Things to make you go "hmmmm"

[Gathomas88]

Okay, enough about monkey spheres! I don't really know because I'm not a guy. I'm just guessing, by seeing those shows with native people on them who don't seem to be phased at all by the women's breasts that they just get used to that kind of thing after seeing it every single day in a nonsexual manner. Maybe I'm wrong.

Anyway, heading to bed now! Have a good one Gathomas!

To be fair here, I kind of doubt that the people making those documentaries would be particularly interested in filming guys acting like pervs even if it was happening. :lol:

Don't get me wrong. I'm sure that they are at least somewhat used to seeing breasts around. However, it's probably not a "non-issue" either. I'm sure the guys still notice. lol

Have a good one, Chris! :2wave:

 

[ChrisL]

To be fair here, I kind of doubt that the people making those documentaries would be particularly interested in filming guys acting like pervs even if it was happening. :lol:

Don't get me wrong. I'm sure that they are at least somewhat used to seeing breasts around. However, it's probably not a "non-issue" either. I'm sure the guys still notice. lol

Have a good one, Chris! :2wave:

I disagree. I think that breasts become no big deal when you are exposed to them on a daily basis in a nonsexual manner.

 

[maquiscat]

It strikes me as being rather unlikely that breasts ever really could be "de-sexualized." Their role as a form of sexual display is too intrinsic to human instinct.

It'd be like asking women not to notice a man's exposed penis. It's simply not going to happen.

Not true. Look at all the societies where the women are topless as a matter of course. Ironically, in some of those societies, exposure of the leg above the ankle is equivalent to what breast exposure is to the US.

****ing god damn auto correct.

ROFL. You know you still could have edited that at the point you made this post. Or are you doing this from a phone? I try never to post here from any device that doesn't have a full keyboard with it.

Things that make you go Hmmmmmm?

View attachment 67165455

More like things to make you go "Oooooo!"

 

[KevinKohler]

Not true. Look at all the societies where the women are topless as a matter of course. Ironically, in some of those societies, exposure of the leg above the ankle is equivalent to what breast exposure is to the US.



ROFL. You know you still could have edited that at the point you made this post. Or are you doing this from a phone? I try never to post here from any device that doesn't have a full keyboard with it.



More like things to make you go "Oooooo!"

Phone for another couple weeks. Computer died. Kids killed it (to be fair to them, it was about 8 years old anyway)

 

[Gathomas88]

I disagree. I think that breasts become no big deal when you are exposed to them on a daily basis in a nonsexual manner.

Not true. Look at all the societies where the women are topless as a matter of course. Ironically, in some of those societies, exposure of the leg above the ankle is equivalent to what breast exposure is to the US

No offense guys, but it seems pretty clear that men have always been into breasts.

We dig statues like the above up all the time, and they're more than ten thousand years old.

Constant exposure may make breasts less of a big deal than they are in Western society, but it hardly makes them "non-sexual."

 

[ChrisL]

No offense guys, but it seems pretty clear that men have always been into breasts.

We dig statues like the above up all the time, and they're more than ten thousand years old.

Constant exposure may make breasts less of a big deal than they are in Western society, but it hardly makes them "non-sexual."

Those breasts are . . . saggy. :lol: The last thing I'm thinking of is sex when looking at that.

Besides Gathomas, being anatomically correct does not really equal sexuality.

 

[Gathomas88]

Those breasts are . . . saggy. :lol: The last thing I'm thinking of is sex when looking at that.

Not into the "Precious" look? :lamo

Besides Gathomas, being anatomically correct does not really equal sexuality.

Ummm... What?

Can you think of any other reason why some caveman would be carrying around a statue with gratuitous T&A busting out of every pore?

It was either prehistoric porn or a fertility goddess. There's frankly not much room in between. :lol:

 

[Henrin]

Those breasts are . . . saggy. :lol: The last thing I'm thinking of is sex when looking at that.

Besides Gathomas, being anatomically correct does not really equal sexuality.

There is an old joke that men will always accept any offer to see breasts no matter if they are saggy or not. They might say, "oh god, put those away" after shown, but they want to see them regardless.

 

[maquiscat]

No offense guys, but it seems pretty clear that men have always been into breasts.

We dig statues like the above up all the time, and they're more than ten thousand years old.

Constant exposure may make breasts less of a big deal than they are in Western society, but it hardly makes them "non-sexual."

You could probably say the same for penises given the large number of phalllic objects we have also dug up from millennium past. Agree with ChrisL in that including them in art does not automatically indicate sexuality (even when representing fertility, a separate concept). Sexuality is contexual. No given body part is in and of itself invoking of sexuality unless one has been conditioned to react that way.

 

[Gathomas88]

You could probably say the same for penises given the large number of phalllic objects we have also dug up from millennium past. Agree with ChrisL in that including them in art does not automatically indicate sexuality (even when representing fertility, a separate concept).

Yea, and the penis is pretty sexual. It always has been and always will be.

Sexuality is contexual. No given body part is in and of itself invoking of sexuality unless one has been conditioned to react that way.

I simply disagree. Certain features are always sexual, regardless of context, even if it is only on a subconscious level.

 

[Henrin]

Sexuality is contexual. No given body part is in and of itself invoking of sexuality unless one has been conditioned to react that way.

How do you figure that?

Btw, small tribes doesn't really prove anything since they are too tight knit to use as a comparison to larger groups.

 

[ChrisL]

Not into the "Precious" look? :lamo



Ummm... What?

Can you think of any other reason why some caveman would be carrying around a statue with gratuitous T&A busting out of every pore?

It was either prehistoric porn or a fertility goddess. There's frankly not much room in between. :lol:

Well, it's a statue of a woman, and if it didn't have breasts, a person wouldn't be able to identify such a primitive statue as such.

 

[ChrisL]

There is an old joke that men will always accept any offer to see breasts no matter if they are saggy or not. They might say, "oh god, put those away" after shown, but they want to see them regardless.

I know, you guys are really strange. You can get your own for a few thousand dollars you know! :lol:

 

[Gathomas88]

Well, it's a statue of a woman, and if it didn't have breasts, a person wouldn't be able to identify such a primitive statue as such.

So? Why so exaggerated then?

It's pretty obvious that the sheer size of the hips and breasts in question were pretty highly valued by whoever made the statue. That implies a certain element of sexual fantasy.

For that matter, I doubt that they would've made the statue at all for no reason. Art for its own sake wasn't a concept that really existed back then. If someone was going to waste umpteen hours that they could've spent hunting or otherwise feeding themselves carving a rock into titties and ass, there was usually a pretty solid purpose in mind. :lol:

 

[Henrin]

I know, you guys are really strange. You can get your own for a few thousand dollars you know! :lol:

But then I would never stop playing with them. I'm not sure how I would survive never wanting to leave the mirror.

 

[ChrisL]

So? Why so exaggerated then?

It's pretty obvious that the sheer size of the hips and breasts in question were pretty highly valued by whoever made the statue. That implies a certain element of sexual fantasy.

For that matter, I doubt that they would've made the statue at all for no reason. Art for its own sake wasn't a concept that really existed back then. If someone was going to waste umpteen hours that they could've spent hunting or otherwise feeding themselves carving a rock into titties and ass, there was usually a pretty solid purpose in mind. :lol:

Come on! That statue is not very sexually appealing. I'm not buying what you're selling Gathomas! :lol:

 

[Gathomas88]

Come on! That statue is not very sexually appealing. I'm not buying what you're selling Gathomas! :lol:

There are plenty of men even today who find that kind of thing appealing. :lol:

In any case, it's pretty unlikely that a cave woman would ever get enough food to become that fat in the first place. That's exactly why I'm saying that the statue is very likely a representation of sexual fantasy more than anything else. It's a feminine ideal, rather than a representation of the real thing.

It's basically like an ancient version of those ultra curvy cartoon women you see in modern media every now and then who are packing T&A that would be physically impossible for a normal woman.

Also, they weren't always necessarily that fat.



Whoever made this was clearly more of a leg man. :lamo

 

[ChrisL]

There are plenty of men even today who find that kind of thing appealing. :lol:

In any case, it's pretty unlikely that a cave woman would ever get enough food to become that fat in the first place. That's exactly why I'm saying that the statue is very likely a representation of sexual fantasy more than anything else. It's a feminine ideal, rather than a representation of the real thing.

It's basically like an ancient version of those ultra curvy cartoon women you see in modern media every now and then who are packing T&A that would be physically impossible for a normal woman.

Also, they weren't always necessarily that fat.

View attachment 67165473

Whoever made this was clearly more of a leg man. :lamo

Still not buying it. :lol: I just happen to think they might not have been very good artists, and it's not very easy to make a realistic-looking statue with such primitive tools that they had to work with.

 

[Gathomas88]

Still not buying it. :lol: I just happen to think they might not have been very good artists, and it's not very easy to make a realistic-looking statue with such primitive tools that they had to work with.

If a man is going to depict a naked woman through art at all (assuming he's not gay, of course), the motivation is usually sexual in at least some fashion.

Take my word on this. :lol:

 

[grip]

So? Why so exaggerated then?

It's pretty obvious that the sheer size of the hips and breasts in question were pretty highly valued by whoever made the statue. That implies a certain element of sexual fantasy.

For that matter, I doubt that they would've made the statue at all for no reason. Art for its own sake wasn't a concept that really existed back then. If someone was going to waste umpteen hours that they could've spent hunting or otherwise feeding themselves carving a rock into titties and ass, there was usually a pretty solid purpose in mind. :lol:

The time period suggest the ancient "fertility goddess" that was worshiped before the male deities. The curviness had more to do with the woman's ability to become pregnant and bring life into the world.

 

[Gathomas88]

The time period suggest the ancient "fertility goddess" that was worshiped before the male deities. The curviness had more to do with the woman's ability to become pregnant and bring life into the world.

Yes, but that is also sexual. Fertility goddesses tend to represent the "feminine ideal" more often than not.

 

[grip]

Yes, but that is also sexual. Fertility goddesses tend to represent the "feminine ideal" more often than not.

I'm not saying it's not sexual but it's probably not about sex. I'm not sure humans were all that knowledgeable about how the babies was made....lol

And half naked was pretty common also, so no mystery about what the woohoo's looked like.

 

[ZalmoxeAgoraeus]

Seeing uncovered boobs gets you horny, and that's because of inoculated reaction fabricated by white race society(no racism intented, I'm a white).
Look at the tribes of Africa, America, Asia and Australia. Generally, females have uncovered breasts and no male fusses about it.

However, inoculated by society or not, it is up to anyone of us to control self instincts.
I, for example, am 19 years old, and I have learned myself to control my impulses. That doesn't mean to erase emotions and feelings, but to control them and unleash them when it is apropiate. If we claim that we are civilised, we should prove it by being ablo to have control on ourselfes, in order to make society work more responsabile.
Regards.
:]

 

[lizzie]

All you have to do is look at some of those isolated tribes of people where the women are topless pretty much as a rule, and it seems like the men aren't even phased by their breasts, so you do have a good point here.

Exactly. One of the reasons we tend to have sexual hang-ups in this part of the world, is because of the mystery we associate with it, and the impressions that many of us acquire along the way in our youth. Forbidden fruit is always what we want, and we have been taught to be ashamed of our bodies and our sexuality, rather than keeping them in a healthy context. It goes all the way back to the Adam and Eve story, for God's sake. :lol:

 

[lizzie]

You know - my father is a nudist. Nudism is just gross. That's all I have to say. It's gross to have to worry about coming into contact with someone's bodily excretions just by sitting down where they sat.

That is what we have been taught to believe- that nudism is gross. I've known quite a few nudists in my lifetime, and some of them were very close friends. I found nothing at all "gross" about their lifestyles, or about them personally. It isn't a lifestyle that I want to live myself, especially at this age.