Asses can be deceiving…Titties are honest and pure.
[quote]doogie wrote:
Asses can be deceiving…Titties are honest and pure.
[/quote]
ummmmmm no
[quote]Waittz wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
My original question of the week involved the importance, relevance, significance and duty of feminine breast tissue. I called them “titties” and had a big picture of said feminine breast tissue in all its glory…but apparently the censors decided this needed to be removed.
In spirit of seeing if a discussion can continue without the visual aids…once again, the question is, “titties…why?”"[/quote]
Why not?
I’m also going on the record that I prefer fake boobs to natural. There, I said it. [/quote]
Haha you and me have so much in common. Well, apart from the Jewish thing, but hey we can look past our religious dispositions in the quest for…boobies!
I’m more of a vagina man myself.
If I had to pick I think it would be ass, although my track record says otherwise.
[quote]TBItruck89 wrote:
I saw this on my wife’s cousin’s facebook. Didn’t read the words, but tits.[/quote]
I read the word. I stared at the tits.
All of them. Including the one in the baby’s mouth.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
I’m more of a vagina man myself.[/quote]
Yep.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
But why breasts? Why not “earlobes” or “nostrils”…or “pinky toes”?
What is it about round things in your face that make you go, “mmmmm”?[/quote]
If you want the scientific answer, it’s rather simple.
Round perky bewbs are indicative of a high likelihood of yielding healthy children. So is a juicy round ass as well. It is programmed within the male mind from millenia ago. There is a documentary I saw called “The Science of Attraction”, and the shit you would learn is amazing. Women’s (and men’s) faces and voices change in certain situations, to alert of high levels of estrogen or testosterone, which help solidify your choice for a healthy breeding partner.
All of our primal urges about the opposite sex, have the purpose in mind to give the best chance at producing healthy offspring. Men, whose voices are low sounding, suggest to the female ear that he is a healthy and strong male to breed with. Conversely, women whose voices are higher pitched, signify to the male brain that she is a girly chick who can produce a healthy spawn. Physical build, facial symmetry, voices, pheromones, it’s all to weed out the week and find the right person to do the mattress mambo with.
If you want societal explanation, come to T-Nation.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
My original question of the week involved the importance, relevance, significance and duty of feminine breast tissue. I called them “titties” and had a big picture of said feminine breast tissue in all its glory…but apparently the censors decided this needed to be removed.
In spirit of seeing if a discussion can continue without the visual aids…once again, the question is, “titties…why?”"[/quote]
sign of fertility forever burned into our genetic code.
[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
I’m more of a vagina man myself.[/quote]
Yep.[/quote]
Trying seeing it from a block away…and if you can see it without using your Bionic eye…ummm you can keep it
[quote]TBItruck89 wrote:
I saw this on my wife’s cousin’s facebook. Didn’t read the words, but tits.[/quote]
I read the words. they are horseshit. no hypocrisy whatsoever. first of all, neither is “offensive”. one is a little gross while the other is awesome. why the disparity? HOT vs. NOT. Do you want to see an obese woman in a thong? How bout a beautiful woman?
On top of that, in one photo part of the human body is going INTO ANOTHER. I never want to see body part(s) INSERTED into other parts unless I am one of those parts and she’s hot… or if there are two she’s and they are both hot. Either way, no one else should be subjected to watching these things involuntarily. So i guess it goes back to hot vs. not again…
All that being said, I don’t care about breast feeding. it’s a little gross, do your best to cover up a bit, but it’s not offensive. the word is thrown around way too much. offensive= mexicans will steal your bike. goddamn cheap jew. you fucking christian bigot. I find those things offensive. Breast feeding is just a little gross. look away.
[quote]cubuff2028 wrote:
On top of that, in one photo part of the human body is going INTO ANOTHER. I never want to see body part(s) INSERTED into other parts unless I am one of those parts and she’s hot… or if there are two she’s and they are both hot. Either way, no one else should be subjected to watching these things involuntarily. So i guess it goes back to hot vs. not again…
[/quote]
You don’t watch porn?
