Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Boob flashing v Dick flashing

13»

Comments

  • #102
    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,474 ✭✭✭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.


  • #103
    Zorya
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,194 ✭✭✭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.


  • #104
    NeinNeinNein
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,189 ✭✭✭NeinNeinNein


    Church on Tuesday wrote: »
    Ears are an erogenous zone.
    So are arseholes.


  • #105
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [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.


  • #106
    Panthro
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,826 ✭✭✭✭Panthro


    I think we can all agree boobs are great


  • #107
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [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.


  • #108
    NeinNeinNein
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,189 ✭✭✭NeinNeinNein


    Panthro wrote: »
    I think we can all agree boobs are great
    You don't get off that lightly. Which particular type do you prefer?


  • #109
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Panthro wrote: »
    I think we can all agree boobs are great

    Even moobs?

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


  • #110
    Annurca Apples
    Site Banned Posts: 66 ✭✭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.


  • #111
    Panthro
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,826 ✭✭✭✭Panthro


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    Even moobs?

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

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


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    Panthro
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,826 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #113
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Panthro wrote: »
    Especially the hairy, saggy, beady sweating, BO ridden moobs!

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


  • #114
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [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).


  • #115
    Annurca Apples
    Site Banned Posts: 66 ✭✭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.


  • #116
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Annurca Apples wrote: »
    The bottom line is that breasts are inherently sexual, they are multi purpose glands.

    Oh look, I bet she's got lovely multi purpose glands beneath her jumper... Nah, don't think it's going to catch on. :pac:


  • #117
    Zorya
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,194 ✭✭✭Zorya


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Angelina Jolie sized are fine by me and she's surely bigger than a C cup.

    Did she take off her top in movies and show her boobs? I haven't seen them. Maybe she did. I think hers are implants now and to be honest I think they look a bit big on her skeletal frame. Angelina has a really beautiful face but her body now is scary looking (to me). Really big veins on arms make me squirm a bit. Bigger boobs normally come with a bit of cushion in nearby places, a small bit of squish around the armpits, a bit of bounce elsewhere, they don't sit naturally like cushiony half grapefruits on an otherwise quite fleshless torso.
    I have gone too far on this train ride. :rolleyes: :pac:


  • #118
    EmmetSpiceland
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,037 ✭✭✭✭EmmetSpiceland


    Zorya wrote: »
    Did she take off her top in movies and show her boobs? I haven't seen them. Maybe she did.

    ‘Mia’ and ‘Pushing Tin’ are two examples of film where she’s gotten her “baps” out.

    “It is not blood that makes you Irish but a willingness to be part of the Irish nation” - Thomas Davis



  • #119
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Zorya wrote: »
    Did she take off her top in movies and show her boobs?

    Yes. Yes, she did :)

    Zorya wrote: »
    I think hers are implants now and to be honest I think they look a bit big on her skeletal frame.

    Yes, they are now I believe. But, she did the deed pre implants.
    Zorya wrote: »
    I have gone too far on this train ride. :rolleyes: :pac:

    We're talking about boobs. We've not even left the station. Buckle up, you're in for a bouncy ride (said the actress to the Bishop) :D


  • #120
    Zorya
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,194 ✭✭✭Zorya


    EmmetSpiceland wrote: »
    ‘Mia’ and ‘Pushing Tin’ are two examples of film where she’s gotten her “baps” out.

    Oh I missed those. She is not an actress I seek out when looking for movies, she lets her lips do to much of the work for my liking. Brad her ex does that sometimes too - yeah alright guys, we got that you have pouty lips but stop now. It's distracting from the story.
    I might check them out though, ya know..


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    NeinNeinNein
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,189 ✭✭✭NeinNeinNein


    Zorya wrote: »
    Did she take off her top in movies and show her boobs? I haven't seen them. Maybe she did. I think hers are implants now and to be honest I think they look a bit big on her skeletal frame. Angelina has a really beautiful face but her body now is scary looking (to me). Really big veins on arms make me squirm a bit. Bigger boobs normally come with a bit of cushion in nearby places, a small bit of squish around the armpits, a bit of bounce elsewhere, they don't sit naturally like cushiony half grapefruits on an otherwise quite fleshless torso.
    I have gone too far on this train ride. :rolleyes: :pac:
    Not sure if that's a starter or a dessert.


  • #122
    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,474 ✭✭✭Obvious Desperate Breakfasts


    Deleted User wrote: »
    And missed the point he was making, that breasts were sexual.



    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.

    I... can’t say that that’s something I’m gunning to talk about. My boobs are a C/D cup. No great impetus there to big up small boobs. What an assumption to make.


  • #123
    Zorya
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,194 ✭✭✭Zorya


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Yes, they are now I believe. But, she did the deed pre implants.

    She did look better years ago, not because she was younger but because she was quite un put together looking. She was beautiful. Now she is still beautiful but looks decidedly odd and a bit scary.


  • #124
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »
    I... can’t say that that’s something I’m gunning to talk about. My boobs are a C/D cup. No great impetus there to big up small boobs. What an assumption to make.

    Typical woman trying to distract me with her boobs... what I meant to say was... something... Yay! boobs!


  • #125
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Zorya wrote: »
    She did look better years ago

    She was. She's more activist now. Not that she could ever have been described as a shrinking violet.


  • #126
    storker
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,688 ✭✭✭storker


    Leg End Reject wrote: »
    The primary function of the mammary glands is to nourish offspring. They are not sexual in reality, just intricatedly linked with femininity.

    That's debated. Other apes manage to breastfeed perfectly well while being quite flat-chested in comparison to human females, so the shapeliness of the human breast is not necessary for feeding.


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    EmmetSpiceland
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,037 ✭✭✭✭EmmetSpiceland


    storker wrote: »
    That's debated. Other apes manage to breastfeed perfectly well while being quite flat-chested in comparison to human females, so the shapeliness of the human breast is not necessary for feeding.

    I thought men were attracted to cleavage because it looked like the ass? Some primal reminder of when “copulation” was exclusively “doggy” fashion.

    I’m sure I saw that on some show on “Discovery”, or the likes, or maybe I’m confusing it with something else.

    “It is not blood that makes you Irish but a willingness to be part of the Irish nation” - Thomas Davis



  • #128
    Stevieluvsye
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,907 ✭✭✭Stevieluvsye


    EmmetSpiceland wrote: »
    I thought men were attracted to cleavage because it looked like the ass? Some primal reminder of when “copulation” was exclusively “doggy” fashion.

    I’m sure I saw that on some show on “Discovery”, or the likes, or maybe I’m confusing it with something else.

    The Office!


  • #129
    Zorya
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,194 ✭✭✭Zorya


    EmmetSpiceland wrote: »
    I thought men were attracted to cleavage because it looked like the ass? Some primal reminder of when “copulation” was exclusively “doggy” fashion.

    I’m sure I saw that on some show on “Discovery”, or the likes, or maybe I’m confusing it with something else.

    Anthropologists and their theories :D How do they test these erudite flights of fancy, I sometimes wonder.


  • #130
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    EmmetSpiceland wrote: »
    I thought men were attracted to cleavage because it looked like the ass?

    No, just no. If you're attracted to ass look at her ass. :p

    I imagine it's to do with an identifier. I.E. 'Ug, what's that underneath bear skin. It has breasts, must be WOH-MAN. Now, where's my club?'


  • #131
    Zorya
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,194 ✭✭✭Zorya


    Come off it, don't be silly now. Cave women could be distinguished from cave men by their lipstick


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Zorya wrote: »
    Come off it, don't be silly now. Cave women could be distinguished from cave men by their lipstick

    Was only joking, of course the big give away was when they went behind the bushes in groups to go for a pee :pac:


  • #133
    fash
    Registered Users Posts: 2,275 ✭✭✭fash


    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »
    Obviously.

