by grin2b » Tue Sep 06, 2011 7:56 pm
Mr. Crimson: A preference can be socialized (or conditioned), while bodies can evolve to meet conditioned preferences. Patriarchy (or, in some species, matriarchy) can exist without agricultural societies: This should be obvious. Therefore, bodies that appease sexual power dynamics will be selected for on the level of the gene, even if the sexual power dynamics are not actually genetically selected. Furthermore, even if there is some fundamental biological drive towards big breasts, it's profoundly difficult to say that this desire is actually being expressed, given that society has drowned us in superstimuli of all sorts. I will still note that there have been many, many times in history where women with small breasts were considered the norm, so even if some fundamental/biological drive exists, it is readily overpowered by social circumstances. Heck, even the focus we have on breasts is relative to our culture: In other cultures, other body parts are considered more sexually salient.
And, perhaps most importantly: Why focus so strictly on segments of women's bodies? Even if breasts are inherently attractive, what awfulness does it suggest that we focus on said woman's breasts, and not her intellect/personality? Even if we think teenagers are just drowning in sexuality or hormones or whatever, it still seems limiting to belittle someone's desire to escape such a narrowminded view of sexuality. That itself suggests that patriarchy is still very much in play.
Mr. Guest: "It'd be a less functional male who didn't respond sexually to an obvious sexual cue." You, sir, are a troll or an imbecile.
Mr. Crimson: A preference can be socialized (or conditioned), while bodies can evolve to meet conditioned preferences. Patriarchy (or, in some species, matriarchy) can exist without agricultural societies: This should be obvious. Therefore, bodies that appease sexual power dynamics will be selected for on the level of the gene, even if the sexual power dynamics are not actually genetically selected. Furthermore, even if there is some fundamental biological drive towards big breasts, it's profoundly difficult to say that this desire is actually being expressed, given that society has drowned us in superstimuli of all sorts. I will still note that there have been many, many times in history where women with small breasts were considered the norm, so even if some fundamental/biological drive exists, it is readily overpowered by social circumstances. Heck, even the focus we have on breasts is relative to our culture: In other cultures, other body parts are considered more sexually salient.
And, perhaps most importantly: Why focus so strictly on segments of women's bodies? Even if breasts [i]are[/i] inherently attractive, what awfulness does it suggest that we focus on said woman's breasts, and not her intellect/personality? Even if we think teenagers are just drowning in sexuality or hormones or whatever, it still seems limiting to belittle someone's desire to escape such a narrowminded view of sexuality. That itself suggests that patriarchy is still very much in play.
Mr. Guest: "It'd be a less functional male who didn't respond sexually to an obvious sexual cue." You, sir, are a troll or an imbecile.