Are you a boobs or ass person?

[Jonluw]

I'm going to quote the OP from one of my earlier thread, and then you can have a guess at what I am.

Spoiler

Hiya escapists.

Ah, the female chest area. La poitrine. These globular sacks of fatty tissue. Or, somewhat crudely, "tits". Recognized as a masterpiece of form and function by men and women alike. A perfect amalgation of shapeliness, consistency and practicality.
Studies[footnote]Disclaimer: Data not derived from actual studies.[/footnote] show that people with access to breasts are consistently happier than those who must live without them. Truly a sight to behold and a constant source of joy for many a person, such creations are by most recognized as the magnificent wonders of the natural world that they are.
And yet, by virtue of the mighty PG-13, trying to include illustrations in this thread would see me swiftly stricken down by the banhammer.

[sub]Sorry[/sub]​

I've been thinking a bit about breasts, as I am wont to do. Specifically, I've been thinking about our relationship to breasts when it comes to social norms.

Most people would not be uncomfortable with an infant seeing a breast. Hell, they spend most of the day latched on to them with their mouths. People generally regard it as unproblematic for children up to around three or four years of age to be exposed to breasts.
However, at around this age, a strange new social norm steps into place. From this point forward, all interaction with breasts other than the child's own is forbidden.

Breasts may now no longer enter the child's field of vision lest they be wrapped in a sufficiently concealing fabric.
Why is it that we must shield our young from the sight of something that is universally agreed on to be things of beauty? What are we afraid will happen?

[sub]?[/sub]​

This norm is popularly attributed to the formation of the child's sexuality, and as such, exceptions are known to have been made when the context was explicitly non-sexual. The problem seems to be that the design of the breast is too grand. Simply too perfect. To the point where the mere sight of such wondrous pieces of flesh is enough to arouse feelings of... well, arousal. In those that are attracted to women that is. And consequently, indecency in those who aren't.

So from this point forward, the child is no longer allowed to bask in the sweetness of the female mammary area.
Sure, the norm may allow a look once in a while for educational purposes or for "art", but these rare viewings happen exclusively on the terms that one is absolutely not allowed to enjoy looking.
And touching, so as to take in the full beauty of breasts other than one's own, is completely forbidden.
Films which at some point display an areola are carefully kept out of reach of these children, lest they should anger the deity "PG-13"-

Up until a certain point, that is. The age at which breasts are normally allowed to be reintroduced to a person's life lies at around 16-18 years in most western cultures. At this point, one may once again experience the grandeur with which one was so closely acquainted in one's past.
And truly the feeling is glorious.

But why does this all happen? It would all have been quite understandable if the sexuality which enters children's lives, prompting them to be cut off from breasts, disappears with age. But that does not seem to be the case. Indeed, late teenagers seem to be more sexual than most other people on the planet!

So why, then, are such massive efforts being exerted to keep children protected from taking part in the wonders of breasts?
What is the secret of these 12 to 15 years of one's life that leads us to keep them artificially devoid of bosoms, melons, milk factories, busts, funbags, knockers, balisties, boobies, jugs, nipples, jublies and [HEADING=2]Stonking great tits?![/HEADING]

Captcha: life's too short

hmmm ..... i THINK, your being a touch to subtle about your preferences

Ah, sorry 'bout that.
To clarify: I'm an ass man.

Seriously though: The whole is what matters. I'm big into pretty eyes, but they still need a good face to be attached to, and my preferences on body parts varies with body type.
I like petite, maybe a bit tomboyish, women, but I don't mind big boobs.
I don't really want big boobs on my petite women though. If she has large breasts, I prefer a more curvy, and probably taller, body type.

just to add to that.

not being a ***** 24/7 to. she needs to be nice over all and fun doesn't hurt ether. there's a lot of pyshical imperfections one can over look if the person inside is beautiful. over looking those imperfections is kinda the trick

Of course.
But I was sort of assuming we weren't discussing what's nice in a girlfriend, but rather what we find visually appealing.
Maybe squeezually appealing as well.

