Why, exactly, do we care about HRH the Duchess of Cambridge’s breasts?

Actually, to me, as a lawyer, what is more interesting is how privacy law is increasingly being used as an excuse for empty ‘moralising’ by our class of New Victorians’.

The Duchess of Cambridge managed to — shock, horror! — expose her breasts. The public response to this was, of course, the hilarious circus that arises every time someone of the dubious rank of ‘celebrity’ airs her mammary bodies in public view. The Palace is pissed and suing the pants off the French mag publishing the photos. Lawyers are already rearing for a lovely fight about privacy, in particular about the point whether the chateau, where the photo was taken, was indeed truly ‘private’ and whether thus a genuine expectation of privacy had existed. Meanwhile, angry feminists are being angry to the point of confusing autonomy with privacy rights and Guardianistas show that they still haven’t learned the difference between contract (consensual exchange) and tort (wrongful interference).

The fashionable commingling of HRH the Duchess of Cambridge’s breasts with Page 3 ladies, as the Grauniad’s Homa Khaleeli has committed, ignores of course the prime idea of privacy law: the tort of invasion of privacy is about a non-consensual interference. Its arguments, even when they keep someone’s breasts off the front page, have nothing to do with censoring content. They have everything to do with how content is obtained. It is quite crucial at this point not to let the debate turn into the the faux-Victorian moralising that certain political interests wish it to turn into. There are those who focus on the content or sexual nature of the photos, rather than the fact that they have been obtained in a truly invasive fashion, using high-power telephoto lenses. These new Victorians, riding on a throne of contrived verbiage, don’t give a thing about privacy: what they care about is, ultimately, boobs and their God-given right to decide who, when and in what context may consume pictures of them. They are very happy to bemoan the invasion of the Duchess of Cambridge’s rights, but what they want even more is invading everyone else’s rights and deciding for them what content is good for their moral growth.

Make no mistake — I have yet to see a person edified by a diet of Page 3 and pornography. In fact, recent research shows the latter to be particularly unedifying. And indeed it is a valid concern that given the vast menu of information served to all of us thanks to the internet, people will follow their natural instinct towards instant gratification (no pun intended). That, really, isn’t at issue. What is at issue is, to use the trite term of our new social moralists, how society should respond.

Here’s my suggestion — and it may be an old-fashioned one: create beauty. Wage war on profanity by elevation. Destroy the mundane, the crude and the primitive by creating accessible yet aesthetically pleasant works of art that communicate ideals of virtue.

Admittedly, creation is much more difficult than campaigning for the banning of Page 3 nudes, but the latter ignores the important question: *why* exactly do men look at Page 3? Apart from the feminist stock answer (“Because men are pigs!”), most considerations lead one to conclude that they are in pursuit, ultimately, of beauty. If men need Kelly, 25, from Essex, and her 36DD breastage — or indeed that of Catherine, 30, of Windsor — to fill the innate, human need for beauty, then we as a society have failed them. We have failed them not because we have failed to heed our new Victorians, but because we have failed to provide them with enough accessible beauty to satisfy their human needs. We have wasted money on sharks in formaldehyde and sheep cut in half, but have left an entire generation of men in the sort of aesthetic squalor that leads them to resort to simple satisfaction.

In the Renaissance, probably the rudest and most blood-sodden age of humankind, they didn’t have Page 3. They had Michelangelo’s *Sybil* and *David*, Correggio’s *Leda* and Titian’s *Danae*. They had plenty of nakedness, but always in service of virtue — and beauty: not brutish hedonism. Art and beauty served to elevate man, not to reduce him to a drooling animal. And we can gain that back. We can get back to an age when art served to inspire men and women to be excellent in body, spirit and mind. We can get back to an age when people didn’t look at Page 3 because they didn’t need to. They were, amidst all the chaos of the 16th century, surrounded by a conscious effort by craftsmen and artists to create beauty — and enough of it to satisfy man’s innate hunger for aesthetic pleasure.

The hip Kensington cognoscenti will, of course, interject about ‘bringing art to the masses’, as if that had worked brilliantly (or indeed worked, full stop). Like Margaret Hodge, they will use fashionable concepts like inclusiveness to relegate the large lower strata of the population to a Page Three and *Coronation Street* kind of existence. Art doesn’t need to be made inclusive. Good art is inclusive enough: it speaks to the innate sense of beauty that everyone possesses, from Margaret Hodge to a Newcastle welder and a council estate teen from Blackbird Leys. The ability of aesthetic appreciation isn’t a privilege: it is part of what it means to be human. The fear of exposing the so-called ‘lower classes’ (a term you don’t generally hear, save from the people who claim to have their best interests at heart by feeding them ‘inclusive’ but deplorably bad ‘art’) to ‘proper art’ which they might not understand is the kind of prejudice by the self-absorbed products of the modern arts bubble that creates Page 3 aficionados.

Bad money, they say, drives out good. The reverse is true, too: good and aesthetically pleasurable art drives out the more profane forms of human enjoyment. Whether we as a society are still able to create, rather than merely criticise and campaign for bans, remains to be seen.

Frankie September 20, 2012 at 19:08

“…The difference with the Duchess of Cambridge is that she was inside the
curtilage of a private building, on private land and, though it was true she
could be seen from a public road, it was only with a camera lens not much
smaller than the Hubble telescope. If this is allowed to go unpunished, either
financially or editorially, what’s next?” My thoughts exactly.

She was not displaying her ‘rack’ on the pages of some tacky newspaper, so
the papparazi went far beyond the pale. Still and all, I think she was naive
to ‘get them out’ in the first place, as she might expect that someone may be
somewhere gazing at her pert form through a powerful lens… It goes with the
role, unfortunately, which she appears to have unwillingly inherited from
Diana, Princess of Wales.

Penseivat September 20, 2012 at 18:22

If there had been cameras in the days of da Vinci, Michaelangelo, Titian,
Reubens or Corregio, would there be the scultures we look at and admire today?
Men like looking at women’s breasts, and bums, and legs, and faces, because
they are aesthetically pleasing. Just like women enjoy looking at mens
6-packs, or bums, or shoulders, or faces. To men, curves are nice to look at
and denote femininism, which is why boats and planes are usually given female
names or referred to as ‘she’. There is also the basic primal instinct of
looking at, or for, possible future sexual partners. Of course, in these
‘enlightened days’ men don’t look at Page 3 girls and immediately start
stalking them with the intention of starting their own dynasty, or at least, I
hope they don’t, though no doubt there are some who would comment to their
friends that they would like to! Ever since Mr Ug saw Mrs Ug shrug her mammoth
skin top off her shoulder and he thought, “I could really give her a good
clubbing!” or Mrs Ug admired her husband as he stood in his bath, the majority
of each sex have enjoyed looking at the opposite sex in various stages of
undress. Consider the Coke advert where the women executives troop into a room
for their “11 o’clock meeting” which turned out to be an excuse for them to
letch at a topless male window cleaner who had abs you could grate cheese on,
or the advert for Wonderbra with the logo, “Hello Boys”, and which was held
responsible for a number of vehicle crashes. Which of these two adverts was
the more sexist and which garnered more complaints? There may be those amongst
us who can recall – post ‘Sun’ days, the publications ‘Tit Bits’ or
‘Reveille’, which shows that scantily clad ladies in daily or weekly
publications is nothing new. The main difference, however, is that the models
in the newspapers and adverts are disrobing consensually and are being paid
for it. The beaches of the world are full of men and women who gaily get their
kit off, though some really, really, shouldn’t, but they know that they are in
a public place and if someone wants to look at them, then let them. The
difference with the Duchess of Cambridge is that she was inside the curtilage
of a private building, on private land and, though it was true she could be
seen from a public road, it was only with a camera lens not much smaller than
the Hubble telescope. If this is allowed to go unpunished, either financially
or editorially, what’s next? Some woman sitting in her bath while an
enterprising cameraman with equipment which shoots pictures through glazed
windows, or snaps of someone in bed, with photos being taken through an open
window. The pleasure in looking at the bodies of good looking people should be
tempered with the discipline and ethics that privacy should take
precedence.

Joe Public September 20, 2012 at 16:22

“In the Renaissance, probably the rudest and most blood-sodden age of
humankind, they didn’t have Page 3. They had Michelangelo’s *Sybil* and
*David*, Correggio’s *Leda* and Titian’s *Danae*. ”

Yes, one copy of each; available for viewing only in each owner’s castle.

“….*why* exactly do men look at Page 3?”

Because now, they can.

cascadian September 20, 2012 at 16:16

Judging by what is presented as “art” in modern times I would say your
cause is well-and-truly lost. To argue that the Renaissance peasant took time
to travel to Rome and gaze upon Michaelangelo’s finest breast representations
is fatuous (were they even displayed for public consumption?).

I also fail to understand the angst about page three presentations, on
occasion Kelly in Essex is far more interesting than the the massively
over-exposed Duchess of teeth appearing daily in her “nude heels”. Kate is
well on the way to be as annoying as Diana, lessons have NOT been learned.

pompey cowboy
September 20, 2012 at 16:05

I guess times have always changed and will always change. The modern
electric society has changed so much. The aeroplane is just over 100 yrs old
and look what thats changed. 40 yrs ago people wouldnt have dreamed of having
a mobile phone that you could take pictures on and The SUN never even
existed.
I’m not sure what the hang up is about womens boobs— most of us
spent our first few months of life suckling one. They are our bodies– why are
we so embarrassed about them?— we are just clever animals , with animal
feelings , instincts and passions just buried a little bit below our veneer of
being human
Hope I havent made a right Tit of myself by posting

Brass Monkey
September 21, 2012 at 09:43

Just for pedantry’s sake, in 1972 the Sun was alive and well having been
changed from it’s broadsheet existence of the early sixties.

GildasTheMonk
September 20, 2012 at 13:24

The creation and pursuit of beauty, joy, happines. Exactly that! What
higher purpose could there be. And in so doing, drive out the dark. Just as a
candle will vanquish the dark. The ugliness of so much modern culture is a
real issue. Just as darkness is merely the absence of light, so ugliness is
the absence of beauty, and evil is the mere absence of good. But light, beauty
and good must be actively cultivated, and the failure to do so will allow
darkness, ugliness and evil to conquer by default. A profound article,
Chris.

Mark September 20, 2012 at 11:09

Nice one, Chris

Mudplugger September 20, 2012 at 11:09

The key difference between the ‘beauty’ in classical art and the modern
tabloid version is in the method of capture. Prior to photography, it required
immense skill from an artist using a combination of canvas, paints and brushes
to portray either the scenic and the corporal variants of beauty. While some
simply admired the finished image, many others admired the technical skill
used in its creation.

But now anyone capable of pressing a button has the power to capture an
image of ‘beauty’, most of the technical skill having been assumed by the
equipment itself. That this power is then most popularly used to display
ladies’ bodies is a statement on our times – I can’t imagine many viewers are
actually admiring the photographer’s skills, or even the skills of the distant
techy who designed the camera, they are merely glancing over the accoutrements
of Cindy (23) from Southend as they make their way to the football reports
and/or X-Factor celebrity drivel.

But at least Cindy (23) from Southend was paid for the event, the newspaper
was paid for, the reader had a choice whether to buy that paper or not.
There’s no victim here, apart from the cultural values of a society which
accommodates that freedom, accepting the losses it entails.

The genie of instant photo gratification is out of the bottle and, barring
any miraculous societal change, will not go back in. The bigger issue of
privacy and is one which will probably run and run, as each new case of its
‘invasion’ brings different considerations. Personally, I am no more
interested in the mammeries of Kate than I am of those attached to Cindy (23)
from Southend, but that’s my freedom to choose and for the current publishing
market to offer me the choice.

right_writes September 20, 2012 at 10:39

“…the important question: *why* exactly do men look at Page 3?”

I can tell you why on the rare occasions that I have submitted myself to
this publication… Usually whilst sitting in an NHS waiting room for hours and
hours and running out of anything else to read… Page 3 is the page between
page 2 and page 4 that inevitably rears its ugly head and exposes me to a pair
of pert/plastic/globes in glorious black and white… merely by doing what is
necessary when reading… turning the pages.

It doesn’t embarrass me, rather it saddens me that this is considered by
many people to be in some way titivating or provocative, even the Victorians
were more adult about their “values”.

As for Princess Kate… I thought it was highly amusing that Dellingpole
wrote a comedic article about the royal visit to Vanuatu, speculating that
they had been in danger of drowning due to global warming… One bright spark…
Me… Made the hilarious
comment that the “princess” might have to get her buoyancy equipment out in
order to prevent drowning.

JohnB September 20, 2012 at 10:36

The pursuit of excellence has been made unfashionable.
It was a
noticeable trend in the 1970s and it is back with a vengeance.
The
brutalisation of the psyche.
I wouldn’t blame the Victorians so much as the
socialist, collectivist thuggery of the post-modern mind.
You can’t
legislate love.
You can’t reduce everything to the lowest common
denominational, socially-acceptable, norm without degradation and an inability
to seek that which is great, from setting in.
As far as I am concerned that
also relates to the truth – reality – we need God.

Belsay Bugle
September 20, 2012 at 10:25

Very good article!

This creation of everyday beauty in things we use and see inspired the Arts
and Crafts movement to try to counteract what they saw as the excesses of
Victorian industrial dislocation and de-humanisation. But it did little to
check the long-term decline.Things only got worse during the last century,
particularly observable in architecture, which might be the cruellest effect
of the denial of beauty from ordinary people because they cannot easily avoid
it, and there is little sign of things about to get better.

People know that state-funded ‘art’ is largely at best, second rate and at
worst rubbish; and that it certainly does not say anything to them apart from
to make them either feel stupid or resentful. But either way it does not
communicate anything to them, never mind an ideal of virtue, which beauty if
it is beauty will neccessarily do.

It reminds me of the story of the two welders looking at a metal
‘sculpture’ in an exhibition. One says to the other “Well, it might be art,
but it’s bloody bad welding!”

JuliaM September
20, 2012 at 10:33

And that in turn reminds me of the scene in ‘The Full Monty’ where the
out-of- work chaps ignore Jennifer Beales’ gyrations in ‘Flashdance’ in
favour of critiquing her welding!

JuliaM September
20, 2012 at 10:19

“Make no mistake — I have yet to see a person edified by a diet of Page
3 and pornography. In fact, recent research shows the latter to be
particularly unedifying. And indeed it is a valid concern that given the vast
menu of information served to all of us thanks to the internet, people will
follow their natural instinct towards instant gratification (no pun intended).
That, really, isn’t at issue. What is at issue is, to use the trite term of
our new social moralists, how society should respond.”

There’s also the ‘familiarity breeds contempt’ factor. I wonder how many
‘Sun’ readers don’t even notice the Page 3 girl anymore?

m.barnes September 20, 2012 at 12:58

Probably quite a lot of them. There will be those who say whatever the
modern equivalent is of ‘phwoar look at the tits on her’ and a huge number
who glance, then move on and don’t really register it at all. I’ve never
really had much of a problem with Page 3 girls once I got past my student
days and calmed down a bit. The ‘it’s really empowering that I get by baps
out’ argument is irritating on any number of levels but as Chris points out,
it’s a contract so hey ho.
But here’s the thing. I have been quite thrown
when I’ve encountered a Page 3 up on a wall unexpectedly. I used to have a
job where I audited manufacturers and part of that involved going into
engineering offices, machine contol booths etc and whenever I walked in and
saw a load of Page 3 pictures up it would (momentarily admittedly) make me
self-concious. The only comforting thing is that the men showing me round
were even more embarrassed than me! I am not some shrinking violet, pretty
damned difficult to intimidate and not at all coy and silly about sex but a
wall full of page 3 boobs is just weird – the nipples seem to follow you
round the room… really! Only once did I raise and eyebrow and make sure it
was obvious I didn’t expect to see them on the next visit – and that was
more to do with the graffiti on them.

JuliaM September 21, 2012 at 05:50

“the nipples seem to follow you round the room… really!”