This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Playboy Was Never a Magazine, It Was a Breast Certification Organization
A Lot of Companies Aren’t What You Think They Are
Thesis: Playboy magazine has been iconic virtually from the first issue. But for almost all of its history, the Magazine was something between a loss-leader, a marketing expense, and a cherished tradition. While the magazine was occasionally profitable throughout its life, Playboy made most of its money from other ventures over the decades; running night clubs, casinos, television shows and networks, and selling branded retail merchandise. The iconic titty-mag was core to their branding, the product they were selling in the clubs, casinos, television shows was, in a sense, drawn from the imagination created by their magazine. The waitresses in the clubs were pretty young women who were implied to be hot enough to be in the magazine, even if the vast majority of them never appeared in the magazine, when you talked to them you were passing into the fantasy world of the centerfold, talking to a certified Playmate. Playboy magazine’s path to profit wasn’t selling subscriptions, it was setting the organization as a prestige knower of what made a hot woman hot, which it then as an organization certified and sold. The certification of a woman as Playmate Quality was irresistible to both male customers, and to female employees, and formed the basis for Playboy’s empire, and to the degenerate remnant of marketing that exists today.
My wife and I recently watched two separate docu-series on Hugh Hefner. [American Playboy], which was produced by Hef and his family as promotion for the company, and took a positive and mostly soft-focus view of the story of Hefner and Playboy; and Secrets of Playboy, a multi-part hit piece designed to undermine the Playboy legend and dredge up every grudge every woman has ever had against Playboy and Hefner from the first issue to last week. Neither was particularly journalistically rigorous, and our natural skepticism lead us both to come out of each series with the opposite of the directorial intent. After Hefner’s self-aggrandizing autobiopic, I found myself thinking that there was probably a lot of bad stuff he was sweeping under the rug, and that Bobbie Arnstein was probably smuggling drugs for Hef. When I turned to the angry-women’s-greatest-hits, I found myself defending Hef in my mind, because the charges leveled became increasingly absurd, I half expected to have girls talking about how Jimmy Hoffa got drunk at the mansion and that was the last time they ever saw him, or that Lee Harvey Oswald was often seen going upstairs with Hef. They threw the kitchen sink at him, but somehow never actually got Hef doing anything all that bad. He was always a step removed, someone else was asking on Hef’s behalf but Hef himself said no anyway, Hef was close friends with a guy who was a creep, bad things happened at a friend’s house that was built in imitation of the mansion. But anyway, this story isn’t about any of that, rather what fascinated me were all the things they agreed on about Playboy.
Growing up, I was aware of Playboy the magazine. I arrived just at the end of the golden age of magazines, and of porno mags in particular. A couple kids I knew had old Playboys, and they featured prominently in older media, but they were rapidly being outmoded by internet porn (and blogs, for everything other than the tits). Despite the decline of the magazine, Hugh Hefner remained a media icon in the early 2000s. The Girls Next Door was one of the early hit reality shows, my wife and many of her friends remember watching it when it aired. Sex and the City, Curb Your Enthusiasm, and Entourage all featured Hef in prominent cameos during Playboy Mansion themed episodes where the gang all winds up at one of Hefner’s parties. He was a cultural eminence grise, one of those figures you were just aware was important, and had made all this money selling softcore porn magazines. Playboy magazine seemed iconic, the Playmates seemed hot, even though I never stole one or looked at one in earnest, only as a vintage curiosity more recently as a middle aged man.
I was vaguely aware that once there had been Playboy Clubs*, night clubs where the waitresses dressed up like bunnies, featured in Mad Men most recently. But what I never realized until watching the competing docu-series, was that the Clubs were the core of Playboy’s business almost from the start. Hefner was a marketing genius much moreso than he was an editorial genius. While he obsessively built his magazine, personally approving layouts and choices of material, he started expanding the brand nearly immediately. The magazine was launched as a mildly profitable periodical by the famous photos of Marilyn Monroe** in 1953, and by 1959 Hefner had moved to a late night variety show Playboy’s Penthouse featuring Hef and various guests and various beautiful women implied to be (and sometimes being) the women featured in the magazine (dressed, at the time). In 1960, the first Playboy Club would open in Chicago and rapidly chained across the nation and world. The Playboy Clubs were member’s only night clubs, where guests could enjoy drinks and entertainment (the first club opening featured a teenage Aretha Franklin), while being served by beautiful waitresses in the famous Playboy Bunny outfits.
