Forum: Story Ideas

But seriously they could wear pasties

Or nipple shields.

I personally would find boobs sexy even without nipples.

It's evolution. Bigger boobs are generally* sexier because they can better feed babies so a woman with bigger boobs would make a better mate.

By the same logic a nipple-less boob can't feed a baby at all, so less attractive.

*Yes, some men find smaller boobs more attractive, but they are likely a minority.

Yes, some men find smaller boobs more attractive, but they are likely

...intelligent enough to recognize a causation based correlation between big tits and saggy unattractive breasts.

This is a myth.

Would early humans 20,000 years ago have known that? If not, the evolutionary attraction can still apply.

Would early humans 20,000 years ago have known that? If not, the evolutionary attraction can still apply.

More inclined to think the early humans were more interested in the waist/hip ratio and more particularly the size of the hips. It is the indicator for child bearing potential.

Boobs are great and all, but early on, I'd also tend to suspect that large boobs in general were actually fairly uncommon in ancient times, lack of sufficient nutrition and lack of attire to properly support them would tend to limit their mobility and ability to do a number of tasks.... Although I guess larger boobs could have lead to that practice of the women staying at the hearth to mind it and their pursuit of the more sedentary gathering process. Fast travel (hunting) wasn't going to be easy on the boobs unless you could bind them, and that causes other problems...

Big breasted fertility statues not withstanding, I'm inclined to suspect it was the comparative rarity of such endowments which led to that being a thing.

20,000 years ago, no one was writing much of anything. Therefore no written history.

This is a subject I've wondered about in the past. There is much written about hunter-gatherer/forager societies by anthropologist etc. No one will ever accuse me of being an 'expert' on the subject, but what I have studied appears to dodge the question of breast size nearly in its entirety.

Given the importance of breast feeding 20K years ago, that seems like a severe oversight to me. Bones, tools, cave art, all have been found going back to the earliest paleolithic period. Several of those sets of bones have been used to recreate images of prehistoric women. Yet there is little to be found on the subject of breast size.

The breast were obviously big enough to feed since we are here today. So why is the subject mostly avoided among academic circles?

nudist campgrounds in every single state in the United States

I can't seem to find one in Alaska.
"Alaska
Public nudity is illegal in Alaska. That said, nude hiking in a state this vast and underpopulated has become a trend. McKinley Park offers a huge swaths of secluded terrain that's accessible via a backcountry hiking permit (just try to stay out of the eye of other campgrounds). Surprisingly, Alaska is known for its mosquitos, so you'll want to remember to bring that repellent."

I can't seem to find one in Alaska.

Not too shocking all considered. The operative part in that however is public nudity is illegal in Alaska. If you're on a private campground which is screened from "public view" by fencing/vegetation/terrain, then you're not in "public" even if a member of the public can enter the campground.

Just hope you don't encounter laws like Utah has, where any adult that has a minor seeing them in the nude, no matter place or context, can be prosecuted.

There are nudist campgrounds in every single state in the United States. They are all over the world. You won't find many cases of rape even though buttholes are on display there and hidden back in the vanilla campgrounds.

And in a societies where women go topless on the beach, or to breastfeed there should be no reason why they would get raped . No author needs to make a conclusion to be realistic because that isn't how the real world works

How a woman dresses or does not dress, should not be an indivition to rape nor should it be a foregone conclusion that will happen

.
What the hell does any of that have to do with paleolithic women?

It's like you're intentionally misunderstanding... If the male desire for heterosexual anal sex increases, and only a subset of females are viable targets for such, if those females are impossible to identify they'd be far safer (at least from anal rape) because those men so motivated to pursue such at any cost (including taking by force) would be less likely to pick a random woman (who is likelier to be a nonviable target than a viable one) than he is to target one he knows is viable.
The dress or lack thereof of females is meaningless for normal rape, since (except for crossdressers and preop trannies) all females are viable rape targets. (And undoubtedly some of the nonfemales targeted for vaginal rape and found nonviable for such are the ones most severely beaten).

How a woman is dressed shouldn't make her a rape target, but if only.a subset of females are viable targets then requiring them to identify themselves as belonging to that subset is increasing their risk. (Although minimizing the risk to those females who aren't viable targets.)

