That metaphor (breasts as fruit) transcends language though. Whatever you call fruits you'll end up calling breasts. Here's the song of Solomon which was semetic.
I said, ‘I will go up to the palm tree; I will take hold of the boughs thereof.’ Now also thy breasts shall be as clusters of the vine, and the smell of thy nose like apples.
Instead of viewing things like this etymologically, it's better to see them as universal metaphors that transcend language and culture. Similar to light and darkness.
Ackshully, "galaxy" (or rather, "galaxias") means "Milky Way" already, it's just a translation. It was less ambiguous when the only galaxy we could see was the Milky lights that covered a lot of our sky.
Of course, we realize there's more than one galaxy now, so the meanings have diverged.
May I suggest reading Carl Sagan's Cosmos? Or watch one of the TV shows.
While your average human is about as smart as a brick, there are so many minds throughout history that were able to pull humanity out of our dark caves and into space.
What we need, to survive as a species, is to nurture people, give them (proper) education, and more will come up.
I grew up on Sagan. I'm not saying we should accept anything the way it is or not take inspiration from our achievements, just that we should not be prideful or expect any greatness from anyone.
We're currently smarter than we've ever been in a lot of ways, but I find the smarter you are it only changes the kinds of mistakes you make.
I do agree that humans increase in value the more you value them, and vice-versa. Society should be structured around maximising "human capital", so to speak.
My great aunt explained to me as a child in the 70s that the moon was round because gravity pulled it into a sphere. This woman was born around 1890, educated in a one-room schoolhouse and lived on a Civil War-era farm in bumfuck West Virginia.
I mean... I think we can all agree that boobs are at least universally non-threatening, even without counting the symbolisms of nourishment, nurturance, life, fertility, etc. At least I don't think we're at the point where hiding machine guns or hellish snakes in boobs is viable. ... Right?
synapsids have a single temporal fenestra, an opening low in the skull roof behind each eye socket, leaving a bony arch beneath each; this accounts for the name "synapsid"
We're the only(?) species that have evolved them to become more than their basic function. Other species use colors and other features for mating signals, humans use shapes. Definitely wired to be interested in them.
Hold up, are other hominids interested in boobs? Any other mammal? Any non mammals into boobs? How much tiddy science have we really done here?
I need tiddy facts.
This might be pseudoscience I got taught 20 years ago, but I have been under the impression that human evolution of breasts as a secondary sexual characteristic has to do with the shift to becoming bipedal. Like a lot of animals, early hominids would see the rear end of a fellow hominid and know this as a trigger for copulation. But when homo erectus started standing upright, butts weren't so universally erotic anymore. They had a whole back and head above them now. Breasts didn't need to be very large to fill their function, but an increase in size gave them a curvy appearance similar to a set of butt cheeks. And early humans were like, yeah, I think that's right, and selected for increased (or at least variable) breast size.
Listen, I'm not trying to refute anything here. I'm just saying that some extra tiddy experiments are probably required in order to fully understand this phenomena. I know that not everyone is cut out for this kind of thing, so I'm willing to take one for the team here. I just need a little funding and a steady supply of consenting tiddy owners.
You're going to need to send your resume to [email protected]. Fair warning though, you need at least a decade of experience in tiddy sciences in order to join the A team.
It's probably part of it, but there's definitely also other stuff like the fact that human breasts are always prominent, unlike most other animals where the sexual display stuff waxes and wanes with them being fertile.
The best hypothesis i'm aware of is that human sexuality is just really strange and kinda.. slutty.. (this applies to everyone). Like it seems that our default way of going about things before civilization fucked it up was to just kinda have fun with anyone who caught our fancy and reciprocated the feelings, so our dicks evolved to scoop out sperm and tits evolved to always be on display so no one can tell if you're fertile or not, and presumably same thing with us having no mating season to speak of.
Just try to be attractive so as many people as possible will want to bang you, and maybe if you're lucky you can even find someone who likes you enough that they actively avoid banging others, which is pretty damn sweet because you know that kid will be yours. But in the end it doesn't really matter whose kid is whose, because everyone will help raise them.
Boobs don’t need to be large? Have you seen cow udders? Or a wet nurses tits? A lot of women cannot produce enough milk so they used to have a wet nurse, which is basically rent-a-tits.
Let's start with breast size. No, breasts don't need to be big to produce adequate milk. Many women with small breasts have breast tissue that is dense with gland structure, meaning they have plenty of milk production capabilities.
About 1 - 4% of women do struggle to provide enough milk for their offspring, but this is typically a hormonal issue that has less to do with breast size and more to do with ovaries. As long as the mother's breasts increase by about a cup size during pregnancy, it is expected they will have adequate milk production.
