The Lounge Guidelines Help Search Members Calendar Blogs

Welcome Guest [ Log In | Register ] ]

211 Pages V  « < 51 52 53 54 55 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> small breast support group - (I need it even if they don't)
sybarite
post Sep 26 2010, 02:18 PM
Post #1041


it's cards on the table time
***
Posts: 1,993


Welcome back angie!! And thanks for the awesome post; I have always had a problem with the evolution-based rationale for the differences between men and women but you explained why far better than I could.

Just a guy, you may recognise the impact of widely circulated stereotypical body images, but you cannot identify with the women here because to put it simply, you have not been in the shoes of a woman who has small breasts, as buttercups observed. You may know people who have had some of the experiences discussed on this thread and you may well have strong views on this, but you have not had these experiences yourself. We all have insecurities about out bodies, but I have to disagree that yours are the *same* as those of the women here.

This thread has a specific purpose and from the frequency and content of your posts I have to say I feel you are trying to make it all about you and your views.

Not a regular here, so ladies if I'm overstepping let me know.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
melis19750
post Sep 26 2010, 01:17 PM
Post #1042


Hardcore BUSTie
***
Posts: 133
From: cali


this may not mean much,
but i just wanted to say I have always wished for a smaller size- like a nice full B cup or small C

being a D-cup is honestly a pain in the rear!

its hard to find tops, shirts that fit you well without trying to show "too much"
and its a pain with exercise...etc: esp cardio because no matter what kind of supportive bras you wear-they bounce everywhere

I say if you have smaller breasts be HAPPY about it
because being BIG BUSTED naturally is not all what its cracked up to be
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
just_a_guy
post Sep 26 2010, 11:41 AM
Post #1043


BUSTie
**
Posts: 34
From: Los Angeles, CA


QUOTE(buttercups @ Sep 26 2010, 09:03 AM) *
Sorry I don't mean to be rude or start anything or anything like that, but I've really not enjoyed posting on this board since you started posting J-A-G. I don't understand why a man would be so interested in a small-breast support group and something about it has really irked me. I understand that several other women on here have appreciated your perspectives and everything like that, but I don't really come on here posting to really need validation from a man telling me that "small breasts are sexy" or whatever. I'm trying to phrase this as politely as possible because I am a very non-confrontational person, but why do you feel so interested in this topic? This is a bunch of women here to share their insecurities and experiences.

Of course I'm not saying you can't post here or anything because who am I to make that decision, especially if the other ladies are getting something out of it. But I feel like you are constantly trying to appease us and "get in" with us and I am unclear about why. I hate rocking the boat but something about it just makes me feel really weird. I really enjoy getting support from other women and that's not to say I can't appreciate a nice comment from a man from time to time, but sometimes I come here to escape that man's perspective and get some good solid advice from women who are living through this with me. Unless you have small breasts, there is only so much you can say about the topic.

Hope I am not offending anyone I just see this board turning into something else and didn't want to speak up about it before.


For one, I'd argue that my breasts are as small as anybody else in this room.

If you read my last few posts it's pretty clear that I'm not trying to appease anyone. The very idea that I have to appease or "Get in with" the group suggests that I am excluded from it, I'm not. I'm here because body image issues have negatively affected my life both directly and through friends and family. I see this issue as one of the most prevalent amongst the women in my life. Despite the fact that my insecurities are about other areas of my body, they aren't any different from your own.

I didn't get here accidentally, the link was forwarded to me by a female friend who understands why this issue matters so much to me, and I joined in the conversation because I thought I could add something to it. So far the only reason anyone has suggested that this is impossible is that I'm not a woman.

Hey angie, nice to meet you. What type of anthropologist are you? I ask both because I am interested and because I want to get the opinion of a friend of mine who's currently getting her PhD in biological anthropology at Cambridge, and in the past she has flung books at my head when I asked her questions that fall more in the realm of social anthropology (she takes a little bit of pride in her field tongue.gif ). Luckily she is too far for book flinging at the moment, but she could probably give my computer a really nasty virus if she wanted.