What made the clubs so popular and profitable, was the slippery equivalence of the Playboy playmate (a woman who appeared in the magazine as a model) and the Playboy Club bunnies (the waitresses at the clubs), and Hef’s legendary Playboy Mansion with the Playboy Club itself. Playmates often appeared, and sometimes worked, at the clubs. And bunnies occasionally found their way up the ladder into the magazine. For the most part, the girls serving you drinks in the clubs were not the girls who appeared in the magazine. But, it felt that way. The bunnies were screened rigorously for appearance, and when Gloria Steinem went undercover as a bunny she reported that they had to maintain a certain weight and bust size or face termination. But of course breastaurants have come and gone throughout the past hundred years, what made the Playboy Clubs special was the idea that these weren’t just hot waitresses, they were waitresses hot enough to be employed by Playboy, they were waitresses who occupied the fantasy space of the centerfolds.
And in turn, the club itself became the mythical sexual Shangri-La of the Playboy Mansion, Hef’s playground for him and his famous and lascivious friends. Just as Playmates from the magazine occasionally found their way into the clubs, and waitresses occasionally worked their way into the magazine; the famous guests at the Mansion often hung out at the clubs, and big spenders at the clubs or especially the casinos might eventually earn an invite to the Mansion.
Tim Allen talks about this in an oddly poignant passage discussing the first time he saw a Playboy centerfold as a boomer child, which has stuck with me since reading his comedian memoir at the beach in 2004, where he talks about how he has never been the same age as the Centerfold Girl: first he was a young teen and the Centerfold was like his friend's older sister or a younger teacher, then suddenly one day they were the age of a younger sister or a new employee or eventually (gulp) a daughter. There was a never a moment where the fantasy crossed over into reality, where he felt like a direct peer to the Centerfold Girl.
What Playboy sold, at its peak of clubs and Casinos, was that liminality between Fantasy and Reality. Hooters and the Tilted Kilt, for all the endowments they had, never had that. A Playboy club, or a Playboy Reality Show, or Playboy merchandise, offered a thin place between fantasy and reality. A moment where you might just break through the veil, and enter your fantasy, if things went just right. When you could suddenly become a peer of the Playmates and of Hef, if only for a moment.
I realize this might be a complete piece of trivia, but it kind of fascinated me when I realized it.
*My dad, coincidentally, had a Playboy Club membership key card. My wife uses it to fold letters for her office, she says the metal card is the perfect tool for the job and she uses it every day.
**The provenance of this photograph is itself interesting: Marilyn didn’t pose for Playboy, she did a nude photoshoot for some calendar before she ever hit it big, which Hef then bought from the original publisher and splashed across the country.
Anyone who thinks "For the articles" is just a joke may not have picked up an issue. My neighbor gifted me a huge swath when he retired. The porn is fine - some of it even crosses into "good" - but 80% of the magazine is interviews, short stories, letters, and politics.
I'd pay for a subscription today if it still existed.
More options
Context Copy link
What Hefner was doing was trying to take porn mainstream. The jokes about "I only read Playboy for the articles" riffed off that; he was presenting an entire package for the sophisticated (or wannabe-sophisticate) man. This wasn't porn, it was erotica. You weren't reading Playboy to get your rocks off (was the pretence), the Playmates were part of the ensemble of what an intelligent, worldly-wise man experienced. That was also the point of the clubs, there were "gentleman's clubs", with keys for members, and the image again was of the worldly, sophisticated man - a roué perhaps, but not a guy in a raincoat in a seedy porn cinema jerking off. Selling the "James Bond" image, which is why the mansion and Hef in his smoking jacket was also an important part of the image: this was what ambitious young men in the 60s and 70s USA were aiming for, with the booming post-war economy and possibilities of all sorts opening up and the Sexual Revolution at hand, or could be persuaded into thinking they were all part of, as Playboy consumers: taste, wealth, an urbane lifestyle their parents didn't have, and hot young women willing to be friendly and sexually available but not as hookers or paid escorts. You were all liberated and rewriting the conventions of society.