Yes, wet nurses used to be prevalent. And yes, they used to be hired when mothers could not produce enough milk on their own (that 1 - 4%). But childbirth used to be a lot more dangerous, so a major role of wet nurses was to provide for the infant when the mother died during childbirth.
But the primary use of wet nurses was by the upper class. Not because the mother required help producing milk but because such activities were seen as lower class. They would leave it to the wet nurse to feed the baby which also allowed them to stop lactating sooner and return to a fertile state where they could produce more children sooner.
It's also interesting you bring up dairy cows because they are a prime counter-example to your point. Over many generations, we bred and selected for dairy cows with large udders for increased milk production. They didn't produce such huge volumes of milk until we started breeding them to do so. So, they are a good example showing that animals in nature do not need large breasts to produce an adequate volume of milk, but breeding for larger breasts can increase the milk production to excessive levels. And cause back problems.
I'm not aware of any other species sexually selecting for mammary size. Some birds do a puffy chest thing.
It might be a learned association rather than anything instinctive about tiddies. There's this one study where they gave rats a backpack fetish, but it has a sad ending because then they murdered all the rats. They did phrase the murder like they were doing a Satanic ritual though, and that kind of took some of the murdery edge off it for me.
I've been looking forward to like 20 years from now when all the incels will be into girls with too many fingers.
Tiddy loving might be a cultural thing. Human species that don't need clothes care little for the boobs. Though they live south, so either they are used to it or it might be Neanderthal(or other varieties) genes that some of us inherited. We certainly are boob fetishists among the mammals.
A while back I imagined a race of intelligent crocodiles that not only ate their own young, they'd cooktyhem and serve them to honored guests as a sign of respect.
In the defense of the ancients who were naming things like other things they sort of looked like.... what OTHER substance was around at that time that was both white and liquid?
...
Because maybe we should be grateful for the milk metaphor instead of the option that only nuts would choose...
i mean i'm not sure what definition you go by, to me the most sensible definition would be "a nutritious liquid produced by the parent to feed the child in its infancy", for which there's actually quite a few other classes that qualify. Many birds have crop milk which is exactly what it sounds like, and apparently some jumping spiders secrete milk from the same place as the eggs come out.
I suppose you could argue that milk must be modified sweat, but that feels very much like actively narrowing it down to only count mammals. It's not like there's anything inherent to how our milk is produced, all that matters is that it's a nutritious liquid.
I had to scroll back in my saved posts to a million years ago to resurrect this.
Thanks for surfacing this one, it's always fun to get the older perspective and realising they're very human.
That metaphor (breasts as fruit) transcends language though. Whatever you call fruits you'll end up calling breasts. Here's the song of Solomon which was semetic.
Instead of viewing things like this etymologically, it's better to see them as universal metaphors that transcend language and culture. Similar to light and darkness.
And boobs
If y'all could please direct me to the thighs and calves galaxies I'll be on my way. I enjoy boobs as do most humans, but I am a legs man.
So as a cock and balls man, where do I go?
Probably somewhere around Uranus?
You know what, take your upvote and get out of here!
We should rename it as Urectum to end that stupid joke once and for all.
You're probably gonna want the Meathook/Cobra galaxy or the Gaia Sausage.
I'm afraid the Cigar galaxy is just a cigar galaxy.
penistone might be a good start
You're a leg man? Get out of here... the Andromeda galaxy is that way --->
To be fair, tits are pretty awesome.
( @ )( @ )
Even heterosexual females enjoy a nice pair of boobies.
And the smaller the better.
I’m not picky.
Indeed. Big or small, I'll suck 'em all.
My son just called it "the tittieverse" and now I hate ALL of you.
This new naming scheme sounds like a great contribution to societitty.
Contriboobtion
in swedish it's basically that except we say "nursing animals", which is more specific
That sounds like a porno where nurses go wild.
Same in Slovene. Sesalec - Sucker.
Ackshully, "galaxy" (or rather, "galaxias") means "Milky Way" already, it's just a translation. It was less ambiguous when the only galaxy we could see was the Milky lights that covered a lot of our sky.
Of course, we realize there's more than one galaxy now, so the meanings have diverged.
And we didn't realize there was more than one galaxy until the 1920s (I think?)
We didn't even suspect?
There are people alive today who will tell you the moon is a hologram. Never respect human intelligence more than you have to.
May I suggest reading Carl Sagan's Cosmos? Or watch one of the TV shows.
While your average human is about as smart as a brick, there are so many minds throughout history that were able to pull humanity out of our dark caves and into space.
What we need, to survive as a species, is to nurture people, give them (proper) education, and more will come up.
