Home » The PC purpose of the female breast

Comments

The PC purpose of the female breast — 27 Comments

  1. hats, girdles, garter belts..
    uplift bras lifting higher and higher
    until they fly away
    and breasts fall
    after all.

    L.Ferlinghetti: Overpopulation

  2. Let me cite a confident pronouncement by a typical member of the quasi-educated left: a librarian/internet troll from New Zealand who made it his avocation to annoy American Republicans: “The teleology is all in your head.”

    So, although there are effects, or better, manifest results of a directionless environmental filtering in the world of explanations, there are no purposes in explanatory biology, anymore that in physics.

    Even Mayr’s notion of teleonomy is (considered) a step too far toward Aristotelian constructs. See for interest, “Teleological and Teleonomic: A New Analysis By Ernst Mayr”

    For that matter, intentionality, and even consciousness of the decision process are illusions. It’s all just effects – this reality we inhabit – with no causes, you see.

    X has the effect of producing such and such a result, but it is not the cause … because there are no causes … or something like that.

    Then of course there are those who wish to expand the apparent “purposes” and functions of things because they recognize that doing away with purposes redoundingly undercuts and reduces their wants – for example for perverted sex – to simple expressions of will: that they want what they want. And therefore reciprocally, that you equally well want, or despise what (or who) you don’t want with equivalent moral justification.

    Thus, I once found myself engaged in argument with fellow who asserted that it was ludicrous to declare that legs were for walking, inasmuch as dancing, and running and skipping were all possible with them as well; and therefore these were all purposes.

    I pointed out that he was merely describing various gaits or stylized forms of locomotion, and that no one would say that under his own interpretation it would make sense to say that the purpose of legs was to perform bicycling motions while lying on one’s back.

    Legs may merely have the effect of enabling locomotion, but eliminating locomotion from their repertoire of uses, makes them almost purposeless apart from whatever side effects the presence of so many pounds of limp flesh and bones may have on the overall health of an organism otherwise “filtered” and fitted, and biologically conditioned to possess them.

    I also like the way the solidarity pimps of the Guardian are so determined to include Gorillas in the “we”. It’s all just great apes … Reminds me of all that talk about “our” primitive ancestors and what “we” accomplished. Every liberal is a jet fighter pilot and brain surgeon through “participation” and imputation, I guess.

    Even if they clearly are not.

  3. I find it a pretty stupid statement as far as ‘purpose’ , but think making a big thing about everything is pretty old.

  4. Get with the program! If your gender or sex is whatever you think it is, then the purpose of anything is whatever you want it to be at any time. Science, biology, out the window, of course the “haters” go out the window first.

  5. “Biology must bow down to our PC masters, and books that don’t do so must be destroyed.” neo

    Just another example of how all ‘isms’ on the left, to one degree or another reject key aspects of the external reality within which we exist.

    The only question is how many billions of lives the Left’s psychological pathology will destroy before reality overcomes that pathology.

    Of course, cancers often destroy the host.

  6. Will we need to revisit the purpose of sex?

    As to legs, I’ve read it’s the ankles that make the difference.

  7. Breasts and Beards have ONE over riding importance: they inform hostile raiders of a tribe who is who.

    The fellas with the beards are to be slain// fought.

    The babes with the brests are to be snatched and carried away.

    It’s BECAUSE we wear clothes that gals need the instant recognition signal — during raids — that they are prizes — not combatants.

    Such sex raids are a feature of humanity… See ISIS — and the legends of Rome.

    Humanity is uniquely in-bred by any standard. So the need to raid nearby tribes to obtain variant DNA has been absolute for millennia.

    This is most glaring in the Middle East — where tribalism runs on like 12,000 BC.

    In virtually ALL earlier societies, the general proportions of the female breast was repressed.

    With burkas taking this to the logical limit.

    So the facts indicate that the female breast has NOT been used as a ‘come-on’ for millennia.

    It’s NOT been used as a female vs female rivalry weapon.

    It’s been a marker to separate female from male… something that even a burka achieves.

    Beyond that, the butt and the breasts are massive stores of energy. They are critical to a successful pregnancy in all primitive societies.

    THIS is the basis for the male obsession with T&A.

    This occurs at a primal level… same as a babe looking at a warrior-savior… a fixture in female love p0 rn.

    I’ve only ever been a warrior-savior a few times in my life. Such a status drives babes crazy with sexual desire. Not a word need be said. They — literally — can’t stop themselves… can’t contain their sexual excitement.

    You’ll note that this status// situation is a staple of Hollywood dramas.

    BTW, in all earlier times, the female breast starts to sag — a LOT — and very quickly, too… even by the age of 25… depending.

  8. I suspect that the outrage here is over the idea that women have enlarged breasts, not for themselves, but for the benefit of males (and for the purpose of attracting males). The idea that women are intended to be attractive to men is perceived to be extremely anti-feminist.