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
[quote]cubuff2028 wrote:
On top of that, in one photo part of the human body is going INTO ANOTHER. I never want to see body part(s) INSERTED into other parts unless I am one of those parts and she’s hot… or if there are two she’s and they are both hot. Either way, no one else should be subjected to watching these things involuntarily. So i guess it goes back to hot vs. not again…
[/quote]
You don’t watch porn?[/quote]
no, not really. not for any good reason besides the fact that my imagination is very, very vivid and works faster. I like to make sex last a while, but i like to jack it in a less than 1 minute pre sleep routine.
There hasn’t been any correlation found between breast size or waist to hip ratio and fertility, although higher levels of body fat are more fertile (within normal ranges, not obesity) so that may have something to do with the hips, but that remains a mystery. Large breasts however sag much more with age so large perky tits indicate a higher potential for viable offspring than saggy ones which indicate advanced age or small ones that make it much harder to tell. Large perky breasts are therefore attractive. Modern clothing and surgery has skewed our ability to get any information from it though.
Legally the ban on exposing breasts in public stems from the middle ages when noble women would cover their breasts as a class distinction. They did not have to be hidden just covered with some lace or something while peasant women would show their breasts regularly. The puritanical founding of the U.S. spawned many laws against showing breasts in public, however the supreme court ruled that they could be shown as a form of protest under the first amendment, but could be restricted for any other reason.
As with anything people try to hide from their kids and make an overly big deal about, people have come up with all kinds of strange and perverse ideas surrounding breasts, much like sex, killing animals for food ect.
“There hasn’t been any correlation found between breast size or waist to hip ratio and fertility, although higher levels of body fat are more fertile (within normal ranges, not obesity)”
just because the correlation hasn’t been found doesn’t mean it isn’t there. re body fat - what’s “normal”? 14-19% (for a female) is abnormal (cause we’re a fat society) and it is HEALTHY. very healthy, in fact. combine the healthiest bf range (14-19%) with boobs and hips and you get HOT HOT HOT.
[quote]cubuff2028 wrote:
just because the correlation hasn’t been found doesn’t mean it isn’t there. re body fat - what’s “normal”? 14-19% (for a female) is abnormal (cause we’re a fat society) and it is HEALTHY. very healthy, in fact. combine the healthiest bf range (14-19%) with boobs and hips and you get HOT HOT HOT. [/quote]
14-19% ? Where are you getting those numbers, besides out of your skinny ass?
[quote]debraD wrote:
[quote]cubuff2028 wrote:
just because the correlation hasn’t been found doesn’t mean it isn’t there. re body fat - what’s “normal”? 14-19% (for a female) is abnormal (cause we’re a fat society) and it is HEALTHY. very healthy, in fact. combine the healthiest bf range (14-19%) with boobs and hips and you get HOT HOT HOT. [/quote]
14-19% ? Where are you getting those numbers, besides out of your skinny ass?
[/quote]
From the “OY! She is fuckable handbook” that is issued to every male at age 13 by Evil Patriarchy Publishing at no charge.
[quote]debraD wrote:
[quote]cubuff2028 wrote:
just because the correlation hasn’t been found doesn’t mean it isn’t there. re body fat - what’s “normal”? 14-19% (for a female) is abnormal (cause we’re a fat society) and it is HEALTHY. very healthy, in fact. combine the healthiest bf range (14-19%) with boobs and hips and you get HOT HOT HOT. [/quote]
14-19% ? Where are you getting those numbers, besides out of your skinny ass?
[/quote]
Now THIS is what I call “talking dirty.” Me likey.
“just because the correlation hasn’t been found doesn’t mean it isn’t there.”
You obviously have no idea how science works.
When women eat more they get bigger breasts, hit puberty at a younger age, and stay fertile longer. When they don’t eat very much they hit puberty at an older age, can sometimes stop menstruating before menopause, and have higher rates of miscarriage. These are all facts. 14% is way to low for a woman who wants to have a baby.