nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Boob flashing v Dick flashing

lleti

Why is this not treated equally? A woman flashed her milk cartons at a Post Malone concert and it went viral yet if a man flashed his winky he'd be called a pervert.

How is this?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Annurca Apples

If breasts were purely for feeding infants I doubt very much so many women would go out of their way to display cleavage.

[Deleted User]

Panthro wrote: »

I follow the mantra more than a handful is a waste.

But, you have two hands (presumably, apologies if I've brought up the sore subject of you being light one arm).

[Deleted User]

Panthro wrote: »

Especially the hairy, saggy, beady sweating, BO ridden moobs!

Thank you. Thank you for that lovely image. *heeeeeave*

Panthro

NeinNeinNein wrote: »

You don't get off that lightly. Which particular type do you prefer?

I follow the mantra more than a handful is a waste.

Panthro

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Even moobs?

Waiting for ... 'especially moobs' :pac:

Especially the hairy, saggy, beady sweating, BO ridden moobs!

Annurca Apples

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Actually, it is. He focused on size a lot. Reread his post - “the primary reason for the size of breasts...”. (emphasis mine)

The bottom line is that breasts are inherently sexual, they are multi purpose glands.

Yop quality breasts serve to attract top quality men, thereby improving the chances of top quality children.

[Deleted User]

Panthro wrote: »

I think we can all agree boobs are great

Even moobs?

Waiting for ... 'especially moobs' :pac:

[Deleted User]

Panthro wrote: »

I think we can all agree boobs are great

You don't get off that lightly. Which particular type do you prefer?

[Deleted User]

Zorya wrote: »

Aside from all this signalling or not signalling, feeding etc, primary secondary, I don't know but it seems to me that in ordinary films, and even more so sophisticated ones, the women almost universally have small boobs when they take off their tops. They look very nice, but they are defo on the small side. It seems the bigger boobs are a bit embarrassing and / or are kept for more pornographic representations from mags to films. One doesn't really see bigger boobs in regualr movies when women take off their tops. Maybe because those actresses have to be over all quite skinny? Hmm, don't know. Maybe I watch the wrong movies. Or maybe because bigger boobs are more quickly associated with sex. Poor bigger boobed girls- and by bigger boobed I mean even a normalish C cup from what I don't see in movies. Yikes, what thought train have I taken a ride on.

Angelina Jolie sized are fine by me and she's surely bigger than a C cup.

Panthro

I think we can all agree boobs are great

[Deleted User]

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I addressed his point that their primary purpose was as a sexual signifier

And missed the point he was making, that breasts were sexual.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

But some women have very small boobs. I mean, really small. Smaller than orang utans. Nipple and not much else. And those women are still considered attractive by many men as despite what popular culture tells us, sizeable boobs are not the be-all and end-all.

Which was irrelevant to the trust of Fash's post about breasts being sexual. And now that I re-read it it doesn't even address the primacy issue. You just want to talk about how small boobs can be attractive as well.

Nice try, but you completely missed Fash's point and went off on an irrelevance... like your input to this thread.

[Deleted User]

Church on Tuesday wrote: »

Ears are an erogenous zone.

So are arseholes.

Zorya

Aside from all this signalling or not signalling, feeding etc, primary secondary, I don't know but it seems to me that in ordinary films, and even more so sophisticated ones, the women almost universally have small boobs when they take off their tops. They look very nice, but they are defo on the small side. It seems the bigger boobs are a bit embarrassing and / or are kept for more pornographic representations from mags to films. One doesn't really see bigger boobs in regualr movies when women take off their tops. Maybe because those actresses have to be over all quite skinny? Hmm, don't know. Maybe I watch the wrong movies. Or maybe because bigger boobs are more quickly associated with sex. Poor bigger boobed girls- and by bigger boobed I mean even a normalish C cup from what I don't see in movies. Yikes, what thought train have I taken a ride on.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Deleted User wrote: »

I suspect you over estimate your own intelligence.

"Not exactly. The primary reason for the size of breasts is sexual signaling. The requirements for feeding offspring is much smaller- see female orangutan breasts for what breasts would look like is feeding offspring was the sole determining criterion."

Fash made the above comment when someone said Breasts weren't sexual. This was the point he was correcting, and that they are sexual. He was only wrong to the level of importance he gave them. If he had said secondary rather than primary he would have been 100% correct.

You latched onto size. Size has no bearing on whether they are primary or secondary characteristics.

Have I dumbed it down enough for you?

I addressed his point that their primary purpose was as a sexual signifier and addressed the way he went about illustrating that. So I didn’t miss the point of his post.

His mistake indeed was to classify their sexual function as their primary rather than secondary characteristic. Like it or not, he set out in the post to show that that was their primary function. You seem to have mixed your post and his together for some reason. But I didn’t respond to your post so whatever point you made, well, you don’t know if I missed the point of it because I didn’t respond to it.