--------------------
Sometimes when all you want is a tall glass of water, life gives you a Short Glass of Milk
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
buttercups
post Sep 26 2010, 11:03 AM
Post #1044


Hardcore BUSTie
***
Posts: 294


Sorry I don't mean to be rude or start anything or anything like that, but I've really not enjoyed posting on this board since you started posting J-A-G. I don't understand why a man would be so interested in a small-breast support group and something about it has really irked me. I understand that several other women on here have appreciated your perspectives and everything like that, but I don't really come on here posting to really need validation from a man telling me that "small breasts are sexy" or whatever. I'm trying to phrase this as politely as possible because I am a very non-confrontational person, but why do you feel so interested in this topic? This is a bunch of women here to share their insecurities and experiences.

Of course I'm not saying you can't post here or anything because who am I to make that decision, especially if the other ladies are getting something out of it. But I feel like you are constantly trying to appease us and "get in" with us and I am unclear about why. I hate rocking the boat but something about it just makes me feel really weird. I really enjoy getting support from other women and that's not to say I can't appreciate a nice comment from a man from time to time, but sometimes I come here to escape that man's perspective and get some good solid advice from women who are living through this with me. Unless you have small breasts, there is only so much you can say about the topic.

Hope I am not offending anyone I just see this board turning into something else and didn't want to speak up about it before.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
angie_21
post Sep 26 2010, 09:39 AM
Post #1045


Hardcore BUSTie
***
Posts: 662
From: Alberta


Hi girls! I'm back! and just in time! Anthropologist in the house! Give me a moment to collect my thoughts on all this and I will be ready to discuss evolutionary psycho-babble all day.

I had an awesome time in the field. No mirrors, no showers, just good honest physical work and good friends. I spent the whole time judging myself not on how I look, but on how much I could lift and how far I could carry it, and how much I could work without complaining. As a side-project, I tried evaluating how I felt about my appearance based on how people around me reacted to me and looked at me, rather than looking at myself (since there were no mirrors) and it turns out, I think I must be pretty hot, small breasts or no.

Guy's writing made sense to me, it's a common argument I've heard many times before, but it's been rejected within anthropological thought for decades already. Evolutionary psychology is pop-psycho-babble at its finest. Take vast generalizations about what men do and what women do, try to explain them in terms of "survival" without any analogy to primate behaviour or any statistical verification of these supposed male/female behaviours, and publish a book about it. It's men are from mars, women are from venus, with a pseudo-scientific veneer. No real anthropologist I know even bothers to talk about these theories except for drunken discussions at the bar. Most evolutionary psychology actually assumes that humans act completely different from their closest primate relatives, but still explains our behaviour in terms of biology and evolution. Female chimpanzees are generally promiscuous and don't even rely on males to care for their young. That kind of messes up a lot of those theories right there, doesn't it? Evolutionary psychology also assumes that modern, western cultures represent all human behaviour and that our gender roles and child-rearing strategies are universal. Wrong again, monogamous child-rearing isn't always a factor in mate selection, women generally do care about appearance but just often don't have the social/cultural power to be able to make decisions based on those preferences. It's cultural, not biological. If we want to go with one of the more blatant vast generalizations, why not say that women have to seek men with power because it's usually been taken away from us on a personal level, instead of blaming it on "instinct?" We can argue about this crap all day, but because it's not based on anything other than generalization and bastardization of the concept of evolution, anything we discuss is irrelevant.

