Imagine That 2015-05-29

Need to talk about the day's episode of Wapsi? This is the place to do it. Play nice! ^_^

Moderators: Bookworm, starkruzr, MrFireDragon, PrettyPrincess, Wapsi

Forum rules
When two threads are posted for a day's comic, the thread posted first becomes the starting post. Please delete the second thread and add your post to the first thread. When naming the thread: Comic Name YYYY-MM-DD
Thanks guys! This keeps the forum nice and neat.
User avatar
Thor
Posts: 604
Joined: Tue Mar 26, 2013 1:45 am
Location: Looking for an opening

Re: Imagine That 2015-05-29

Post by Thor » Sun May 31, 2015 9:25 pm

lake_wrangler wrote:SJW? I have no idea what that is...
It's short for Social Justice Warrior, which is a term used to dismiss the concerns and convictions of others when they don't line up with your concerns and convictions.

It's rude--right up there with calling someone of a different political philosophy than you a "wingnut" or a "moonbat"--so if you want to have an honest discussion or conversation with someone, don't use it.

User avatar
lake_wrangler
Posts: 3758
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2012 8:16 am
Location: Montréal, Québec, Canada

Re: Imagine That 2015-05-29

Post by lake_wrangler » Sun May 31, 2015 9:35 pm

Thor wrote:
lake_wrangler wrote:SJW? I have no idea what that is...
It's short for Social Justice Warrior, which is a term used to dismiss the concerns and convictions of others when they don't line up with your concerns and convictions.

It's rude--right up there with calling someone of a different political philosophy than you a "wingnut" or a "moonbat"--so if you want to have an honest discussion or conversation with someone, don't use it.
I see. Much like calling someone a "bleeding-heart liberal"... a mild form of Ad-hominem attack designed, mostly, to dismiss them offhand.

No fear of that coming from me: while I may sometimes think of liberals in general as that (though rarely), I still could not pass from the generality to the specific by actually calling someone, anyone, that. Be it in a forum or to their face IRL. Just like when someone does a stupid manoeuver with their car around the bus that I drive, and I see them again down the road, I will give them the "thumbs down", but never will I "flip the bird". That's just too vulgar, and I can't bring myself to do it.

User avatar
Opus the Poet
Posts: 1980
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2012 12:24 am
Location: Surrounded by Hell
Contact:

Re: Imagine That 2015-05-29

Post by Opus the Poet » Mon Jun 01, 2015 12:07 am

OK, here's my take on the subject, and I apologize in advance if I offend anyone in presenting what I see as facts.

One of the reasons primates have visible breasts is because our lousy sense of smell prevents us from determining what females are of a breedable age and we need a visual cue. This causes a secondary effect that the larger the breasts the better breeder the female is. Male secondary sexual characteristics include body and facial hair that typically does not grow out as soon as the human male is ready to breed but develops later. This has the side effect of allowing stupid males time to remove themselves from the gene pool before they are allowed to implant a female, most of the time (Darwin Awards anyone?). This has the secondary side effect of ensuring older men pursue younger women because they (the women) have a strong incentive to reject males of their own age until they develop the secondary sexual characteristics. Faster maturation is selected against in males by the fact that two parents were needed to keep a child alive until capable of surviving without constant attention from the mother, because watching the kid(s) would prohibitively impact on the mother's foraging abilities and both would die without having a third person to bring in more food to share. Because of the Stupid Men's Tricks engaged in by males between puberty and developing sufficient secondary sexual characteristics there would be a very high chance that the father would die before the progeny became old enough to fend without constant supervision from the mother.

Ergo, guys go for women with big boobs and younger women tend to go for older guys and vice versa. Boobs equal sexual maturity and sexual competition in women so young girls with big boobs must be slut-shamed to prevent their competing successfully with unattached older females.

And even I can see that this is a stupid way to behave, but that's the world we are stuck in.
I ride my bike to ride my bike, and sometimes it takes me where I need to go.

Deuce
Posts: 34
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2014 2:38 am

Re: Imagine That 2015-05-29

Post by Deuce » Mon Jun 01, 2015 2:24 am

Opus the Poet wrote:OK, here's my take on the subject, and I apologize in advance if I offend anyone in presenting what I see as facts.

One of the reasons primates have visible breasts is because our lousy sense of smell prevents us from determining what females are of a breedable age and we need a visual cue. This causes a secondary effect that the larger the breasts the better breeder the female is. Male secondary sexual characteristics include body and facial hair that typically does not grow out as soon as the human male is ready to breed but develops later. This has the side effect of allowing stupid males time to remove themselves from the gene pool before they are allowed to implant a female, most of the time (Darwin Awards anyone?). This has the secondary side effect of ensuring older men pursue younger women because they (the women) have a strong incentive to reject males of their own age until they develop the secondary sexual characteristics. Faster maturation is selected against in males by the fact that two parents were needed to keep a child alive until capable of surviving without constant attention from the mother, because watching the kid(s) would prohibitively impact on the mother's foraging abilities and both would die without having a third person to bring in more food to share. Because of the Stupid Men's Tricks engaged in by males between puberty and developing sufficient secondary sexual characteristics there would be a very high chance that the father would die before the progeny became old enough to fend without constant supervision from the mother.

Ergo, guys go for women with big boobs and younger women tend to go for older guys and vice versa. Boobs equal sexual maturity and sexual competition in women so young girls with big boobs must be slut-shamed to prevent their competing successfully with unattached older females.

And even I can see that this is a stupid way to behave, but that's the world we are stuck in.
So everybody in the world is straight, huh...

User avatar
illiad
Posts: 1509
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2012 6:33 am

Re: Imagine That 2015-05-29

Post by illiad » Mon Jun 01, 2015 3:14 am

so is there an anthropologist in the room??? I think if you look at a tribe in africa, large breasts are not that common...
the prime motivator there, is to be able to hunt, and provide for the tribe...

In modern, 'civilised' countries, there is no real impetus.. so people grow up unhindered by lack of food, health, etc... the benefits being height, strength, fitness, unless laziness creeps in..
I think you will find in America, it is a 'business decision' to get larger breasts, due to the overall obsession with them!! :roll: (the media allows this, it is less shocking than the other...)
... and some people seem to be blinded by that... I think you will find its 'hips' that make a good 'breeder' ... :P

I do believe the obsession comes *after* the sex, an instinct to ensure you get nourishment just after you are born!

It is only 'indoctrination' that keeps people away from what 'wild animals' do...

User avatar
Atomic
Posts: 2659
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 12:39 am
Location: Central PA
Contact:

Re: Imagine That 2015-05-29

Post by Atomic » Mon Jun 01, 2015 8:14 am

For what it's worth, I remember a great overview of "Life in the (human) wild." Basically:

Life is not about survival of the fittest -- it's about reproduction of the survivors. Note the focus: reproduction. Anything that improves reproduction chances is an improvement, because that cascades into improved survival by sheer numbers.

Women could expect to deliver 8-12 children, basically every other year, starting soon after menarche, which used to be around the 14-15th year. This is where Roman names like Septimus and Octavia come from -- Seventh and Eighth. Menarche recently is occurring around the 12-13th year, likely due to improved diet and health.

Consider -- from the time you are 15 to 40, you are continuously pregnant and/or breastfeeding. Allowing you don't die from the first childbirth, 4 babies die near birth, 4 more die before age 5, and the 2 of the other 4 die from life events before they're 20. The Romans had a big party for children who made it to 17 for just his reason.

If your children die, you still are helping nurse the other babies in the village -- Orphans from those mothers who've died, and as part of the community as wet nurse. Given the available diet, children can't be fully weaned until about age 3, so there is plenty of demand for milk.

And finally, in your final years from age 40 to 50ish, you share your knowledge. It's this last part that helps advance the community as an elder.

The point is, breasts are hugely important to survival and the sexual aspect is, "in the wild," hugely overshadowed by their functional aspect.
Don't let other peoples limitations become your constraints!

My Deviant Art scribbles
The Atomic Guide to Basic GIMP Stuff

User avatar
Sgt. Howard
Posts: 3125
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 11:54 pm
Location: Malott, Washington

Re: Imagine That 2015-05-29

Post by Sgt. Howard » Mon Jun 01, 2015 9:19 am

when Atsali has children, they will be recognized by the streach marks around their mouths...
Rule 17 of the Bombay Golf Course- "You shall play the ball where the monkey drops it,"
I speak fluent Limrick-
the Old Sgt.

User avatar
Julie
Posts: 1607
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 3:30 pm
Location: Dallas, Texas

Re: Imagine That 2015-05-29

Post by Julie » Mon Jun 01, 2015 9:42 am

illiad wrote:I think you will find in America, it is sometimes a 'business decision' to get larger breasts, due to the overall obsession with them!! :roll:
Fixed. :P
Sgt. Howard wrote:when Atsali has children, they will be recognized by the streach marks around their mouths...
It should be noted that larger breasts do not always equate to larger nipples (in fact most of the larger nipples I've seen on women have been on smaller breasts), and you certainly don't have to suck the whole breast into the mouth to feed. :P
"Just open your eyes
And see that life is beautiful."

User avatar
illiad
Posts: 1509
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2012 6:33 am

Re: Imagine That 2015-05-29

Post by illiad » Mon Jun 01, 2015 5:17 pm

:roll: Sgt. Howard you forgot your LOL... :/ I'm sure you know what really happens... :) :P

Julie: yes, but who would WANT a large weight, giving neck and back pain??? (I did mean *larger*, not just 'nicer, fuller'... :) )

Atomic: thanks for the detail! :) and as I said, wide hips make for a safe, easy birth.. It is 'the fittest' as well, to have the ability to take care of the newborn, having 'survived' the birth... :)

User avatar
Thor
Posts: 604
Joined: Tue Mar 26, 2013 1:45 am
Location: Looking for an opening

Re: Imagine That 2015-05-29

Post by Thor » Tue Jun 02, 2015 1:34 am

Julie wrote:
Sgt. Howard wrote:when Atsali has children, they will be recognized by the streach marks around their mouths...
It should be noted that larger breasts do not always equate to larger nipples (in fact most of the larger nipples I've seen on women have been on smaller breasts), and you certainly don't have to suck the whole breast into the mouth to feed. :P
It should also be noted that there are a lot of people who say "nipple" when what they are talking about is the whole areola/nipple structure complex. Women with large breasts usually (but not always) have large areolae because of the way the skin stretches during the period of breast growth, but the size of the nipple itself--the baby-feeding port--is pretty standard from woman to woman, regardless of the size of the entire breast or the size of the areola surrounding the nipple.

(This is a pet peeve of mine, actually. Like the people who say "vagina" when they are trying to refer to the vulva.)

User avatar
illiad
Posts: 1509
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2012 6:33 am

Re: Imagine That 2015-05-29

Post by illiad » Tue Jun 02, 2015 4:25 am

the trouble is.. most people have trouble with the word areola... 4 syllables!! bad enough remembering how to spell it!! 2 syllables are much easier to spell and say... :(

as for vulva, I think Americans are frightened of the whole thing, if some person had called it 'the vulva monologues' it woulda helped!!! - Before that show, women were too scared to call it something in public... :roll:

User avatar
Catawampus
Posts: 2061
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2013 10:47 pm