Of course, the seedy porn cinemas had never gone away and the likes of Hustler came along with a completely different and more cynical, more pragmatic philosophy: no pretence about art or erotica, more graphic and hardcore, to eat Playboy's lunch, and nowadays you can get anything you want on the Internet.
But as you say, for a while there it was the point where fantasy was presented in an attainable form.
See that's where I think the framing confuses us, Hustler and Penthouse and Playboy fought wars over pubic hair and hardcore porn, but that didn't ultimately impact Playboy's empire overly much, because Playboy's real money came from the clubs and the casinos. The decline and fall of the brand had more to do with changing tastes in night clubs (I know almost no men my age who belong to private membership clubs with bars, that was far more common in the 60s), the failed Atlantic City Casino venture, and the nature of overexposing a brand by licensing your logo plastered on every shitty T shirt and cheap silver necklace for sale on any New Jersey boardwalk.
Playboy magazine was a modest business without the accoutrement that actually brought in revenue. Hustler and Penthouse never compared by that metric.
Yeah, the money-making empire was the brand but the magazine was what brought it to mainstream attention. Maybe you'd never be that guy going to a Playboy club or casino, but the magazine allowed you to participate in the dream. That's what porn is about - selling fantasy in a way that tries to persuade the consumer 'this is attainable for you'.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It's rather amazing how successful Hef was at this. Even women that don't like their husbands' porn consumption find Playboy's brand tolerable, maybe even civilizing.
A GF bought me a subscription to Playboy for my birthday actually, back when it was a thing.
Because he made it into a brand that elevated it from "seedy porn" to something daring, sexy, naughty but in keeping with the spirit of the times, when Sexual Liberation was all the rage. Now women too could explore their sexuality openly! Being a Playboy bunny may seem ridiculous today, and it wasn't without criticism back then, but a lot of jobs for young women advertised an image of glamour and sexiness, e.g. airline attendants or trolly dollies, because air travel still had the air of being something luxurious and not commonplace.
These kinds of careers were presented as something more than the conventional "be a secretary or teacher and then get married and settle down to being a housewife" path for attractive young women. They did rely on sex appeal but there was a crucial distinction established between that and being the pole dancer or stripper or prostitute or porn actress: no expectation of having to have sex with the customers. The fantasy on both sides was: you are a hot young woman who, through working this job, may meet a desirable well-off man/you are a young man in a white collar job who can meet a glamourous girl not like the girls-next-door for mutual fun.
More options
Context Copy link
My wife actually has more love for the Playboy mystique than I do. She grew up watching The Girls Next Door reality show, and being that hot, having one's breasts Certified, was a kind of mark of honor. Not one that she actually aspired to, but it had a certain cache to it.
I think most women consider the idea of various forms of sex work as a fantasy in much the same way that most men vaguely fantasize about violent crime, or of running off to work on an oil rig.
Whoa
Violent crime is one thing but who dreams of working on an oil rig? It's not even that outdoorsy, you're not in the forest or on the land.
Well paid labor job without any particular educational qualifications. You can sub in whatever similar job appeals to you personally, but the point is that I don't think there's any white collar professional in America who doesn't occasionally think about getting on the interstate and driving all night until you reach a country town in a state where no one knows you and get a simple labor job and start over.
More options
Context Copy link
Lots of people dream of working an oil rig/alaskan crab boat/mining camp/whatever. It’s very well remunerated(sometimes more in fantasy than reality), it’s away from civilization, it’s physically difficult, etc.
Having a very high income while very young is a common young male fantasy for the same reason young women fantasize about becoming incredibly beautiful after some minor change.
More options
Context Copy link
I imagine the fantasy is a job that's hard, but very rewarding, with a side of camaraderie.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It's interesting how fully Playboy has shifted from "softcore porn for the discerning man" to "women's fashion and lifestyle brand." The only people I've ever met who have spent money on Playboy products are women. When was the last time the majority of their revenue was generated by male consumers?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It also bears mentioning that Playboy used to release a multitude of (mostly) short erotic/softcore movies on VHS. Supposedly subscribers could receive them via mail-order for an additional fee or something, and cable channels also broadcast them. I think this was important in terms of brand recognition and building, especially in an age when distribution via VHS was still the norm. Before the age of cheaply available broadband internet it was much easier to control the distribution of such content and limit piracy/filesharing.
And it’s also unironically true that Playboy usually featured interesting articles as well.
More options
Context Copy link
Huh. Now that I think about it, I'm even more surprised that there isn't a greater amount of scandal surrounding the magazine or Hefner. It all sounds like prime Me Too material, but either it was too early, or the literal playboy billionaire was squeaky clean(-ish).
The Playboy magazine had near mythical status in India in the early 2000s when I was a young boy. Everyone had heard about it, some boasted and claimed to own one, but I'll be damned if I ever saw one in the flesh. A few years later, with the increasing spread of the internet and mobile phones, nobody cared about porno mags any more.
I mean, have there been a rash of porn directors, strip club managers, etc getting excoriated in the public eye under metoo? There was Joe Francis, but that was more because of his antics after being accused than because the specifics of the accusation struck anyone as beyond the pale.
It seems like even wokes understand that ‘don’t consort with those sorts of men’ is a rule which punishes violations on its lonesome.
The number of specific cancellation incidents was fairly low compared to Hollywood and politics. But I do think that was the moment when the vibe turned against the industry. For the twenty years before that, the left basically gave pornography an indulgence to be a morality-free zone due to the industry’s valuable service to the left as a battering ram against Christian morality. Even stuff like extreme racist themes and violence against women was given a pass in the name of kink. The right mostly left the industry alone too because the right was trying to shed the Moral Majority fuddy-duddy image that was beginning to become a liability for them in the 80s. After 2016, suddenly both the left and the right decided they weren’t willing to tolerate all this skeezyness anymore. You never saw much direct action about this because the porn industry is very attuned to cultural vibes and it quickly moved to internally clean up its own image a bit, comics-code authority style.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
There's been plenty over the years, but ultimately it's tough to get past the impression that when one dates Hugh Hefner one signs up for that sort of thing, so it never really stuck.
The documentary series on Lifetime went into a lot of smoke, but never had the smoking gun of Hef himself actually doing anything bad.
More options
Context Copy link
Hef really dodged a bullet considering the stories I heard about what he got up to.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Sadly, this is where Hef is directly complicit in one of the great crimes against an entire generation: the promulgation of bolt-on tits — volleyball-sized, perfectly spherical breast implants — as the beauty standard preferred by the great unwashed mass of late Boomer and Gen X men. All three of the women featured on The Girl Next Door had them, and of course Hef’s greatest victim (though he was far from her only victimizer) was Pamela Anderson, who was turned from a girl-next-door with a gorgeous face and a natural figure into a dead-eyed plastic simulacrum of a woman. I thank God every day that we are finally free from the volleyball-titty, Living Barbie Doll era of female sex symbols — the specters of Jenna Jameson, Carmen Electra, and Anna Nicole Smith no longer haunting the boners of virile young Americans — and can, instead, just appreciate a tasteful set of naturals, like Hef could in the 70’s.
Paging through vintage Playmates, it is actually amazing how much the body types change. Some of the girls in the 60s issues are a little chubby, and all of them are soft. You'd never see a girl with abs in Playboy until very recently, women were meant to be natural, and casual. Not the toned bodies we see a lot of these days.
Abs on women are fairly risky. You need 10-14% body fat for that. Women with <17% body fat risk amenorrhea, and under 11% it's almost certain. Amenorrhea due to low body weight & exercise is associated with depletion of bone density, stress fractures etc.
'Relative Energy Deficiency' used to be called 'Female Athlete Triad'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_energy_deficiency_in_sport#Prognosis
Is body fat percentage really very useful in women given the variable distribution?
I mean, somewhat. I learned about it from my first gf who was a wasn't even that unhealthily thin, 5'6", 115 lbs, exercised a lot and actually didn't have visible abs.
Body fat has a hormonal role and low body fat can be actually fairly harmful. Sure it's individual - she'd probably have been okay if she cut her exercise to half.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41574-019-0230-6
if TL;DR, wikipedia summary
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I recently watched the so-bad-it's-good movie classic, Hard Ticket To Hawaii. It came out in 1987 and the two leads were Playboy bunnies (or at least appeared in Playboy) who are frequently nude in the film. And speaking as a modern man, it's amazing how terrible their fake boobs are. I think I actually have a high tolerance for cosmetic fakeness - I usually like fake boobs when I see them - but holy shit those boobs are awful. These girls were considered to be among the hottest women in America at the time, and their boobs were far worse than any random no-name pornstar's today. It really made me appreciate that cosmetic surgery has evolved by leaps and bounds over the last 30 years.
Oh man, I think I saw the trailer for that, and it looked like the kind of crappy 80's cheese I love.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I guess it’s just a simple case of scarcity. Women tend to either have well-shaped tits that are small, or big tits that are often misshapen and saggy, and of course get increasingly saggy with aging, which most women are terrified of already. Only a small minority of women have the sort of ideal breasts that earn you a Playboy photoshoot, so small that it’s impossible to fill all titty mags only with pictures of them. Hence the sad and pathetic proliferation of bolt-on tits.
Well executed plastic surgery works pretty well and there's a huge undersupply of big, perky breasts.
Average guy prefers something like a G-cup which is 8" difference between underbust and overbust measurement and a quarter of guys like something like an L cup which is just slightly under head sized and naturally found in cca 1 in 5000 women.
If you were an evil genius utilitarian and invented say, a virus that'd bump up average breast size from B or C up to a G it'd cause a substantial worldwide increase in well-being of men and only a minor malus to well-being of women in that they'd mostly have to take care to do some back exercises.
Why would you assume that the customer base of online sex doll retailers or the set of AI slop producers is at all representative of "average guys"? It's easy to come up with a model where both strongly select on a criterion that could be glossed as "preference for quantity over quality".
In general, that whole blog seems to be in the old genre of "everyone who disagrees with my tastes is falsifying their preferences or a degenerate, and here is some cherrypicked evidence".
Sure, but it's a bit different when it's an [ostensibly-straight] woman writing it, since the criterion of embarrassment would be satisfied in that case. I have no proof (other than hearsay on this very site) that is true in this case, but some of the other things on that blog make a lot more sense in that light (also, no man would claim garages are useless).
I think the sexual pattern matching function men operate on really is as simple as the article (and the stereotypes) make it out to be: big tits, big ass. Those that don't legitimately do have something wrong[1] with them- either they're running female pattern recognition software against male physical attraction patterns and the only socially-acceptable answer that function returns is "a woman with minimal secondary sexual characteristics", or they're running male pattern recognition software against standard female physical attraction patterns and the answers returned are all just "a man".
Now, I do expect some selection effect because the men who are willing to spend big bucks on a sex doll are also likely trying as hard as possible to pick a figure that maximizes "big tits, big ass" in a larger-than-life way... but that's also the assertion being made, that men who claim not to be concerned about it are not telling the truth for whatever reasons.
[1] In the sense that these conditions adversely affect reproductive fitness.
More options
Context Copy link
The image sample result is based on a huge sample of people looking at anime-style erotic art and rating it. Hundreds of thousands of users.
the assumption that 'willingness to fuck sex dolls' is orthogonal to any other preferences someone might have, is .. somewhat brave but not that brave, and anyway, only supporting evidence bc 1) is fairly persuasive.