Sorry. this stuff pisses me off. I'm all excited to be back here with my girls, and this is what's going on with our message board? bah. I still have to read through everything I missed on this board over the summer! I'll come back with some stories from the field in a bit, I had a great time and let me tell u, it sure has made me change the way I see myself and my body, as the field always does. Missed you all and was thinking of you when I went all summer in my un-padded sports bras and un-padded bikini, and didn't feel self-conscious once!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
just_a_guy
post Sep 26 2010, 01:55 AM
Post #1046


BUSTie
**
Posts: 34
From: Los Angeles, CA


QUOTE(nbdx0645 @ Sep 25 2010, 09:56 PM) *
I was giving you a chance to explain your abstract. Any BUSTie would have broken down the main points in the argument for me. I did not understand what you were trying to say. I didn't want to come forward and say that your backpedaling on topics coincides with AP's post. I wanted to hear the essence of your point of view, since it sounded like pseudo-intellectual babble. Your long-winded response to SG's article is a thinly-veiled attempt to save face when most of your 'tidbits of wisdom' were debunked or countered.

What the hell does "Women prefer evolutionary poker, and men prefer evolutionary blackjack" even mean? It sounds like I really need to understand this glittering generality.

The main essence of this thread is getting terribly derailed. Do you honestly think that women are feeling comfortable enough to talk about their deep insecurities when you're in a constant state of defending your image? Do you honestly think that you are giving more to BUST than taking?

Edit: I read through your shitty post several times. I read it out loud. I asked a friend to decode it. I did my best to find meaning and I couldn't find much. I also read through the Newsweek article. It was fab. You're an engineer? You should be a politician. You say so much while saying nothing at all.



As I said, when I responded to you initially. I wasn't trying to pick on you, the context of replacing my quote with <a bunch of words> simply reminded me of the blog post I had just written. In fact I've never said a negative word about you as far as I know.

I will do my best to answer your questions/address your points:

1) Yes, this is a significant side tangent from the main topic of the thread.

2) I didn't understand that you were having trouble understanding my post, your post read as if you simply didn't want to read it the entire way through.

3) Sometimes I speak in metaphors and that can be confusing, I understand that and will try to clarify my point below.

4) I don't know when women do or do not feel comfortable enough to share their insecurities, but I know that quite a few of the women on this board have share theirs with me, and thanked me for my input. I have always tried to make people feel secure.

5) I don't think I'm trying to defend my image. I saw a situation where I thought that a general hypothesis was being thrown out on the basis of one logical fallacy, and I wanted to point that out.

6) Yes I think I add more to BUST than I take away, and I take offense to being excluded in your use of the phrase "any BUSTie." I'm a BUSTie too. Look, it says so right under my avatar.

7) AP seems to have a personal problem with me and I've contacted her about it through PM since it has no place in this or any other thread.

8) I am not a practicing engineer. I hold degrees in Biomedical-Electrical Engineering and a Master's in Business. I'm also a photographer, web developer, writer, ordained minister, atheist, etc. I am a lot of things. The Engineering comment was a tongue-in-cheek response to your comment about my bad sentecne structure since engineers have notoriously poor written communication skills.

My response to SG's post was an explanation that I think there is a significant difference between using evolutionary biology to excuse modern behavior and accepting that impulses and low-level subconscious decision making in the sub-cortical parts of our brain have a hard wired component due to thousands of years of those structures developing.

I was explaining that I don't think men rape because they are hard wired to rape, Nor do I think that men are all attracted to the same thing because it's hard wired. I do think that men and women make decisions differently (and have different responses to developmental stimuli) based on the evolutionary selection of specific advantageous brain traits over the past few million years.

In short, men and women arrive at the conclusion that a particular mate is a good choice based on different decision making processes (that are a combination of nature and nurture), and I would hypothesize that the reason there is a larger market for pornography for men than for women has to do with the differences in these processes.

If you consider that back-pedaling, so be it. You are entitled to your opinion on that matter as well as to whether or not my post and or sentence structure is "shitty."

If you actually want clarification of something I've written in the future, I would ask that you ask for it respectfully, without the sarcastic undertones that there is no explanation. I would certainly offer you the same respect.

