Quote from: MonsterSlayer;810763Nahh...it doesn't need to be that long. Jealousy, greed, desire for power, even the most basic desire to see your offspring do just a bit better and "give them every advantage" are universal principles across all cultures from the most leftist Asian and Latin American nations to the most capitalist U.S.

You haven't demonstrated your contention. The notion that universal desires always lead to exactly the same behaviors is contradicted by all of human history. It's the details that matter. The how cultures go about satisfying needs and desires is the interesting part. Yeah everybody gets hungry, but a world or a game world where hunger is satisfied by generic food - no taste, no flavor, no spice - is good awful boring.

QuoteThe only reason for that in that picture is to show that you are capable of feeding your children better. It's a "stylized penile display" for a fictitious matriarchal culture. And if you have displays of superiority you have all that other stuff I said earlier and you end up just like the rest of us.

Trivia point: those aren't pictures from fictitious cultures. Those are from two actual cultures. The Blue Gate is the Ishtar Gate in Bablyon and the other pics are from Minoan Crete.

Again, if everybody is just like us, why does our culture not use naked breasts openly displayed as a sign of superior motherhood? Shouldn't all women, in every society do that since we are all the same? And if we don't all behave the same then what do you mean by saying everyone is the same?

Actually I'm fond of the theory that most mammals are attracted to the buttocks but because humans are upright we developed an attraction to the front of the females.  But even now, we have an avatistic urge to push the breasts up and together so they look like a buttocks.

Citation: too too many hours of talk radio.  Even so, I think it makes more sense than the baby faucet theory.

Clearly breasts developed for sex. Because big round pert breasts actually are terrible for breastfeeding humans.

Quote from: tuypo1;810576Oh i agree completely but it is for precisely that reason its worth bringing tasteful sex into the discussion. The aforementioned sex addiction does not even need nudity in it to portray its purpose but in the same vein it would be foolish to avoid nudity in it as well if the piece of art makes sense to have a nipple in it have a nipple otherwise dont have a nipple you should neither seek or avoid genitals.

Getting people to understand that sex is not bad is also important the book of exalted deeds was a step in the right direction in getting that across even if the vow of abstinence did send mixed messages although that gets a pass if you read the book carefully because its explicitly stated to be about giving up a good thing. The abstinince components on spells though were completely stupid and does muddle the message.

Sheesh, that almost sounds like an idea I have had on something I call "living Houri" would be a good one, considering it is very possible to be sensual, sexual, and even give sexual pleasure without having intercourse, just ask BDSM-practioners and fetishists.....

Quote from: David Johansen;810828Actually I'm fond of the theory that most mammals are attracted to the buttocks but because humans are upright we developed an attraction to the front of the females.  But even now, we have an avatistic urge to push the breasts up and together so they look like a buttocks.

Citation: too too many hours of talk radio.  Even so, I think it makes more sense than the baby faucet theory.

I am certain you are correct, I have had that impression and perhaps opinion for at least more than a decade, if not for two.

Breasts has gotten shaped like that due to selection, as they looks like butts.

Quote from: MonsterSlayer;810763Look at the picture with the women sitting around with their breaststroke exposed. Why? Why would they do that and the rest of their bodies covered and the males' genitals covered?

The only reason for that in that picture is to show that you are capable of feeding your children better. It's a "stylized penile display" for a fictitious matriarchal culture. And if you have displays of superiority you have all that other stuff I said earlier and you end up just like the rest of us.

Oh for f**** sake, what utter bollocks.

Obviously you haven't had children or you've grown up in a highly repressed society, because the main reason for not covering your breasts as a woman is that it enables you to easily breastfeed without the hassle of partially disrobing. Its a simple case of convenience in a time when contraception was either unavailable or very dangerous, woven cloth is expensive, and laundry is damn hard work.

And as Bren points out they are illustrations of fashion from ancient Babylon and Crete.

Quote from: Pete Nash;810913Oh for f**** sake, what utter bollocks.

Obviously you haven't had children or you've grown up in a highly repressed society, because the main reason for not covering your breasts as a woman is that it enables you to easily breastfeed without the hassle of partially disrobing. Its a simple case of convenience in a time when contraception was either unavailable or very dangerous, woven cloth is expensive, and laundry is damn hard work.

