Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: small breast support group - (I need it even if they don't)
The BUST Lounge > Forums > Our Bodies, Our Hells
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85
strongirl
Sorry about that repeat of previous post - I'm new and don't know what I'm doing yet. I've been reading your posts for quite a while and decided to de-lurk. You all are so awesome - what a bunch of smart, insightful women! wow.

Karategrrl - your urge to hold a mirror up to the old uncle is exactly what needs to happen - at least metaphorically to many men, if not physically to that specific one. Not that a person has to have beauty in order to appreciate beauty, but the dynamic of men as consumers and women as product has to change if things are going to get better. Till then, I can't stop men passing judgment on me but I can work on not internalizing their judgments and instead embracing my own love and apprciation for my body...which is what this topic seems to be about!

flashing my own small and very sexy titties at y'all in a playful and affectionate greeting,
strongirl
anna k
Thanks for posting those Lou Doillon pics, edie52. I saw Jane Birkin in a Playboy book and was surprised but happy that Playboy had featured a small-breasted natural-looking woman, and that they also had a photo of Robin Givens (tiny and thin with small breasts) from the early 90's. Lou Doillon has a great rock 'n' roll look that I like, much like Asia Argento or Lindsay Lohan or Kate Moss.
karategrrl
Welcome, strongirl!! Glad to have you here, all de-lurked and stuff!!

"the dynamic of men as consumers and women as product..."

Holy crap. You summed it all up in a few words, grrl. Very profound! I think you just crystallized why exactly it is that some nudity absolutely disgusts me and others I find erotic and lovely--it's all about the intent! Hubby can't understand why we can see a couple getting naughty in a non-porn movie and I have no problem with it, yet the biker/titty mag he brought home got under my skin so badly. You summed it up, grrl. Thanks!!

"Till then, I can't stop men passing judgment on me but I can work on not internalizing their judgments and instead embracing my own love and apprciation for my body...which is what this topic seems to be about!"

Sheet, yeah!

"flashing my own small and very sexy titties at y'all in a playful and affectionate greeting"

laugh.gif laugh.gif Woohoo! Lovin' it!!! Flashin' mine back!!!! laugh.gif laugh.gif

About turning metaphorical mirrors on people...I can't find a version of this online to link to, but I once saw a very telling cartoon--How men see themselves vs. how women see themselves. It showed a man and a woman, each in their respective bedrooms, standing in front of full-length mirrors. The man was fat, old, and gross, but the image he saw was that of a Chippendale dancer-type; the woman was beautiful, trim, youthful--a swimsuit model-type--but in the mirror she looked fat, old, ugly, etc. Very interesting...and true.
honeybunch
Hi, everybody! I'm new.

Quick question, what is a pencil test?
anna k
Pencil test is whether a woman can hold a pencil underneath your breasts determining if she needs to wear a bra. If the pencil doesn't fall, the woman has "failed" and needs to wear a bra.
karategrrl
(deleted double post)
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. wink.gif

At least we all pass the pencil test here! tongue.gif
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.
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.
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.
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.
knorl05
yes welcome strongirl and honeybunch! glad to have you here. smile.gif

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. wub.gif

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.
crinoline
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.
karategrrl
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.
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.
honeybunch
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.
karategrrl
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!
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.
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!
karategrrl
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.
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!
knorl05
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.
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.

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.
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?
karategrrl
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
karategrrl
DJ, maybe none of my biz, but no period in 3 years? blink.gif Everything okay, I hope?
newo_ikkin
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?
karategrrl
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.
strongirl
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)
strongirl
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.
dj-bizmonkey
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.
neurotic.nelly
delurks,

edited: moving question to more appropriate thread.

strongirl - you have said everything that I intended but couldn't express. you kick ass!

relurks.
karategrrl
DJ, you never cease to amaze me. You're so full of info!! I had no idea one didn't let go with an egg monthly when they took the pill--I just thought the pill interfered with the egg's ability to implant in the uterus. And here I am, always taking great pains to know just what's going on in my body all the time. wink.gif

My gyn just told me that, accordng to a new statistic, after age 38 or 39 (I forget which), a woman's fertility spikes downward; each month there is a 10-15% decrease in fertility. Good news for me, since I have no plans for preggery (though a friend of mine, same age, is now 6 months preggy).

I agree, we are surely in the "big fake boob era" of our Western cultural evolution. I remember in "Some Like it Hot" Marilyn Monroe complimenting smaller breasts, b/c with them "clothes fit so much better."

