Breasts . Breasts . Breasts !! By Worgu Boms

Worgu Boms’ Personal Musings on how Breasts- the mammary Gland – Literally, Literarily, Metaphorically or even Synecdochically, since Creation, Down to this Day, Have Continued to Threaten Human Progress and Development and, Sometimes, Succeed in Subverting It.

“Our Boys were catching Breasts instead of the Ball.” -Mr R.F. Jumbo, berating his students when they lost in a netball match to a female team.

BILL BRYSON: In his widely received Book, ‘ A Short History of Nearly Everything ‘, published in 2003, Bryson writes that there was a time when people became infected with a powerful desire to understand the Earth- how it was, and how massive, where it hung in space and how it had come to be. Consequently, there was established, the French Royal Academy of Sciences’ Peruvian Expedition of 1735. Their Goal was to help settle the question of the circumference of the planet by measuring the length of one degree of Meridian (or one-360th of the distance around the planet) along a line reaching from Yarouqin, near Quito, to just beyond Cuenca in what is now known as Ecuador, a distance of about 320 Kilometers. The Expedition was led by a hydrologist named Pierre Bouguer and a soldier-mathematician, named Charles Marie de la Codamin- they travelled to Peru for that purpose.
What Happened? In Quito, the Expedition’s Doctor was murdered in a misunderstanding over a woman.
The 3rd most senior member of the party, a man named Jean Gordin, ran off with a thirteen-year-old girl and could not be persuaded to return! The rest is History.
PHIL KNIGHT and NIKE:
In his higly absorbing autobiography, ‘ Shoe Dog ‘, a memoir by the creator of Nike , Phil Knight reveals how, in his quest to establish a sports wear company, Nike, he travelled with his partner, Carter, to Honolulu, on a preliminary Business Trip.
As they landed Honolulu Airport, the author-Biographer reveals: “a line of beautiful girls came towards us. Soft-eyed, olive-skinned, barefoot, double-jointed hips, with which they twitched and swished their grass skirts in our faces. Carter and I looked at each other. “
This was a red flag, but the duo businessmen did not discern it.
At the end of their business trip, they had to return home to continue with their business plan aimed at establishing what is now one of the world’s Biggst sports wear companies.
What Happened Thereafter?
The author reveals:
“It was clearly time to get back to the plan
“But Carter frowned and stroked his chin
“Gee Buck, I don’t know.
“He had met a girl . A Beautiful Hawaiian teenager with long brown legs and jet-black eyes, the kind of girl who’d greeted our airplane, the kind I dreamed of having and never would.
”He wanted to stick around and how could I argue?
” I told him I understood. But I was cast low.”
The hapless, crest-fallen Phil knight had to paddle his canoe alone. I have been wondering whether the World would know or have Nike as we know it today, if Phil had not escaped that trap of a breast-like distraction.
Prof KELSEY HARRISON:
Kelsey Harrison is a professor of Gyneacology and Obstetrics and is widely regarded, worldwide, as one of the leading practitioners of G&O, as it is called. Kelsey is a former Vice Chancellor of the University of Port Harcourt.
In his Autobiography, ” An Arduous Climb “, he reveals what happened in his college days at the famous Govt College, Umuahia.
The College was an all-boys college. But there was, in the same town, a Women Teacher Training College. A netball match was organised between both schools and the Women Teacher Training College trounced the Umuahia Boys, mercilessly. The women did not only defeat the boys, they beat them; did not only beat them, they beat them up.
What happened was revealed at the Boys School Assembly Hall by the statement of one of its most legendary teachers and disciplinarian, R.F. Jumbo, quoted at the outset.
Kwam 1 and Value Jet V Comfort Emmason and Ibom Air:
Kwam 1, a musician, physically stood in front of a revving commercial aircraft, Value Jet, with intent to prevent it from taking off following his being deboarded therefrom for alleged unruly behavior. The Nigerian Bar Association, NBA, did not issue any statement of any type following the terrorism-like behaviour of Kwam 1.
