Early Spring Blooms Third Week of March

Early Spring Blooms Third Week of March
L. Warren, 2012

About Lisa's Collection


Lisa's Collection is a spare-time endeavor that's aimed at organizing my other spare-time endeavors.

I do quite a bit of online writing, and after building up a collection of material for quite awhile, I realized it was time to organize it a little better than I’d being doing.

So, I decided to start Lisa's Collection. Because I write on a variety of subjects, however, I realized that my writing really wouldn’t be sufficiently organized through the use of one blog. For that reason, I decided to make this site a “Hub” site, from which material on individual subjects can be found at the links provided. This site is my “miscellaneous department”, because most efforts to organize a wide variety of things require a “miscellaneous department” for whatever it is one is attempting to organize.

My original plan for this site was to let it be a foundation for later, more blog-like, activity; and in the meantime, post writing and whatever I thought might add a little something. When it comes to spare time, however, one can’t always count on having enough of it.

As a result, in spite of how long this blog has been in existence, it still remains fairly embryonic. It is, as they say, what it is.

(With the exception of "Life on Key", blog links may be temporarily disabled.)

Jan 24, 2012

"What Are 'Adipose Hankies'"?

The following piece was written as kind of joke, when several people on HubPages were joking about spun articles.  Someone got the idea that it would funny if a bunch of people wrote their own Hub (article) about "adipose hankies".  It was kind of a challenge.  It was fun to see what I could come up with, and I ended up making my Hub partly joking/partly serious.

In any case, I left it on my HubPages profile for a few months, but it's not really the kind of thing I want on there.  So, I decided to post it here instead.  (I've really never had a lot of hope for its getting any traffic)

__________________________________

Has the presence of adipose hankies become too visible in modern-day society?

Author's Note:  In a recent Internet-community discussion it became clear that a good number of people are apparently woefully oblivious to meaning of the term, "adipose hankies".  As a result, the suggestion of creating Hubs for the purpose of also creating awareness (and, of course, informing readers) was made. 

What exactly are adipose hankies?

It has only very recently come to my attention that yet another term for women's breasts is "adipose hankies".  Although I've long been familiar with both the part of the anatomy to which this term applies, and although I've been familiar with the term, "adipose", for quite some time (although not nearly as long as with that particular part of the anatomy), the word, "hankie", is not one I've ever heard combined with "adipose" and/or associated with the part of the anatomy in question. 

Including "adipose" in the phrase used to describe this part of the female anatomy does make sense, I suppose.  After all "adipose" is related to fat, and we all  know that there's a certain amount of fatty tissue that makes up adipose hankies.  It's the word, "hankie", that I'd never heard applied to the body area in question.  To the best of my understanding, the use of the word "hankie" has its origins in the fact that the part of the anatomy in question has been known to "catch crumbs", and since hankies are apparently also associated with catching crumbs; the two terms are at times used interchangeably when clarifying the exact type of adipose tissue to which the speaker/writer is referring.

Being acutely aware that not all adipose hankies do, in fact, catch crumbs; and being someone who tends to use only napkins (and most often my own stainless steel kitchen sink) for catching errant crumbs; I just didn't automatically associate the word, ":hankies", with that part of the anatomy.  Also, I've never used the word, "hankie", at all; because the last time I used ANY handkerchief was when I was seven years old and making my First Communion, and was given a pretty little handkerchief for the little white pocketbook girls were given to carry in the procession.  At the time, I just thought of it as a "handkerchief".  I would later, of course, hear classmates refer to disposable tissues as "hankies".  In my family, we just said "Kleenexes".  In any case, this is apparently where the term, "adipose handkies" most likely got its roots.  (Actually, as I write this and imagine the much more recent advent of Internet article "spinners" (programs into which a write can feed a piece of writing and have the words changed as a way of coming up with a whole new article), I can see how the words "Kleenex", "tissue", and "hankies" could be used interchangeably (even if not entirely the most accurate at all times).

The above two paragraphs pretty much explain what the term means, but what about whether or not our society has become inundated with sightings of adipose hankies in settings and places where - really - some people may find them inappropriate?  (Please keep in the mind that it is neither the actual existence of "hankies" to which I'm about to refer, but sightings and images of them that, in my opinion, have become, essentially, potential "fashion don't's" at the very least.)

