[ SECRET POST #3283 ]

[case]

⌈ 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.

Comments

[ariakas]

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.

[(Anonymous)]

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.

[ariakas]

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

[(Anonymous)]

Admitting you lost finally? Good. Now fuck off.

[ariakas]

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!

[(Anonymous)]

You win!

Thank you. Now go fuck yourself.