Re: Imagine That 2015-05-29

Post by Catawampus » Tue Jun 02, 2015 2:48 pm

Opus the Poet wrote:One of the reasons primates have visible breasts is because our lousy sense of smell prevents us from determining what females are of a breedable age and we need a visual cue. This causes a secondary effect that the larger the breasts the better breeder the female is. Male secondary sexual characteristics include body and facial hair that typically does not grow out as soon as the human male is ready to breed but develops later. This has the side effect of allowing stupid males time to remove themselves from the gene pool before they are allowed to implant a female, most of the time (Darwin Awards anyone?). This has the secondary side effect of ensuring older men pursue younger women because they (the women) have a strong incentive to reject males of their own age until they develop the secondary sexual characteristics. Faster maturation is selected against in males by the fact that two parents were needed to keep a child alive until capable of surviving without constant attention from the mother, because watching the kid(s) would prohibitively impact on the mother's foraging abilities and both would die without having a third person to bring in more food to share. Because of the Stupid Men's Tricks engaged in by males between puberty and developing sufficient secondary sexual characteristics there would be a very high chance that the father would die before the progeny became old enough to fend without constant supervision from the mother.

Ergo, guys go for women with big boobs and younger women tend to go for older guys and vice versa. Boobs equal sexual maturity and sexual competition in women so young girls with big boobs must be slut-shamed to prevent their competing successfully with unattached older females.
A lot of studies have been done on this sort of thing, with mixed results. The basic lesson learned has been: it's all very, very complicated. Also, a good part of it is related to social situation rather than simple instincts. So there tends to be a whole slew of different factors all at work simultaneously to varying degrees, and different situations will let one particular factor over-ride another.

There are two basic approaches to looking for sex partners, labelled as "restricted" and "unrestricted". Restricted means that the person is looking for a long-term commitment, unrestricted means that they're just looking for a brief encounter. Both can result in the passing on of genes, but each goes for a different strategy of doing so. For men, unrestricted means that he increases the total number of times he can pass on his genes, with the downside being that the genes have less chance of surviving after being passed on. Restricted means that he gets less chances to pass on his genes, but the genes have a better chance of surviving in the population with each individual chance. For women, the trade-off is between a variation of genes in their offspring compared to a better chance of surviving the passing on of genes.

A man's or woman's attitude towards the attractiveness of physical features varies depending on whether they are taking a restricted or an unrestricted approach. It seems that for men, both approaches tend to find larger breasts more appealing than smaller, though unrestricted men tend to get more of a thrill out of larger ones than do restricted men. There seems to be something of a limit, though (around E-cup size, if I remember right), where the attractiveness declines for both groups of men.

This preference for size seems to be fairly universal (in that it seems to be the most common preference in different societies, not that every relevant individual in the society necessarily shares the same preference). However, it has a sort of extra factor involved. For more industrially-developed societies where agriculture works on a surplus system, the preference is for large-breasted women with thin waists and wide hips. For less industrialised or unindustrialised societies where agriculture is more of a subsistence level, the preference is for women who are large overall; the appeal of large breasts is part of a more general appeal for women with extra fat over their entire bodies, so it's not really a preference for large breasts per se.

Why so many human women have permanently large breasts (as opposed to pretty much every other animal where they're only all that noticeable during and shortly after pregnancy) is probably a result of a runaway postive-feedback loop of both intersexual and intrasexual selection. Women with larger breasts were more appealing, and so they bred more often; more genes for large breasts were passed down and more women had larger breasts. This meant that women in later generations needed even larger ones to stand out from the crowd. As for why large breasts are appealing, that's still being strongly debated. My favourite reasoning is probably Desmond Morris' claim that men like large breasts because they look more like a woman's butt (I think that this argument is wrong, but I find it rather hilarious). In general it's recognised that larger breasts tend to be linked to greater fertility, so that's likely at least part of the reasoning. But tests have also shown that larger breasts in women (up to a point, again) tend to make men think that the woman is more capable in all sorts of aspects of her life and job, not just in the matter of making babies.

Oh, and on the matter of men with facial hair: women with an unrestricted approach to selecting mates and women who are currently in the non-fertile part of their ovulation cycle seem to prefer men with more extreme displays of sexual dimorphism, which includes having more facial hair. Women who are fertile or who are taking a restricted approach (thus who are looking for a mate who will also be a father and provider for his children) tend to look for less masculine physical traits.

Post Reply