 

[Zen Toombs]

I'm going to quote the OP from one of my earlier thread, and then you can have a guess at what I am.

Spoiler

Hiya escapists.

Ah, the female chest area. La poitrine. These globular sacks of fatty tissue. Or, somewhat crudely, "tits". Recognized as a masterpiece of form and function by men and women alike. A perfect amalgation of shapeliness, consistency and practicality.
Studies[footnote]Disclaimer: Data not derived from actual studies.[/footnote] show that people with access to breasts are consistently happier than those who must live without them. Truly a sight to behold and a constant source of joy for many a person, such creations are by most recognized as the magnificent wonders of the natural world that they are.
And yet, by virtue of the mighty PG-13, trying to include illustrations in this thread would see me swiftly stricken down by the banhammer.

[sub]Sorry[/sub]​

I've been thinking a bit about breasts, as I am wont to do. Specifically, I've been thinking about our relationship to breasts when it comes to social norms.

Most people would not be uncomfortable with an infant seeing a breast. Hell, they spend most of the day latched on to them with their mouths. People generally regard it as unproblematic for children up to around three or four years of age to be exposed to breasts.
However, at around this age, a strange new social norm steps into place. From this point forward, all interaction with breasts other than the child's own is forbidden.

Breasts may now no longer enter the child's field of vision lest they be wrapped in a sufficiently concealing fabric.
Why is it that we must shield our young from the sight of something that is universally agreed on to be things of beauty? What are we afraid will happen?

[sub]?[/sub]​

This norm is popularly attributed to the formation of the child's sexuality, and as such, exceptions are known to have been made when the context was explicitly non-sexual. The problem seems to be that the design of the breast is too grand. Simply too perfect. To the point where the mere sight of such wondrous pieces of flesh is enough to arouse feelings of... well, arousal. In those that are attracted to women that is. And consequently, indecency in those who aren't.

So from this point forward, the child is no longer allowed to bask in the sweetness of the female mammary area.
Sure, the norm may allow a look once in a while for educational purposes or for "art", but these rare viewings happen exclusively on the terms that one is absolutely not allowed to enjoy looking.
And touching, so as to take in the full beauty of breasts other than one's own, is completely forbidden.
Films which at some point display an areola are carefully kept out of reach of these children, lest they should anger the deity "PG-13"-

Up until a certain point, that is. The age at which breasts are normally allowed to be reintroduced to a person's life lies at around 16-18 years in most western cultures. At this point, one may once again experience the grandeur with which one was so closely acquainted in one's past.
And truly the feeling is glorious.

But why does this all happen? It would all have been quite understandable if the sexuality which enters children's lives, prompting them to be cut off from breasts, disappears with age. But that does not seem to be the case. Indeed, late teenagers seem to be more sexual than most other people on the planet!

So why, then, are such massive efforts being exerted to keep children protected from taking part in the wonders of breasts?
What is the secret of these 12 to 15 years of one's life that leads us to keep them artificially devoid of bosoms, melons, milk factories, busts, funbags, knockers, balisties, boobies, jugs, nipples, jublies and [HEADING=2]Stonking great tits?![/HEADING]

Captcha: life's too short

When did you become a cracked writer?

OT: I prefer the whole package to fit together. But if I had to chose, I'd have to apologize to every other body part because I'm picking chest.
mmmm....

 

[ShadowsofHope]

Boobs. I can neglect to look at any other body part on a woman and not regret it later, but boobs? There will be a glance snuck in at some opportunity, I can most definitely tell you. And there is no shame in involved in that.

1. Boobs
2. Eyes
3. Hair
4. Hourglass vs. potato
5. Ass
6. Legs

 

[Lunar Templar]

I'm going to quote the OP from one of my earlier thread, and then you can have a guess at what I am.

Spoiler

Hiya escapists.

