[knorl05]

strongirl, good points indeed.

dj, do you believe that through our evolution as a species, what motivates us, as well as the characteristics that represent what motivates us, could change? i know anything is possible but do you see that happening? i suppose more specifically, do you think our innate nature could change as our conditions change? i have heard/read about the three factors which determine attractiveness in female mates.. and although i've previously had 1 down, and my booty has 3 down, number 2 will forever mock me.

anyway. my point is, i realize that per biological anthropology, the structure and state of our bodies reflects our over-all health and well-being, which would then potentially determine the quality of the offspring we could create. but wouldnt this have to be under the assumption that when a man approaches a woman, he is doing so with the intention of making babies? i know plenty of men who would rather not have babies or start families, but that doesnt stop them from trying to "mate with" many different types of women. at what point does mere sexual gratification or personal desire take over our intrinsic nature of procreation? or are the two synergistically connected? i guess i ask because strongirl made a good point when she said, "I think partly because those cultural biases really don't reflect the reality of what attracts people and motivates them."

thoughts?

[dj-bizmonkey]

aaah yes, the old nature vs. culture argument. i hope i didn't imply by my explanation that any of these things are set in stone. we are a very pliable and adaptable species and that is part of why we have been so successful. when i speak of 'universals' i'm talking about trends and there exceptions to every rule. i'm talking about the bell curve here (not the bigoted un-scientific, grossly over-generalized work of fiction that came out in the 90's), the normal distribution. the vast majority fall in the chunk in the middle, while there are always outliers.

the only work that is currently available is that done by david buss about 20 years ago. evolutionary psych needs a serious overhaul. i think racism, sexism and cultural bias infiltrate EVERY aspect of science. it is very difficult to step outside of our own perspective, even when dealing with seemingly 'empirical' or 'scientific' evidence. i too, take most things with a grain of salt.

what i can't stand (and this is obviously not you) are the tabula rossa behaviorist/culturalist type folks who assume that EVERYTHING about human beings is mutable and that our genetics and evolutionary history cannot inform us. i certainly wouldn't call "most of it truly conjecture."

i think scientists get up on their high horses and assume that just because we don't know every little thing that we will be able to some day. it's that kind of academic mental masturbation that drives me batty. even religious or spiritual scientists put their own work and methods up on a pedastal.

you are wise to take theories with a grain of salt, strongirl. it would be beneficial if all scientists could turn the same skepticism inward.

wow. total derailment.

i haven't had a period in 3 years so i can't even remember if my breasts would swell during that time. they are really ultra-fixed at this size. the most weight i've ever gained in a short period of time is about 20lbs and even then, no significant change in breast size. go figure. not enough estrogen receptors there, i guess.

[strongirl]

DJ - It wasn't boring and you're obviously very well-informed on the topic! So please don't take the following as disagreement with what you said, but rather looking at it from a slightly different angle.

While I think there is validity in the fields of evolutionary biology and cultural anthropology, I also think we need to be careful because most of it is truly conjecture and thus subject to the individual and cultural biases of the theorist. Sexism, racism, and the assumption that one's individual preferences are universal are way too common in those fields, in my opinion. While I find that stuff interesting, I try to take it with a grain of salt - it can become self-limiting to do otherwise.

For example, in a culture where young, busty, blondes are considered the epitome of attractiveness, I am old (46), small-breasted, and dark-haired (half-Asian). And yet (to my unending bafflement) I get hit on constantly! By all kinds of men and often by men who are young enough to be my sons (which freaks me, but that's a different topic).

Why is this? I think partly because those cultural biases really don't reflect the reality of what attracts people and motivates them. While no one bothers to contradict the stereotypes, what motivates people on a day-to-day basis is their own self-interest. I look like I'll be nice to people...and I usually am. I come across as pleasant and playful and so men (and women) want to interact with me because interacting with pleasant, playful people makes them feel good.

There's no doubt that youth and boobs have status in our culture, for whatever reason. But you definitely don't need them to be attractive, sexy, and most important, happy. As you said, DJ, beauty truly is in the eye of the beholder.

[knorl05]

dj biz: not at all boring! very informative and interesting for sure! i just got nothin right now. hope all is well with all and everyones. xx.

ps my boobies hurt. oo. that time of the month. but yay. they jiggle and are a bit bigger so i deal with it. just makes it so they cant be grabbed or touched, so really, it's just for me.

[dj-bizmonkey]

i don't think that makes you a 'freak' karategrrl, *wink*

as for the biological anthropologist weighing in on this topic.....when you see creatures in the natural world that are adorned in some way, they are typically males. i think it is most common among birds, the classic example being the peacock. i believe it comes down to our preferred mating system. in the wild, most animals have promiscuous/polygamous mating systems, which just means multiple partners during a mating season as opposed to a single partner (monogamy) like with penguins, swans, gibbons, albatross, what-have you. you'll notice that those monogamously mating species are not very fancy looking. it's because they've got nothing to 'prove' in the sexual selection since. humans are weird among the animals because we are pair-bonded (we typically live in heterosexually bonded couples which make up sub-units of extended family groups) BUT we don't have a strictly monogamous mating strategy, as is evidenced by all the 'cheating' that we see going on in the world today. female peacocks have to be choosy about which male they mate with because they are more concerned with his genes than his post-coital behavior. he isn't going to stick around to help her raise her chicks, she's going for the top quality in genes. human females, however, have highly altricial (dependent) offspring, that necessitate a degree of paternal investment. for that reason females have to be attractive in order to secure the best quality mate. the whole package would be an attractive, healthy, high status male, but most of the time we'll settle for loyalty, care and status over goodlooking. adult males in other species are indiscriminate in who they mate with. i'm sure you've seen a male toad humping a beer can or had a dog hump your leg etc. although we joke about human males being indiscriminate, but they are far choosier about who they mate with than say, elk or peacocks or dogs, what have you. so there is sexual selection pressure on both of the sexes. that pressure gives rise to some of the characteristics we see today.

beauty truly is in the eye of the beholder and only limited cross-cultural research has been done to determine different factors of female attractiveness. generally there are three key features that men are sub-consciously looking for. 1)youth- younger women have a greater reproductive potential by default than older women, 2)facial symmetry, this is a factor in what we consider a beautiful face to be across the globe and also a cue about overal immune funtion and fertility, 3)waist to hip ratio, wider-set hips are also linked to fertility and overall health in women. women across the world adorn themselves to attract a wealthy, established, caring and loyal man who will invest resources in them and their children. men compete with other men in physical and intellectual battles to prove their merit and earn status so that they may choose among the most 'attractive' females.

i hope that makes sense. sorry if that is totally boring. back to boobies!

[karategrrl]

On the topic of looking at men, dang baby, I could ogle them all day long! I am much more visually stimulated than most women, for some reason. Beefcake, martial arts dudes, surfer boys, executives undoing their ties and unbuttoning their shirts...bring it on! But I would never pick just one type as the best and then put down the rest, which is what I think some of you are saying about big-boob-obsessed men.

I like looking at women too, for the record, and am somewhat bi-sexual.

Hey, I'm old, too (just turned 39)!

I think men can appreciate lots of body types, but sadly, there are man men who only like any of those bodies if they have larger breasts on them. Fortunately, though, there aremen who appreciate breasts like ours.

More and more, I think I must be some kind of freak. I'm most definetely bi and do love many women's bodies, but even with women I have to feel a personal connection for the hormones to really go into overdrive.

[strongirl]

On the topic of looking at men, dang baby, I could ogle them all day long! I am much more visually stimulated than most women, for some reason. Beefcake, martial arts dudes, surfer boys, executives undoing their ties and unbuttoning their shirts...bring it on! But I would never pick just one type as the best and then put down the rest, which is what I think some of you are saying about big-boob-obsessed men.

I like looking at women too, for the record, and am somewhat bi-sexual.

Interestingly (and happily) my lover feels the same way about women - he appreciates many different types. Several years ago he got a new laptop and when I saw that his screensaver slideshow was pictures of naked women I cringed, fearing a silicone-fest that would make me doubt his attraction to me, make me feel bad about my body, etc. To my great pleasure, there was a huge range of breast sizes, from large to just nips, and girls who were skinny colts but also some women with serious "womanly curves" in the hips/thigh area. It makes me feel good that he appreciates diversity in women's bodies, rather than trying to define "perfection" - because of course if he did, I'd feel pressure to measure up to it.

Celebrate diversity!

[strongirl]

OK, I'm probably a lot older than most of you (46) but when I was in high school the pencil test was failed if the pencil stayed up - it was a way of making sure your tits were PERKY. I've always been happy I pass (it falls) because the idea of boobs that can actually retain objects under them sorta creeps me out...like where to look if the Yorkie goes missing..."Honey, I can't find Tinkerbell, have you seen her?" "Have you checked under your boobs?" "Oh there you are you naughty puppy!"

Just to be clear I don't mean this as a put-down of big boobs, just that there are certain aspects of them that I'm glad I don't have to deal with.

[karategrrl]

I find too much muscle unattractive for some reason. I like them "toned" I guess. It's so true what you guys are saying though. It seems like both sexes focus on women more often than men. In general I think women generally are more appealing to look at. I wouldn't say I'm sexually attracted to them, but if there were a man vs. woman beauty contest I think we'd win hands down.

I work with mostly girls and we do point out the good-looking men/boys to each other. We don't rate them or do cat calls. We just admire.

I also am not into the super-muscled look, though my hubby is huge and into that kind of look for himself. I support him with it and am still attracted to him because I'm in love with him, but if I had to choose, I'd say I do prefer the more athletic/"toned" look. (He does get lots of attention, though, from women who do like that beefcake look. It's rather funny to watch the women's jaws drop.)

I used to train seriously in the martial arts (as you may have guessed) and many of the men in that scene had that athletic body type--toned, lean, looked like they could go from 0 to 60 at any given moment. Nice.


And yes, I don't know what it is, but I think many, many women (and men, obviously) would say women are more visually appealing than men. It's like we are the flowers in the garden and the men are the plain green plants.

You know how, in the animal kingdom, males are fancy and females are plain? Why on Earth is that reversed with humans? DJ, any thoughts?

...I think I am addicted to this damn board. Which sucks, b/c I'm at work!

[honeybunch]

Haha. Hey, which reminds me--I've got cleavage, it's just in the back!
Wow, never thought of that. I've often (like, really often) wondered why/how the hubby could deem so many women out there as "hot" when I'm like, "yeah, whatever <yawn>." Could it be that being attracted to women in and of itself makes men feel more "manly?" Interesting idea.

Same here. Maybe they have different standards for beauty. OH thinks certain women are beautiful, but to me they'll just be plain or slightly above average.

[newo_ikkin]

One of my best friends is really into skinny "scene" guys, or at least how they look. I find too much muscle unattractive for some reason. I like them "toned" I guess. It's so true what you guys are saying though. It seems like both sexes focus on women more often than men. In general I think women generally are more appealing to look at. I wouldn't say I'm sexually attracted to them, but if there were a man vs. woman beauty contest I think we'd win hands down.

I work with mostly girls and we do point out the good-looking men/boys to each other. We don't rate them or do cat calls. We just admire.

[karategrrl]

karategrrl: i've heard the pencil test also works for the bum.

Haha. Hey, which reminds me--I've got cleavage, it's just in the back!

...although some psychologists and philosophers will argue that men and women are intrinsically the same, our conditioning plays a huge role in how we respond to what's presented to us. meaning. being attracted to a woman most men deem as 'hot' makes them feel like more of a man.. but women are not so apt to base their sexual worth on whether or not they think a man is attractive.

Wow, never thought of that. I've often (like, really often) wondered why/how the hubby could deem so many women out there as "hot" when I'm like, "yeah, whatever <yawn>." Could it be that being attracted to women in and of itself makes men feel more "manly?" Interesting idea.

Though I can find just about anyone attractive in some way--because we are all inherently beautiful--Those who turn me on are really few and far in between. Some of this may have to do with my being female, maybe--I heard once something very poignant: "Men fall in love with the woman they're attracted to, while women become attracted to the man they fall in love with." I typically have never gotten major hots for anyone unless I liked them--on the inside--and I coudln't grow to like someone until I got to know them, which meant no instant attraction was possible.

[crinoline]

yay! It's good to see you're unscathed, knorl.

being attracted to a woman most men deem as 'hot' makes them feel like more of a man.. but women are not so apt to base their sexual worth on whether or not they think a man is attractive.

- That's so true. Men feel all of this peer pressure to be attracted to a certain type of woman (boobs on a stick), but no one really seems to care what kind of man women are attracted to. I know my boy has struggled with peer pressure from his friends to concede that huge fake boobs are "hot", when he really is attracted to "nice" looking girls with a small build and small breasts (lucky for me). Men are raised in a culture where pornography is used to sell them even crappy wrenches (to use your example), it has to be difficult to come away from that with no effect.
I'm glad no one cares that I like skinny dork boys rather than muscled hunks.

[knorl05]

yes welcome strongirl and honeybunch! glad to have you here.

karategrrl: i've heard the pencil test also works for the bum. i think if the pencil falls back there that means you pass, but i dont know about the pencil test with the boobies? i heard about it from goldie hawn, who's got famously tiny tits and rear, and she says she passes so i dunno? it is rather toungeincheek so not to be taken seriously. i also heard if you stand heels together, toes pointed outward, and your inner legs make four diamonds that means you apparently have "perfect" legs. pssh. silliness.

crino, sall good. one or two peeps are not going to change my view of the lounge. disagreements are disagreements. i'm still incredibly impressed by all the busties that i've had the majority of my interaction, and i still really value everyone's input and support.

re: female models who adorn just about everything in male mags... i'm going to just bring it back to the old adage "sex sells". i think if advertisers figure out what works, they just keep doing more of the same. i imagine women are a bit more sensible to not be swayed by some dude's muscles or package. i mean, if some guy were advertising something that was directed specifically toward women, like maxipads, i dont think he would be too effective. but a woman advertising something like a wrench to men, will get most of them all hot and bothered, even if the product isnt the greatest. you know? although some psychologists and philosophers will argue that men and women are intrinsically the same, our conditioning plays a huge role in how we respond to what's presented to us. meaning. being attracted to a woman most men deem as 'hot' makes them feel like more of a man.. but women are not so apt to base their sexual worth on whether or not they think a man is attractive.

[karategrrl]

I hope Knorl isn't put off the whole site! We need her here! I admit I don't have time to visit really any other of the BUST areas, so I don't know what's going on outside of the small boobies area.

Crinoline, thanks for the input. Yeah, women as "decorative objects"...you are right on!

Honeybunch, don't feel weird for not having sag. Who wants sag??? A large-breasted friend of mine once mentioned how she thought breasts "down to there" looked good (motioning with hand at about mid-torso, a little lower than where hers were "down to"). My feeling was, why would anyone want breasts "down" to anywhere? No disrespect meant to our large-breasted sisters, just my P.O.V.

[crinoline]

Welcome, strongirl! You certainly hit the nail on the head. *flashes back atcha*

pencil test- it's a stupid idea, and means nothing, but I was told that you "failed" when the pencil didn't stay up. It's interesting that everyone kind of assumes they failed it, no matter the boob size.

karate- nope. With the exception of the laughable "playgirl" mag. I think this is because 1.) Women don't like random, disjointed images of nude men (whereas men apparently love any random pic with boobs) and 2.) Men are not objectified the way we are, so it is difficult to just insert them where they don't belong, where a woman is treated more like a decorative object that can be thrown in anywhere, like say, on a motorcycle, or sprawled across a racecar.
-the only exception to this rule that I can think of is that sometimes women's mags have a "hot guys" spread, that are usually portrait-like images of handsome, smiling men with their shirt off or unbuttoned. Still, the focus of these pictures is much more often on the face/smile, so it is less like a random nude body.

I wish I had more to contribute, but I don't. hmm. Knorl hasn't been in here in a while, I hope she wasn't put off the whole forum because of confrontations in other threads.

[honeybunch]

Okay, I get it now. My boobs would never hold a pencil. It's kinda strange cuz I always felt weird for not having that sag like other girls.

I'm not from the UK, but I used to be Cosmopolitan UK edition, and they seem more liberal with the male nudity. In one issue, they showed topless women, but it wasn't a sexual thing.

I had to stop buying those mags cuz they were so bad. I had turn the TV off,too.

[karategrrl]

Hey, separate question--

You know how men's magazines--no matter what the topic--always have lots of pics of naked or near-naked women in them? (For example, my hubby gets bodybuilding magazines...they have pictorials of women in them that are just barely not porn because they have tiny strips of fabric over crucial areas...what this has to do with bodybuilding is anybody's guess... and, of course, there was the now-famous motorcycle mag of his that I posted about--it had topless women in it...isn't topless considered "porn" in the U.S.?)

Are any women's mags out there like this--supposedly about any given topic but with naked or near-naked men or people? I certainly don't see this sort of thing in Oprah. Or even Mademoiselle.

Remember, I'm in the U.S., so I would imagine in Europe I could more easily find this sort of thing.

[karategrrl]

Remember, honeybunch, the pencil test is kind of a tongue-in-cheek idea--for women like us, the pencil falls b/c there's no skin fold under the breast to hold the pencil there.

When I was younger I thought there was supposed to be some kind of magic that held the pencil there. I actually held the pencil under my perky, no-fold-under-it boob and let it go. The pencil fell to the floor.

At least we all pass the pencil test here!

[karategrrl]

(deleted double post)