I will have to post some scans of a workout book I bought yesterday. It is a really comprehensive book of exercises, but what is comical is that 90% of the women in it are obviously breast-implanted. Looks ridiculous. What gets me is the irony of it--many women in fitness have low body fat, which naturally dictates smaller breasts for many, since breasts are partly fat. But implants are **foreign objects in the body** which are, by definition, unhealthy (as evidenced by the body's trying to reject them--a cause of capsular contraction in many implants. Even in organ donations in the most compatible donors, the recipient has to go on a lifelong regimen of anti-rejection drugs.
dj-bizmonkey
this is way OT, but if you're interested....most birth control pills contain a combination of synthetic estrogen and progesterone. the main way they work is by inhibiting the FSH (follicle-stimulating hormone) and the LH (lutenizing hormone) which prevents ovulation from occuring. if you aren't careful about taking the pill every day around the same time, you run the risk of lowering your progesterone/estrogen levels to the point that FSH and LH are no longer inhibited and POOF! there goes an egg. 9 out of 10 times when a woman gets pregnant on the pill, its because she hasn't been consistent about taking it. you've got to maintain your levels! that's why sometimes it takes a day or two for you to start your pseudo-period when you are taking the placebo/sugar pills.

the progesterone DOES prevent implantation as it disturbs the endometrial lining. when you are pregnant, is actually what stabilizes the uterus so you don't shed the lining once the blastocyst is implanted. but too much progesterone overstimulates the endometrium and it because a hostile place for any fertilized egg. that's actually the way that emergency contraception works, overstimulating the endometrial lining to prevent implantation. that overstimulation is part of why you might feel so icky when you take it. RU-486 or the so-called 'abortion pill' actually blocks progesterone receptors in your uterus causing the opposite effect, instead of too much endometrial growth, the lining is shed and with it, any egg that might have implanted. i chose to stop having my period because i can feel the contractions in my uterus as the endometrial lining is shedding. it's like having a banshee in there clawing at my insides. no thank you. one of the fantastic things about the women's movement is reproductive rights! if you like/want to have your period every month, every three months, every year, every three years, you can! it's all about comfort level. sometimes i miss ovulating and i wonder what it will be like when i eventually go off the pill. i wonder if i will go off the deep end entirely.

i don't remember that line in 'some like it hot,' i'll have to rent that again. although there are plenty of buxom old movie stars like claudette colbert, jayne mansfield, marilyn monroe, there were also plenty of small busties representing. audrey hepburn, lauren bacall, bette davis etc.

those pictures sound freakish. it makes me think of demi moore in 'GI Jane' (which i secretely love). she's all buff, doing pull ups, but her fake breasts (i guess she got them for 'striptease') just look silly and out of place. post them if you can. i'm always up for a little schadden-freude (sp?)

karategrrl
Thanks for the contraception lesson, DJ! Dang, you are one smart cookie. The literature that comes with the pills I take has two parts: a silly, pink brochure with cute pictures of lovey couples--that stresses the importance of taking the pill at the same time every day--but never explains WHY--and a poster-sized pharmaceutical statement filled with text in a tiny 6-pt font size, complete with chemical equations and diagrams. I mean, I am smart and I read the "poster" but still came away saying, "Whaaa?"

"i don't remember that line in 'some like it hot,' i'll have to rent that again. although there are plenty of buxom old movie stars like claudette colbert, jayne mansfield, marilyn monroe, there were also plenty of small busties representing. audrey hepburn, lauren bacall, bette davis etc. "

This is true. Give me that old-time glamour any day. LUUV Lauren Bacall.

"those pictures sound freakish. it makes me think of demi moore in 'GI Jane' (which i secretely love). she's all buff, doing pull ups, but her fake breasts (i guess she got them for 'striptease') just look silly and out of place. post them if you can. i'm always up for a little schadden-freude (sp?)"

I know, GI Jane!! I, too, love that movie, but the implants, to me, never looked right, either--they don't look right on such a buff woman, and certainly don't go with the whole philosophy of being liberated and strong, and above all--fighting stereotypes--as her character was. And we all know, it's the stereotypes that make small-breasted women often feel inadequate and "flawed," and thus "needing" impants to "correct" their imperfect bodies.

