Look. I’ve been following your arguments and wondering two things. First, how does this even relate to the original topic? Many, or maybe all, of the women on BB think that it was wrong to single out this woman for the size of her breasts vis-à-vis her tank top, regardless of whom singled her out. I know I did.
Second, I personally have a problem with the first academic NIH article you cited because it was written by a plastic surgeon, and for what purpose I’m unclear (other than which implant shape is more desirable in the previous studies that this surgeon cites). But generally plastic surgeons make money on selling things such as breast augmentation, so I suspect this very short paper was just a justification for using and selling a particular implant to his patients in Brazil.
8 Likes
I agree, she was mistreated. I said so above. Who disagrees with that?
Someone made a sweeping statement about what breasts are not for. That one rubbed me the wrong way. I posted a quickly googled article from what seemed to be a legit source. I agree it’s not the best source, but it did refer to other papers, which presumably referred to other papers, etc., that were vetted, reviewed, etc., in other legit journals. Is the NIH not a prima facie legitimate source? It raises a meta question about what is “real” knowledge that won’t be answered easily.
Anyhoo, isn’t it usually the case discussions go off on tangents? Or are you telling me about another thing a thing is not for?
Your question was clearly and eloquently answered, actually. By @chenille. And you said you didn’t understand it. What I don’t understand is your apparent willingness to defend to the death something you now say you “know nothing about” and just googled. Might you pause for a moment to consider that other people here actually do know something about the topic?
12 Likes
My boobs ARE totally for you though. In case you’re interested. 
12 Likes
No, no, no… see @manybellsdown doesn’t get to decide what her boobs are for… that’s for men with phds to decide! /s
11 Likes
Actually, yes. We are supposed to stay on topic according to the guidelines. But if you’re driving trollies, you’re doing it correctly! 
9 Likes
I amended my comment so that I might be enlightened.
4 Likes
No need to apologize… sometimes you just need to manslate to maneese. I understand!
12 Likes
Check out your local high school to see if they offer night classes.
Chicks dig guys with an education.
11 Likes
Well, that’s mantastic! You are providing a manstarful service to the world!
9 Likes
But I did. The ones about EvoPsych pushed me to read more, and I addressed it aaaaaabove. The ones telling me what things things are and are not for, I pushed back on. I understand if the comment threading has made a hash of it.
I thought in the context of a story about humiliation “ah but not all sexist assholes” was a good argument to make, because if I don’t speak up for the sexists assholes, who will?
7 Likes
Maybe you should seek a primary source?
8 Likes
Here, you’ve conflated evo psych with evolutionary biology (or you deliberately moved the goalpost, but I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt).
This was a response to: [quote=“Phrenological, post:104, topic:78345, full:true”]
Probably because EvoPsych isn’t hard science, existing to confirm preexisting social conservative narratives. Evolutionary Biology is valuable. EvoPsych is a bunch of just-so stories that found themselves in academia along Parapsychology, grasping for relevancy but finding plenty of media attention along the way.
[/quote]
(emphasis mine)
Those are two different disciplines. Furthermore, you flat-out dismissed @chenille when (s)he wrote a very specific refutation of your points, saying you didn’t understand it. Which I think is frankly nonsense; if you can understand these evo psych papers you’re googling you should be perfectly capable of comprehending that post.
If we want to go the route of “what nature says breasts are for”, then why do women nursing in public get so much pushback? I mean, that is 100% their legitimate biological function. Why is “nature” only pulled out to justify men being allowed to stare at/tell women to cover breasts? Think about that for a bit and you might begin to see some of the flaws in evo psych.
11 Likes
Then why are you arguing about the subject? There are actual scientists, psychologists, and professors on this forum. There are even more people here who have at least studied in some related field. Why is it so important to you to argue from a proud point of ignorance? Why not listen to what others know about the subject instead?
Why do you have to be right and everyone else wrong, even when you’ve admitted you don’t know how wrong or right you are?
Being ignorant isn’t a big deal at all. We’re all ignorant on many subjects. But someone like you, literally every single person on this thread knows more than you do on this topic, and instead of appreciating the fact that you’ve got a chance to learn something new, you’re so mediocre that you think by googling a few links you can appear smarter than everyone else. We’re not fooled.
12 Likes
I’ll ask again:
What do YOU think breasts are for, or not for?
It’s not a hard question; and since one person’s opinion “rubbed you the wrong way,” I’d really like to know what yours is.
5 Likes
Neither “EvoPsych” nor evolutionary psychology, nor, I suspect, any sort of science, nor, for that matter, any kind of non-this-crowd’s-mainstream comment is going to get a fair trial here today. But being ordered around seems A-OK. Strange room.
1 Like
I’m not “ordering you around”;
I’m asking you a direct question.
Care to answer it?
5 Likes
I just googled what boobies are for and got this: “Milk milk lemonade 'round the corner fudge is made”. It’s from Harvard’s day care center. I think that’s conclusive enough.
15 Likes
