• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Was an apology required - Purpose of Female Breasts

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
woolfe9998 said:
If books didn't tell us that breasts were supposed to be sexy, we'd never give them a second look, right? No, sorry, the "sexualisation of breasts" doesn't require reinforcement from anything.

These feminists act as if biology has nothing to do with sex. They are fighting a battle they cannot win.
Click to expand...

Yeah I don't think it needs reinforcement. That's pretty implicit in society. However, I think there is more damage done by providing no explanation. Having something highly charged within us and being restricted from understanding that charge is the worst thing to do.

If you want to communicate that it is wrong to objectify women on the basis of their breasts, teach them why it's important not to objectify women -- along with giving them mastery over the feelings they have that are in conflict with that. In this case, a rational and productive explanation for why they feel charged up about boobs is really helpful.
 
Moonbeam said:
These kind erudition, for lack of a better word, are at once fascinating to me but also hard to wrap my head around. The question I come away with is whether you think that shame is a natural human emotion or requires some sort of activation via some prior event that applies humiliation?

Do you think shame exists when we fail to achieve some inner inborn expectation of ourselves, or is it the result of fear that love and support will be withheld, that we have failed to please? I guess the latter would have to be inborn so maybe I am not saying this right. Maybe is shame natural or learned. I just can't seem to find words to express my question which may mean I don't know myself what I am asking.
Click to expand...

Shame is a sudden deflation of expectation.
 
dank69 said:
First of all, you basically said the same thing I did so your condescension is unwarranted.

Secondly, I think you underestimate the possibility it could be detrimental. Let's assume you are correct that no girls will read this text. Let's also stipulate that boys and men will ogle breasts because everyone knows this.

What this could theoretically lead to is boys ogling breasts in a more aggressive manner and using this text as justification.

You and I both know we will be ogling breasts, but we also both know we should be subtle about it. I can see the possibility of boys not only ogling aggressively to the point of intimidating the girls, but when called out on it saying that they are somehow allowed to make girls uncomfortable because biology. That is not okay.
Click to expand...

No, I don't think that. It's think it's absurd that some 14 year boy is going to be more aggressive in ogling breasts because of something he read in a book. Also, even if "reinforcement" of the objectification of women is detrimental, wouldn't you think imagery would have a far greater impact than a few words in a self-help book?

Here is something to consider. In the Arab world they have almost no sexualized imagery or text. Porn is blocked. There are no scantily clad women on TV, movie or in advertisements. Etc. Yet how well are women treated there compared to the west where we are far more libertine about sexual imagery?
 
woolfe9998 said:
No, I don't think that. It's think it's absurd that some 14 year boy is going to be more aggressive in ogling breasts because of something he read in a book. Also, even if "reinforcement" of the objectification of women is detrimental, wouldn't you think imagery would have a far greater impact than a few words in a self-help book?

Here is something to consider. In the Arab world they have almost no sexualized imagery or text. Porn is blocked. There are no scantily clad women on TV, movie or in advertisements. Etc. Yet how well are women treated there compared to the west where we are far more libertine about sexual imagery?
Click to expand...
Yes, completely unheard of for people to fall back on "that's how I am wired" when called out for inappropriate behavior.

As for imagery and Arabs, I have no idea how that relates to anything I have said here.
 
interchange said:
Yeah I don't think it needs reinforcement. That's pretty implicit in society. However, I think there is more damage done by providing no explanation. Having something highly charged within us and being restricted from understanding that charge is the worst thing to do.

If you want to communicate that it is wrong to objectify women on the basis of their breasts, teach them why it's important not to objectify women -- along with giving them mastery over the feelings they have that are in conflict with that. In this case, a rational and productive explanation for why they feel charged up about boobs is really helpful.
Click to expand...

No, I don't think it's implicit "in society." I think it's implicit in human beings. Males evolved to be voyeuristic and quick to arouse. Without "sexual objectification of women" the male motivation for sex is minimal. We aren't going to change males to where they suddenly are interested in women only for "what's on the inside." We aren't made that way. Men are aroused mainly through visual stimulation, and this isn't something we need to be taught.

What we should teach is to respect women and their boundaries. Whatever thoughts may be going through your head, there is no excuse for bad behavior toward women.

You want to give someone a hangup? Teach a young man that his being aroused at the sight of a pair of breasts is wrong. Then they can self-flagellate for the rest of their lives.

Anti-sex feminism is traditional sexual morality re-packaged for the modern age, now with a distinctly anti-male cast, as opposed to the traditional version which tended to be anti-female. Either way, the result is the same: sex = bad.
 
Last edited:
dank69 said:
Yes, completely unheard of for people to fall back on "that's how I am wired" when called out for inappropriate behavior.
Click to expand...

What "bad behavior" are we talking about here? Being attracted to breasts doesn't turn you into a rapist or sexual harasser.

Our sexual interests are largely wired. Our actual behavior, however, is largely a matter of choice. We can fantasize about touching women's breasts all the time but it doesn't mean we're ever going to touch them without consent.

As for imagery and Arabs, I have no idea how that relates to anything I have said here.
Click to expand...

In cultures where "sexual objectification" of women is minimal, women are treated far, far worse. Obviously sexualized imagery isn't what causes the bulk of bad behavior toward women.
 
woolfe9998 said:
No, I don't think it's implicit "in society." I think it's implicit in human beings. Males evolved to be voyeuristic and quick to arouse. Without "sexual objectification of women" the male motivation for sex is minimal. We aren't going to change males to where they suddenly are interested in women only for "what's on the inside." We aren't made that way. Men are aroused mainly through visual stimulation, and this isn't something we need to be taught.

What we should teach is to respect women and their boundaries. Whatever thoughts may be going through your head, there is no excuse for bad behavior toward women.

You want to give someone a hangup? Teach a young man that his being aroused at the sight of a pair of breasts is wrong. Then they can self-flagellate for the rest of their lives.

Anti-sex feminism is traditional sexual morality re-packaged for the modern age, now with a distinctly anti-male cast, as opposed to the traditional version which tended to be anti-female. Either way, the result is the same: sex = bad.
Click to expand...

Well, we are in agreement with where kids are at when we get to this point and what to do from there. Let's stick with that instead of arguing about how we ended up there in the first place.
 
interchange said:
Well, we are in agreement with where kids are at when we get to this point and what to do from there. Let's stick with that instead of arguing about how we ended up there in the first place.
Click to expand...

The problem is that "how we ended up there in the first place" is a critical issue. If male sexual voyeurism is learned, then it can be unlearned. Which suggests an entirely different course of action.

This reminds me of the ideas that religious conservatives have about homosexuality. Maybe we should follow suit, get some conversion therapy for straight males, and teach them to want women for their souls instead of their bodies.
 
woolfe9998 said:
What "bad behavior" are we talking about here? Being attracted to breasts doesn't turn you into a rapist or sexual harasser.

Our sexual interests are largely wired. Our actual behavior, however, is largely a matter of choice. We can fantasize about touching women's breasts all the time but it doesn't mean we're ever going to touch them without consent.
Click to expand...
The bad behavior I am talking about is harassment that may arise because boys may feel that they now have a "license" to do so because "they can't fight nature." I'm not saying this is a huge risk from this line. I'm just saying it's possible that there is some greater than zero chance and I've yet to hear what benefit the line has to offset it.



In cultures where "sexual objectification" of women is minimal, women are treated far, far worse. Obviously sexualized imagery isn't what causes the bulk of bad behavior toward women.
Click to expand...
Yes but I never said anything about imagery, which is why I am asking why you are bringing it up.
 
sorry [idiot complainer in the OP's story], but breasts are completely sexualized because they are an eons-long factor in mate selection. For men, breasts effect nearly the same cues regarding health and potential parental material in women, as do pure physical cues that females see in men.

Every fucking animal selects this way. Humans, by far, have the largest dick size-to-body ratio of all the other primates, expressly because human chicks have been sexualizing that dick for at least 3 million years.

deal with it.

One of the more evidenced theories of extended parental care for human males compared to other primates is that as we evolved upright walking, the primary ovulatory cue for all other primates: the engorged vulva signaling the proestrous > estrous stages of the menstrual cycle, moved to a position that was no longer explicit. This kept men around longer because they were less aware of when the lady mate could be knocked up. Likewise, we needed yet more signals to identify proper mates. A great pair of funbags means more potential milk to feed my future would-be king son(s).
 
Last edited:
Moonbeam said:
And? Some of human adaption is billions of years old, some hundreds of millions of years old, some tens of millions of years old, some millions of years old and some more recent still. Right now we are struggling with the adaptive advantages accrued via frontal lobe cognitive thinking, and amygdala fight or flight, and how one can impede the effectiveness of the other. Our reasoning capacities are late to the scene and we are still adjusting. We are still adjusting and for a longer time, with the survival instinct vs the welfare of society. We have a lot of things ingrained. Evolution has to work with the evolution that has already transpired and that may include prior adaptions becoming vestigial.
Click to expand...


selective evolution is over. If the people who are having the most babies are the hyper sexualized humans then guess what traits will move on? Those who "reason" sex are probably not reproducing at the same rates.
 
interchange said:
What? Why? Tell me how something is "unlearned" outside of harm to the brain.
Click to expand...

Anything learned can be unlearned by overriding it with new learning. I'm not talking about "unlearned" in the sense of forgetting something you know. I'm talking about attitudes, beliefs, opinions, preferences, etc.
 
woolfe9998 said:
Anything learned can be unlearned by overriding it with new learning. I'm not talking about "unlearned" in the sense of forgetting something you know. I'm talking about attitudes, beliefs, opinions, preferences, etc.
Click to expand...

You mean like teaching people to respect women and their boundaries? This is no different, except the hope in my mind is to teach that alongside appreciation of breasts as a sexual object.
 
GagHalfrunt said:
What?!?!?
Click to expand...
Surely you of all people don't think God created man 6000 years ago wholly formed. When I used the term human evolution I was referring to the sum of evolution that led up to modern man. Personally I had one thought in mind when I used the word billions, the fusing of two completely different evolutionary chains of life: Eukaryotes evolved approximately 1.6–2.1 billion years ago, during the Proterozoic eon and sport mitochondrial DNA. It functions in powering the cell.
 
Moonbeam said:
Surely you of all people don't think God created man 6000 years ago wholly formed. When I used the term human evolution I was referring to the sum of evolution that led up to modern man. Personally I had one thought in mind when I used the word billions, the fusing of two completely different evolutionary chains of life: Eukaryotes evolved approximately 1.6–2.1 billion years ago, during the Proterozoic eon and sport mitochondrial DNA. It functions in powering the cell.
Click to expand...

And multi-cellular life sprung up less than a billion years ago. How on earth can human adaptations be billions of years old? You think we have anything in common with viruses? The first primates date to maybe 50 million years ago and even that would be pushing things. Human adaptations are a hell of a lot more recent than "billions of years". Be a grown-up and when caught pulling unsupported numbers out of your ass don't try to hide behind some lame-ass biblical deflection. Ideally, don't pull them out of your ass at all, but that seems to be too much to ask for.
 
JSt0rm said:
selective evolution is over. If the people who are having the most babies are the hyper sexualized humans then guess what traits will move on? Those who "reason" sex are probably not reproducing at the same rates.
Click to expand...
Really. You think birth rates are a product of hyper-sexualization?
 
GagHalfrunt said:
And multi-cellular life sprung up less than a billion years ago. How on earth can human adaptations be billions of years old? You think we have anything in common with viruses? The first primates date to maybe 50 million years ago and even that would be pushing things. Human adaptations are a hell of a lot more recent than "billions of years". Be a grown-up and when caught pulling unsupported numbers out of your ass don't try to hide behind some lame-ass biblical deflection. Ideally, don't pull them out of your ass at all, but that seems to be too much to ask for.
Click to expand...
Are you trying to tell me that viruses aren’t people? How dumb can you be. I happen to know two by their first names, Swine and Avian.
 
zinfamous said:
sorry [idiot complainer in the OP's story], but breasts are completely sexualized because they are an eons-long factor in mate selection. For men, breasts effect nearly the same cues regarding health and potential parental material in women, as do pure physical cues that females see in men.

Every fucking animal selects this way. Humans, by far, have the largest dick size-to-body ratio of all the other primates, expressly because human chicks have been sexualizing that dick for at least 3 million years.

deal with it.

One of the more evidenced theories of extended parental care for human males compared to other primates is that as we evolved upright walking, the primary ovulatory cue for all other primates: the engorged vulva signaling the proestrous and estrous, moved to a position that was not explicit. This kept men around longer because they were less aware of when the lady could be knocked up. Likewise, we needed more signals to identify proper mates. A great pair of funbags means more potential milk to feed my future would-be king son(s).
Click to expand...

The really bizarro thing is nipples. I see male nipples all the time and it does absolutely nothing for me. Women's nipples on the other hand have an immediate and powerful impact. As illustrated in the link below, they are essentially the same thing.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/a...s-anti-nipple-policy-close-ups-men-women.html
 
GagHalfrunt said:
And multi-cellular life sprung up less than a billion years ago. How on earth can human adaptations be billions of years old? You think we have anything in common with viruses? The first primates date to maybe 50 million years ago and even that would be pushing things. Human adaptations are a hell of a lot more recent than "billions of years". Be a grown-up and when caught pulling unsupported numbers out of your ass don't try to hide behind some lame-ass biblical deflection. Ideally, don't pull them out of your ass at all, but that seems to be too much to ask for.
Click to expand...

The answer to that is, of course, not as simple as you want it to be.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/04/science/ancient-viruses-dna-genome.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/evolution/endogenous-retroviruses/

Regardless, Moonbeam is 100% correct that evolution is a sum of gradual changes over billions of years and that we share basic cellular functions with the eukaryotes of 2 billion years ago. We certainly wouldn't be around if they weren't, so in that sense human adaptation starts with them. Not really sure why you went off on him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top