And as Bren points out they are illustrations of fashion from ancient Babylon and Crete.

Bollocks mate.
Women that can afford those sorts of clothes and live in those sorts of places never breastfed their own children. They had wet nurses for that.

The illustration is awful. Technically awful. Subject matter is awful.

The main reason for women to sit round with their breasts exposed is to make money from punters for a lap dance surely?

Quote from: jibbajibba;810915The illustration is awful. Technically awful. Subject matter is awful.

Jesus Christ dude, google Minoan Crete artwork.  Notice a pattern?  The open-breasted dress on ancient frescos, urns and plates was pretty common.

Descended from Britons, Saxons, and then the Danes, how the hell did Brits come to fear the tit?

Quote from: CRKrueger;810916Jesus Christ dude, google Minoan Crete artwork.  Notice a pattern?  The open-breasted dress on ancient frescos, urns and plates was pretty common.

Descended from Britons, Saxons, and then the Danes, how the hell did Brits come to fear the tit?

Cranmer & Cromwell.

Though it's a bit more complicated - in Ancient Egypt, clothes were an indication of rank. So while attitudes towards sexuality of body were lax, people who could afford it clothed themselves, as an indication that, well, they could afford to go around in clothes that'd need people to be regularly washed off from sweat. Similar'd be with Minoan civilisations, with an exception of apparent disrobing of both sexes for sport activities.

Though of course, if on the other hand, French Court journals from days of Lous XIII - XVI are to be trusted, you didn't need any desire for breast - feeding to see a lot of exposed breasts in the zenith hours of a party.

If I had realized so many people would be confused by illustrations of historical reconstructions, I'd have included the citations for the cultures along with the illustrations.

As an aside, this same thread on EnWorld was enlightening...  :-)

From the posts there I would likely skip ANY controversial images in a product. Instead saving them for an "adult" rated product with the "mature themes" warnings slapped on it for good measure. Perhaps a "warning: boobies ahead" banner...

Quote from: jibbajibba;810915Bollocks mate.
Women that can afford those sorts of clothes and live in those sorts of places never breastfed their own children. They had wet nurses for that.

As far as I know there are no mention of wet-nurses in any Minoan Linear A or Mycenaean Linear B literature found so far. The earliest concrete mention is Euryclea in the Odyssey which is post Minoan, although her lifelong duties in Odysseus's household imply she was more a nanny. However I won't contend the point that nurses (wet or not) become more popular by the time of classical Greece.

The inbuilt desire for most women to breastfeed their own offspring aside, there is plenty of iconography showing Cretan and Middle-eastern females either topless or wearing such open fronted bodices, some of whom are dancing - which potentially implies someone of lower rank (dancers being a low status profession at least in the later Greek world).

For example:

http://www.sourcememory.net/art/greece/vapheio.png

http://www.sourcememory.net/art/greece/minet_elbeida.jpg

http://www.sourcememory.net/art/greece/myc1.jpg

http://www.sourcememory.net/art/greece/ivory_mycenae15th.jpg

But if that doesn't clinch it for you, here's a Minoan figurine of a topless woman wearing skirts and jewelry, nursing her infant.

http://www.anistor.gr/english/enback/Figurine_Brussels_Front.JPG

Of course iconography is open to interpretation, but there is absolutely no evidence that "Women that can afford those sorts of clothes and live in those sorts of places never breastfed their own children." Whereas I can point to dozens of cultures over thousands of years where women who have access to clothing, deliberately leave their breasts bared for ease of child care.  

Anyone who has raised a baby without bottle feeding or had to handle the never ending pile of lactation-stained laundry will know where I'm coming from...

That's the classiest OH SNAP I've ever read.

I have no problem with nudity.

Quote from: David Johansen;810828Actually I'm fond of the theory that most mammals are attracted to the buttocks but because humans are upright we developed an attraction to the front of the females.  But even now, we have an avatistic urge to push the breasts up and together so they look like a buttocks.

Citation: too too many hours of talk radio.  Even so, I think it makes more sense than the baby faucet theory.

Quote from: Will;810830Clearly breasts developed for sex. Because big round pert breasts actually are terrible for breastfeeding humans.

This is a theory proposed by Desmond Morris in the book The Naked Ape.

JG