Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Reelya]

Actually I'd want a citation on that. Japanese and Chinese cartoons both have a big boob thing pretty much the same as the west in pop culture.

A comparative survey would be a good source. Basically it's too easy to pick up "media narratives" that don't turn out to be representative. e.g. sometimes the West seems to pick up news stories from Japan uncritically, but when you delve into the details they seem more like moral panics than balanced stories.

[MoonyTheHuman]

We need to invent a boob free culture.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Hey, in parts of Southeast Asia having as little boob as possible is seen as desirable. The breast fetishism that we Westerners take for granted is indeed a cultural artifact.

However I guess it's no coincidence that in both cultures breasts carry a sexual significance, as opposed to, let's say, pinky toes.

Right, the mistake that some people make is they see cultures where women go topless as standard and then think "huh, traits of sexual attraction are entirely culturally defined" which is wrong. The same traits are seen as sexual everywhere, it's just that the dress code changes. Victorians and their feet fetishism, for example.

[Reelya]

it's also an interesting possibility that standards change depending on resource availability. e.g. there's some lab research that suggests men under stress find bigger women more attractive. So there are trade-offs on the optimal mate depending on resource availability. This is backed up by stuff such as how in the depression, curvy models became more popular, while in the "roaring 20s" stick-thin "flappers" were popular, and then thinner models became popular again in the food-abundant 50s-60s,. Also, resource-strained cultures do seem to favor bigger women compared to wealthy food-abundant nations.

So, at least some of those cultural variations and "trends" could in fact be driven by evolved adaptability. e.g. just because something varies doesn't mean it's cultural. Evolution is optimized to make humans adaptable to a range of situations, so it's only to be expected that traits vary according to environmental cues.

[redwallzyl]

To be honest I've suspected some of that is from both genders, however it's couched differently / has it's own rationales.

e.g. "patriarchy fat-shaming / unrealistic beauty standards" could in some cases be a mask for the same sort of gripes. Basically ... those people who claim that all sexual attraction is a myth because of the patriarchy. e.g. the claim that boobs aren't desirable because we've evolved to be attracted to signs of biological adulthood, but it's completely arbitrary.

No one knows why the hell permanently engorged breasts evolved in humans. Its an ongoing debate in biological anthropology and will remain so for the foreseeable future.

Standards of beauty are mostly culturally defined as is appropriate dress. Usually the two seem to go together. Looking at the change over time is fascinating. I believe it was a thing for awhile in Europe to have vary low cut bodices but covered hair. And you can't forget those sexy ankles. Human sexuality is strange sometimes, or most of the time really. Also I read an article about the booming Egyptian sexy lingerie market which was rather interesting.

[Rolan7]

Hey, in parts of Southeast Asia having as little boob as possible is seen as desirable. The breast fetishism that we Westerners take for granted is indeed a cultural artifact.

However I guess it's no coincidence that in both cultures breasts carry a sexual significance, as opposed to, let's say, pinky toes.

While it's not an exact match, reminder that foot-binding was a pretty big thing. 

Spoiler: Huh, why did I explain the concept?  I guess because people should know. (click to show/hide)

As I understand, it signaled that the woman lived a life of refinement and leisure (having been electively crippled...).  I prefer outlandish fashions which don't involve mutilation, myself.

Of course it's largely been taboo to show naked feet in public in a lot of places for a long time.  "Bare ankles!" is a joke now, but...

Honestly, you could cover up any part of the body and it was interest people.  In fact, to bring the funny back...  A Dumbing Of Age strip on the subject
http://www.dumbingofage.com/2016/comic/book-7/01-glower-vacuum/bitty/
I like this comic a lot, shame I'm getting close to caught up X:

[Reelya]

To be honest I've suspected some of that is from both genders, however it's couched differently / has it's own rationales.

e.g. "patriarchy fat-shaming / unrealistic beauty standards" could in some cases be a mask for the same sort of gripes. Basically ... those people who claim that all sexual attraction is a myth because of the patriarchy. e.g. the claim that boobs aren't desirable because we've evolved to be attracted to signs of biological adulthood, but it's completely arbitrary.

No one knows why the hell permanently engorged breasts evolved in humans. Its an ongoing debate in biological anthropology and will remain so for the foreseeable future.

Standards of beauty are mostly culturally defined as is appropriate dress. Usually the two seem to go together. Looking at the change over time is fascinating. I believe it was a thing for awhile in Europe to have vary low cut bodices but covered hair. And you can't forget those sexy ankles. Human sexuality is strange sometimes, or most of the time really. Also I read an article about the booming Egyptian sexy lingerie market which was rather interesting.

The most interesting theory is that boobs evolve to resemble butts. It holds true across a variety of primate species (e.g. female primates with a red butt also have a patch of red on their chest). e.g. primate mating is from behind, so the primary attaction for the "mounter" was to a raised butt. Then through co-evolution the mount-ee would develop a "front" display that also signifies fertility, and exploits the wiring of the male's existing attaction to the "view from behind". Then becoming bipedal shifted the balance, but the "attraction" soft-wiring was pre-existing so it was appropriated.

So the question might be rephrased as: why did humans evolve big round pink butts?

However for why the breasts are permanently large rather than only periodic then there are definitely some possible theories (tribal living i.e. wetnursing, non-seasonal mating, long period of suckling young which lasts over several breeding cycles, or just the bipedal thing I mentioned before making the "front" more of a big deal for attraction).

[Reelya]

BTW sorry for the double post but I had to share some proper laughs. Coconut Love:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxIO9IiU8A0

[redwallzyl]

To be honest I've suspected some of that is from both genders, however it's couched differently / has it's own rationales.

e.g. "patriarchy fat-shaming / unrealistic beauty standards" could in some cases be a mask for the same sort of gripes. Basically ... those people who claim that all sexual attraction is a myth because of the patriarchy. e.g. the claim that boobs aren't desirable because we've evolved to be attracted to signs of biological adulthood, but it's completely arbitrary.

No one knows why the hell permanently engorged breasts evolved in humans. Its an ongoing debate in biological anthropology and will remain so for the foreseeable future.

Standards of beauty are mostly culturally defined as is appropriate dress. Usually the two seem to go together. Looking at the change over time is fascinating. I believe it was a thing for awhile in Europe to have vary low cut bodices but covered hair. And you can't forget those sexy ankles. Human sexuality is strange sometimes, or most of the time really. Also I read an article about the booming Egyptian sexy lingerie market which was rather interesting.

The most interesting theory is that boobs evolve to resemble butts. It holds true across a variety of primate species (e.g. female primates with a red butt also have a patch of red on their chest). e.g. primate mating is from behind, so the primary attaction for the "mounter" was to a raised butt. Then through co-evolution the mount-ee would develop a "front" display that also signifies fertility, and exploits the wiring of the male's existing attaction to the "view from behind". Then becoming bipedal shifted the balance, but the "attraction" soft-wiring was pre-existing so it was appropriated.

So the question might be rephrased as: why did humans evolve big round pink butts?

However for why the breasts are permanently large rather than only periodic then there are definitely some possible theories (tribal living i.e. wetnursing, non-seasonal mating, long period of suckling young which lasts over several breeding cycles, or just the bipedal thing I mentioned before making the "front" more of a big deal for attraction).

There's a bit of a problem with it. That is that engorged breasts in primates mean that the female is not fertile at the moment as they are pregnant or nursing. So the attraction bit kind of hits a snag.

[Flying Dice]

EA at it again.

[USEC_OFFICER]

That EA comment has over negative 348,000 points at the the time of this posting. It's literally the most downvoted comment in Reddit's history by a factor of over 14. It's the most impressive work that EA has done this past year. ^_:v

[Arx]

It's amazing. I've been watching this unfold, and the comment has maintained a steady downward rate. I thought it would bottom out, but nope, still going.

[Rolan7]

That EA comment has over negative 348,000 points at the the time of this posting. It's literally the most downvoted comment in Reddit's history by a factor of over 14. It's the most impressive work that EA has done this past year. ^_:v

That's... horrifying.  I get that EA is over-monetizing, but there's nothing offensive or even noteworthy about that comment.  What the hell?

[Ultimuh]

I get that EA is over-monetizing, but there's nothing offensive or even noteworthy about that comment.  What the hell?

The intent is to provide players with a sense of pride and accomplishment for unlocking different heroes.

"You like this unlockable character? Sure you can, you just have to farm currency endlessly for days to have them."
"Or.. you can simply give us your money to get this character instantly!"
There is no pride (as they otherwise claim) to have in this. That's what's offensive to me at least.

[USEC_OFFICER]

Apparently it takes 40+ hours of play to grind enough currency to purchase Darth Vader, without even thinking of purchasing anything else. So I imagine it was a bunch of players getting annoyed over that reply and then everyone else jumping onto the EA-hatred bandwagon.