Days later, Comfort Emmason, a woman, had serious altercation aboard commercial airline of Ibom Air, leading to efforts to forcibly remove her therefrom as she was carefully refusing to alight with a view to evading being arrested for questioning. In the ensuing scuffle, her top, underneath of which there was no bra, was torn. The tearing revealed details of her breasts! The NBA swifty issued a statement siding with her!
Since then, the concerns of safety of civil aviation and safety of passengers, were relegated, enthroning a disproportionate, if not exclusive, focus on the unintended breasts aspect of the incident!
Once any incident involves breasts, no matter how serious, even as serious as saftety matters in aviation, the breasts must take preeminence! This is deeply troubling.
[Since human History, this has been confounding even at the Spiritual sphere where, at the highest level, spiritual concerns were relegated.
Consider: the Bible, God’s Word, not man’s, realistically and faithfully recorded (for our Instruction) how angels, upon looking down on earth and seeing pretty women, left heaven and came down to earth to have sex with the women, resulting in pregnancies, giving birth to abnormally large offspring known in the Bible as the Naphilines. Audaciously and to the further grief of the Righteous God, the angels made to return to heaven with their children until the Almighty stopped them midway and banished them!]
Mankind has continued in that trajectory down to this day, prioritising breasts over aviation safety, even offering unsolicited employment and cash to the breasted one without worrying about Kwam 1. This is eerie.
Legal End Notes:
(A) Under the Common Law, any imputation of sexuality slurs on a woman is actionable per se- ie, without proof of actual damage suffered, the action can succeed if the imputation alone is established and the Defence of Justification cannot be sustained. For a man, there is no such privilege: you need to establish actual damage suffered.
(B.) The US Supreme Court Decision in Planned Parenthood of South Eastern Pennsylvania et.al Vs Casey.
The state Pennsylvania, enacted the Abortion Control Act to regulate abortion.
The Act required doctors to give prescribed information to women contemplating abortion; forbade doctors to perform an abortion until at least 24 hours after the patient had received that information; required parental consent for a teenager’s abortion – with a bypass procedure allowing a Judge to find a teenager mature enough to make her own decision.
That is not all: the Act required married women to inform their husbands before any abortion.
Five abortion clinics and one doctor sued for a Declaration that the statute was unconstitutional.
The federal District Court for the Eastern District of Philadelphia ( a kind of Federal High Court as we know it here) agreed that the statute was unconstitutuonal and struck down all the provisions of which the plaintiffs complained.
On appeals, the Court of Appeals substantially reversed the District Court: it agreed that the requirement to notify spouses was unconstitutional but denied that any of the other provisions were unconstitutional.
Both sides appealed to the Supreme Court: the clinics arguing once again that all the restrictions were unconstitutional, and Pennsylvania arguing that even the provision requiring that spouses be notified was not.
The Supreme Court sustained the Court of Appeal Decision, upholding most of Pennsylvania’s restrictions.
What of the requirement that a married woman, before aborting, must inform her husband?
The Court struck it down as Unconstitutional.
In other words, after a man, duly married to his wife, struggles and manages and succeeds to make her pregnant, a joint enterprise, as it were, the woman, suo motu, and without any legal obligation to at least inform her husband, the partner, can proceed to abort the pregnancy.
I don’t understand. You, do you?
Hear the Court, in explaining why states must show more concern for the position of a pregnant woman than that of a potential father:
“It is an inescapable biological fact that the state regulation with respect to the child a woman is carrying will have a far greater impact on the mother’s liberty than the father’s.
“Although a state may acknowledge a father’s interest in pregnancy as well, it may not give to a man the kind of dominion over his wife that parents exercise over their children, and therefore may not give them the role that they may properly give parents of teenage women.”
I do not, still, seem to understand this reasoning.
Do you?
Some Court Judgments, like this one, resemble the ways of God: they passeth all Understanding!