[Deleted User]

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

No it isn’t because they backed up that that was their primary function by talking about size! To paraphrase “Their primary function is as a sexual signifier. The female breast size in relation to those of orang utans demonstrates this”. You really can’t see why I talked about size in reaction to their post? Read between the lines, for christ’s sake. I didn’t think I needed to simply spell it out more plainly because I don’t expect to have to dumb things down for people here.

I suspect you over estimate your own intelligence.

"Not exactly. The primary reason for the size of breasts is sexual signaling. The requirements for feeding offspring is much smaller- see female orangutan breasts for what breasts would look like is feeding offspring was the sole determining criterion."

Fash made the above comment when someone said Breasts weren't sexual. This was the point he was correcting, and that they are sexual. He was only wrong to the level of importance he gave them. If he had said secondary rather than primary he would have been 100% correct.

You latched onto size. Size has no bearing on whether they are primary or secondary characteristics.

Have I dumbed it down enough for you?

EmmetSpiceland

Feisar wrote: »

Pink eye. I'll do anything after a lock of stout however I feel licky licky bum bum is main stream/standard when it really shouldn't be. Definately something for after a good hot shower. Not when yer drunk at half two in the morning with a ONS.

Ah now, you don’t go putting your eye into it!

My “one night stand” days are long behind me but when I was in them I’d always, always, run the tongue down past the “varse” and give the “brown star” a swirl.

Only found one girl who really wasn’t “into” it. She absolutely adores giving it though, always felt very selfish but if she didn’t like it I wasn’t going to force the issue.

Stevieluvsye wrote: »

That’s what I meant E

Sorry, S, wasn’t the first thing that came to my mind. Thought it was a bit out of “left field” alright!

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Deleted User wrote: »

If you simply pointed that out you would have been correct. 'Hey, Nth Clare, the Primary function of breasts is breastfeeding.' Simple. But, you went on about breast sizes, which was irrelevant to that point.

No it isn’t because they backed up that that was their primary function by talking about size! To paraphrase “Their primary function is as a sexual signifier. The female breast size in relation to those of orang utans demonstrates this”. You really can’t see why I talked about size in reaction to their post? Read between the lines, for christ’s sake. I didn’t think I needed to simply spell it out more plainly because I don’t expect to have to dumb things down for people here.

Stevieluvsye

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

You should have said “ear” rimming there, S. Not that there’s anything wrong with a “regular” rimming. You know yourself.

That’s what I meant E

[Deleted User]

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Well, I was addressing their point that it was a primary function so I didn’t miss their point, as you said I did.

If you simply pointed that out you would have been correct. 'Hey, Nth Clare, the Primary function of breasts is breastfeeding.' Simple. But, you went on about breast sizes, which was irrelevant to that point.

Church on Tuesday

NeinNeinNein wrote: »

An ear rimming?

Ears are an erogenous zone.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Deleted User wrote: »

Not as their primary function no, but signals a significant secondary one.

Well, I was addressing their point that it was a primary function so I didn’t miss their point, as you said I did.

Feisar

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

You should have said “ear” rimming there, S. Not that there’s anything wrong with a “regular” rimming. You know yourself.

Pink eye. I'll do anything after a lock of stout however I feel licky licky bum bum is main stream/standard when it really shouldn't be. Definately something for after a good hot shower. Not when yer drunk at half two in the morning with a ONS.

EmmetSpiceland

Stevieluvsye wrote: »

Full tongue action inside and around the ear.

Highly recommend it

You should have said “ear” rimming there, S. Not that there’s anything wrong with a “regular” rimming. You know yourself.

[Deleted User]

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

But many human breasts are smaller than that so it was not a good way to argue that being a sexual signifier is their primary function.

Not as their primary function no, but signals a significant secondary one.

Stevieluvsye

NeinNeinNein wrote: »

An ear rimming?

Full tongue action inside and around the ear.

Highly recommend it

Zorya

Stevieluvsye wrote: »

Thanks. Appreciate the support and knowing i have made a differance today

You will have to spell difference differently though..

[Deleted User]

An ear rimming?

Stevieluvsye

Panthro wrote: »

This is wonderful information and i for one am a better person for knowing it.

Thanks. Appreciate the support and knowing i have made a differance today

Zorya

Stevieluvsye wrote: »

I agree. He was particular about ear lobes.

Who's to say that's weird though as i love an oul tongue rimming meself from the mrs

Sharing is caring Stevie.:o

Panthro

Stevieluvsye wrote: »

Who's to say that's weird though as i love an oul tongue rimming meself from the mrs

This is wonderful information and i for one am a better person for knowing it.