That’s is a magic tank top and I need to know the brand! Seriously she’s large and small waisted and I spy NO cleavage! Magic! And I would like to purchase one!
10 Likes
Don’t forget the consistant trend of gym policies around encouraging ineffective training courses and machines, and the dangers of exerting yourself too much.
As much as I dislike crossfit, it was born because the way gyms treat exercise.
1 Like
Maybe the average man needs to get a new hobby? 
5 Likes
K. You go with that. Have a good one.
12 Likes
Are you mansplaining objectification to me?
19 Likes
Why not just cancel the direct debit. If the moneys not leaving your account who cares what the gym paperwork says?
Quite a lot of research disagrees with you. The basic theme is breast size and shape is a quick and reliable indicator of health, fecundity, etc., and that they would serve their other purposes just fine if they didn’t look so interesting to males.
Here is just one of many solid sources around this topic:
“we hypothesize that the male (and secondarily female) preference for nonptotic, symmetric breasts reflects a strong preference for nulliparous and fertile women, and this has evolved to simulate such a condition.”
Evolutionary Reasons for Male Preferences Regarding the Female Breast Shape, Filipe V Basile, MD, Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2015 Oct; 3(10): e542.
2 Likes
So boobs are a shortcut for evaluating some fitness function, and males often have preferences and enjoy them. But the point still stands; boobs are not here for your enjoyment and pleasure.
14 Likes
certainly not a personal “you”, but evolution can be very creative when it comes to recombining genes stored in protein&bone bags
1 Like
I understand and agree. But too often a man will mentally assume the role of generalized ‘man’, and ignore any personal identity.
7 Likes
I wholeheartly agree, human society is much more than a bundle of genes and instincts
2 Likes
well, but… even in the very short snippet i provided, the theory is fully stated that this is precisely why they did evolve - just because you may have some basis for not wanting them to have evolved for this purpose, it’s entirely possible that is the main reason they did
if you need to make a bright line division between “evaluation” and “enjoyment and pleasure”, that’s all you - what a dull room that’s going to be
1 Like
You’re reading a lot into that. First, yes, that breasts were shaped from sexual selection is certainly a popular notion in evolutionary psychology. But a lot of that seems to have serious problems, both from being overly focused on WEIRD people and from having a hard time actually testing anything. The paper you quote is an extreme example; it names the hypothesis but doesn’t substantiate anything.
I mean, if you want to say most men will find breasts most attractive when they look healthy and age-appropriate for a mate, I don’t think it should be too controversial. You can say the same about most features, from hair to toes, in men and women. But while it might turn out that, say, discolored and stubby fingers are less attractive to most potential mates, that’s a far cry from saying fingers exist for their enjoyment and pleasure.
Saying that breasts are actually something more directly connected to sexual attraction, akin to peacock’s tails, is a much stronger claim and I don’t think one that can be taken as a given at all. I’m just going to quote what I wrote earlier on the subject:
So much for the science. Still more important is the implicit statement you’re making about purpose, which is much more clear: someone else should not be treated as existing for other people, period. Your vas deferens has no evolutionary importance save to provide women with sperm, and yet it should not count as theirs. So it is with any aspect of a woman’s body, no matter what forces turn out to have shaped their genetics back in the Pleistocene.
16 Likes
i’ve read your comment through a couple of times - i’m afraid i don’t understand your argument, if it even is an argument, nor am i getting a clear sense your understanding of what “science” means is compatible with mine - i decline further discussion with you on this topic, ok?
I’m not saying Chelsea Handler is a dope or anything, but that sounds pretty highfalutin for a catty talk show host.
Well, it’s a good thing we’re more than the sum of our biology, huh… that we have brains that can reason and rationalize, as well as empathize with other human beings. It’s a good thing we’re not dumb animals who can only act on instinct. Honestly, you think “evolution” is a defense to objectification of women? Really?
This is not a hard argument to understand. Women are full human beings in their own rights and are deserving of being treated as more than just warm places for men to place their junk. If a man can’t stop staring at some ladies tits, it’s not her problem that she needs to cover up.
And thanks, @MarkDow, nice and to the point!
13 Likes
They’re shady as hell.
Anyway, I’d rather avoid such chicanery if given the option.
3 Likes
Only the female gym supervisors disagree with you on this one. Jealousy is an ugly thing.
1 Like
Translation: @chenille argued so well you’ve realized you’re in a hole and need to stop digging. Wise decision!
8 Likes
7 Likes
