Wednesday, February 6, 2008

Treatise On the Character of Good Boobies, by Glenn

Some excerpts from my postings on a thread related to boobs on the Cracked forums. Me and these other guys were trying, quite unsuccessfully, to sound like Victorian/WWI era intellectuals while debating the merits of 'good' breasts.

*Update: the thread was deleted by mods at Cracked for some reason. That is unfortunate, because I managed to work in the words 'abstruse' and 'obstruse' into a comeback in response to a moderator that implied we (or I) was stupid. I invited said mod to consider whether we were being 'abstruse' in our conversation (making him/her stupid) or whether we were being 'obstruse' (making us stupid). The joke being that I used a word (obstruse) that is so obscure that it is only found in the unabridged version of the websters dictionary. The meta-joke being on me, in that only I would find such a thing funny; everyone else would consider me a pretentious ass.

I am including a few select posts, and leaving out many others, including some good ones (they are good to me at least).

H.P. Loveboat, Esquire

I personally am all for boobs. They're soft, they're fun to play with, they feed babies. But I want to know what you all think. I expect this to be nothing but sophisticated (with pipes and leather furniture, etc...). Now, your thoughts please.

*puffs on pipe*


The sexual appeal of other parts of the body (be them of a woman or a gay surfer holding a control for a Craftmatic adjustable bed) is not what is in question here. The topic is "Boobs: The Quest for Truth," not "Boobs and Other Body Features: A Compare and Contrast."

Pip pip!

Glenn, PhD, ODB
All this presupposes that boobs have an absolute value that is independent of [their] standing in relation to other body parts. Even if we take this to be axiomatic, and I think that we must, is it not true that a pair of boobs is best, at least subjectively, when lubricated and pressed around your cock and subsequently festooned with your seminal discharge? Thus, the intrinsic value of boobs has been shown to be relative. Also, women's beach volleyball.

H.P. Loveboat, esquire
Glenn, I think it most scientific so assume that we are dealing with a hotness ratio of a woman's boobs to the rest of her body. This way her other features don't matter, but rather the relative hotness her boobs ad as compared to the rest of her. This way, if we have a smoking hot girl (the type with long silky hair, and a round smooth ass, and a kind of raspy sexy voice) but her boobs are small and it makes you feel that (though she is perfectly hot) she could be hotter with boobs, you would then be in the pro-boob camp. This same criteria would apply for a hideous girl (with a turtle shaped body, flabby arms, and a bowl cut) who has no boobs. If you find that you would be slightly less repulsed if she had larger boobs, then you would still fall with in the pro-boob camp.

The question was never about if a girl could be hot without boobs. The question is whether or not boobs contribute to the overall hotness of an individual.

*shifts in his leather chair causing it to squeak obnoxiously*

Glenn, PhD, ODB
Ah, but dear Loveboat, *puff, puff*, we should be careful not to equate size with beauty, nor plastic with au naturel. Verily, more than a mouthful may be a waste, if that mouthful is properly proportioned, of sound shape, and of acceptable skin-to-nipple ratio. And plastic, ah, plastic be the root of many unsightly stretch marks. Surely, we the boob boosters can all agree that large natural breasts are god's greatest gift to mankind. To walk a mile on those in your bare feet is like a hike through god's own garden.

H.P. Loveboat, Esquire
This is true! Where then can we draw the line? At what point can we look at a girl and think, "I could never fuck her, her boobs are too big"? If their big and overly soft than we risk being swallowed up in them, and if their big and perking we risk being bounced into the upper atmosphere as a reaction to one of our enthusiastic pelvic thrusts. I agree wholeheartedly that a girl with boobs that are not large, but are well shaped is more attractive than a girl will breasts that are large but curve in unnatural ways. But even this is to admit some superiority to having "good" boobs. The question becomes, what determines "good" in regards to these much celebrated swollen glands. Should it be left up to the individual, or can an objective standard be found?

*takes a long drag on his pipe*

*sustains severe mouth burns*

Glenn, PhD, ODB
Yes. *puff, puff* Quite. *puff, longer puff, still longer puff, coughing fit*

This brings us to the age old question that has confounded utilitarians for centuries, doesn't it? What constitutes 'good' or the greatest good, especially for society? Are boobs better when they are attached to a woman who willingly shows them off (i.e. by wearing a low cut top; being a stripper; doing nude scenes in legitimate movies; receiving baby batter in amateur porn)? Or are they most good when they are seen only by a lucky few, who then procreate, hopefully multiplying the beautiful boobs genes? Would walking around topless all the time somehow degrade the sacred feminine? Somehow diminish the power of the sacred erection? Would a multitude of beautiful boobs drag down productivity, and encourage invasion by peoples without such good boob fortune? I have raised a number of questions for which I have no answers.

As to the question of evaluating the boobs themselves, I would appeal to no higher authority than that of democracy, the principle that representative government has appropriated and deformed, like so many plastic surgeons:

Glenn, PhD, ODB, Poet Laureate:
"Feature" Sparkler Chick (musings from perv's row)

Doesn't that hurt?
I mean the sparklers-
Inserted in your nipple,
For my amusement.