    That poster said the primary function was as a sexual signifier. Not just of one of their functions but the primary function. And then pointed to the size of human breasts in comparison to those of those of an orang utan to back that point up. 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.

    No read again - I said the primary reason for the size of human female breasts is sexual signalling.


  • #134
    fash
    Registered Users Posts: 2,275 ✭✭✭fash


    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.

    To repeat, read again - I said the primary reason for the size of human female breasts is sexual signalling.


  • #135
    fash
    Registered Users Posts: 2,275 ✭✭✭fash


    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?
    And once again... read my original post.


  • #136
    kowloon
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,517 ✭✭✭✭kowloon


    NeinNeinNein wrote: »
    Could lead to all manner of unfortunate outcomes at the deli counter.

    You want mayo on... too late. :(


  • #137
    ceadaoin.
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,365 ✭✭✭ceadaoin.


    Zorya wrote: »
    Did she take off her top in movies and show her boobs? I haven't seen them. Maybe she did. I think hers are implants now and to be honest I think they look a bit big on her skeletal frame. Angelina has a really beautiful face but her body now is scary looking (to me). Really big veins on arms make me squirm a bit. Bigger boobs normally come with a bit of cushion in nearby places, a small bit of squish around the armpits, a bit of bounce elsewhere, they don't sit naturally like cushiony half grapefruits on an otherwise quite fleshless torso.
    I have gone too far on this train ride. :rolleyes: :pac:


    They are indeed implants now, because she had a preventative double mastectomy as well as a hysterectomy. Her mother died of ovarian cancer and she was found to be carrying the brca1 gene mutation so got everything out. A drastic but brave choice and can't say I blame her


  • #138
    AudreyHepburn
    Registered Users Posts: 5,673 ✭✭✭AudreyHepburn


    Personally I think both are unnecessary and inappropriate and I can’t imagine a reason why any self respecting man or woman would want to flash their bits to all and sundry.

    They should be treated equally and punished equally if necessary.


  • #139
    Ush1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,476 ✭✭✭✭Ush1


    As herself says, every cock is a shock.


  • #140
    Quantum Erasure
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,782 ✭✭✭Quantum Erasure


    Zorya wrote: »
    Did she take off her top in movies and show her boobs? I haven't seen them. Maybe she did.

    Foxfire was one...


  • #141
    Church on Tuesday
    Registered Users Posts: 3,858 ✭✭✭Church on Tuesday


    NeinNeinNein wrote: »
    So are arseholes.

    I'll take your word on that.


  • Advertisement
  • #142
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Quantum Erasure wrote: »
    Foxfire was one...

    Okay, were there any movies where she didn't get them out :D


  • #143
    storker
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,688 ✭✭✭storker


    EmmetSpiceland wrote: »
    I thought men were attracted to cleavage because it looked like the ass? Some primal reminder of when “copulation” was exclusively “doggy” fashion..

    I was never quite convinced of that particular version of it, because for ass-like cleavage you need something tight and supporting, attributes which I suspect were lacking in the clothing (or nakedness) of our earliest ancestors.


  • #144
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    *tap tap* This thing on? *Ahem* I've an announcement to make. *deep breath*

    I'd like to apologies to Obvious Desperate Breakfasts. On re-reading your initial post that I lambasted I'd like to say that I misread your post and further apologise for not picking up on it sooner. I now see what you mean.

    Sorry, I'll not be taking any questions.

    Oh, one other thing. In keeping with this thread, the discovery that the offended has massive boobs has nothing to do with this massive climb down.

    I thank you.


  • #145
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 92,550 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Zorya wrote: »
    Come off it, don't be silly now. Cave women could be distinguished from cave men by their lipstick
    Just like most midlands towns then ?


Advertisement