I grew up on Sagan. I'm not saying we should accept anything the way it is or not take inspiration from our achievements, just that we should not be prideful or expect any greatness from anyone.
We're currently smarter than we've ever been in a lot of ways, but I find the smarter you are it only changes the kinds of mistakes you make.
I do agree that humans increase in value the more you value them, and vice-versa. Society should be structured around maximising "human capital", so to speak.
My great aunt explained to me as a child in the 70s that the moon was round because gravity pulled it into a sphere. This woman was born around 1890, educated in a one-room schoolhouse and lived on a Civil War-era farm in bumfuck West Virginia.
And then ya got what we have here today.
Thanks, and now I know the difference between a nebula and a galaxy.
I mean... I think we can all agree that boobs are at least universally non-threatening, even without counting the symbolisms of nourishment, nurturance, life, fertility, etc. At least I don't think we're at the point where hiding machine guns or hellish snakes in boobs is viable. ... Right?
Bring in the fem- BOOOOTS
Also Mazinger (may be known under a different name in some countries). One of the robots (Aphrodite A) had titty missiles: https://tenor.com/en-CA/view/afrodita-aphrodite-mech-anime-gif-16897967
Alternatively the second era of mistborn has a woman hiding weapons in her tits
And then she breasted boobily down the stairs.
Gaia?
Booba.
"fastfouriertransfem" is a great username
You just know she wears programmer socks
I'm okay with that.
We, the titty creatures of breastspace, approve
It was either that or a name based on obscure details of skull morphology.
I'll take the boobs.
How could anyone downvote something so erudite and horny?
I accidentally downvoted myself.
Literally lol
Thanks
I don't know, I prefer butts. Tits are nice, but only half the population have them.
an amendable issue
I've never seen a perfect butt though. I've seen a great one, but it had a crack in it.
That's the best part!
I like butts, but I prefer tits. I'm a simple man.
We're the only(?) species that have evolved them to become more than their basic function. Other species use colors and other features for mating signals, humans use shapes. Definitely wired to be interested in them.
Hold up, are other hominids interested in boobs? Any other mammal? Any non mammals into boobs? How much tiddy science have we really done here? I need tiddy facts.
This might be pseudoscience I got taught 20 years ago, but I have been under the impression that human evolution of breasts as a secondary sexual characteristic has to do with the shift to becoming bipedal. Like a lot of animals, early hominids would see the rear end of a fellow hominid and know this as a trigger for copulation. But when homo erectus started standing upright, butts weren't so universally erotic anymore. They had a whole back and head above them now. Breasts didn't need to be very large to fill their function, but an increase in size gave them a curvy appearance similar to a set of butt cheeks. And early humans were like, yeah, I think that's right, and selected for increased (or at least variable) breast size.
Listen, I'm not trying to refute anything here. I'm just saying that some extra tiddy experiments are probably required in order to fully understand this phenomena. I know that not everyone is cut out for this kind of thing, so I'm willing to take one for the team here. I just need a little funding and a steady supply of consenting tiddy owners.
I feel obligated to offer my services in helping with this.
You're going to need to send your resume to [email protected]. Fair warning though, you need at least a decade of experience in tiddy sciences in order to join the A team.
I'm 42, I have at least several hours worth of experience across many decades. Hopefully that's adequate? I have references.
We do extensive background and credit checks on all our applicants. Please agree to the privacy policy and terms of use.
This is where you lost me.
It's probably part of it, but there's definitely also other stuff like the fact that human breasts are always prominent, unlike most other animals where the sexual display stuff waxes and wanes with them being fertile.
The best hypothesis i'm aware of is that human sexuality is just really strange and kinda.. slutty.. (this applies to everyone). Like it seems that our default way of going about things before civilization fucked it up was to just kinda have fun with anyone who caught our fancy and reciprocated the feelings, so our dicks evolved to scoop out sperm and tits evolved to always be on display so no one can tell if you're fertile or not, and presumably same thing with us having no mating season to speak of.
Just try to be attractive so as many people as possible will want to bang you, and maybe if you're lucky you can even find someone who likes you enough that they actively avoid banging others, which is pretty damn sweet because you know that kid will be yours. But in the end it doesn't really matter whose kid is whose, because everyone will help raise them.
I, too, watched the anime Prison School.
Haven't seen that, but now I want to.
It is batshit crazy.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5qLYAFdddPw&t=8s&pp=2AEIkAIB
The unhinged tone in the subbed version over the dubbed is what sells it for me.
Boobs don’t need to be large? Have you seen cow udders? Or a wet nurses tits? A lot of women cannot produce enough milk so they used to have a wet nurse, which is basically rent-a-tits.
Oh my. Lots to dig into here.
