"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.