Ah, the female chest area. La poitrine. These globular sacks of fatty tissue. Or, somewhat crudely, "tits". Recognized as a masterpiece of form and function by men and women alike. A perfect amalgation of shapeliness, consistency and practicality.
Studies[footnote]Disclaimer: Data not derived from actual studies.[/footnote] show that people with access to breasts are consistently happier than those who must live without them. Truly a sight to behold and a constant source of joy for many a person, such creations are by most recognized as the magnificent wonders of the natural world that they are.
And yet, by virtue of the mighty PG-13, trying to include illustrations in this thread would see me swiftly stricken down by the banhammer.

[sub]Sorry[/sub]​

I've been thinking a bit about breasts, as I am wont to do. Specifically, I've been thinking about our relationship to breasts when it comes to social norms.

Most people would not be uncomfortable with an infant seeing a breast. Hell, they spend most of the day latched on to them with their mouths. People generally regard it as unproblematic for children up to around three or four years of age to be exposed to breasts.
However, at around this age, a strange new social norm steps into place. From this point forward, all interaction with breasts other than the child's own is forbidden.

Breasts may now no longer enter the child's field of vision lest they be wrapped in a sufficiently concealing fabric.
Why is it that we must shield our young from the sight of something that is universally agreed on to be things of beauty? What are we afraid will happen?

[sub]?[/sub]​

This norm is popularly attributed to the formation of the child's sexuality, and as such, exceptions are known to have been made when the context was explicitly non-sexual. The problem seems to be that the design of the breast is too grand. Simply too perfect. To the point where the mere sight of such wondrous pieces of flesh is enough to arouse feelings of... well, arousal. In those that are attracted to women that is. And consequently, indecency in those who aren't.

So from this point forward, the child is no longer allowed to bask in the sweetness of the female mammary area.
Sure, the norm may allow a look once in a while for educational purposes or for "art", but these rare viewings happen exclusively on the terms that one is absolutely not allowed to enjoy looking.
And touching, so as to take in the full beauty of breasts other than one's own, is completely forbidden.
Films which at some point display an areola are carefully kept out of reach of these children, lest they should anger the deity "PG-13"-

Up until a certain point, that is. The age at which breasts are normally allowed to be reintroduced to a person's life lies at around 16-18 years in most western cultures. At this point, one may once again experience the grandeur with which one was so closely acquainted in one's past.
And truly the feeling is glorious.

But why does this all happen? It would all have been quite understandable if the sexuality which enters children's lives, prompting them to be cut off from breasts, disappears with age. But that does not seem to be the case. Indeed, late teenagers seem to be more sexual than most other people on the planet!

So why, then, are such massive efforts being exerted to keep children protected from taking part in the wonders of breasts?
What is the secret of these 12 to 15 years of one's life that leads us to keep them artificially devoid of bosoms, melons, milk factories, busts, funbags, knockers, balisties, boobies, jugs, nipples, jublies and [HEADING=2]Stonking great tits?![/HEADING]

Captcha: life's too short

hmmm ..... i THINK, your being a touch to subtle about your preferences

Ah, sorry 'bout that.
To clarify: I'm an ass man.

Seriously though: The whole is what matters. I'm big into pretty eyes, but they still need a good face to be attached to, and my preferences on body parts varies with body type.
I like petite, maybe a bit tomboyish, women, but I don't mind big boobs.
I don't really want big boobs on my petite women though. If she has large breasts, I prefer a more curvy, and probably taller, body type.

just to add to that.

not being a ***** 24/7 to. she needs to be nice over all and fun doesn't hurt ether. there's a lot of pyshical imperfections one can over look if the person inside is beautiful. over looking those imperfections is kinda the trick

Of course.
But I was sort of assuming we weren't discussing what's nice in a girlfriend, but rather what we find visually appealing.
Maybe squeezually appealing as well.

then just put me down for the whole woman. can't think of many places on the female body that wouldn't be fun to 'do things to/with'

 

[winginson]

Everything in proportion is best. However.