From perv's row,
I see them glow, and wonder--
Shouldn't breast-powered lightning be followed by thunder?
Or at least the clap of your massive sweater cows.
What gives?

H.P. Loveboat, Esquire
The questions of utilitarian boobery are useless if we cannot even agree on what a good boob is. And that raises even further questions. Can you have a good boob (singular) or are boobs codependent? I personally would be turned off by a girl with just one perky d-cup. In fact, I would be turned off by a girl with a c-cup on one side and a b-cup on the other. such a discrepancy in boob size would be unattractive.

I find this all very terrifying, for if I can not measure boobs qualitatively, I fear I cannot prove that I actually like them. Are men that arbitrary that they can find pleasure in two sacks of flesh for no other reason than the fact that we don't have them? What a horrible thought.

Glenn, PhD, ODB, Poet Laureate
The unbalanced boob problem has plagued by mind for decades. Symmetry, indeed, has its place in this debate. However, what is to be done with the three-boobed woman in Total Recall? The exceptional proves the rule, I once overheard some transient prostitute say in passing, and so it should be here.

As to the question of quality, let us define good boobatude in the most quantitative way possible: by the volume of blood it redirects to the penis of the viewer. Let's start testing now, shall we. Ladies, let's see them.

Gentlemen, to science!

H.P. Loveboat
I just realized that this topic is so damn appropriate to be occurring on Fat Tuesday. I didn't actually intend that.

So, come on ladies. Let's just pretend we just gave you a whole bunch of beads and start showing us those ta-tas...uh...for science, like Glenn said.

H.P. Loveboat, Esquire
Ah yes, Colsen has a point ole chaps. A beautiful tit can be found to set one's teeth on edge upon entry into the mouth. A bitter boob is hardly a boob at all, in my book.

The right honourable Gizzardgulpe
Continueing along the tangent involving asymmetry in the boobular fronts: I actually have never seen such asymmetry in size, though I have concerning nipple placement (ie: Tila Nguyen). Is it safe for one to assume that asymmetry in nipple placement that causes arousal is perhaps significant if the situation arose that asymmetrical breastical size were involved? Would I be an exception if I enjoyed asymmetry? Or can asymmetry be part of the collective and seemingly subjective preference concerning delightful ta-tas?

Glenn, PhD, ODB, Poet Laureate
Insofar as the asymmetry does not interfere with the higher purposes to which boobs may be put-- I speak here of book-ending cocks and faces, among other earthly delights-- it should not be held against a well-formed pair, though the pair, in sooth, should be held against as many things as possible.

As for taste, salty should be preferred, in my considered opinion, for it is natural and could replace vital electrolytes that are inevitably lost during coitus. That said, various methods of garnishing boobatas, including whipped cream and 'crystal' are all acceptable, to me at least.

H.P. Loveboat, Esquire
"Salty is the sign that your woman is sweating, which means she is engaged in your activities." --T. S. Eliot

But what of the constitution of the nipples themselves? I speak not of the firmness of the boob as a whole, but of the perkiness of their pink circular summits. We have all, I'm sure, experienced a girl suffering from Droopy Egg Syndrome, in which the nipple skin is well formed but is not reinforced by whatever wonderful substance lay inside the boob. The result of DES is a hollow, sagging nipple crowning an otherwise perfect tit.

Glenn, partly in response to a sarcastic remark
Actually, if you are going to tell your special lady that you love her tits and be convincing about it, it is important, nay vital, that you be armed with the powerful analytical tools that we are developing right here in this very thread.

Back to business. Nipples, as you all know, are vitally important. They should constitute well under 50% of the total surface of the boobs. We have all seen the dreaded nipple-boobs. In a pinch, they will do, but pepperoni tits are disqualified from any conversation about the 'best' boobs. Droopage is an unfortunate consequence of the passage of time, to be lamented.

Let me emphasize that we speak of what makes great boobs great, lest our analysis be perceived as harsh by some. ALL boobs are beautiful, and I, for one, would be happy to offer an appraisal, free of charge, regardless of size, shape, droopage, or rank odor.

Glenn, in response to the claim that beauty is in the eye of the boob holder:
Not on your life man! I, for one, have been working on a formal description that I find quite capital!

At first, I considered a number of possible mathematical descriptions of the perfect breast. Among others, I tried a convolution of the Gaussian and exponential probability distributions. As you can see, the results were less than perfect:

Of course, when you are holding a hammer everything looks like a nail, so I was blinded to an obvious truth: a simple parabola would do the trick nicely:

For those of you who will not be checking out the original thread, here is a representative sample of the posts that I left out:

Ryan, Poet Laureate and PWOT moderator
Boobs boobs boobs boobs boobs,
Boobs boobs boobs boobs boobs--boobs boobs!
Mmmpf mmpf mmmmmmmpf mmpf mpf.

No comments: