Big boobs mesmerize me. I'm not into girls, and they don't turn me on or anything...but I've never had them, so they are strange and new. Mine are barely a handful each (my hands, not giant man-hands) and don't feel enormously squishy or bounce enthusiastically, so I tend to be fascinated by the ones that do. Plus, I'm always staring at weird parts of people anyway. Collarbones, calves, shoulders...I look at people's lines because I'm always trying to improve my ability to draw the human figure.
Perky, B or C. Narrow hips. Long, tight legs. Preferably stockinged.
Overall, ratios. Proportion is key.
Yeah, this effectively sums up my position. I think I prefer a B rather than C, simply because of the size of my hands. Proportion is key not only with the womanly figure, but also how sexual partners compliment each other.
I think when breasts get into the high C's and D's, they become different than smaller ones, fundamentally. Like down pillows, they become more shapeless. Smaller breasts tend to retain their shape and perkiness.
It surprises me that we haven't mentioned personal preference when it comes to areolas. Any thoughts?
Breasts are fun, I won't deny that. They are also beautiful - particularly when pertly plump - but overall, flesh is flesh. It is how someone wears their flesh that makes it ultimately attractive or not.
As to implants, I can somewhat understand why someone would want them if they had a mastectomy.
I'm a fan of men that don't reduce women to pieces of meat or treat them like artwork. They are people.
Give me a freaking break. People are allowed to have attractions. Don't read into it more than it is. Who says that you can't have an attraction and also treat people of all types well?
I'm a fan of a woman that allows people to have preferences and doesn't live in a fictional world believing that "flesh is flesh." With that attitude, you really aren't a person. Heck, even rhesus monkeys have preferences. Why can't you? We've got a brain stem - must we deny it? Attraction is a product of evolution. Nothing wrong with that.
If "flesh is flesh", then why have art? Please. We're not robots, and we don't live in that creepy town that "Footloose" was set in.
It surprises me that we haven't mentioned personal preference when it comes to areolas. Any thoughts?
If they are bigger than a quarter, they look kind of gross to me. x_x
Ditto. I'm a fan of a minimal areola. If a breast could just be a sac with a nipple and no areola, I'd be happy.
I'm a fan of men that don't reduce women to pieces of meat or treat them like artwork. They are people.
We're not talking about personality, we're talking about breasts. Did I say that a woman is only worthwhile as a person if she has a minimal areola? I didn't think so. I'm expressing an aesthetic preferences. It has nothing to do with whether or not I actually like a person. If I say that something looks good on a particular person, I'm doing the same thing.
It surprises me that we haven't mentioned personal preference when it comes to areolas. Any thoughts?
Let me tell you, there's nothing worse than getting half-way into the business of things and discovering what can only be described as "dinner-plate areola". Definitely, as with breast-size itself, moderation is key in my eyes. It can't just be a nipple (seriously, Pete, think about that, it's like a dick with no balls), but there's definitely a line.
A thread about breasts seemed perfectly reasonable, but now that we're getting down to the areolas, I feel like we're dangerously close to a thread about vulvas.
I'm a fan of men that don't reduce women to pieces of meat or treat them like artwork. They are people.
Give me a freaking break. People are allowed to have attractions. Don't read into it more than it is. Who says that you can't have an attraction and also treat people of all types well? I'm a fan of a woman that allows people to have preferences and doesn't live in a fictional world believing that "flesh is flesh." With that attitude, you really aren't a person. Heck, even rhesus monkeys have preferences. Why can't you? We've got a brain stem - must we deny it? Attraction is a product of evolution. Nothing wrong with that. If "flesh is flesh", then why have art? Please. We're not robots, and we don't live in that creepy town that "Footloose" was set in.
Certainly, having attractions is fine. It just bothers me that so much scrutiny of people in general and women in particular is based on physical aspects and not social/personality aspects. It is also strange that people seem to have such weird hang-ups about so many little things. Areolae, earlobes, toe length, hair color, etc. It adds to an ever growing list of physical traits that are then heaped up to the point where no one can match all the standards and creates an ever widening rift between what is desired and what is available. As for your giant logical leap in stating "If "flesh is flesh", then why have art?" My entire point was that there is beauty and ugliness in all flesh and that my personal attraction is not based on physicality. I can appreciate beauty (both in art and in flesh), but still not desire it sexually. I am not stating that it is wrong to have an attraction, preference, or fetish; I am saying that I cannot relate to it and that the constant bombardment of discussion about physical attributes and beauty (from television, internet, co-workers, friends, family, etc.) has created an almost complete distaste for it except on rare occasions or amongst certain people. Everyone is free to like or dislike whatever they want. I happen to dislike this kind of "rating" of such minute details of physicality.
Comments
Maybe I am just easily amused.
I think when breasts get into the high C's and D's, they become different than smaller ones, fundamentally. Like down pillows, they become more shapeless. Smaller breasts tend to retain their shape and perkiness.
It surprises me that we haven't mentioned personal preference when it comes to areolas. Any thoughts?
As to implants, I can somewhat understand why someone would want them if they had a mastectomy.
I'm a fan of a woman that allows people to have preferences and doesn't live in a fictional world believing that "flesh is flesh." With that attitude, you really aren't a person. Heck, even rhesus monkeys have preferences. Why can't you? We've got a brain stem - must we deny it? Attraction is a product of evolution. Nothing wrong with that.
If "flesh is flesh", then why have art? Please. We're not robots, and we don't live in that creepy town that "Footloose" was set in.
As for your giant logical leap in stating "If "flesh is flesh", then why have art?" My entire point was that there is beauty and ugliness in all flesh and that my personal attraction is not based on physicality. I can appreciate beauty (both in art and in flesh), but still not desire it sexually. I am not stating that it is wrong to have an attraction, preference, or fetish; I am saying that I cannot relate to it and that the constant bombardment of discussion about physical attributes and beauty (from television, internet, co-workers, friends, family, etc.) has created an almost complete distaste for it except on rare occasions or amongst certain people. Everyone is free to like or dislike whatever they want. I happen to dislike this kind of "rating" of such minute details of physicality.