I'd disagree with that. He may underestimate the historical prevalence of cultures where women were expected to be fat, it does look like that was quite common although it's not sure to what degree that was status related. Today last vestiges of this are in Mauritania and that region. Back in the early 1930s many women in coastal parts of Turkey were reportedly too fat for central Europeans, which I imagine meant like 180 lbs or something like that but more conservative local men liked it.
But apart from that I don't think he's unfair or cherrypicking.
Too prolix, yes.
All the anime pictures I saw with a cursory look were AI-generated, though. You could make a more persuasive argument that people looking at anime-style erotic art in general have somewhat representative preferences in that department (though even there I would not be sure), but AI art is definitively only appreciated by a niche subgroup, with the modal anime erotica enjoyer being highly dismissive of it.
edit: I performed the most basic of experiments and searched danbooru with tags
1girl standing. The first page had several images that clearly belonged to series depicting the same character by the same artist, but the second page were all singletons. Of the 20 images there, 7 looked to be in the blog's "E cup or above" category, with the remaining ranging from flat to what looks like a realistic average.It was pixiv, not danbooru where he did the count back then..
In any case, are we trying to argue that Keira Knightley, poor thing, has more attractive boobs than a typical page 6 British model? (swimsuit pictures)
People are very performative about this, to the point that any public statement about it should be just ignored. I've been amused to observe the nonsense in a certain niche, where some people were literally bullied out of a forum over saying "AI art" is fine, and then a guy comes in, makes some illustrated story that's clearly using AI for both text and images and lies about it and people are okay with it.
/images/17475624825216446.webp
What a strange choice of topic to break the rule against consensus-building on! Are you asking about my opinion or what I think the general population's opinion is? I genuinely don't have strong preferences (and thus apparently have something wrong with me in your estimation?), but maybe very weakly, in the sense of how I would set sliders in an MMO character designer where I have to express an opinion, they are about equal degrees of too small and too large respectively. If I had to guess the general public's preferences, I would guess they would prefer the swimsuit models, but only because they have less tolerance for the almost completely flat, which is not actually what the thesis is about - if you compared someone with genuinely average or somewhat-below-average cup size, like, idk, Liv Tyler?, I would expect the results to be much more of a wash, and if I weren't on my phone in public I would find pictures of some C-cup swimsuit model I would expect to win.
Sure they are, but your sample having to ignore peer pressure is also a confounder. I'm not saying "AI art goes against the tastes of most", but "those who engage positively with AI art are not representative", which is a subtle but important distinction. It's entirely consistent (and similar in shape to what I think is most likely to be the real state of affairs) if: (1) AI art would get an objective average rating of 5/10 from the general population; (2) there is peer pressure to pretend AI art is 1/10 and you are a crass rube if you disagree; (3) 10% of people don't care about being considered crass rubes; (4) those 10% love big tits and to them AI art 9/10 on average because it is an infinite wellspring of them.
Funny enough, right now the top 2 pictures are gacha game characters that are completely flat-chested (Genshin's Furina, Blue Archive's shupogaki duo). The third one is also huge, #4 is medium... looking further down the list, similar ratio to my danbooru check. Yeah, I think some cherries were being picked.
More options
Context Copy link
I suspect there are plenty of men who would rather date Keira in her prime (say Love, Actually / POTC era) than the swimsuit model, though. A great face is even rarer than great tits.
More options
Context Copy link
It's a fair contest.
I've read the article before and it's failed to convince me that amine boobs on anime girls translate to real life preferences in such a way that A<B<C<D<DD<E<F<G<H<... But of course, feel free to write me off as someone who "tries to perform high class boob taste" or "female pattern of attraction".
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Maybe not a virus, but a vaccine...
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Interesting question - has there ever been a lad's mag which specifically marketed itself with the USP of only featuring breasts without implants?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Score_Group#Magazines
Marketed with the strap line "All Stacked All Natural".
More options
Context Copy link
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_10_(magazine)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It's not this small, as OnlyFans and PornHub have shown us. It's the combination of well-shaped breasts with a pretty face and a willingness to let a very broad audience associate the one with the other that is rare.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
He really is the ur-example of the bimbo fetish.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link