Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Days of Broken Arrows" data-source="post: 1152469" data-attributes="member: 4258">RE: The HaggeningGreat post. I have one issue with it, though: &quot;...makeup is not a necessity like a bra for example.&quot;A bra is not a necessity. When God (or nature) invented female breasts, there was no design flaw.Breasts were meant to &quot;hang&quot; naturally in a vertical manner, not be thrust outward. When you think about it, pushing breasts out horizontally is the female equivalent of a pair of underwear that would make men look like they had erections all the time.I contend that a lot of modern-day sexual dysfunction is due to the bra. It hyper-sexualized women's bodies. Men were not meant to have tits pushed in our faces 24/7, just as women weren't meant to see erections all the time.With that in mind, it should come as no surprise that women invented the bra. From Wikipedia: &quot;In the United States, Mary Phelps Jacob received a patent in 1914 for the first brassiere design that is recognized as the basis for modern bras.&quot;Jacobs is one of many women who were instrumental in making a bra a &quot;necessity.&quot; IMO this isn't for health reasons. It's about power and control. When a woman has her tits in your face, she's in control. We're kidding ourselves if we think there's any other reason for bras than that. So, it makes sense women were behind this, just like they're champions of makeup. Both raise their SMV artificially. (And, ironically women complain about both as much as they use them.)PS: I know some commenters are going to complain about &quot;sagging,&quot; but I believe some sagging is more of a turn-on than &quot;torpedo tits.&quot; Why do I think that? Because when I see &quot;bolt-on&quot; fake boobs, my reaction is laughter or derision -- as opposed to getting turned on by a nice pair of aging, natural breasts.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Days of Broken Arrows, post: 1152469, member: 4258"] [b]RE: The Haggening[/b] Great post. I have one issue with it, though: [i]"...makeup is not a necessity [b]like a bra[/b] for example."[/i] A bra is not a necessity. When God (or nature) invented female breasts, there was no design flaw. Breasts were meant to "hang" naturally in a vertical manner, not be thrust outward. When you think about it, pushing breasts out horizontally is the female equivalent of a pair of underwear that would make men look like they had erections all the time. I contend that a lot of modern-day sexual dysfunction is due to the bra. It hyper-sexualized women's bodies. Men were not meant to have tits pushed in our faces 24/7, just as women weren't meant to see erections all the time. With that in mind, it should come as no surprise that women invented the bra. From Wikipedia: [i]"In the United States, Mary Phelps Jacob received a patent in 1914 for the first brassiere design that is recognized as the basis for modern bras."[/i] Jacobs is one of many women who were instrumental in making a bra a "necessity." IMO this isn't for health reasons. It's about power and control. When a woman has her tits in your face, she's in control. We're kidding ourselves if we think there's any other reason for bras than that. So, it makes sense women were behind this, just like they're champions of makeup. Both raise their SMV artificially. (And, ironically women complain about both as much as they use them.) PS: I know some commenters are going to complain about "sagging," but I believe some sagging is more of a turn-on than "torpedo tits." Why do I think that? Because when I see "bolt-on" fake boobs, my reaction is laughter or derision -- as opposed to getting turned on by a nice pair of aging, natural breasts. [/QUOTE]

Verification