Being of a generation that has been far freer to discuss certain aspects of sexuality and anatomy than generations before it, I realize that my own reticence about discussing SOME things in public may not be in keeping with my own generation.  I know "in my head" (I put quotation marks there because I'm aware that all knowing is really in our heads, so that's a kind of stupid thing to say; but anyway..) that there's nothing a person should feel embarrassed about in discussing adipose hankies.  Yet, while I'm certainly not embarrassed by their existence (on me or on anyone else), I do have that little bit of reticence.  (It's worth noting that adipose hankies aren't something only women have.   There is actually something called, "man-adipose-hankies", but man-adipose- hankies are beyond the scope of this particular Hub.)

Upon reflecting on the question of whether we're seeing far more (shall I call it) "adipose-hankie-age" in society than I happen to prefer, I realize that must somewhat uncomfortably associate myself with some people of a slightly earlier generation than my own.  (I'm not talking about the Victorian Era.  I have a slightly more recent generation than that in mind.)  Then again, I suppose I very comfortably associate with my own generation's role in aiming to encourage women to be more comfortable with who/what they are, as well as to aim not to be viewed as "sex objects".  As I try to think of what points I want to make about adipose hankies (beyond just what they are), I realize it is my own unfashionable reticence about discussing them that prevents me from just getting to the point and sayng what I have to say.  (And, before you start thinking my reticence about discussing this particular part of the anatomy in too much detail or depth is rooted in anything related to that First Communion I mentioned previously, I assure you it has nothing to do with the Catholic upbringing that I rejected as soon as I was old enough to do so.)

In any event, here's what I have to say about adipose hankies:

1).  Adipose hankies come in a variety of sizes.  Ideally, each individual should have adipose hankies in a size that she finds perfect for her.  Many women, of course, are not happy with the size of adipose hankies they have.

 (Oh, wait.  I think I'm using the term for this part of the anatomy too much here.  Somebody may think I'm "keyword stuffing".  I think I'll now switch to using the initials, "A.H."   Oh wait, I can't use those initials.  They mean something else to some people in some segments of society.  I'd use the correct term, which I did mention above - but that gets into my weird, yet very mild, discomfort about using that word in public.  Besides, I'm not sure how many times I can use that particular "B word" without making Google or HubPages upset.  I'm not a big fan of the word, "boobs", for some reason.  I don't know...    I just got used to thinking of the word, "boob", as it is used to refer to someone who is of questionable intellect (or whatever) (as in "boob-tube").  OK, I'm going to refer to the part of the anatomy in question as "hanks" from here on.  I just have to hope people who share the name of "Hanks" don't think I'm calling them "boobs".)

OK.  Moving on to the rest of what I have to say about hanks as I attempt to address the all-important question posed in the title of this Hub:

2)  While I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with the existence of the hanks, I do find that I'm seeing far too many of them showing up inappropriately.  For example, one horribly cold and windy February day my eyes were assaulted by a giant case of exposed cleavage at the local Burger King restaurant, where I'd gone for a simple cup of coffee with a companion.  Everybody else was wearing their Winter coats (and more), and a young woman was walking around in a top that would have been awfully revealing in August.  In February it just looked stupid.  I'm not too happy to see increasing incidents of cleavage exposure on professional, TV-news, reports or anchors.  To me, cleavage should be for the academy awards - not TV news.  Walter Cronkite didn't resort to this type of thing.  (Those of us who recall or have seen Cronkite's announcement of President Kennedy's death may have noticed that Cronkite did "the eyeglasses thing".  I kind of do the eyeglasses thing, all that I'd like to make it clear that I'm not trying to be like Walter Cronkite because 1) I'm only Hubbing, and 2) I have my own adipose hankies (oops - I mean hanks) if I really need to try to emulate today's TV news women.

Personally, as a woman, I don't really get the apparent appeal that hanks seem to have for some people. I suppose that's because I'm a woman.  I don't want to get into what purposes they do or don't serve here, and I don't want to get into the whole very serious issue of breast health (this Hub isn't the place for that kind of seriousness).  As a woman, I pretty much don't do a lot of thinking about hanks (not even "man-hanks")   Hanks exist.  They're fine.  Personally, I don't feel like looking at cleavage everywhere I look, but I'm willing to accept that not everyone is going to be willing to tone it down on some of the widespread, rampant, and extreme cleavage showing just because I'm not interested in seeing other women's hanks.