Oh, and if that makes me a "Whimpster" or a know it all (which clearly only a man can be tongue.gif ), then I guess I'd better go buy some skinny jeans, black eyeliner, and something to induce flaccidity.

To all of you on here who enjoy corresponding with me, I truly enjoy taking part in the conversation. For those of you who don't, I suggest you block me so that you don't have to read my posts.


--------------------
Sometimes when all you want is a tall glass of water, life gives you a Short Glass of Milk
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nbdx0645
post Sep 25 2010, 11:56 PM
Post #1047


Hardcore BUSTie
***
Posts: 134


I was giving you a chance to explain your abstract. Any BUSTie would have broken down the main points in the argument for me. I did not understand what you were trying to say. I didn't want to come forward and say that your backpedaling on topics coincides with AP's post. I wanted to hear the essence of your point of view, since it sounded like pseudo-intellectual babble. Your long-winded response to SG's article is a thinly-veiled attempt to save face when most of your 'tidbits of wisdom' were debunked or countered.

What the hell does "Women prefer evolutionary poker, and men prefer evolutionary blackjack" even mean? It sounds like I really need to understand this glittering generality.

The main essence of this thread is getting terribly derailed. Do you honestly think that women are feeling comfortable enough to talk about their deep insecurities when you're in a constant state of defending your image? Do you honestly think that you are giving more to BUST than taking?

Edit: I read through your shitty post several times. I read it out loud. I asked a friend to decode it. I did my best to find meaning and I couldn't find much. I also read through the Newsweek article. It was fab. You're an engineer? You should be a politician. You say so much while saying nothing at all.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
just_a_guy
post Sep 25 2010, 11:33 PM
Post #1048


BUSTie
**
Posts: 34
From: Los Angeles, CA


QUOTE(nbdx0645 @ Sep 25 2010, 06:31 PM) *
Funny, I thought you were mocking yourself. Your sentence structure sucks.


LOL. Yeah, they skimped a little on the liberal arts when I was getting my engineering degree, and I did drop out of high school, so take it for what you will. Still, I make it a point to read entire posts (and even linked artiucles) before responding.

Also, I have no desire to engage in flame wars, especially those directed at my gender.


--------------------
Sometimes when all you want is a tall glass of water, life gives you a Short Glass of Milk
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nbdx0645
post Sep 25 2010, 11:27 PM
Post #1049


Hardcore BUSTie
***
Posts: 134


Finally, a post that is succinct. Hooray!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
auralpoison
post Sep 25 2010, 11:13 PM
Post #1050


Big Fat Bitch
***
Posts: 4,932
From: Citizen of the world


*coughcough* MWET *coughcough* Whimpster. dry.gif *coughcough*

Anybody wanna hate, feel free. But my vast gut is right nine times out of ten.


--------------------
"You're cute, like a velvet glove cast in iron. And like a gas chamber, a real fun gal."
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nbdx0645
post Sep 25 2010, 08:31 PM
Post #1051


Hardcore BUSTie
***
Posts: 134


Funny, I thought you were mocking yourself. Your sentence structure sucks.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
just_a_guy
post Sep 25 2010, 08:04 PM
Post #1052


BUSTie
**
Posts: 34
From: Los Angeles, CA


QUOTE(nbdx0645 @ Sep 25 2010, 05:41 PM) *
Can I get a summary of this in 2 sentences? I'm not following.


Yes, but I'm doing it in metaphor form:

1) Saying that a person who wants to get somewhere more quickly is likely to use the most advanced applicable transportation method available is not the same as saying all people are hopelessly and innately compelled to drive Ford Mustang convertibles.

2) While the specifics of what type of transportation is popular/cutting edge over time, the tendency to use such in order to achieve your objective is biologically innate.

ps- I don't mean to pick on you in particular nbdx0645. I decided to add a link to a new blog I started in my signature since the last blog post I wrote about was how, as a society, we are trending toward increasingly accepted misuse of the English language, and an unwillingness to read something in its entirety and decipher it for ourselves. Your quote of me using "a bunch of words" and wanting the reader's digest version just made me think of it.