    After all, if a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle, then a woman does not need to do anything for men’s benefit. It would then be extremely galling to admit that part of women’s physiology is, in part, for the purpose of getting (and holding) male attention.

    If this idea gets more circulation, I predict some feminists will arrange for medically-unnecessary mastectomies (or “merely” breast-reduction surgery), just so that they won’t be seen as attracting men with their very bodies.

    My other thought is — is there anything these people CAN’T ruin for the rest of us?

    Oh, and for the record — I’m all in favor of young girls being taught that they should be proud of their bodies, regardless of shape or size. But it’s worth pointing out that young boys, too, need to be taught… and one thing that most boys need to be taught, as they discover that they like looking at the female form, is that there’s nothing shameful about enjoying what women look like! There’s a reason a book for growing boys includes a discussion of breasts.

  9. “Strange days have found us, and through their strange hours we linger alone, bodies confused, memories misused as we run from the day to a strange night of stone.”

    I never realized Jim Morrison was such a prophet.

  10. “Moonlight and love songs
    Never out of date.
    Hearts full of passion
    Jealousy and hate.
    Woman needs man
    And man must have his mate
    That no one can deny.

    It’s still the same old story
    A fight for love and glory
    A case of do or die.
    The world will always welcome lovers
    As time goes by.”
    music and words by Herman Hupfeld

    Nothing the Left can do will change reality. It’s the height of hubris and utter stupidity to think otherwise.

  11. Neo is not only a sexist, she’s also guilty of species-specific bias. All mammals are equal, if not more so.

    You haven’t heard the news from Portland? Their PETA chapter is subsidizing mastectomies for post-pubescent high school girls (whites only).

    If you must lust, do so with a flat-chested species not your own. Next legal hurdle: the right to marry your cat.

  12. According to the feminists there is no difference between males and females so don’t believe your lying eyes.

  13. Mrs parker has petite tatas with perky pink nipples. She produced plenty of milfk for all 3 children. They are still perky tatas after all the years.. Egads, I am still in love with 100% of her after all these years. And every morning when I wake up I smell her armpits. Heaven. Heart, mind, and soul; we are bounded together for eternity.

  14. Daniel in Brookline Says:
    September 7th, 2017 at 3:35 pm
    ..
    If this idea gets more circulation, I predict some feminists will arrange for medically-unnecessary mastectomies (or “merely” breast-reduction surgery), just so that they won’t be seen as attracting men with their very bodies.
    * **
    If flat-chested-womyn get as trendy again as they were in the Roaring Twenties and the Twiggie era, then the transgendered-men can save a lot by eliminating some of their surgery bills.

    Cornflour Says:
    September 7th, 2017 at 5:35 pm

    You haven’t heard the news from Portland? Their PETA chapter is subsidizing mastectomies for post-pubescent high school girls (whites only)..
    * *
    Okay, I had fact-check you on this one, despite your “disclaimer” — because it’s just crazy enough to be true.
    Nothing came up on the first search page, but this article was..crazy enough. Not the open-ness about mastectomy (that’s rather common these days), but the open-ness in how the news was being shared. The headline says it all.

    http://www.kptv.com/story/29421648/double-mastectomy-patient-celebrates-body-at-naked-bike-ride

  15. On a more serious note, one of my BFFs from HS had a large endowment (the noticing of which by the boys needed no book-l’arnin’ at all). She was widowed, sadly, at a relatively young age (late 50s), and her first action after the funeral was to get breast-reduction surgery.
    Dudes, the double-Ds are painful to carry around.

  16. Geoffrey Britain Says:
    September 7th, 2017 at 5:23 pm
    “Moonlight and love songs
    Never out of date….
    The world will always welcome lovers
    As time goes by.”
    music and words by Herman Hupfeld

    Nothing the Left can do will change reality. It’s the height of hubris and utter stupidity to think otherwise.
    * * *
    I was humming along, and decided the AntiFA & Friends would definitely run us out of town for singing this one.
    Makes you wonder if any of them actually went to see “LaLa Land” —

  17. Whatever happened to the Left’s passionate assertions that Evolution is the Determiner of All Things on Earth?
    Surely that includes the divergence of the human female physiognomy from that of her “ancestresses” in the primate genus.
    I guess you only need to “believe” in evolution if you want to beat up the other tribes.

    Geoffrey Britain Says:
    September 7th, 2017 at 2:53 pm

    The only question is how many billions of lives the Left’s psychological pathology will destroy before reality overcomes that pathology.

    Of course, cancers often destroy the host.
    * * *
    They’ve already started destroying lives with their pathological fixation on irrationality. If not with mortal wounds (although they will come to that), then certainly with economic ones.
    (James Damore being the most recent victim, following the photographers and florists and bakers who refused to bow to the PC Gods of the Sexual Revolution.)

    The olde folkes knew this (including Kipling, of course).

