In the US, we have a fascination with breasts. Many ads feature women wearing low cut blouses and dresses. Our football games are decorated with women in scanty costumes jumping up and down. We have wet t-shirt contests, bikini contests and jello and mud wrestling, all with the main interest of seeing how much of a young woman's body can be rubbed or exposed without being considered overtly pornographic. Women's magazine's feature numerous ads for breast enhancement and enlargement with exercises or drugs.
And yet breasts are nothing more than modified sweat glands. Most of their bulk is fat, not glandular tissue. I have often said that what we worship as beauty is nothing more than subcutaneous fat distribution (breasts, hips, thighs) and dead skin appendages (hair, nails, visible layer of skin. We would do far better in choosing our partners if we could say 'look at the pancreas on that guy' or 'wow, she has a great set of kidneys'. In a very literal sense, beauty is only skin deep.
I expect nothing different in social situations, and I behave no differently myself. Many aspects of romance, courtship and attraction are visual judgments on the suitability or attractiveness of the partner. This behavior is as true for women as for men, men being judged on their hair (length, baldness, etc) and/or the shape of their behinds. I don't expect this to apply to health, however.
Most people are surprised to learn that the leading cancer killer of women for 29 years is lung cancer, not breast. Breast cancer has a relatively high incidence, but it is still lower than lung or colon, and much lower than prostate. Cancer is not the leading killer of Americans either. Cardiovascular disease is. The funding for these diseases, however, does not reflect these realities.
Here is a terrific table breaking down funding for cancer by incidence and deaths-
http://www.pancreaticalliance.org/docs/ncispending.htm
Breast cancer is not quite so over-represented as 10 years ago, but it trails only cervical cancer in research dollars per death. If you look at the most lethal cancers, they are all at the bottom of the funding barrel. We pay as little financial attention to kidneys, pancreases, livers and bowels as we do in our sexual courting. Out of sight, out of mind does indeed apply.
We have flourishing plastic surgeons putting in fake breasts. In 2006, 307,230 women received implants. At an average cost of a bit over 4000.00 per case, that is 1.2 billion dollars worth of fake boobs. It is well worth contrasting this sum with the budget of the National Cancer Institute- 4.7 billion dollars. Our society spends only 4 times as much on all cancers as it does on breast implants alone.
We all have heard of women bamboozling policemen out of issuing a traffic citation with an indiscreet flash of breasts. I really would have expected better out of scientists and our government.
Here are more reference sites to read and ponder-
cancer funding stats, raw-
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/NCI/research-funding
allocation of money by diseases-
http://www.fairfoundation.org/factslinks.htm
raw data for NIH funding-
http://report.nih.gov/rcdc/categories/
NCI 2006/7 funding ranks-
http://www.pancreaticalliance.org/docs/ncispending.htm
breast augmentation numbers and distribution-
http://www.realself.com/asps-breast-augmentation-statistics
Ted
And yet breasts are nothing more than modified sweat glands. Most of their bulk is fat, not glandular tissue. I have often said that what we worship as beauty is nothing more than subcutaneous fat distribution (breasts, hips, thighs) and dead skin appendages (hair, nails, visible layer of skin. We would do far better in choosing our partners if we could say 'look at the pancreas on that guy' or 'wow, she has a great set of kidneys'. In a very literal sense, beauty is only skin deep.
I expect nothing different in social situations, and I behave no differently myself. Many aspects of romance, courtship and attraction are visual judgments on the suitability or attractiveness of the partner. This behavior is as true for women as for men, men being judged on their hair (length, baldness, etc) and/or the shape of their behinds. I don't expect this to apply to health, however.
Most people are surprised to learn that the leading cancer killer of women for 29 years is lung cancer, not breast. Breast cancer has a relatively high incidence, but it is still lower than lung or colon, and much lower than prostate. Cancer is not the leading killer of Americans either. Cardiovascular disease is. The funding for these diseases, however, does not reflect these realities.
Here is a terrific table breaking down funding for cancer by incidence and deaths-
http://www.pancreaticalliance.org/docs/ncispending.htm
Breast cancer is not quite so over-represented as 10 years ago, but it trails only cervical cancer in research dollars per death. If you look at the most lethal cancers, they are all at the bottom of the funding barrel. We pay as little financial attention to kidneys, pancreases, livers and bowels as we do in our sexual courting. Out of sight, out of mind does indeed apply.
We have flourishing plastic surgeons putting in fake breasts. In 2006, 307,230 women received implants. At an average cost of a bit over 4000.00 per case, that is 1.2 billion dollars worth of fake boobs. It is well worth contrasting this sum with the budget of the National Cancer Institute- 4.7 billion dollars. Our society spends only 4 times as much on all cancers as it does on breast implants alone.
We all have heard of women bamboozling policemen out of issuing a traffic citation with an indiscreet flash of breasts. I really would have expected better out of scientists and our government.
Here are more reference sites to read and ponder-
cancer funding stats, raw-
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/NCI/research-funding
allocation of money by diseases-
http://www.fairfoundation.org/factslinks.htm
raw data for NIH funding-
http://report.nih.gov/rcdc/categories/
NCI 2006/7 funding ranks-
http://www.pancreaticalliance.org/docs/ncispending.htm
breast augmentation numbers and distribution-
http://www.realself.com/asps-breast-augmentation-statistics
Ted
Comments
Post a Comment