Does that clarify it? If you don't understand the logic, what don't you understand?

It's like you're intentionally misunderstanding...

It's more like you're stretching like the Elastic Man.

If the male desire for heterosexual anal sex increases

Maybe, but that is something you are inserting into the scenario with zero basis.

How does it make sense that male desire for heterosexual anal sex would increase while at the same time there was a society wide trend of women permanently sealing their anuses?

If you don't understand the logic, what don't you understand?

What I don't understand is how you can call that logic with a straight face. It's filled with a string of non-sequiturs.

1. It does not follow from the base scenario that male desire for heterosexual anal sex would increase.

2. It does not follow from an increase in the male desire for heterosexual anal sex, that more men would be willing to commit rape to get it.

Given the defined scenario, it is likely that the women who identifiably still have anuses would become socially more popular with men who desire heterosexual anal sex. And that's as far as it goes.

1. Was posited by someone earlier in the thread before the "Let's make all the women who still have anuses be immediately identifiable" suggestion. But reasonable enough, on the basis that the less attainable is always considered more desirable in general... if less heterosexual anal sex is available, we're looking at a scarcity and hence a shift in the supply/demand curves. (Look at TP when the lockdowns started. People thought there were shortages and thus wanted more, even though the need hadn't increased. Scarcity does weird things to the mind.)
2. If there was increased desire for heterosexual anal sex, and the percentage of those desiring it that were willing to rape to attain it remained constant the increased number of men desiring it would increase the population that that percentage would be drawn from. If it was posited that every man already desires it, and it was only how much each desired it that increased, then there'd be some number whose desire would be increased sufficiently for them to be willing to resort to rape if that was what was perceived as the only option. Hence identifying viable rape victims increases their risk... although it does drastically improve the safety of those not so identified.

Look at TP when the lockdowns started. People thought there were shortages and thus wanted more, even though the need hadn't increased. Scarcity does weird things to the mind.

This is incorrect. The need had increased. People were using more consumer grade TP at home because they weren't using commercial grade TP in the office since they were at home and not in the office.

The problem with TP was supply chain issues and the fact that producers of commercial grade TP could just start making consumer grade TP without a lot of time an money to retool their plants.

ETA: At the height of the TP shortage, there was tons of surplus commercial grade TP floating around not being used if you knew where to get it.

If there was increased desire for heterosexual anal sex, and the percentage of those desiring it that were willing to rape to attain it remained constant the increased number of men desiring it would increase the population that that percentage would be drawn from.

A fair point, but:

1. NOT the argument you made before.

2. It is not necessarily true that the desire for anal sex among men who rape women necessarily looks like the level of desire for anal sex among men in general, so while this new argument might have some effect, it does not necessarily follow that the effect would be anywhere near the magnitude you suggest.

I didn't mean to suggest any magnitude in specific beyond a non-negative, non-zero increase.
Because really, even if only one or two women are raped as a direct result of being easily identified as a 'good target', would you want to explain to her (and those who care about her) that "well, it's not like it really happened to many of you".

Because really, even if only one or two women are raped as a direct result of being easily identified as a 'good target', would you want to explain to her (and those who care about her) that "well, it's not like it really happened to many of you".

In real life? No, of course not.

But that's no justification for why a fictional story has to deal with that possibility.

If the magnitude wouldn't be very high, it's absurd to suggest that an author of of a fictional story with that basic premise is necessarily obligated to address the issue in the story in some way.

I'm not saying the likelihood would necessarily be small, either.
But, can you picture a situation in which a group of women were placed at increased risk of violence due (at least in part) to a law... where there wouldn't be hordes of women screaming about it? Even if the actual risk wasn't great, just the fact that the risk had been increased would be all that's needed.
And trust me, there'd be no shortage of lawyers...ranging from the ACLU trying to quash the law, and some actively looking for victims to launch a class action lawsuit against whatever lobby group pushed the law through, to others just trying to make a name for themselves and get publicity by defending rapists using the law as 'proof' that the defendants had reasonable belief that the government condoned their actions.

But, can you picture a situation in which a group of women were placed at increased risk of violence due (at least in part) to a law... where there wouldn't be hordes of women screaming about it?

Yes, I can.

You keep trying to inject the real world into a story whose premise is an absurd sexual fantasy.

In the real world, your objection, as serious as it would be in the real world, is 0.01% of the problems with this story idea.

If something like this was attempted in the real world, you wouldn't even need nudity to easily identify the "unmodified" women. A colostomy bag is kind of difficult to conceal.

I have absolutely no problem setting aside your objection in an alternate universe story where the basic story premise at issue here is possible.

In a world where this is possible and actually happens, either the entire feminist movement never happened at all, or it's been completely and totally crushed.

You keep trying to inject the real world into a story whose premise is an absurd sexual fantasy

Thumbs up!

That's what great about writing and posting stories here. Anyone can explore absurd fantasies that have no basis in real life. It's simply fun to create a society with different constructs and imagine what it might be like.

Watch most movies and you have to suspend belief in many ways and accept the set up such as the marvel movies

That's what great about writing and posting stories here. Anyone can explore absurd fantasies that have no basis in real life.

What gets me about BK69's position is that he can apparently suspend disbelief enough to accept the idea of the anus being permanently sealed without either requiring a colostomy or killing the subject* but no increase in rape and/or social justice warriors bitching about rape is a step too far.

And to top it off, the no rape/SJWs bitching about rape bothers him so much that he can't not rain on other people's parade over it.

*With no way to eliminate solid waste, the digestive tract would fill up and the subject would become incapable of eating more food leading to death by starvation.

Actually, all I was getting at was there needed to be some justification for why these things wouldn't be a issue. So, women have no/limited rights due to backlash against years of militant feminism? Ok, totally reasonable to enact a law that makes targets out of (some) women. Or maybe a society so virulently homophobic that even heterosexual anal sex is abhorrent to all, and even the anus is offensive to many, that could explain the surgeries being performed, and why those who refused surgery being responsible for the majority passing a law to shame 'those degenerates' into getting it done.
The point was that suspension of disbelief works best if you let the reader know up front everything about the new reality. Introducing multiple issues that require suspension of disbelief again and again. Have a plausible explanation for why something doesn't become a issue, and the burden of suspension of disbelief is reduced. Like when the subject was raised, it's possible that a combination of diet and some sort of implant would bs needed to precent death from such surgery without colostomy bags being required.

Actually, all I was getting at was there needed to be some justification for why these things wouldn't be a issue.

No, there doesn't.

Well, no. You can always ignore it and strain suspension of disbelief, at least for those who realize there's no explanation for why things that would be expected otherwise aren't present. If you're just doing a pure kink piece, those the kink applies to likely won't care about anything beyond their stroke content, so it won't matter.
If you're trying to build a world where these things happen as part of society? Then a little thought is needed.
I tend to assume the second. My bad. Obviously for the first, very little thought is required. Probably the less thought involved the better.

Well, no. You can always ignore it and strain suspension of disbelief

Again I disagree here. Once you've accepted the basic story premise, the marginal strain on suspension of disbelief from the issue you keep raising is absolutely negligible.

The basic story premise is a massive suspension of disbelief. As such, introducing further reasons to require additional suspension of disbelief OF ANY SORT is bad. The phrase "the straw that broke the camel's back" is applicable here. If you could add one atom of plutonium at a time to a mass, and you started with a nearly-supercritical mass to begin with, how many atoms would you feel comfortable adding, while remaining within the blast radius?

Now, maybe we each were building the possible story uniwin our minds differently, but based on all the suggests made to that point, when the idea to legally require those women who had assholes to identify themselves by exposing those assholes (it wasn't the exposure that I was reacting to, so much as the identification of which group was which, aszrapable or nonassrapable, that was the issue) I couldn't help but wonder how a law that effectively painted targets on a subset of the population would be passed. But like I said, if it's just for a mindless stroke piece that's too much thinking.

The point was that suspension of disbelief works best if you let the reader know up front everything about the new reality. Introducing multiple issues that require suspension of disbelief again and again.

The basic premise requires this much suspension of disbelief |--------------------------|, the issue you raise adds '.' to it.

In a world where this is possible and actually happens, either the entire feminist movement never happened at all, or it's been completely and totally crushed.

I can easily imagine a world where the fad of voluntarily removing "offensive" body parts is an extension of feminist movement, even if likely some radical heresy of it.