    The phrase “Whom the gods would destroy they first make mad” is a phrase spoken by Prometheus in Henry Wadsworth Longfellow’s poem “The Masque of Pandora” (1875).[1]
    Another version (“Those whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad”) is quoted as a “heathen proverb” in Daniel, a Model for Young Men (1854) by William Anderson Scott (1813—1885).
    A prior Latin version is “Quos Deus vult perdere, prius dementat” (Life of Samuel Johnson, 1791) but this involves God, (presumably the Christian God) not ‘the gods’. An earlier version has Jupiter and can be traced back to the play Antigone by Sophocles. Even this appears to be a borrowing from an earlier, lost Greek play.
    This phrase was also used by British politician Enoch Powell in his controversial 1968 speech “Rivers of Blood” for which he was dismissed in disgrace from the Conservative Party Shadow Cabinet. He was never reappointed to any Conservative party position.

    * * *
    I recommend a reading of the Powell controversy, regarding the British “Racial Relations Act 1968”, and a pondering of its implications for today, in re the recent clash of mental midgets at Charlottesville.
    Powell’s words and intent were just as mischaracterized then as his “successors” (hint: NOT the KKK et al.) are today, but his prescience is not denied.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivers_of_Blood_speech

  18. I’m also reminded of a long-ago Non Sequitur cartoon. It showed a modestly-endowed woman, in a plastic surgeon’s office. She’s explaining to him “I want you to make them bigger so that I can yell at men for staring at them”; he’s face-palming.

    The caption is “Why men will never understand women”.

  19. ‘It’s like saying the same about a woman’s legs. Nothing wrong with finding them attractive — and I do — but it’s not their ‘purpose’ to make a girl/woman look attractive or grown up.

    Ah, but Mr. Ragoonanan, no one would say that about legs because they obviously are there to stand on and to walk with, and both men and women have them in fairly similar fashion.

    except for the fact that secondary sexual characteristics of maturity for women lengthen the legs vs trunk size. so like breasts they signal hyper femininity..

    wait till they find out women are child like to get protection from men… hypergamous, to get men to get them more… and and and and… tons of stuff they dont like about themselves and you cant say cause they are oppressed and i am the oppressor and they told me to shut my mout

    look, the whole point is to top from the bottom
    ie. claim you have no power while wielding it, so that your not responsible

    The tyranny of female hypoagency – YouTube
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBgcjtE0xrE
    [itsabout control]
    its VERY good and explain s that this is not about what it is, what your seeing is someone who is complying with hypoagency… so that the agent of such, is not under inspectiuon…

    funny… eh?

    -=-=-=-=-
    for those who are curious (ha ha ha ha) about Karen Straugn
    Why I am not a feminist…
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ut2VVAW0MwM

    Why I am an anti-feminist
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afzs6FNxx1Y

  20. this one covers boobs and legs
    https://cdn.someecards.com/someecards/usercards/1342224664516_3947866.png

    Modern Equality in a NUTSHELL
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CSMQ1l_VAAAs7Ma.jpg

    Wet tshirt contest Winner – YouTube
    [too many to list]

    and then you have Spaulding Gray
    booblie ooblie

    Note a friend of mine with big boobs makes 400 an hour telling rich men to clean her bathroom with a toothbrush..

    you think its cause of her brain?

    Men not marrying? How deep does “the problem” go? – YouTube
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlvMAS_20K4

    Why American Men Are Avoiding Marriage
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzNN42bJUkw

    and one reason is the kind of things in the article..
    rather than fight over it, why bother with it

  21. Since all these sexist human traits are caused by un PC natural selection behaviors, genetic and social engineering should be used to correct the horrors of evolution and breed improved humyns!

    Or dispense with them altogether. Humanity is so last epoch.

  22. Artfldgr:

    Of course, legs of a woman (or a man, for that matter) can have a lot of sexual appeal. Just about every part of the visible body can have sexual appeal, and is somewhat different in men and women.

    But breasts are differently different, and that’s why people don’t usually talk of the function of women’s legs as being sexual whereas people often talk about one of the main functions of the shape of female breasts as being sexual. The female and male breast are so different—although they come from the same template, one is large with fatty tissue and the other mostly flat—and they are so highly erotic, both visually and tactiley—that their sexual function is far more obvious and extreme than that of legs. And that’s why people talk quite differently about legs and breasts.

    I will add, though, that in Victorian times or even earlier, legs were highly eroticized (and hidden behind skirts, of course). That can happen to almost any part of the human body. That’s where the practice of referring to chicken breasts and thighs as white meat and dark meat is said to have originated. Perhaps the tale is apocryphal, of course.

  23. Esther, that’s a great idea but it’s not new.
    E. O. Wilson in his book Sociobiology pointed out that many human traits were shaped by evolution and passed on genetically and he was called names and physically attacked for pointing out the obvious. The believers in the blank slate were furious.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>