--------------------
Sometimes when all you want is a tall glass of water, life gives you a Short Glass of Milk
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nbdx0645
post Sep 25 2010, 07:41 PM
Post #1053


Hardcore BUSTie
***
Posts: 134


QUOTE(just_a_guy @ Sep 25 2010, 05:02 PM) *
<A bunch of words>


Can I get a summary of this in 2 sentences? I'm not following.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
just_a_guy
post Sep 25 2010, 05:02 PM
Post #1054


BUSTie
**
Posts: 34
From: Los Angeles, CA


QUOTE(strongirl @ Sep 25 2010, 09:54 AM) *
Oh gosh, I am SO happy this topic came up, even though we're getting a bit outside the theme of this forum. This is one of my hugest pet peeves: the pseudo-scientific bs that is known as "evolutionary psychology".

Guy, I respectfully and strongly disagree with your views about supposedly "hard-wired" gender differences in mate selection. Evolutionary psychology is a field that is increasingly discredited as better science and unbiased perspectives debunk its flawed basis; it has been all along a bunch of unprovable "theories" created to justify the prejudices of its originators. Just because someone calls themself a "scientist" doesn't make their personal opinions "science".

I've been uncomfortable with the crap that comes out of this field since I was in college 30 years ago. But - all things come to she who waits - finally in the last several years the tides have turned against it.

Guy, and anyone else who either buys this stuff or doesn't buy it but can't quite figure out why, check out this awesome article:

http://www.newsweek.com/2009/06/19/why-do-...eep-around.html

There's also a book out (I haven't read it yet) called "Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality", that sounds similar in perspective...and sounds like a hot and fascinating read. If anyone's read it, I'd love to hear what you think.

Just to be clear, Guy, this is not a slam or attack on you at all - I really respect your mind and since you obviously give things a lot of thought, I'm guessing you also are open to questioning your own views.


Definitely an interesting article to read. I'm certainly not an expert in the field of evolutionary biology, I was talking about the discussions I've had with biological and social anthropologists,which are separate sciences.

I agree that blaming our pre-programmed biology on modern behavior is ridiculously pseudo-scientific. It doesn't take into account nurture at all, and study after study have shown how strongly developmental influences affect our impulses and behaviors.

I still don't think this invalidates my argument because of the broad strokes I am using. I'm not saying let's forgive rapists they're hardwired that way, just like I'm not saying that all men like toyotas. I would however suggest that all human beings are genetically designed to be able to do three things: protect themselves (and their offspring), feed themselves (and their offspring), and create the aforementioned offspring. Because of this I would think that as technology advanced humans who were more likely to usehorses, wagons, and cars, or improving weapons to move farther faster, protect their families better, and hunt more effectively would have been more likely to survive long enough to procreate.

So by my argument no behavior is ok because it's pre-programmed, I'm only suggesting that our evolutionary imperative has an impact on how our developmental exposure to the world shapes our personalities. I'm not saying all men are attracted to 36-24-36 bodies, I'm saying that men are more likely to be attracted to the body type that nurture has taught them is most likely to help them produce viable offspring. I'm also not saying that all women are gold-diggers, I'm saying that a woman will try to seek out the best available mate to ensure her children are protected and fed.

I don't think women are dependent on men (although historical subservience is hard to argue against in most cases), I think it's a symbiotic relationship: men look for good physical qualities for their offspring, and women look for successful personality characteristics. Both of these are needed for survival and one is not more important than the other.