Me too, but just not that particular body part.

Given the defined scenario, it is likely that the women who identifiably still have anuses would become socially more popular with men who desire heterosexual anal sex. And that's as far as it goes.

Further, I would rather believe those women would more reliable and realistically be identifiable by being the ones dressed.

The activism, the statement that needs extraordinary decision is the removal. So, such is far more likely to be explicitly flaunted, even if there's, well, not nothing, but not the expected thing to see.

Those weird creatures remove their nipples so they can go around bare-chested, they remove their assholes for a political statement but maybe they also -- inadvertently or intentionally -- comply with literal reading of decency rules and can legally be naked were baselines could not, maybe they remove outer parts of genitals too, completely or partially, or maybe that's the extent they cover (with an insert/butterfly stimulator for with you can obtain remote activation codes through a network agency).

Hey there's a thought, perhaps they indeed are trying to imitate androids? Perhaps there was a production of servant androids that were made in human image, but for the sake of prudishness without *those* parts. They evolved, proven their independent intelligence and were set free, or even, that's the ongoing fight (or one in a bucket) and now the youngest generation activists are imitating their machine idols.

The breast were obviously big enough to feed since we are here today. So why is the subject mostly avoided among academic circles?

Because while there are markers on the skull that can indicate tissue depth, AFIK, this is not true of the rib cage. They avoid it, because they have no way of knowing anything about it. Fertility goddess idols and cave are are probably not good indicators of actual breast size distribution.

https://acrabstracts.org/abstract/the-correlation-among-macromastia-spinal-pain-thoracic-kyphosis-and-fall-risk/

Macromastia definitely affects the spine and shoulders, and through that, the rib cage. No fertility idols needed to check that.

Macromastia definitely affects the spine and shoulders, and through that, the rib cage. No fertility idols needed to check that.

The mean age of patients was 43.6 ± 11.8 (21-66), and body mass index (BMI) was 30.9 ± 5.1.

BMI's ranging from 25.8 to 36.... Anything over 25 is considered overweight, and 30 is outright obese.

I doubt there were many paleolithic women who have both obesity problems, overly large breasts, and have skeletal remains available for study.

Macromastia definitely affects the spine and shoulders, and through that, the rib cage. No fertility idols needed to check that.

Musculoskeletal symptoms such as neck, back and shoulder pain, are not things that would necessarily be detectable if all you have is the skeleton. And even if they are, I rather doubt that a specific cause could be determined.

Changes to the thoracic kyphosis would certainly be detectable in a skeleton, but the paper you cite offers no reason to believe that detecting such changes in a forensic analysis when all you have is a skeleton could be reliably tied to large breasts as a cause.

Correlating large breasts in living women with these symptoms is light years from a forensic analysis of just a skeleton being able to say "this was a woman with large breasts", much less anything specific about how large her breasts were.

Changes to the thoracic kyphosis would certainly be detectable in a skeleton, but the paper you cite offers no reason to believe that detecting such changes in a forensic analysis when all you have is a skeleton could be reliably tied to large breasts as a cause.

I don't disagree with that, but it's a better lead than WAGs. It also speaks to my original point of the subject being avoided by academics.

It also speaks to my original point of the subject being avoided by academics.

Not really, the ability to do facial reconstruction from tissue depth markers has been used by paleontologists studying ancient human populations, but it wasn't developed by them.

The knowledge of the skull tissue depth markers and how to use them came out of forensic medicine. Work on how to identify damaged/degraded remains when dental records were not available. It goes back to before the advent of DNA analysis.

Breast size just isn't that relevant for forensic work unless implants are involved.

The other thing you run into is anyone trying to start such studies now for breasts will likely get slammed by the woke crowd.

The other thing you run into is anyone trying to start such studies now for breasts will likely get slammed by the woke crowd.

That is probably closer to the truth than anything else.

Very big breasted women have their own problems when breastfeeding - the baby sometimes has trouble latching on.

Also, nowadays, the majority of women have serious trouble getting their breasts to provide sufficient milk, or they simply refuse to be bothered entirely. According to that particular evolutionary theory, those women would soon be eliminated from the gene pool entirely—something I don't see happening!

You must think men are very shallow if you think men think women are defined by their nipples ;-)

Not at all. I'm not a "Free the Nipple" person campaigner but it's silly that women can show every part of my boob but my nipple. How did it get so deeply ingrained in society? (Things I get curious about)

but it's silly that women can show every part of my boob but my nipple.

You let other women show parts of your boobs? You must be fun at parties.

Do you figure those other women cover her nipple with their hands or their mouths? (And how did she end up with only one nipple?)

And how did she end up with only one nipple?

Mastectomy?

I was under the impression that when they consider a radical mastectomy (one that removes everything and doesn't try to save the non-breast tissue such as skin and nipple) that it's almost always bilateral.

almost always bilateral.

Almost always is not equal to always.

I've also heard of cases where botched breast augmentation surgery compromised the blood supply to one nipple to the point it died.

I've also heard of cases where botched breast augmentation surgery compromised the blood supply to one nipple to the point it died.

Leaving aside the value judgment on that particular type of surgery, that surgeon deserved nasty things to happen to his boys, as a karmic balance.

Leaving aside the value judgment on that particular type of surgery, that surgeon deserved nasty things to happen to his boys, as a karmic balance.

Like a weed-clipper 'accident'?

I was under the impression that when they consider a radical mastectomy (one that removes everything and doesn't try to save the non-breast tissue such as skin and nipple) that it's almost always bilateral.

I recently saw some beautiful photos (on a photo-sharing site) of a woman who'd only had one breast removed, but got a large-colored tattoo to replace it with, so the missing book wasn't quite as obvious (you're more fascinated by the new design by the more predictable older 'natural' design)).

Also, many women who lost just the nipple (or have reconstructive surgery so they won't loose their book) will get a Medical Tattooist tattoo in a realistic looking tattoo, all it's missing is a nerve-laden pump at the end.

How did it get so deeply ingrained in society? (Things I get curious about)

I think you'd have to perform a massive detailed study to get a solid answer to that. I certainly can't answer it, but I would put forth some food for thought.

There are a multitude of social differences around the planet for that subject. Those societies (outside of remote tribal levels) all have some variation of aversion to the display of female nipples.

Given the diversity of social structures in question, common threads are not in abundance. Therefore that makes the subject aligned with the short list of common threads between societies. That suggest the subject is rooted in a biological response rather than a socially driven one.

I personally would find boobs sexy even without nipples. But nipples are rich in nerve endings so boobs would be less of an erogenous zone without them hence less sexy.

You'd think so, but my ex has the most prominent nipples, which really stick out and are thick and meaty, but for whatever reason, they're hardly sensitive to anything. Thus, we abandoned nipple/breast play a long, long time ago and never considered it again.

Breasts are exciting because they lead to something else, get the girl excited, and the action rolls into the main event. Remove that enticement, and 'bare' nipples become no more exciting than the end piece on a staircase. :(

'bare' nipples

Bear nipples are usually hidden by fur.

Actually, if you've had breast cancer and had reconstruction surgery (or not) that did not include nipples (typically tattooed on), you can do that now.

In the US, this is generally a local law issue (not even state law), and it will vary from one jurisdiction to the next.

Some may define the law as can't show nipples while others may define it as exposing some percentage of the breast.

And what counts as indecent exposure in public spaces is very likely to be different from what is allowed in private venues (strip clubs, personal home).

I used to know a stripper who had extraordinarily long nipples. She would tie strings (fishing wire) around them to bind them so they stood out more and didn't flop down when she danced- so it looked from a distance like she had two long, semi-flaccid penises flapping from her little melons.
IT was strangely erotic to think about the time she spent stretching and pulling them to make herself look freaky.

A better story use would be to focus on A girl's nipple-rings, which traditionally expose more of the nipple, supposedly making them harder for longer. Now that a compelling story element, where a guy with no nipples is a complete non-starter!

"What the heck happened to your nipple?"
"It got blown off during the last war."
"Oh! Wanna grab some lunch?"
"Sure."

I understand men are visual oriented and what is unique physically that makes us women will be sexy to a man

Is that a question or a statement? As for all men are visual, the vast majority most likely, but not all.

Some are blind.

It's a statement. Visual is important to 99 percent of men.

The other one percent are liars. ; )

It's a statement. Visual is important to 99 percent of men.

The other one percent are liars. ; )

We'll I guess you're calling me a liar then. I would also disagree with your percentage. Maybe a wag of 90% would be closer to the mark.
There are men out there that are considered hetro leaning grey sexual. For those men, it's some other factor that drives them sexually (typically it's intelligence). I can't speak for the LGBQ community, but I'd be willing to bet they have a higher than normal percentage of people that are not visual as well.

You're free to your opinion, however wrong it may be.

*sigh* I need to be more clear. I'm not saying intelligence and making you laugh and emotional bonding aren't important. An ugly person can look beautiful one the heart is seen. I went overboard but visual is still a high high priority in assessing girls.

went overboard but visual is still a high high priority in assessing girls.

For the vast majority, I agree. Speaking for myself only, I never got to the point of assessing a womans physical characteristics until I knew their mind. I can recognize beauty in the same way an artist recognizes a good subject, but they did nothing for me whatsoever if they had a weak mind or spirit.

A strong mind and spirit is another story. My wife carries both architectural and electrical engineering degrees. We can converse on nearly any subject and frequently do. She too is grey sexual as am I. We complete each other. Not many people understand us in this respect, but that's OK, they don't have too.

So to clarify, is anyone writing the story where the girls have their buttholes sealed and removed?

That's an awesome idea.

That would be fatal. How does solid waste get eliminated from the digestive tract?

They could sustenance on same kind of (possibly synthetic) syrup.

Bees, for example, don't shit for months in winter, depending on weather, but in harsh winter conditions it can be up to and over four months in a row. The quality of honey is thus paramount, because "wrong" honey could cause the hive to die in such conditions. That's one of reasons why intensive beekeeping had moved to industrial invertsuggar syrup as winter food, it's cleaner and safer.

(Well, the other reason, it's 4 to 8 times cheaper than the honey you replace with it in retail prices. And btw, guess what, the resulting honey produced by bees from the sugar feed is legally indeed honey even if almost totally void of all the little additives we value in honey as human consumers (and if bad quality may contain pollutants that are strictly monitored against, so it's not without risk). And no, it's generally bad idea to try and profit by intentionally producing honey for sale this way even if technically could be possible; it's just that it's not big deal if there's same residue of that mixed in later production.)

Sure, going on forever is another extreme, but my point is, it might be possible -- in a syfy/fantasy setting -- to formulate some kind of solution of human sustenance any residue of with could be entirely drained through urine and/or sweating rendering colon absolute.

Still a very weird thing to do, but well, fashion fads doesn't need any rationalizations.

Hell, it even could be political statement: "see, no asshole, I don't eat any hard polluting foods and only consume Nectar(tm)!" I would expect she never owned a stitch of clothing either, at least not one made from any kind of natural fiber.

I can't speak for the LGBQ community, but I'd be willing to bet they have a higher than normal percentage of people that are not visual as well.

I can't speak for the other classifications, as I haven't met enough to draw large-scale conclusions yet, but at least for gay men, they are highly visually driven. Why else have bath houses and public been such prominent draws for so long. Hell, even 'gaydar' is essentially a visual medium, where how someone responds to visual cues determines whether on gay man (or lesbian female) will approach another.

It can be done without those visual cues, but those are exceptions, NOT everyone's prime motivator! Why do you think that everyone wants the young, attractive hotties? Several have their peculiarities, such as massive or tiny breasts, but they're still driven by those who are primarily attractive, vs. those who are merely 'doable'.

The other one percent are liars. ; )

The other ONE would be a hell of a lot less than a mealy 1%!

As for all men are visual, the vast majority most likely, but not all.

I don't know, even most of the blind men I know were busy imagining what female breast looked like, even while they play with them. That demonstrates that it's just not a personal choice whether they're 'visually stimulated' or not, instead it appears to be a deep-seated biological imperative in males, across most species (though, in most cases, it the male displays which drive the females to mate, rather than versa visa).

There could even be some special rule in that society for women who have chosen to keep theirs that they have to keep it on display.

That would seem to basically result in those females being openly targeted for rape...

No, I don't think so - A requirement someone be naked is not a requirement someone be raped.

