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

Boob flashing v Dick flashing

Options
124

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [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.


  • Options
    #93
    EmmetSpiceland
    Registered Users Posts: 10,527 ✭✭✭✭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.

    The tide is turning…



  • Options
    #94
    Feisar
    Registered Users Posts: 6,597 ✭✭✭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.

    First they came for the socialists...



  • Options
    #95
    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,474 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #96
    Church on Tuesday
    Registered Users Posts: 3,858 ✭✭✭Church on Tuesday


    NeinNeinNein wrote: »
    An ear rimming?

    Ears are an erogenous zone.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [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.


  • Options
    #98
    Stevieluvsye
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,907 ✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #99
    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,474 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #100
    EmmetSpiceland
    Registered Users Posts: 10,527 ✭✭✭✭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!

    The tide is turning…



  • Options
    #101
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [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?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #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.


  • Options
    #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.


  • Options
    #104
    NeinNeinNein
    Registered Users Posts: 5,580 ✭✭✭NeinNeinNein


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


  • Options
    #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.


  • Options
    #106
    Panthro
    Registered Users Posts: 14,684 ✭✭✭✭Panthro


    I think we can all agree boobs are great


  • Options
    #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.


  • Options
    #108
    NeinNeinNein
    Registered Users Posts: 5,580 ✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #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:


  • Options
    #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.


  • Options
    #111
    Panthro
    Registered Users Posts: 14,684 ✭✭✭✭Panthro


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    Even moobs?

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

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


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    Panthro
    Registered Users Posts: 14,684 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #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*


  • Options
    #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).


  • Options
    #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.


  • Options
    #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:


  • Options
    #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:


  • Options
    #118
    EmmetSpiceland
    Registered Users Posts: 10,527 ✭✭✭✭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.

    The tide is turning…



  • Options
    #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


  • Options
    #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
  • Options
    #121
    NeinNeinNein
    Registered Users Posts: 5,580 ✭✭✭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.


Advertisement