The major failing of evolutionary biology (aside from the lack of scientific method, and independent peer review, of course) is in its lack of account for how the manifestations of those traits are affected by nurture. What I find attractive today is not the same as what was considered attractive in 15th century England by virtue of the fact that I have had vastly different influences on my development. There is no one objective perfect beauty or perfect personality, we are all just betting on which is going to be the most successful in the next generation. All I'm saying is that women prefer evolutionary poker, and men prefer evolutionary black-jack.


--------------------
Sometimes when all you want is a tall glass of water, life gives you a Short Glass of Milk
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nbdx0645
post Sep 25 2010, 02:39 PM
Post #1055


Hardcore BUSTie
***
Posts: 134


Strongirl, I agree with you. My college psych classes were NOT based in evo psych for that reason. I get frustrated when my friend's friend puts on sunglasses so he can check out all the babes on the street.

"I can't help but look at women. I'm a man." Congratulations, buddy. Needless to say, we fought it out.

You're still going to gawk creepily at women when we are hanging out? I hate it when men don't look me in the eye because they're staring at ANOTHER WOMAN'S BREASTS. It makes you wish they were attached to YOU, so they would be looking at A PART OF YOU. Then you hear how large breasts are ideal because <x, y, z> and you really start to wonder if something is medically wrong with you. Am I a part of Evolution's Divine Plan, or not?

Also, why doesn't evolutionary psych cater to the whims of women? Evo psych makes women sound sexless, overly-emotional, subservient, and utterly dependent on men.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
strongirl
post Sep 25 2010, 11:54 AM
Post #1056


Hardcore BUSTie
***
Posts: 295


Oh gosh, I am SO happy this topic came up, even though we're getting a bit outside the theme of this forum. This is one of my hugest pet peeves: the pseudo-scientific bs that is known as "evolutionary psychology".

Guy, I respectfully and strongly disagree with your views about supposedly "hard-wired" gender differences in mate selection. Evolutionary psychology is a field that is increasingly discredited as better science and unbiased perspectives debunk its flawed basis; it has been all along a bunch of unprovable "theories" created to justify the prejudices of its originators. Just because someone calls themself a "scientist" doesn't make their personal opinions "science".

I've been uncomfortable with the crap that comes out of this field since I was in college 30 years ago. But - all things come to she who waits - finally in the last several years the tides have turned against it.

Guy, and anyone else who either buys this stuff or doesn't buy it but can't quite figure out why, check out this awesome article:

http://www.newsweek.com/2009/06/19/why-do-...eep-around.html

There's also a book out (I haven't read it yet) called "Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality", that sounds similar in perspective...and sounds like a hot and fascinating read. If anyone's read it, I'd love to hear what you think.

Just to be clear, Guy, this is not a slam or attack on you at all - I really respect your mind and since you obviously give things a lot of thought, I'm guessing you also are open to questioning your own views.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
just_a_guy
post Sep 24 2010, 05:16 PM
Post #1057


BUSTie
**
Posts: 34
From: Los Angeles, CA


QUOTE(koffeewitch @ Sep 24 2010, 02:58 PM) *
guy: Maybe I'm just a big weirdo (it's in fact more than a little probable) but all my BFs have been dirt poor and I really am turned off by guys who are drawn to money/status/possessions and designer clothes that are made in the same sweat shops by the same 9 year old girls as the shit that ends up in K-mart.

You may completely disagree with this, but I don't usually find that poor guys who are bright and charismatic usually have a hard time finding women. And the women who don't want to date them because they take the city bus, instead of drive a Beamer....fuck 'em, I say.



I don't disagree with you at all. In fact, charisma and intelligence are traits of a high-status male. I'm not saying that all women have the same set of standards, just that women tend to place more weight on personality traits than they do on physical attributes when selecting a long-term mate. Men look at personality as well, but they place more importance on physical indicators of health than women do.

ps- girls that won't date a guy who doesn;t drive a Beemer here in LA are a dime a dozen, and I say exactly the same thing: fuck 'em. Whether you drive one or not, you want to put a bullet in your head after hearing some of these people talk for longer than 30 seconds.



