fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #3283 ]

[ SECRET POST #3283 ]

⌈ Secret Post #3283 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10. http://i.imgur.com/xo0QUj0.jpg
[anime fanservice boob stuff]

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 024 secrets from Secret Submission Post #469.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Breast budding starts 1-2 years early (typically age 10-11), but that's the development of the underlying mammary gland tissue. Breast prominence - that is, the unique human fatty tissue development of the breast intended to attract mates - and menarche happen around the same time in most girls (ages 12.5 and 12.8 respectively). You could also ask why mammary tissue budding happens years before pregnancy can happen, by the way. Physical development is not like clockwork.

Conversely, the "shaped to make it easier for babies to drink" argument falls flat in light of the fact that entirely flat-chested women have no trouble feeding young, because their breasts swell during lactation to the aforementioned shape. There is no reason to have that kind of prominence when not lactating (other than arousal) - in fact, as I said, it's actively detrimental. Even "regular"-sized breasts cause pain during intent physical activity, and very large breasts can cause crippling back issues. Yet AAA-cups (or women who don't develop the fatty prominence at all) have no issues feeding young.

Needless to say I'm in the arousal camp - it's the one that makes biological sense to me.

Maybe because you worded it really shittily?

Sorry about that, then.

Then explain why post-menopausal women don't lose the fat around their breasts, if there's no reason to attract mates anymore.

Plus, you know, declaring that the female body exists solely for men to jack off to is fucking disgusting, and you need to cut that shit out.

The same reason they don't lose their ovaries? The body can't just make a part disappear in the same way it can grow a structure. It's not designed that way.

And of course, post-menopausal women can't feed young either, so "why doesn't it go away then?" works just as well against the "shaped to feed young" argument, if that's the way you're going with it. In fact, it works better, since post-menopausal women can't lactate but they can still attract a mate for security/support/companionship, which is still in their best interest as an organism.

How did I "declare the female body exists solely for men to jack off to" by saying that one specific part developed in a certain way to attract the opposite sex? There's strong evidence that many male features developed the way they did (e.g. deeper voices, long facial hair) purely to attract females.

Are you radfem anon and trolling me now, or are you legitimately concerned that enlarged breasts attracting men is problematic? Long beards are also impractical to the point of actively detrimental. Does this mean male bodies exist solely for women to jill of to?

How did I "declare the female body exists solely for men to jack off to" by saying that one specific part developed in a certain way to attract the opposite sex?

Right there. Christ, are you 5 that you need this shit explained to you. Please, go play in traffic.

Ok, radfem anon.

Fuck off, misogynist.

The problem with your theory is that if breasts developed to attract mates, there would be no flat-chested women. We would've been selected out of existence thousands of years ago, and we haven't. Not to mention that large breasts are only an attractive thing in certain cultures. Many cultures in East Asia favor small breasts (exaggerated breasts in anime were specifically created for the Western market; you can see this by comparing stuff from the 60s and 70s, which was created only for Japanese audiences, to stuff from the 90s onward, when it started getting popular outside Japan). And in many parts of Africa, breasts aren't even eroticized; they are considered to be for babies (arse, on the other hand...).

And while radfem anon was being stupid about it, I also find the idea that any part of my body exists purely for men's enjoyment to be utterly repulsive (doubly so since I don't want a man for a mate to begin with!).

The problem with the "if it was less attractive, it would have been bred out of the population" objection is that it can be used for literally an un- or less attractive trait. For example, it's been demonstrated rather conclusively that symmetrical features are universally attractive, so why are there still people with asymmetrical features? Possessing small breasts doesn't mean that a woman isn't more attractive than her larger-breasted rivals in other ways - e.g. facial symmetry, golden ratio, skin condition, physical fitness, etc. - it's just one element of appearance. Ugly people exist; ergo, "if it's unattractive it wouldn't have survived as a trait" is a fundamentally flawed assertion. There are more elements to any one person's attractiveness than a single physical feature.

Moreover, since breast size is so closely linked with body fat content of a given woman (breasts being 75-90% fatty tissue in humans) breast size can vary widely over the course of a given woman's life. Genetics plays a role in just how much of weight gained/lost is from those specific tissues, but it is intrinsically linked to weight loss/gain. Being flat-chested at one point in life doesn't necessarily mean one will always be; pair that with low body fat content having a strong correlation with high physical fitness (which itself is highly attractive to mates) and it's easy to see why a smaller-breasted woman could outcompete a larger-breasted one in terms of attractiveness, even if larger breasts are in and of themselves attractive. It's also why the East Asian cultures you mentioned tend to idealize smaller breasts - larger ones correlate with high body fat, and (Japan and Korea especially) are some of the most fat-phobic cultures on the planet. I can't count the number of times I heard Japanese men bemoan the fact that large breasts = fatties while I lived there.

And while radfem anon was being stupid about it, I also find the idea that any part of my body exists purely for men's enjoyment to be utterly repulsive (doubly so since I don't want a man for a mate to begin with!).

...I still don't understand this. Are you angry that your features are symmetrical to attract a mate, too? Should men be angry that they have low voices, facial hair, and are taller because these please women and we've selected this in them over millennia? Does this mean they exist "purely for (wo)men's enjoyment"? Would you be less angry if I'd used a gender-neutral term like "mate selection" since the aforementioned fatty prominence doubtless helps attract women to you and vice versa?

"This reasoning makes me angry" isn't a good argument as to why said line of reasoning is incorrect.

There are more elements to any one person's attractiveness than a single physical feature.

Then it's also possible (and more likely) that breasts have jack-all to do with attracting a mate.

It's also why the East Asian cultures you mentioned tend to idealize smaller breasts - larger ones correlate with high body fat, and (Japan and Korea especially) are some of the most fat-phobic cultures on the planet. I can't count the number of times I heard Japanese men bemoan the fact that large breasts = fatties while I lived there.

That right there completely dashes your argument. The fact that large breasts being attractive is a purely cultural thing that can vary widely between people. If we developed breasts to attract a mate, large breasts would be favored everywhere because that's how we'd be wired to perceive each other. The fact that it's not indicates that breast development and attractiveness really aren't related at all.

I'm angry at your reasoning because it's not like men have specifically viewed and enslaved women's bodies for their own enjoyment ever since the dawn of civilization. What you've just said is that my breasts in effect belong to men and were developed just for them, and that's disgusting.

Would you be less angry if I'd used a gender-neutral term like "mate selection" since the aforementioned fatty prominence doubtless helps attract women to you and vice versa?

It would certainly help you not sound like a misogynistic, heterosexist douchewipe.

That right there completely dashes your argument. The fact that large breasts being attractive is a purely cultural thing that can vary widely between people.

No, it doesn't. At all. It suggests that the extent of the fatty prominence unique among mammals which is considered optimally attractive differs among cultures; it does not suggest in the slightest that the aforementioned prominence did not develop for any other reason than to be attractive, given that swelling and then shrinking during and after lactation - as other mammals do - would serve the purpose you've suggested and be less detrimental to the organism's overall physical capabilities. The alternative you posit makes no sense. Each culture still finds said prominence attractive, only the matter of degree differs (influenced by other traits such as what degree fat in general is perceived to be attractive, which does vary between cultures and over time within the same culture).

What you've just said is that my breasts in effect belong to men and were developed just for them, and that's disgusting.

How does that follow? Does your uterus "belong" to fetuses, since it evolved to carry them? Does the blond hair of blond people "belong" to the many people who find it attractive and the attraction of which has worked to keep an otherwise highly recessive gene in the gene pool? This line of reasoning is not just flawed, it's bordering on insane. Nothing I've said suggests anything of the kind.

It would certainly help you not sound like a misogynistic, heterosexist douchewipe.

Oh, I see. Welcome back, radfem anon. I was stupid to believe someone else might be following this thread, days later. I apologize. Congratulations, successful trolling is successful.

How does that follow? Does your uterus "belong" to fetuses, since it evolved to carry them? Does the blond hair of blond people "belong" to the many people who find it attractive and the attraction of which has worked to keep an otherwise highly recessive gene in the gene pool? This line of reasoning is not just flawed, it's bordering on insane. Nothing I've said suggests anything of the kind.

You're the one who said and keeps on saying it. You tell me, shithead.

Good night, radfem anon. Have a happy new year.

Admitting you lost finally? Good. Now fuck off.

Lost what? You haven't made a single cogent argument to which I could lose. All there was in your last comment was some raving about assertions I never made. In your mind, saying anything evolved to attract anyone means they now own that body part. Male peacock feathers are owned by female peacocks, I suppose. I wonder what they sell them for...

Lost the moral high ground as a "heterosexist misogynist" due to a fundamentally flawed misunderstanding of evolutionary biology on your part? Oh, probably.

You win!

You win!

Thank you. Now go fuck yourself.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[ SECRET POST #3283 ]

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject