Case (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
case) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
fandomsecrets2015-12-30 06:31 pm
case) wrote in fandomsecrets2015-12-30 06:31 pm
[ 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.
no subject
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?
no subject
(Anonymous) 2015-12-31 11:50 pm (UTC)(link)Right there. Christ, are you 5 that you need this shit explained to you. Please, go play in traffic.
no subject
no subject
(Anonymous) 2016-01-02 06:22 am (UTC)(link)no subject
(Anonymous) 2016-01-01 04:11 pm (UTC)(link)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!).
no subject
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.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2016-01-02 02:41 am (UTC)(link)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.
no subject
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.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2016-01-02 06:00 am (UTC)(link)You're the one who said and keeps on saying it. You tell me, shithead.
no subject
no subject
(Anonymous) 2016-01-02 06:05 am (UTC)(link)no subject
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!
no subject
(Anonymous) 2016-01-02 06:20 am (UTC)(link)Thank you. Now go fuck yourself.