--------------------
Sometimes when all you want is a tall glass of water, life gives you a Short Glass of Milk
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
koffeewitch
post Sep 24 2010, 04:58 PM
Post #1058


Hardcore BUSTie
***
Posts: 474
From: the Hundred Acre Woods


guy: Maybe I'm just a big weirdo (it's in fact more than a little probable) but all my BFs have been dirt poor and I really am turned off by guys who are drawn to money/status/possessions and designer clothes that are made in the same sweat shops by the same 9 year old girls as the shit that ends up in K-mart.

You may completely disagree with this, but I don't usually find that poor guys who are bright and charismatic usually have a hard time finding women. And the women who don't want to date them because they take the city bus, instead of drive a Beamer....fuck 'em, I say.


--------------------
"The U.S. is the only nation on Earth to pass from barbarism into decadence without once passing through an era of civilization."
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
just_a_guy
post Sep 24 2010, 04:33 PM
Post #1059


BUSTie
**
Posts: 34
From: Los Angeles, CA


QUOTE(karategrrl @ Sep 24 2010, 09:33 AM) *
Seriously! I could get over all the objectifications of women if it existed equally in the genders. Awhile back I went on a search to see if there were any women's mags whatsoever (with the exception of Playgirl, of course) that had male pictorials in them, like the men's magazines have of women, no matter what the topic.

None. Zero. sad.gif



@SG - I'm all for the speedos, but I think you'll have an easier time convincing rugby players, rather than the wimpy football players here who insist on wearing pads tongue.gif

I also think that women enjoy looking at attractive men, and that men should take pride in their appearance in the same way that many men expect it of women.

@karategrrl - I agree that the acceptability (and thus the market for a product that fulfills the need) is limited at least partially by accepted social roles.

I will say that there are definitive differences between how much value the different genders place on aesthetics when selecting a mate. All the evidence I've looked at (unless a biological anthropologist in here wants to disagree with me) suggests that this is hard wired due to historical roles that men and women have taken on both in terms of familial and tribal/social responsibilities:

-Men look for women who are healthy enough to bear children and attractive enough that the children they bear have a better chance of finding a high-quality mate

-Women pay more attention to social status and ability to provide because ten-thousand years ago the higher up your mate was on the social ladder the less likely you and your children would starve to death, or some other guy would come along, take you from your husband, and kill your kids.

Frankly, our brains haven't changed that much in ten-thousand years.


--------------------
Sometimes when all you want is a tall glass of water, life gives you a Short Glass of Milk
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
strongirl
post Sep 24 2010, 02:02 PM
Post #1060


Hardcore BUSTie
***
Posts: 295


Honestly, I think we women have to take a lot of the blame for that. I don't buy the whole "guys are just more visual than girls" thing - I know I am VERY visual when it comes to looking at men. I think women buy into the whole conditioning that looks matter more for women than men, and we shouldn't. We should let men know we care about how they look, compliment them on things we like, enjoy and appreciate the shows of male pulchritude that we do get, and demand more!

In part, I have to thank my mother and her mother and sister for this - they all enjoyed looking at handsome men and were not ashamed to share this pleasure with me as I was growing up.

I intentionally chose to use the word "Speedo" because it's a hot button for this issue. I've read and heard discussions with women and how they feel about men in skimpy swimwear and definitely more than half the time the reaction is negative. There are even women who say it is too close to just looking at a man's "thing" and they don't like that either! I just can't relate to that at ALL. That is a type of sexism that we women can stop perpetuating, and we'll have more fun if we do.

And I do think men are just as exhibitionistic as women. I know there aren't mainstream mags except for Playgirl but if you look on Adult Friendfinder or any of those type of sites, guys love to take pics of their man-stuff and show it off!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

211 Pages V  « < 51 52 53 54 55 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

Lo-Fi Version Time is now: August 29, 2014 - 10:23 AM