As the father of a baby who has been breastfed exclusively for the first 8 months of her life, I know full well the uselessness of a man’s nipples. It’s frustrating and confusing for the baby and painful for the man (literally and figuratively) not being able to provide the necessity of life for his young child.
Esthetically speaking, men’s nipples don’t add much to the overall package either. As opposed to women’s nipples, which provide the proverbial “cherry on top” to the curvaceous contours of women’s breasts, men’s nipples look like broken taillights, often peaking out from beneath a thicket of chest hair.
So, I beg the question, if they don’t DO anything and they’re not much to look at, why do men’s nipples even exist?
Then I realized, the exact same thing can be said of the Canadian Senate. They are the men’s nipples of politics. They don’t provide sustenance and despite Mike Duffy’s recent claims that he spent $65,000 of taxpayers’ money on “makeup and a personal exercise trainer” (which must have prompted the judge to respond: “um….you know I can SEE him right?) they’re not much to look at.
Of course, the analogy isn’t perfect, because even though men’s nipples don’t do anything it also means they don’t do anything wrong. Which of course can’t be said of our areola-like senators.
Plenty of senatorial wrongdoing has been uncovered in the past couple of years including Mike Duffy’s fantasy-filled claims of ignorance, Pamela Wallin’s wayward travel expenses (how do you lie about meeting someone in a certain city without first telling the person you are “meeting” that you are going to lie about it to see if they will cover for you? That’s lying 101!) and Patrick Brazeau’s various indiscretions, which veer into deplorable domestic activity. These three, I’m sure, are just the tips of the iceberg, along with Liberal senator Mac Herb who was implicated at the same time as them but chose to immediately bow out ungraciously rather than drag things on even more ungraciously.
At least men’s nipples, when properly man-scaped, have some semblance of grace.
No one knows for sure why men’s nipples were formed. But the Canadian senate was formed, apparently, as a line of “sober second thought” to our front-line politicians (who apparently used to be drunk all the time?). How ironic then that they treat their salaries, our taxpayer money, with the same degree of indifference most of us do when debauching at open bars. We drink neither the quantity nor the QUALITY of booze that we normally would, because it’s not our money. For example, a man that would normally drink 1 pint of Coors Light will instead order 3 pints of premium scotch. While a woman who might normally have a single glass of chardonnay may instead opt for a wheel of warm camembert cheese (I’m just freewheeling here).
This behaviour is barely tolerated by the person providing the “free” booze at the wedding who is, assumingly, close friends and/or family with most of the people doing the obnoxious overspending. Why then has it been tolerated for decades by Canadian taxpayers who don’t know and didn’t elect these people, whose only “job” that I can see is trying to justify their own existence?
It’s a rhetorical question. It shouldn’t be tolerated. Period. At the end of this Duffy trial, currently on a 3-WEEK RECESS (such is the apparently exhaustive nature of the BS being revealed) what SHOULD happen is that Duffy and all his camembert-consuming, expense-eluding, nothing-else-doing colleagues should be thrown out on their duffs, never to see another cent of taxpayer-paid salary. That money should then be allocated to veteran’s families who have already served this country with honour and many of whom now suffer from grievous mental and physical hardships made harder by ridiculously long waiting periods for assistance. They are the HEART of this country and I would much rather have my money go towards the heart of the country than the men’s nipples of it.