimated that I had an 87 percent risk of breast cancer and a 50 percent risk of ovarian cancer, although the risk is different in the case of each woman.

Once I knew that this was my reality, I decided to be proactive and to minimize the risk as much I could. I made a decision to have a preventive double mastectomy. I started with the breasts, as my risk of breast cancer is higher than my risk of ovarian cancer, and the surgery is more complex.

On April 27, I finished the three months of medical procedures that the mastectomies involved. During that time I have been able to keep this private and to carry on with my work.

But I am writing about it now because I hope that other women can benefit from my experience. Cancer is still a word that strikes fear into people’s hearts, producing a deep sense of powerlessness. But today it is possible to find out through a blood test whether you are highly susceptible to breast and ovarian cancer, and then take action.”

Jolie went on to discuss that she underwent three complex steps in her procedure, including a “n*pple delay,” where extra blood is directed toward the breast ducts behind the n*pple which can ultimately save it; then there was the second procedure where her breast tissue was removed, which took eight hours; lastly, she had a reconstructive surgery where she had implants put in. All in all, Jolie seems to be happy with her results, and more pleased with the fact that she did what she needed to do to be around longer for her children (her chances of having breast cancer in the future have gone down to five percent).

“It is reassuring that they see nothing that makes them uncomfortable. They can see my small scars and that’s it. Everything else is just Mommy, the same as she always was. And they know that I love them and will do anything to be with them as long as I can. On a personal note, I do not feel any less of a woman. I feel empowered that I made a strong choice that in no way diminishes my femininity.”

Check out Jolie’s full article over at the New York Times where she goes on to discuss the support she received from her partner, Brad Pitt, and why she wanted to share her story so that more women would know that they have options. Definitely a brave choice.

What do you think of her choice to undergo the procedure after hearing that she had the “faulty gene”?

Studies have shown that the chances of an affair turning into a long-lasting relationship are roughly one in 100, but these 15 celebrities have beaten the odds by settling down with their secret lovers. Who’d a thunk it?

WENN

Prince Charles first met Camilla Parker Bowles in 1970 at a polo match. Though they dated for a little while, both the Prince of Wales and Bowles went on to marry other people. Prince Charles’s fairytale marriage to Princess Diana was thoroughly publicized. So was their divorce and his extramarital affair with Bowles, who he began secretly seeing again in the 80’s. After his divorce was finalized in 1996, Prince Charles and Bowles kept their relationship out of the limelight, finally tying the knot in 2005.

WENN

Usually the first question a couple gets asked after they get engaged is “when is the wedding date!?” While some couples make wedding plans right away, others simply want to take it in and savor the moment. For celebrity couples, this may be even more true, since we all know that Hollywood marriages tend to last a hot minute. While we respect a couple’s right to take their time, there are some couples that have been together for what seems like FOREVER, and we wonder if they’ll ever make it down the aisle. Whether it’s because a baby is on the way, they want to do it right or there simply is no rush, we wonder if we’ll be hearing wedding bells in 2013 for the following couples.

WENN.com

It’s tough being a celebrity. Why you ask? I mean how are you supposed to choose from the many, many attractive men and many, many smokin’ hot women who throw themselves at you? Easy, you can’t. Celebrities are only human, after all. And while their inability to keep their lust to themselves could cause some problems in their personal life, it provides endless entertainment for the rest of us. So for your viewing, thank God I don’t have all that drama going on, pleasure, here are 15 of the craziest celebrity love triangles.

From Eur Web

Mike Tyson took a trip down memory lane recently, revealing he was ”mad as hell” when he caught a then unknown Brad Pitt in bed with his ex-wife Robin Givens during their divorce in the late 80s.

In an interview on talk show “In Depth With Graham Bensinger,” Tyson said: ”I was mad as hell! I was going to … you should have seen his face when he saw me.”

Read more at EurWeb.com.

A big part of the celebrity world is who’s dating who and while we love knowing the latest flings in Hollywood, let’s go a little bit deeper. After looking at popular celebs, it’s clear that some of them tend to date certain types of people. Here are 15 celebrities who have a specific type.

WENN.com

Prince

Prince seems to be attracted to ethnically ambiguous women. Manuela Testolini, Mayte Garcia, and Sheila E. are all hard to look at and determine their true ethnicity.

vibe.com

There was a time when I thought getting a tattoo was an act of rebellion, or maybe a way to express myself…but never about expressing my love for someone else. But nowadays, folks are using body art to show their undying love for the man or woman of their dreams…until their dream becomes a nightmare – and celebrities are not exempt. Love doesn’t always last, so it’s a good thing there’s laser removal available. And since Hollywood romances can fade before the ink dries, you’d think they’d be more careful about permanently professing their love on their bodies. These stars thought getting tatted up meant forever…until forever had gone away. Before you have his name scripted on your bottom, consider these celebs who regretted getting inked up in the name of love.