I didn't imply that they'd be required to be raped. It's just simple logic, try to follow:
A = men want anal sex with women
B = not all women are capable of anal sex
C = by readily identifying which females are capable, those men who'd be willing to rape in order to obtain anal sex are having targets easily identified
So, based on these premises, by easily identifying for potential anal rapists who the viable targets are, those women are being made targets.
For the record, I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth, merely show you that your thoughts, while you might find the premise arousing, didn't look at the law of unintended consequences; I was simply making the obvious assumption as to the most likely effect of your idea being enacted.
Now, if you want to write about a alternate reality where things that would almost certainly follow from some idea in real life would never happen in your world, that's fine. Just make clear that you're doing such a piece. Just remember the burden of the suspension of disbelief. Unless you can come up with a plausible reason for the abnormal reactions...

For the record, I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth, merely show you that your thoughts, while you might find the premise arousing, didn't look at the law of unintended consequences;

We are talking about fiction, not the real world. There are no unintended consequences. Consequences only happen if the author intends them.

Potentially making women who still have assholes into rape targets is the least of the problems you would run into trying to implement this idea in the real world.

Consequences only happen if the author intends them.

The reader will expect logical consequences of whatever is introduced. Not having a ready explanation for those consequences not occurring strains suspension of disbelief.
Yes, the author is free to ignore logical unintended consequences while writing - but readers will be left wondering why those things never happened. (For example, maybe only the poor, or only some despised religious sect, or only some other group that nobody else in society gives a shit about is the source of the females in question, in which case that se women being much more likely to be raped would never come up because nobody cares (except the ones directly impacted) so there'd be no need mentioning it (beyond making such status clear).

So, for some reason. This reminded me of a science fiction story from decades ago. No clue as to what it was called or who wrote it.

It had a little concept in there about the fact that many eons ago, humans went naked in society. The centuries ago, it became taboo to see the waist/genitals. Then after a few more years, the breasts became taboo in some places. In the story, women were required to cover their faces as they were considered obscene.

So, for some reason. This reminded me of a science fiction story from decades ago. No clue as to what it was called or who wrote it.

It had a little concept in there about the fact that many eons ago, humans went naked in society. The centuries ago, it became taboo to see the waist/genitals. Then after a few more years, the breasts became taboo in some places. In the story, women were required to cover their faces as they were considered obscene.

So I went to the store today and EVERYONE had their face covered.

The future is here.

Some weird progress, right?

Australian aborigines live simply and are basically naked. Women don't cover up breasts and it's normal so not sexual.

But as we civilize, we cover up???

Except the opposite extreme in backward Arab countries where women have to cover everything.

If it was acceptable to go out naked, I'd still wear panties just for hygiene and if I had boobs that needed support I'd wear a bra.

I'd still wear panties just for hygiene and if I had boobs that needed support I'd wear a bra.

Of course there are shelf style bras that offer support without covering anything interesting.

Of course there are shelf style bras that offer support without covering anything interesting.

Although that's a minor delusion. Presentation is always going to be part of the equation for women.

Yeah, but it changes drastically when presentation is the goal rather than concealment.

Yeah, but it changes drastically when presentation is the goal rather than concealment.

You're right. As a woman, we often think of presentation for men.

If it became acceptable to be topless, it has me thinking that breast enlargement surgeries would be more popular as we would want more to present to admirers.

Some women would be satisfied by her small size and I hope I would be, but it might intensify an area of beauty in the competition to attract guys and find the right one.

If it became acceptable to be topless, it has me thinking that breast enlargement surgeries would be more popular as we would want more to present to admirers.

Of course it could also lead to some changes in the relevant preferences by men.

I know for my self, there is a definite attraction to large breasts, but at the same time, also a significant preference for natural breasts.

I find obvious implants (the over inflated balloon look) to be grotesque.

Small natural breasts are more attractive than large implants.

Small natural breasts are more attractive than large implants.

Thanks!

Thanks!

You're whale cum. :)

Seriously though, large natural breasts sag at least a little. I've seen some women who claim to have implants in the D-DD range that look natural.

Beyond that implants almost never come out looking right.

You're whale cum. :)

Are Sperm Whales the reason the ocean is salty..?

