The Lounge Guidelines Help Search Members Calendar Blogs

Welcome Guest [ Log In | Register ] ]

211 Pages V  « < 173 174 175 176 177 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> small breast support group - (I need it even if they don't)
dj-bizmonkey
post Apr 29 2008, 12:09 PM
Post #3481


Hardcore BUSTie
***
Posts: 431
From: the depths of my soul


yes.ummm, yes and yes.

as to the period question, there is absolutely no reason why you should have to have your period every month, every three months or even every three years. amenorrhea/pregnancy are the more 'natural' states of women. if we were living back in the day, we would have been pregnant in our teens (maybe only a year or two after menarche) nursing for 2 to 4 years (which also suppresses ovulation/menses) and then probably as soon as we started ovulating again, we'd get pregnant. we have this enormous store of oocytes but we don't have the time to have them all fertilized and raised up. i've talked to countless gynos about this issue because i HATE getting my period. when bc was first invented, doctors modeled it after a 21-day cycle, which was fairly arbitrary as the follicular phase of most women is highly variable. they installed the time for "period" to make women feel not only more comfortable and natural, but also is 'proof' that you aren't pregnant. the endometrial lining you shed when you take your sugar/placebo pills is not actually a true menses, just the semblances of one. you also aren't ovulating at all, so you aren't shedding an egg. everyone has to pick what they are most comfortable with, and i had concerns about it at first too. i tell you what, i am never looking back though. there are also some preliminary reports that being on birth control for 5 years and then going off of it can significantly increase your fertility. maybe because you aren't shedding eggs? i dunno, because part of the problems in fertility at later ages is the degredation of follicle quality over time.

blah blah blah, says the science geek. thanks for the concern karategrrl, but everything is a-okay.

as to your question knorl, i think yes and no. for slow reproducing mammals (like us) it takes a considerable amount of time to change natural history. that being said, human beings are unique in that we have taken control of the majority of forces which selection can act on. we control our environment through agriculture, infrastructure and as such have mastered some of the worlds harshest places. we control (to a lesser degree) the power that pathogens have over us. we are just now beginning to control reproduction. this is always a discussion i get into with my dad. it's funny because he's very conservative, but he talks about genetic engineering like it's the next step in our evolution. i can agree to a certain extent but i fear it. that kind of power in hands of violent bigots bent on world domination is just too scary. until our moral compass catches up with the technology, we're in for a heap of trouble.

i don't think anyone is actively thinking, 'mmm, i like her waist-to-hip ratio,' or anything like that. it's some sort of engrained cognitive pathway. it's important to step outside of your human-centered perspective and look at us like the animals we are....the thoughts aren't conscious, they aren't even thoughts really, just inclinations.

on that same token, the degree and frequency of our copulations which far exceed the necessary amount to reproduce imply that sex and sexual relationships have evolved well beyond procreation. take gibbons for example. they are pair-bonded, live in territorial parent-offspring bands and are monogamous for the most part. they only mate maybe once or twice a year. that's it. that's all it takes. the fact that we are 'mating' multiple times in a day and multiple times in a week shows that sex has some other important functions.

the standards of beauty change over time for all cultures, because when you get down to brass tacks, beauty is designated mostly by culture. take foot-binding or neck-stretching, tatoos, even plastic surgery. none of those things really enhance our fertility or give clues to our health. but societies have and do find them attractive.

i run into this problem alot in my own thinking. i need to not be so narrow and reductionist. i think it stems from my quest to understand the motivation behind our behavior. i think some of these interpretations are oversimplified. i forget about 'divinity' (though i am certainly an atheist), spirituality, altruism, and all the ways that human beings reject what is in their best evolutionary interest.

always with a grain of salt.

i think we are in the big boob era in the west. it probably won't be over by the end of our lifetimes, but it will one day. if we'd been born in the dark ages, hell we'd all smell like crap, have rotting teeth and babies popping out every which-a-way (if we weren't dead from childbirth) but our small breasts would be the ideal, the ultimate humble expression of feminine beauty. i look down at my chest, smile, shake my head. 'just the wrong place at the wrong time, ladies.'

i don't think the mom/dad attraction thing is a total myth. our parents are the role models of gender, regardless of our sexuality, we probably gravitate towards what we know.

very long post. i think i need a nap.