Clothed- boobs. I'm taller than most women so I can oggle em whilst still looking at their face.
Un-clothed- ass. Partly because of what's in front of it.

Plus the whole personality thing etc. You need a balance between everything.

 

[Jonluw]

I'm going to quote the OP from one of my earlier thread, and then you can have a guess at what I am.

Spoiler

Hiya escapists.

Ah, the female chest area. La poitrine. These globular sacks of fatty tissue. Or, somewhat crudely, "tits". Recognized as a masterpiece of form and function by men and women alike. A perfect amalgation of shapeliness, consistency and practicality.
Studies[footnote]Disclaimer: Data not derived from actual studies.[/footnote] show that people with access to breasts are consistently happier than those who must live without them. Truly a sight to behold and a constant source of joy for many a person, such creations are by most recognized as the magnificent wonders of the natural world that they are.
And yet, by virtue of the mighty PG-13, trying to include illustrations in this thread would see me swiftly stricken down by the banhammer.

[sub]Sorry[/sub]​

I've been thinking a bit about breasts, as I am wont to do. Specifically, I've been thinking about our relationship to breasts when it comes to social norms.

Most people would not be uncomfortable with an infant seeing a breast. Hell, they spend most of the day latched on to them with their mouths. People generally regard it as unproblematic for children up to around three or four years of age to be exposed to breasts.
However, at around this age, a strange new social norm steps into place. From this point forward, all interaction with breasts other than the child's own is forbidden.

Breasts may now no longer enter the child's field of vision lest they be wrapped in a sufficiently concealing fabric.
Why is it that we must shield our young from the sight of something that is universally agreed on to be things of beauty? What are we afraid will happen?

[sub]?[/sub]​

This norm is popularly attributed to the formation of the child's sexuality, and as such, exceptions are known to have been made when the context was explicitly non-sexual. The problem seems to be that the design of the breast is too grand. Simply too perfect. To the point where the mere sight of such wondrous pieces of flesh is enough to arouse feelings of... well, arousal. In those that are attracted to women that is. And consequently, indecency in those who aren't.

So from this point forward, the child is no longer allowed to bask in the sweetness of the female mammary area.
Sure, the norm may allow a look once in a while for educational purposes or for "art", but these rare viewings happen exclusively on the terms that one is absolutely not allowed to enjoy looking.
And touching, so as to take in the full beauty of breasts other than one's own, is completely forbidden.
Films which at some point display an areola are carefully kept out of reach of these children, lest they should anger the deity "PG-13"-

Up until a certain point, that is. The age at which breasts are normally allowed to be reintroduced to a person's life lies at around 16-18 years in most western cultures. At this point, one may once again experience the grandeur with which one was so closely acquainted in one's past.
And truly the feeling is glorious.

But why does this all happen? It would all have been quite understandable if the sexuality which enters children's lives, prompting them to be cut off from breasts, disappears with age. But that does not seem to be the case. Indeed, late teenagers seem to be more sexual than most other people on the planet!

So why, then, are such massive efforts being exerted to keep children protected from taking part in the wonders of breasts?
What is the secret of these 12 to 15 years of one's life that leads us to keep them artificially devoid of bosoms, melons, milk factories, busts, funbags, knockers, balisties, boobies, jugs, nipples, jublies and [HEADING=2]Stonking great tits?![/HEADING]

Captcha: life's too short

When did you become a cracked writer?

Gradually over the last six months.
Osmosis.
[sub]Seriously, I read way too many cracked articles. I have this compulsive need to read almost everything they publish. Six of the 17 tabs I've got up right now are cracked articles. I might need help.[/sub]
I'm happy someone other than me noticed I was using their style though. At least I'm not imagining things.

then just put me down for the whole woman. can't think of many places on the female body that wouldn't be fun to 'do things to/with'

I agree. Although that last part of the sentence sounds too much like a challenge...
Do things in the female body count?
In any case: Armpit hair. Not much fun to be had there.

 

[Zen Toombs]

When did you become a cracked writer?