My answer to the question about whether adipose hankies (I've added a-whole-nother bunch of words here, so I'm assuming using that term might be OK keyword-wise at this point) are often too visible in today's society, I would have to conclude that the answer would be a matter of opinion and based on the preferences of the observer in question.




Posted by L. M. W., Massachusetts at
Labels: , ,

0 comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Not long ago I was reading advice about naming blogs. The individual, who clearly knows what he's doing when it comes to blogs, mentioned that people shouldn't give their blogs an "ego title" (which includes the person's name, rather than a less personal, more-to-point-about-the-theme, title). Of course, this advice was directed at anyone who hopes to earn money with his blog.

I cringed a little, though, because some of my blogs have "ego" titles. The thing is, though, it was not my ego at the root of my choice for some of the "Lisa" blogs I have.

When I started putting together blogs as way of finding a home for a lot of the writing I'd already done (with the plans of further developing them later), I wasn't particularly thinking of earning money from them. I was thinking of finding some way to organize my writing in what I hoped was an attractive "environment" that gave me the freedom to later add whatever I wanted to add.

Names like, "No Senior Coffee" and "Storm Clouds and Wind Chimes" just kind of came naturally. Then, though, I had some writing that only loosely fit into "categories", and I realized I had to come up with some cohesive name for each of those "categories". I was thinking almost in terms of names for file folders when I created the names, although, because blogs have a public nature, I thought I'd try to add something "catchy" to titles that were essentially "file folder titles".

So, along with the titles mentioned above, and along with "Dabblings in Verse", I have a whole lot of "Lisa" titles - "Lisa's Collection", "Lisa Light", "Lisa's Christmas Card", and on and on and on. I knew when I created the titles they wouldn't particularly be searched for by the public. My aim, though, wasn't really to have people search for them (in view of the fact that I wasn't try to make money with them). The plan was to direct readers to the blogs from other writing sites where my name is associated with my writing. In other words, all I wanted to do was categorize and make available my writing. I wasn't looking to become a famous Internet "presence" with it.

When I saw someone refer to personal-name titles as "ego titles" I did cringe because it occurred to me that anyone who sees some of my blogs may assume it was ego at the root of some of the titles. It wasn't, and I don't want anyone thinking it was. The "Lisa line" of titles is only a matter of "file-folder" thinking, as well as my disregard for whether or not anyone finds the sites without being directed to them by me.

I know that addressing this can come across as "defensive" of me, and that nobody really cares how or why I came up with any particular title. It isn't intended to. It's just that I'm "so-at-the- opposite-end-of-egotistical" it does kind of bother me to think that anyone - even a stranger - would believe it was ego at the root of some of the titles.

There's More to Organizing Than Just Organizing

When I first started writing on "what-you-want-to-write" sites it was a matter of "anything goes" as far as most writing sites were concerned. At the time, I hadn't been able to find full-time work because of the economy, where I live (which is "The Sticks"), family responsibilities, and my not having had a full-time job for quite awhile. I had no choice but take whatever projects anyone (who knew someone who knew someone else) would give me. I wasn't just working hard, but working hard to find yet more work. I was sick-to-death of writing stuff about things in which I had zero interest (and pretending to be interested). (Shh. Don't tell any of those people for whom I've done work that I really haven't had genuine interest in the stuff I've written for them.)

Don't get me wrong. I enjoy writing, and I even enjoy writing for other people. It's just that, as most writers will tell you, after awhile it isn't enough. So, it was a few years ago now that I began writing on writing sites. I enjoy writing on a few sites, and what I post on any of them depends on the kind of site it is.

The trouble is (without going into any specific details), ever since I've been enjoying writing online in my spare time (and picking up a fairly decent extra income at the same time), I've always kind of felt a little "off key" because, as much as I enjoy writing on writing sites; I haven't been writing the kind of material that's really what I want to write. People who spend much time on writing sites usually know that there's often debate (arguments) between those who write for money and those who write for love, or for art. My feeling off key has nothing to do with that particular (and ever famous) debate, because in a lot of ways I fit in with both sides of that particular writing coin. It more has to do with my own setting limitations on the kind of material I'll write on any site.