--------------------
"To lose everything at the edge of such a glorious eternity is far sweeter than to win by plodding through a cautious, painless, and featureless life."
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
strongirl
post Apr 29 2008, 09:32 AM
Post #3482


Hardcore BUSTie
***
Posts: 295


On the purported "3 factors of female attractiveness" (which I had also read about in other sources over the years), I'm laughing because here we are in a small breast support group forum and no one has pointed out that breast size is NOT one of the three factors! smile.gif

Personally, I have observed most men find breasts sexually attractive regardless of size (I've asked many men "Do you like big boobs or small boobs; the vast majority smile and say "Yes!"), there are some who have a strong preference for big, and there are some who have a strong preference for small. Due to current western cultural influences, I think there are probably statistically more in the big boob camp right now, but this is not always the case. In the 1920's small breasts were so "in" that larger women (including my grandmother) bound their breasts, and in the 1960's (when I was growing up) I can recall hearing boys pine after Twiggy and diss Marilyn Monroe as being a "cow".

So I guess my point is that everyone is attractive to someone, and the qualities that people find attractive are mutable and change over time, with evolution and just for fashion/novelty.

I wonder sometimes about what's gonna happen to all these women with implants when the backlash hits and small breasts are again the beauty standard. It's tough to go back after implants, medically and aesthetically.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
strongirl
post Apr 29 2008, 08:53 AM
Post #3483


Hardcore BUSTie
***
Posts: 295


On the topic of one's breast size going up and down, mine have always done that a lot! And I've wondered to what extent other women experience that. With my periods, I would typically gain/lose about a 1/2 cup size. Now I'm going through peri-menopause and have tried progestin-only birth control pills and now am on FemHRT (to try to level out problems with constant bleeding, mood, and memory) and my breasts are like they used to be the week before my period. Not painful, just a bit pleasantly tingly.

I also have had two friends tell me that their breasts grew quite a lot during menopause (they were complaining because neither of them wanted larger breasts).

Anyone know more about this? Are the hormone-induced increases permanent? (I'm ok with it either way)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
karategrrl
post Apr 29 2008, 07:37 AM
Post #3484


Hardcore BUSTie
***
Posts: 714


QUOTE(newo_ikkin @ Apr 29 2008, 05:06 AM) *
Very interesting conversation, girls! Do you think the culture aspect of this is similar to how men tend to be attracted to women that have similar characteristics with their mothers, and women to men like their fathers, or is that a myth?


A theory I've heard is that we tend to become attracted to/get close to people who are like others we've had long-term unresolved issues with, as a way of giving ourselves a chance to work through those issues. For example, someone who grew up controlled by her father might subconciously find comfort in being with a mate like that--first of all, it's familiar (though certainly not healthy, when it draws her to someone verbally/emotionally/physically abusive), and second, it gives her a chance to work through it in a role where she is more equal (as a mate) than as an underling/child. Though this is very psycho-babble sounding, I think there is something to this. My hubby is not like my dad, but I realized recently he shares some characterisitcs with my big brother--someone whom I simultaneously was crazy about and who could drive me to the brink of frustation and insanity when he acted like a "guy guy."

BTW, I asked about the periods because as far as I know, I've heard/read it's not healthy for a woman to go more than 3 months without one. Or maybe the facts have changed since I heard that, which was a few years ago. Since I went on the pill 2 yrs ago, mine have been so light they're sometimes almost nonexistent. The cramps are much lighter, too, though they are generally spread out over many mornings the week before I get my "period." I used to have one morning a month of knock-down, drag-out cramps which only lasted a couple of hours, but afterward I felt like I'd been through a war. This is much better.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
newo_ikkin
post Apr 28 2008, 10:49 PM
Post #3485


BUSTie
**
Posts: 61


I'm on depo provera and I haven't had a period on almost 2 years. When I went for a physical and the nurse asked for the date, her initial response was "hysterectomy?". I'm only 23 so I got a laugh out of that one.

Very interesting conversation, girls! Do you think the culture aspect of this is similar to how men tend to be attracted to women that have similar characteristics with their mothers, and women to men like their fathers, or is that a myth?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
karategrrl
post Apr 28 2008, 11:58 AM
Post #3486


Hardcore BUSTie
***
Posts: 714


DJ, maybe none of my biz, but no period in 3 years? blink.gif Everything okay, I hope?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
karategrrl
post Apr 28 2008, 11:54 AM
Post #3487


Hardcore BUSTie
***
Posts: 714


QUOTE(dj-bizmonkey @ Apr 28 2008, 05:57 PM) *
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.