Yep, "schadden-freude." I don't know how to spell it either, but know of what you speak!! smile.gif
dj-bizmonkey
i am such a freakin' nerd and grad school is just making it worse. the ONLY reason i know this stuff is because i just took a behavioral endocrinology class and a sex and reproduction class at the same time! sorry if i sound like a textbook or a know-it-all, because i definitely do NOT.

i never thought about that aspect of 'GI Jane.' it's the same with your fitness models. they are supposed to be the pinnacle of health, right? so if you are perfectly healthy, in body and mind, why would you need to go under the knife? isn't the point of being a fitness model to be, well, fit and not fake? i had a yoga instructor once, teeny-tiny lady, enormous fake breasts. she always seemed like a walking contradiction. everytime i looked at her, i'd think of george's dad on seinfeld shouting 'serenity NOW!'

i'm having a good breast day. on a random note, i found this ad on craigslist:

QUOTE
Art Gallery : Breast Models Body Parts (Metairie, LA)

No Experiance Needed!

Here is the opportunity to get into modeling and artistic field.

Quiet studio setting atmosphere.

Breast Models needed for Art Gallery Photo Project

Please send a front image standing with arms at sides and frame in the natural hang of the breast. No face needed in picture.

All models will be answered and picked accordingly for this project.

Compensation will be session rate according to model and experiance.


I mean, come ON, there is no phone number, no website, no explanation of the project. i reported it. if this really is an artist he/she is an idiot, but more i get the feeling it is some perve hoping some lady will be too dumb to figure out his scam. gross.
knorl05
dj biz: you definitely are well informed! and just so you know, the way you present the information is also very interesting/intriguing and not at all dry. wink.gif many times -imho- facts are presented without passion or an openmind, but you've got both, which makes me more inclined to "listen up"! very gifted lady you are.

is very sad and angering to see that ad on craigslist. obviously some creepy creep trying to connive his/her way into getting a whole ton of wannabe models sending pics in of their breastesis. if it were a "real" photographer, s/he would want way more legitimate information from the models... and if he or she were at all a well established photographer, s/he'd have better connections and ways of networking than some random ad on craigslist. arg. good call on reporting them!
strongirl
I just saw that Kate Hudson is #1 on People Magazine's Most Beautiful list for this year! The editor said that she was chosen partly for her "natural beauty" and said how refreshing she is compared to so many stars with breast implants and nose jobs. How cool is that? smile.gif
karategrrl
That Craislist ad is too ridiculous. I mean, "experiAnce"?? The perv can't even spell.

Though I agree it should be reported, it would have been fun to send in some interesting pics, as the guy not once said the breasts must belong to females or humans. I'd send a pic of hubby's hairy chest, my rabbit's chests, maybe a pic of chicken breasts. Or photoshopped images of three breasts on a chest. We could have fun with that! wink.gif
neurotic.nelly
QUOTE(strongirl @ Apr 30 2008, 10:38 AM) *
I just saw that Kate Hudson is #1 on People Magazine's Most Beautiful list for this year! The editor said that she was chosen partly for her "natural beauty" and said how refreshing she is compared to so many stars with breast implants and nose jobs. How cool is that? smile.gif

Oh so cool. I have always thought that KH's breasts were the cutest.
Vendetta
I don't need the media or society to tell me that something's "wrong" with me, I just need to leave the house and take a walk around to look at every other women and figure out that they have something that I don't. Some small busties don't care about it, others do. Some women feel incomplete, others don't. We're not all the same. So why should people criticize those who choose to do something for theirselves, if there's an option nowadays? Not everyone wants to have double D's on their chest and not everyone is stupid enough to do it. Some people just want to have "something", to feel complete. So why shouldn't we respect some people's options?
knorl05
vendetta: is that a rhetorical question?
i suppose the point i've tried to make is that i am striving to make sure that i do not feel incomplete due to lack of more breast tissue. i'm not looking to fit some perfect little mold, to have something more than what i have, i'm continuing to strive to dispel the misconception that small breasts are undesirable or unattractive or shameful. i'm continuing to work toward accepting myself as i am, perceived flaws or not. this is my choice. you have the freedom and (possibly?) the resources to make a different choice. it's your body and what i think of that decision really shouldnt concern you one way or the other. you dont have to explain or justify yourself to anyone. who you are is who you are, do what you have to do. just know that there are people in the world who judge &or criticize over such choices, so be prepared for a negative backlash. sure in a perfect world, everyone would respect one another and their options or choices, but that's just not how it is. so do it for you and no one else, whether they be positive or negative reactions.
anarch
Women getting boob jobs to make them feel "complete" - I don't criticize them because nothing good comes of such negativity, but that motivation worries me, and if they ask for my input, I say so. It's a short-term fix with a bunch of health risks to boot. Practicing feeling good about myself, surrounding myself with acquaintances and friends who are positive about small boobs, asking or telling negative friends or family not to say shit tearing down small boobage in my hearing, going out only with men who were interested in the real me and loved my small boobs because they're part of me - this is a long-term fix. It has had ripple effects that mean my happiness, and sense of being a complete person, depends on me, and people who genuinely care about me and who will be my supports for decades.

OK so it may not work out that way for everyone but I think more women would be happier in the long term if they walked a few miles down this path, just to see what would happen. The way I experienced it, it might have some parallels with alcoholism or other addictions (not that I know anything about those, I've just read a little here and there, so my apologies if I'm presuming) - almost impossible to kick without also kicking the environments and people who enable the self-negativity. But once those boundaries are drawn and the negatives are firmly told they're not welcome any more, there's more chance for positive people and behaviours to take root, and bloom.

On a lighter note:

I was talking with my cousin recently about buying my first bikini. I'm 36, never bought one before because I was way too self-conscious, but now I'm moving to northern CA and my husband is out there already and after walking around on a beach he's all wild about us getting me a bikini. So my cousin tells a story about the first time she bought a bikini, which had lots of padding. "They soaked up water like a sponge and when I came out of the water they started to shed all this water, so I crossed my arms over them but the pressure made them leak STREAMS of water, oh my God I was mortified!"

biggrin.gif

Maybe the newer ones don't do that, but she never bought very padded ones again.
karategrrl

Everyone else out there in the world has something we don't--and sometimes wish we did--and each of us has something that at least someone out there wishes they had, at least some of the time. I think that to be happy and feel complete, the highest goal for each of us would be to love ourselves the way we are and surround ourselves with people who support us the way we are. The opposite of that is to go to big lengths to do the opposite--that is, as I see it, to change ourselves to adhere to how others think we should be, or to our own sense of how we should be--if that image of how we "should be" is something that has been shaped by society or others' comments.

I have said before and I'll say again that if there was a SAFE, cheaper alternative to breast implants, I'd be hard-pressed not to do it, and that is true. However, I am confident saying that because I would only want to be a larger A cup, or maybe B cup, and my motivation would mainly be to make clothing issues easier, not to try and fit someone else's mold.

It has been difficult to get to this point, but I can say with conviction at this point in my life that I love my breasts and my body overall. Sure, if I had magical powers, I'd want smaller feet and hands (so I wouldn't have such a hard time finding shoes and gloves), larger breasts, non-grey hair (so I wouldn't have to dye it), perfect vision (no need for glasses), but shit, overall, I have a lot to be thankful for. There are people in this world without feet, hands, vision, etc. who would give their left eyetooth to be me, small breasts and all. So I try and count my blessings and, yes, even give thanks for the fact that having small breasts is my biggest complaint in life sometimes.

And yes, I do dye my hair, and I have had a mole on my face removed. To me, these are minor things. However, I consider implants inserted into the torso of the body--where your lungs, heart, and pectoral muscles are designed to be--not foreign objects--a major invasion of the body, and totally not worth it. Yes, to each their own, but I figure one must really hate themselves to be willing to take all those risks rather than just be themselves. That I find very sad.

I was once shopping for dresses in a store. I started talking to the woman next to me, also small-breasted. I saw a dress, held it up and said, "This would look good on you," to which she replied--with conviction--"Oh, I have no chest. That would look DISGUSTING on me!" I was rather shocked and saddened anyone could dislike themselves so much. My feeling--"yeah, well, I'd just wear my padded bra, or wear none and show off my nips."

Hope all this makes an ounce of sense! I am rambling!
strongirl
Vendetta's comments really touched my heart. I personally want to support other small-breasted women (and all women, really) in feeling good about themselves but also in giving an ear and a shoulder when they do not feel good about themselves. And part of being supportive is not criticizing what they do to feel better about themselves, whether that is implants, Botox, or whatever. Implants are unnatural but so are piercings, tattoos, mascara, and even shampoo for that matter. Let she who is without sin cast the first stone (Luddite lurkers step forward).

I dislike the aspect of our culture that puts unhealthy emphasis on women's appearance, I dislike the idea that we all have to strive for a narrow esthetic ideal rather than embrace diversity, I worry that women risk their overall health by inserting foreign objects in their chests in order to have bigger breasts. But as a caring feminist I offer congratulations to women who are happy with their implants, and concern to those who struggle with health problems and poor results with theirs. For us to regard women who get implants with criticism, scorn, and moral superiority just perpetuates competition and isolation among women. Let's try not to do that here (not that I think we do but interpretations can vary and I wonder if that is what Vendetta is reacting to).