For example, I won't post anything I really care about on the Internet because I know too well how often some kinds of articles are stolen. I'm used to it. I do what I can about it. Still, I'm not about to post some pieces of writing in what amounts to an "up-for-grabs" venue. Then, too, there are things I'm just not going to write about. For the most part, I don't want write about objects. My wish to keep some personal business private means I'm not going to put on the Internet some things that I'd really like to write. The list of what I don't want to write goes on and on. So does the list of what I won't put on the Internet. As a result, I've found some kind of safe, middle-ground, of writing; and then I've adjusted whatever falls under the category to be as close to acceptable as it has to be on any given writing site. That's fine. I enjoy writing online, and I'll probably continue to use online writing as one of my spare-time endeavors. Still, the fact is, for several years now I've been trying to figure out what it is that has made me always feel kind of off-key when it comes to a lot of my online writing.

So often, when people are talking about how writers want readers for their work. I've always wondered if there's something wrong with me, because I plain, old, don't care if my work is ever read. Oddly, however, when I write I do write with the reader in mind; and all through the writing process, I'm imagining how a reader may react to the words I so carefully try to make click into place.

Also, there have been times when writing discussions have been about how writers want to keep getting feedback on their work, often in order to continue to edit and improve it. My thing has always been that I see each piece of writing almost as a kind of child of mine: I do my best to get it to maturity; and I send it out into the world, where it will inevitably sink or swim. Thinking of this brings to my mind the last scene in the animated version of E.B. White's Charlotte's Web, in which all Charlotte's spider eggs have turned into baby spiders that scurry away from the web she wove. (I know that making reference to "sink or swim" and spider eggs is mixing metaphors. Sorry. Sometimes I break some rules.)

In any case, over several years I've sent a very large number of "spider babies" out into the world; but as the real-life mother of grown sons and a daughter, I've learned that we remain parents no matter how old our babies are, whether or not they remain in the nest, or how far they roam from it. I don't know... As I've been trying to figure out what it is, exactly, that has been making me feel quite so off-key, it has occurred to me that no matter who, or what, we see as our "children", no mother just tosses them out into the world when they still need her and says, "Sink or swim, babies!" So why is it I've been so cavalier about tossing my own creations out into the Internet world and pretty much not been interested in ever seeing them again? I guess it's because, while they're mine, a whole lot of them are certainly not "Me" (at least not in terms of "Me, as a professional writer").

On the one hand, my spare-time "creations" are, most definitely, very much "Me, the person". The trouble is that "Me, the writer" judges my own (often more casual) writing through the eyes of someone who tends to think that only the most "professionally written" pieces of writing have a right to exist. The trouble is also, however, that "Me, the person" has a lot of things to say (for one reason or another. Not only that, but "Me, the person" just plain enjoys writing what "she" feels like writing. Sometimes the old "being of two minds" is easier than other times. Well, maybe it isn't so much "being of two minds" that's a challenge. Maybe the problem is more related to having one activity (writing) in which both of those minds are involved.

Sometimes, when I meet one of my better pieces of writing "on the street" I think, "Hey. This isn't so bad. Maybe I should like it more than I do." Sometimes, too, when I go out looking for any pieces of writing that I've never really liked, I'll realize that it never stood a chance because I didn't give it the time or chance that I gave some of its siblings. And so, I suppose, one reason I've for so long felt off-key is that I know I've sent so many of my creations out into the world without caring what happened to them. Oh, I have my writing and my projects that I very much care about. It's just that the stuff I put online is not that. The funny thing is, though, that we can think we don't care about our creations much until one day, we look out into "the streets" and realize that we are looking at something that is far more a part of us than we'd realized. I suppose, too, one problem has been that while I'll never really feel very much a part of the Internet "streets", I've been aiming to make my creations street-savvy because I've known I have no intention of becoming a part of their world.

I have my plans for how I'll approach any spare-time writing I do from here on out. In the meantime, though, I've decided to build a home for all my wayward creations, call them home, and do for them what I should have done in the first place.

Those of us who have been on writing sites recently know that these days duplicate content is being frowned on more and more. By setting up a home for my wayward creations I'll be turning them into duplicate content (if they haven't already been). I can't worry about who, out there in "Internet-Land" likes it, though; because my creations have, for too long, been fending for themselves. They need to come home now. They need me to start caring about them.

For now, their home will be on the blog, "Life On Key". I'm going to move them later.
When you start posting animated cats on the blog that's supposed to be for organizing your spare-time writing, it's kind of obvious you've been putting in a little too much work into what was supposed to be a spare-time thing.