My breasts don't undergo any change at all on a monthly basis. Once a year (maybe) they'll get a little sensitive.

I've been pretty weight-stable all my life, so I haven't experienced any real change in breast size, ever (except for that week I first when on the pill and I thought they'd actually get bigger...and did NOT!) I've lost about 8 pounds in the last year so they've gotten a tad smaller (not anything most women might notice, but to me, every micro-ounce counts, so of course, I notice!).

My mom went from being like me to having pretty large breasts when she went through menopause. Then again, she also gained a ton of weight during that time, so I don't know if it was the hormones or the the weight gain that did it. If it was hormonal, there might be hope for me yet.... Ha.

Strongirl, you are not old. Madonna is currently on the cover of Vanity Fair (U.S., anyway) and she looks smokin'. She's what, 50 now? And you are obviously hot, so who cares about age anyway?? wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
knorl05
post Apr 28 2008, 11:50 AM
Post #3488


Hardcore BUSTie
***
Posts: 819
From: detroit rock city


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?


--------------------
We adore chaos because we love to produce order.
- M.C. Escher
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dj-bizmonkey
post Apr 28 2008, 11:40 AM
Post #3489


Hardcore BUSTie
***
Posts: 431
From: the depths of my soul


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.


--------------------
"To lose everything at the edge of such a glorious eternity is far sweeter than to win by plodding through a cautious, painless, and featureless life."
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
strongirl
post Apr 28 2008, 08:34 AM
Post #3490


Hardcore BUSTie
***
Posts: 295


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.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
knorl05
post Apr 26 2008, 11:08 PM
Post #3491


Hardcore BUSTie
***
Posts: 819
From: detroit rock city


dj biz: not at all boring! very informative and interesting for sure! wink.gif 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.


--------------------
We adore chaos because we love to produce order.
- M.C. Escher
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dj-bizmonkey
post Apr 24 2008, 12:03 PM
Post #3492


Hardcore BUSTie
***
Posts: 431
From: the depths of my soul


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!


--------------------
"To lose everything at the edge of such a glorious eternity is far sweeter than to win by plodding through a cautious, painless, and featureless life."
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
karategrrl
post Apr 24 2008, 11:27 AM
Post #3493


Hardcore BUSTie
***
Posts: 714


QUOTE(strongirl @ Apr 24 2008, 02:43 PM) *
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)! laugh.gif

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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
strongirl
post Apr 24 2008, 08:26 AM
Post #3494


Hardcore BUSTie
***
Posts: 295


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!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
strongirl
post Apr 24 2008, 08:06 AM
Post #3495


Hardcore BUSTie
***
Posts: 295


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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
karategrrl
post Apr 24 2008, 06:51 AM
Post #3496


Hardcore BUSTie
***
Posts: 714


QUOTE(newo_ikkin @ Apr 23 2008, 08:24 PM) *
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. wink.gif

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!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
honeybunch
post Apr 23 2008, 04:10 PM
Post #3497


BUSTie
**
Posts: 73


QUOTE(karategrrl @ Apr 23 2008, 03:17 PM) *
Haha. Hey, which reminds me--I've got cleavage, it's just in the back! wink.gif
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
newo_ikkin
post Apr 23 2008, 02:07 PM
Post #3498


BUSTie
**
Posts: 61


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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
karategrrl
post Apr 23 2008, 02:00 PM
Post #3499


Hardcore BUSTie
***
Posts: 714


QUOTE(knorl05 @ Apr 23 2008, 07:12 PM) *
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! wink.gif


QUOTE(knorl05 @ Apr 23 2008, 07:12 PM) *
...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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
crinoline
post Apr 23 2008, 01:52 PM
Post #3500


Hardcore BUSTie
***
Posts: 622
From: Deep South, U.S.A.


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

QUOTE
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.


--------------------
http://www.etsy.com/shop/crinolinecreations Handmade accessories for the SuperCute!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

211 Pages V  « < 173 174 175 176 177 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

Lo-Fi Version Time is now: April 20, 2014 - 05:42 PM