Osmosis.

One comment -

Ah, the female chest area. La poitrine. These globular sacks of adipose tissue. Or, somewhat crudely, "tits".

There, I fixed that for you. Sounds far grosser and is more accurate. Success all around!

 

[Jonluw]

When did you become a cracked writer?

Osmosis.

One comment -

Ah, the female chest area. La poitrine. These globular sacks of adipose tissue. Or, somewhat crudely, "tits".

There, I fixed that for you. Sounds far grosser and is more accurate. Success all around!

Hm, that does sound better. I was just translating by gut instinct.

Classier indeed. Let's try it out:
"If I were to imply you have a pleasing figure, would you allow me to attempt to absorb your reserves of adipose tissue by means of osmosis?"

Should try that one some time.

 

[Zen Toombs]

What's inside is what's important... just kidding, asses.

There's a joke in there somewhere about "What's inside asses is what's important.", but I'm too lazy to make it.

Boobs. Seriously you cant beat those things.

Actually, it's very easy. Just use a stick.

Disclaimer - assault is wrong. Sometimes funny, but wrong.

 

[Volstag9]

Both? I guess?

I also feel to need to say that there are currently 69 posts in this thread. That is all.

Now there are 70. So ha.

 

[Biodeamon]

dat brain for me.

then comes tits.

 

[Saulkar]

For both men and woman it has to be dat ass!

 

[Lunar Templar]

I'm going to quote the OP from one of my earlier thread, and then you can have a guess at what I am.

Spoiler

Hiya escapists.

Ah, the female chest area. La poitrine. These globular sacks of fatty tissue. Or, somewhat crudely, "tits". Recognized as a masterpiece of form and function by men and women alike. A perfect amalgation of shapeliness, consistency and practicality.
Studies[footnote]Disclaimer: Data not derived from actual studies.[/footnote] show that people with access to breasts are consistently happier than those who must live without them. Truly a sight to behold and a constant source of joy for many a person, such creations are by most recognized as the magnificent wonders of the natural world that they are.
And yet, by virtue of the mighty PG-13, trying to include illustrations in this thread would see me swiftly stricken down by the banhammer.

[sub]Sorry[/sub]​

I've been thinking a bit about breasts, as I am wont to do. Specifically, I've been thinking about our relationship to breasts when it comes to social norms.

Most people would not be uncomfortable with an infant seeing a breast. Hell, they spend most of the day latched on to them with their mouths. People generally regard it as unproblematic for children up to around three or four years of age to be exposed to breasts.
However, at around this age, a strange new social norm steps into place. From this point forward, all interaction with breasts other than the child's own is forbidden.

Breasts may now no longer enter the child's field of vision lest they be wrapped in a sufficiently concealing fabric.
Why is it that we must shield our young from the sight of something that is universally agreed on to be things of beauty? What are we afraid will happen?

[sub]?[/sub]​

This norm is popularly attributed to the formation of the child's sexuality, and as such, exceptions are known to have been made when the context was explicitly non-sexual. The problem seems to be that the design of the breast is too grand. Simply too perfect. To the point where the mere sight of such wondrous pieces of flesh is enough to arouse feelings of... well, arousal. In those that are attracted to women that is. And consequently, indecency in those who aren't.

So from this point forward, the child is no longer allowed to bask in the sweetness of the female mammary area.
Sure, the norm may allow a look once in a while for educational purposes or for "art", but these rare viewings happen exclusively on the terms that one is absolutely not allowed to enjoy looking.
And touching, so as to take in the full beauty of breasts other than one's own, is completely forbidden.
Films which at some point display an areola are carefully kept out of reach of these children, lest they should anger the deity "PG-13"-

Up until a certain point, that is. The age at which breasts are normally allowed to be reintroduced to a person's life lies at around 16-18 years in most western cultures. At this point, one may once again experience the grandeur with which one was so closely acquainted in one's past.
And truly the feeling is glorious.

But why does this all happen? It would all have been quite understandable if the sexuality which enters children's lives, prompting them to be cut off from breasts, disappears with age. But that does not seem to be the case. Indeed, late teenagers seem to be more sexual than most other people on the planet!

So why, then, are such massive efforts being exerted to keep children protected from taking part in the wonders of breasts?
What is the secret of these 12 to 15 years of one's life that leads us to keep them artificially devoid of bosoms, melons, milk factories, busts, funbags, knockers, balisties, boobies, jugs, nipples, jublies and [HEADING=2]Stonking great tits?![/HEADING]

Captcha: life's too short

When did you become a cracked writer?

Gradually over the last six months.
Osmosis.
[sub]Seriously, I read way too many cracked articles. I have this compulsive need to read almost everything they publish. Six of the 17 tabs I've got up right now are cracked articles. I might need help.[/sub]
I'm happy someone other than me noticed I was using their style though. At least I'm not imagining things.

then just put me down for the whole woman. can't think of many places on the female body that wouldn't be fun to 'do things to/with'

I agree. Although that last part of the sentence sounds too much like a challenge...
Do things in the female body count?
In any case: Armpit hair. Not much fun to be had there.

in side the body, eww ... that's a whole other fetish for creepy and just wrong in the head people.

probably, but where this an actual challenge, and i had a willing partner to experiment with, i'd take you up on that, FOR SCIENCE!!!

 

[trouble_gum]

Proportional shape is a higher preference for me, but like Al Pacino in Heat (the Michael Mann film that is, not some sort of weird Pacino Estrus), I love a great ass. Summer time makes it hard not to walk down the street just admiring the girls who're ahead of you until you realise you meant to turn off about six shops back.

Maple syrup. Thanks captcha, that'll be too sticky to clean off, though.

 

[Jonluw]

Do things in the female body count?
In any case: Armpit hair. Not much fun to be had there.

in side the body, eww ... that's a whole other fetish for creepy and just wrong in the head people.

Hey, don't diss the inside. Vaginas are pretty great.

probably, but where this an actual challenge, and i had a willing partner to experiment with, i'd take you up on that, FOR SCIENCE!!!

Eeeehhh...
Only if it involved something more than armpit hair fiddling. If I was only allowed to play with her armpits with no chance of it going anywhere I'd be out of there at mach 3.

 

[dudycat1]

i like them both as much as each other they need to be in balanced, it's like ying and yang, too much chest and they look top heavy and too much ass and they look quite silly. anyway that's my opinion.

 

[Lunar Templar]

Do things in the female body count?
In any case: Armpit hair. Not much fun to be had there.

in side the body, eww ... that's a whole other fetish for creepy and just wrong in the head people.

Hey, don't diss the inside. Vaginas are pretty great.

so i hear, but that's not how it sounded, poor choice of bolded word i think

Eeeehhh...
Only if it involved something more than armpit hair fiddling. If I was only allowed to play with her armpits with no chance of it going anywhere I'd be out of there at mach 3.

i can think of a few things that could go ether way far as fun goes, but going into detail would likely bring the ban hammer down on me.

and we don't want that

 

[Jonluw]

Do things in the female body count?
In any case: Armpit hair. Not much fun to be had there.

in side the body, eww ... that's a whole other fetish for creepy and just wrong in the head people.

Hey, don't diss the inside. Vaginas are pretty great.

so i hear, but that's not how it sounded, poor choice of bolded word i think

I didn't say the vagina was the only thing that counted as inside the body...

Eeeehhh...
Only if it involved something more than armpit hair fiddling. If I was only allowed to play with her armpits with no chance of it going anywhere I'd be out of there at mach 3.

i can think of a few things that could go ether way far as fun goes, but going into detail would likely bring the ban hammer down on me.

and we don't want that

Hey now. No squeezing body parts in the armpits.
You're just allowed to utilize the hair.

 

[Tipsy Giant]

A girl with a good d20 roll.

they are never natural though

BOOM Nerdiest Pun ever