Let's start with breast size. No, breasts don't need to be big to produce adequate milk. Many women with small breasts have breast tissue that is dense with gland structure, meaning they have plenty of milk production capabilities.
About 1 - 4% of women do struggle to provide enough milk for their offspring, but this is typically a hormonal issue that has less to do with breast size and more to do with ovaries. As long as the mother's breasts increase by about a cup size during pregnancy, it is expected they will have adequate milk production.
Here's a source on the topic:
https://www.didymos.de/en/blog/small-breasts-no-milk/?srsltid=AfmBOoqepv0oQNz0TGIpPESnwNiIT2-eVP7aY7a_GHCI2Tn29O19FVMD
Yes, wet nurses used to be prevalent. And yes, they used to be hired when mothers could not produce enough milk on their own (that 1 - 4%). But childbirth used to be a lot more dangerous, so a major role of wet nurses was to provide for the infant when the mother died during childbirth.
But the primary use of wet nurses was by the upper class. Not because the mother required help producing milk but because such activities were seen as lower class. They would leave it to the wet nurse to feed the baby which also allowed them to stop lactating sooner and return to a fertile state where they could produce more children sooner.
It's also interesting you bring up dairy cows because they are a prime counter-example to your point. Over many generations, we bred and selected for dairy cows with large udders for increased milk production. They didn't produce such huge volumes of milk until we started breeding them to do so. So, they are a good example showing that animals in nature do not need large breasts to produce an adequate volume of milk, but breeding for larger breasts can increase the milk production to excessive levels. And cause back problems.
I'm not aware of any other species sexually selecting for mammary size. Some birds do a puffy chest thing.
It might be a learned association rather than anything instinctive about tiddies. There's this one study where they gave rats a backpack fetish, but it has a sad ending because then they murdered all the rats. They did phrase the murder like they were doing a Satanic ritual though, and that kind of took some of the murdery edge off it for me.
I've been looking forward to like 20 years from now when all the incels will be into girls with too many fingers.
We need more data!
All mammals are interested in boobs, but typically only when they are pups. Boobs = food
Tiddy loving might be a cultural thing. Human species that don't need clothes care little for the boobs. Though they live south, so either they are used to it or it might be Neanderthal(or other varieties) genes that some of us inherited. We certainly are boob fetishists among the mammals.
There's only one extant human species and we don't know anything about soft tissue in extinct species of humans
not tiddy facts, but tiddy educated guesses and inferences:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWkOvakd9Mo
Just wait till you know the etymology of mastodon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mastodon
Edit to save a click: "A mastodon, (from Ancient Greek μαστός (mastós), meaning "breast, and ὀδούς (odoús) "tooth")"
Edit 2: the "mast" in "mastodon" is the same one as in "mastectomy"
Because
?
"A mastodon, (from Ancient Greek μαστός (mastós), meaning "breast, and ὀδούς (odoús) "tooth")"
In polish mammals = ssaki, and ssaki = suckers
Aliens are gonna have a field day with their translators.
[off topic]
A while back I imagined a race of intelligent crocodiles that not only ate their own young, they'd cooktyhem and serve them to honored guests as a sign of respect.
"These stupid apes are so goddamn horny all the time"
I finally understand why galactose (greek word for milk) is a component of lactose (latin word for milk). It's milk all the way down.
I've always thought my defining characteristic was my nipples.
Galactose
In the defense of the ancients who were naming things like other things they sort of looked like.... what OTHER substance was around at that time that was both white and liquid?
...
Because maybe we should be grateful for the milk metaphor instead of the option that only nuts would choose...
\ >.> Would you rather it be called after dough?
Boobworld, it's a world for you, but it's actually two!
Chinese are more interested vagina. More to the point 也。
Yeah this isn't a universal human thing like the post suggests, it's just that terms like "mammal" and "galaxy" are rooted in Europe.
Folks? There are people outside of Europe, and they have different opinions on stuff!
Of the organs that are unique to us mammals, tits are more fun to play with than placentas.
Hair is pretty cool too
Somebody please tell me that sol means titties somehow
I mean, point me to a milk producing animal of another class without stretching some definitions a bit.
i mean i'm not sure what definition you go by, to me the most sensible definition would be "a nutritious liquid produced by the parent to feed the child in its infancy", for which there's actually quite a few other classes that qualify. Many birds have crop milk which is exactly what it sounds like, and apparently some jumping spiders secrete milk from the same place as the eggs come out.
I suppose you could argue that milk must be modified sweat, but that feels very much like actively narrowing it down to only count mammals. It's not like there's anything inherent to how our milk is produced, all that matters is that it's a nutritious liquid.
Traduce Mastodon
Milky milky