Feel free to call me on it if I do it - I try not to but again, interpretations can vary. I will try, as Vendetta says, to respect other people's choices.

At the same time, Vendetta - there isn't necessarily something "wrong" with being flat-chested or small-breasted. It is part of the range of "normal" body types and has no negative health implications whatsoever. For my positive contribution to small-titty self-esteem for the day, here is a link to pics of a model who was in Playboy, believe it or not, and is one of their top models for promotional events, etc. Check it out - she's smokin' hot!

http://www.playmates.altervista.org/2001/l...c_hil_menu.html

knorl05
strongirl: i share your approach toward feminism and have so much respect and appreciation of your views. thx for the link too.. def encouraging.

"And part of being supportive is not criticizing what they do to feel better about themselves, whether that is implants, Botox, or whatever. Implants are unnatural but so are piercings, tattoos, mascara, and even shampoo for that matter.."

excellent point. we all participate in social grooming practices (..improvements and modifications) to various degrees. if we want to get completely purist, we could say that one of the reasons fashion emerged was to signify status and draw attention to ourselves. and that for an extremely long time, we've been changing our appearances in different ways to make ourselves more physically attractive.. and not all of the ways we've done this are considered healthy. we are social creatures. much of what we do, whether consciously or not, is the result of other people's perceptions of us. i dont think anyone is completely free of the influence within any culture, community, or society. we can strive to make ourselves more aware, but i think that in order to identify with those of whom we relate, we have to conform our behaviors to that of those around us. without that element of conformity, or assimilation, we wouldnt have as many opportunities for growth and development as individuals imo.

that being said.. anarch made an excellent point about modifying her environment to reflect her beliefs. rather than take drastic measures to fit a more mainstream image/lifestyle, she's living true to her own convictions and asking that of those around her as well. i find that when we turn off the tv, close the mags, shut down the computer, what we're left with is only ourselves. if we cant love and accept ourselves in those moments of solitude, it is near impossible to counteract the messages that intentionally eat away at our self esteem.
karategrrl
Well, since the board has taken an implant-supportive shift, I won't post those photos of the implanted women from my workout book. laugh.gif

I am a little confused...haven't we been saying all along how we should feel good about ourselves so we don't have to go to lengths such as implantation to feel "complete?" No, I don't think we should go around verbally abusing women (or throwing stones at) women who get implants. But isn't true liberation about being free from expectations, not being free to get implants?

Yes, there are some definite grey areas when one compares implants with other practices such as tattoos, hairstyling, body piercing, etc. Every culture has its version of body adornment. I think what is critical is the motivation behind it, however--when one does something for fun/to express themself, etc. versus when one cannot feel good about themself or feel "complete" without doing something drastic and full of health risks--such as implants.
neurotic.nelly
yeah, what karategrrl said.

I duck stones all the time in this world, from everywhere. Sometimes I get hit, I've got to pick myself up. That's self esteem. No one can make you feel inadequate, not your friends or your boyfriends or the media. That's responsibility for yourself and your feelings.

I am not saying that we should criticize women who want a little more "cush" than they've got to make them feel more "normal". I can understand this, and maybe even support it.

Short story:

I friend of mine's boyfriend offered to pay for her breast implants. She was going to get them. Her reason was this. She is a big girl, over 200 lbs, big arms, big legs, big head, big mouth, big eyes, big but, and tiny breasts (A cups). She felt that getting breasts implants would balance out her body. I agreed. No criticism. I supported her. It made sense to me. She's beautiful now, though.

I think of myself as having small breasts, but I have got a little something there, and they grow during ovulation and such. I have to acknowledge that it must be easier for me to be pro-small breasts. Then again, I find women with smaller breasts attractive as well.
knorl05
oboi. i still take the same stance. it's fine for others who feel they need it, but not for me. do i judge women who get implants? not so much. but i do know that those who go through with the procedure are not individuals that i can relate to on a deeper level, so i modify my interaction accordingly. i can look at it from both sides and realize there are women who feel validated through implants and feel having larger breasts completes them as a woman. different priorities is all. point being, i'm pro-choice in many different areas of life.

ps. neurotic nelly. i think that's the point strongirl was making... we all do have to duck stones frequently simply being women. why not, instead of perpetuate the stonings, try to make life a little easier on eachother as women. knowing that we all do endure similar struggles and realize part of the intention of being a feminist (IMHO) is to encourage the liberation and empowerment of women of all social and cultural backgrounds.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2014 Invision Power Services, Inc.