:)

Small natural breasts are more attractive than large implants.

Definitely! Small breasts remain attractive when the lady ages where large breasts loose the fight against gravity.

Small breasts remain attractive when the lady ages where large breasts loose the fight against gravity.

Not quite, I find large natural breasts attractive, just not obvious implants.

Sag doesn't make large natural breasts less attractive, it's how you know they are natural.

Over-inflated balloon tits (obvious implants) don't sag.

Some women would be satisfied by her small size and I hope I would be, but it might intensify an area of beauty in the competition to attract guys and find the right one.

Is the 'right one' the guy who is attracted to you solely based on the size of your fake tits..?? Really..??

Whilst I agree that there are women who have that mindset, I also believe that diving into the shallow end of the gene pool does not end well.

Is the 'right one' the guy who is attracted to you solely based on the size of your fake tits..?? Really..??

I didn't say that. Get your head out of the cleavage. I'm just suggesting in that scenario many women might choose enhancements as part of her total package to appeal to guys which includes her personality and connection to him.

I'm just suggesting in that scenario many women might choose enhancements as part of her total package to appeal to guys which includes her personality and connection to him.

I'm not disagreeing with you that there are women who would act in that belief. I am questioning the validity of a union where, as you put it, the woman's "personality and connection to him", isn't sufficient for him unless she also has large fake tits.

Obviously "arm candy" and "trophy wives" are popular, but they are not chosen because they are "the right one," more that they are the "right now."

We all set the bar at the height we consider appropriate, apparently I'm aiming higher.

:)

We all set the bar at the height we consider appropriate, apparently I'm aiming higher.

It feels like you're projecting that's how I think now in current norms. I postulating what might be in a different culture

Some women would be satisfied by her small size and I hope I would be, but it might intensify an area of beauty in the competition to attract guys and find the right one.

However, there's much more reasons to wear clothes than decency, termoregulation or hygiene, and the main one is, clothes are a medium of communication. That would never go fully away, no matter how optional covering up might be.

That one actually is a little weird from my understanding. But from an evolutionary perspective it makes sense. Homo Sapiens may have been using some form of clothing for ten of thousands of years now. But it still evolved in an environment where it wasn't wearing clothes for the most part. As such, the body's thermo-regulation system is kind of an all or nothing proposition. Because of that, sometimes less can be more, although it takes time to retrain the body in that respect.

Edit to add: Basically "core body temp" is kept up because of clothing. Which causes the proverbial thermostat to be turned down to manage the core temperature. But that results in the extremities, which aren't protected by clothing and don't have as much circulation, to become cold. So the "retraining" is in regards to body re-learning what it needs to do in order to manage core temperature without clothing complicating things.

Ohio

The Lone Ranger tells his horse Silver to go to Ohio when he says "Ohio, Silver!" His order has sometimes been reported as "Hiyo, Silver" but that is clearly wrong.

Hiyo isn't a word in English. It is the name of a Japanese Aircraft Carrier in WW2, I saw on line where it is a combination of Japanese words for Light and Night.

"Meaning & History From Japanese 燈 (hi) meaning "light" combined with 夜 (yo) meaning "night". Other kanji combinations are possible."

Perhaps the Long Ranger wanted to watch some Ohio breast feeding.

Does Ohio 'ban' public breastfeeding?

In Ohio, mothers have the right to breastfeed in any public location, as long as they are legally allowed to be there. The federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) offers some workplace protection for breastfeeding employees, but there are no Ohio state laws supporting mothers at work beyond this. Breastfeeding Adds to Mothers and Infants Health. Ohio currently has no law protecting a woman's right to breastfeed in public and, so while a woman still has the right to do so, it is not illegal for someone to harass her for doing so.

Also if someone whines and cries about the women breastfeeding though legal can get charged with causing a public disturbance which is a misdemeanor and the penalty for such varies threw out the state.

In Toledo, Ohio a women was charged with all sorts of sex crimes do to her breastfeeding her baby while waiting in her car on a public street outside of the school waiting to pick up her other child after school let out. After much fan fair in the news (at least locally) and a month latter charges where dismissed but during that time the Baby and young child was removed from the parents house hold by child services. The family did sue the city and well in a little blip in the local paper the case was settled out of court.