Originally posted by freebrain
This really isn't a mystery to the world but I have questions for, well, everyone. Does anyone here think that breast augmention is bad? I used to
but lately I have been all for it. Should our society look down on women who want to change their appearance?
Question: " Does anyone here think that breast augmention is bad?"
Answer: Imo, breast enhancement is ridiculous. Not 'bad'. Ridiculous.
Why? Well, explain why women would pay money and suffer pain and potential disfigurement, in order they might have a couple of bags of silicone
shoved into their chest wall ?
What do breast do, precisely? For what purpose are they intended?
Do breasts mow the lawns, do the dishes, change babies diapers, drive cars, improve intelligence, feed the starving, improve conditions for the third
world, change light bulbs, iron the curtains, etc ?
Intended originally as Nature's way of feeding offspring, breasts have been transformed (the the usual-suspects, who are themselves breast-fixated as
result of their neurotic feelings re: their own mothers) into 'objects of sexual desire' --- in the Western world. Not in indigenous societies,
who're more emotionally and sexually mature.
Look at this situation clearly: we live in a society in which 'breast feeding' (a perfectly natural act) is deemed 'repulsive'. To the point
where a woman in the process of breast-feeding her infant (covered by her large coat) was ousted from the Australian parliament. Women have similarly
been asked to get off trains and buses and have been treated as criminals when breast-feeding their infants in public places such as airport lounges,
Yet this same
Western society pays millions of dollars to females who are famous for naught OTHER than their false-breasts: Anna Nicole
Smith and Pamela Anderson Lee-plus, for example.
Early photos of Smith and Lee reveal them to have been noticeably lacking in breast-tissue: Smith for example, as a club-hostess, was flat as the
proverbial pancake. A multi-billionaire paid for her breast-enlargement and the rest is history: this ordinary, thin, small-breasted female became
internationally famous, as did Anderson-Lee --- for their 'large breasts'. In short, two bags of silicone reaped them untold wealth. Their
'acting ability' and 'talent' is/was negligent to non-existent. Their entire repertoire consisted merely of exposing the skin of their
upper-body, streched tight over said bags of silicone (covered with stretch-marks and deformities also, which are shopped-out).
So -- a natural
breast -- when being used for its natural purpose (feeding of infant) is considered 'obscene', 'repulsive', 'bad',
Exposed false-breasts however are a money-earner: catapult skinny, no-talent nobodies into the multi-millionaire category.
For whose enjoyment are breasts artificially enlarged?
Clearly, this perverse situation has now enmeshed both male voyeurs and the females who have been entrained by society to believe that 'pleasing
males' is a natural and yes, a necessary thing to do, from a 'survival' standpoint.
What do men like? Roared response: 'big tits'.
What do women like? Tentative response: ' to please men? '
Women now believe that in order to 'succeed', in order to match the 'competition', they require to have their breasts enlarged.
And males have been conditioned to believe that huge, gravity-defying breasts are the norm. They've been conditioned in this belief by invidious
porn, movies, tv and 'mens' magazines'.
Worse -- men have been entrained to believe that if they are REAL men, then they MUST express a preference for 'big tits, big hooters, big jugs'.
Those males who're insecure about themselves and/or their sexuality, feel they must pretend to prefer large breasts --- or be judged 'nancy-boys,
poofs, homos,' etc. by their peers.
Women have been conditioned to believe that 'real men' prefer 'big tits' and that if they have any hope of 'satisfying' a man or even getting
one -- then they'd better go out and get some of that silicone stuffed in their chest wall. Once they have, so perverted have their natural desires,
intelligence and beliefs become -- they convince themselves they feel 'More Sexy, More Womanly', courtesy of their false breasts.
Wow. What an industry. And aren't people stupid?
Did you know that the same neurotic 'momism' afflicted males were not satisfied with their 'false breast' industry?
Nope. Women were still 'too real, too natural, too animalistic' for their preferences. Still too assertive and naturally intelligent and normally
So these deviates pioneered a process via which they succeeded in eliminating the 'gag reflex'.
Now, the 'gag reflex' is what happens to you when your doctor or dentist examines your throat by pressing a spatula down on your tongue. Every now
and then, they insert the spatula too far back, and you suffer an uncrontrollable urge to retch. That's the gag-reflex.
Women who're providing oral-sex often suffer from the gag-reflex, as the result of the penis thrusting itself down their throat.
So, there's the male, getting off by having his penis orally serviced by the subservient woman bent over his genitals --- and then suddenly, she
'spoils it', by jerking away and retching.
What a problem, eh?
How to solve it, so that males could enjoy provision of oral-sex without some fool of a female retching because of his sacred penis?
The same guys who invented 'breast enlargement' and sold it to the terminally stupid, ALSO invented a way of severing women's gag-reflexes !!
Brilliant ! Now those females had no excuse for not 'pleasuring' males orally.
So picture it: the female. Do you remember what natural females actually look like? Yes, they have child-bearing hips and fleshy thighs. They have
larger breasts than males as a rule, because it's the females who feed the young with their breasts.
Apart from that, there's not that much difference.
Females have hair all over their body, as do males. They sweat, like males. They defecate, like males. They fart, as do males. Their bodies are
subject to the laws of gravity, as are those of males.
But men don't want 'natural' females. Why? Well, it's because there isn't
that much setting the two sexes apart. And the more insecure
about their sexuality males become ---- the more they NEED for artificial differences to be created between themselves and the opposite sex.
So females now shave or depilate the hair off their bodies. They use perfumes and deodorants to disguise their sweat. They liposuction the natural
flesh off their bodies. They get as skinny and 'sexily female' as possible. Then they have false breasts inserted, to maximise the difference
between themselves and men.
If the neurotic mother-worshippers of medical science had had their way, females' natural gag-reflexes would have been 'removed' also.
And what would the final result have been? What was the final result INTENDED to become?
You've got it ! Yes --- a barbie-doll creature. With the legs and hips of a 13 year old boy ---- and the breasts of a five ton wet-nurse ! Oh ---
and with an ever available open throat (minus gag-reflex) to service all those men who had become sexually retarded and unable and unwilling to
perform sexually in the normal way. Unable and unwilling to satisfy a woman. Unable and unwilling to even bother trying !
Sex, for them, with their plastic all-modified false-females, was to become a case of fondling and breast feeding from false silicone breasts,
followed by orgasm provided from the barbie-doll's gag-free throat.
Ah, but you'll have to wait a few more years for that wet-dream to eventuate.
The medical ethics committees prohibited the mass severing of females' gag-reflexes.
Wake up girls