Mammary shape by era??

CROJAM95

Great thread to have with my morning coffee..... Driving into NYC soon for work. I will be studying real closely as there are tons of specimens to observe Every street corner has scientific exploration written all over it

afroannnie

Did someone say boobs?

I have noticed the same thing...it's very easy to pick out the decade a film was made just by looking at the mammary shape. For instance, in late 70's/early 80's slasher films (always plenty of boobs), the majority of boobs are itty bitty. I think some of the trend has to do with whatever female body shape is "in" during that time. This doesn't always hold true, but the trend is there. Let's look at the 50's and 60's, the female body was more curvy in general, thus a fuller mammary shape...along came the disco era of the 70's and early 80's, being very skinny was in..goodbye boobs. Afterall, the main components of boobage is mammary glands and fat.

I do not think bras have anything to do with it as Lisa mentioned...as we all know, I am an advocate of free boobing and I will say that there is very little sagging sans bra. I don't have any kids, but I would say for my age, it's somewhat impressive (if I do say myself).

Anyway..I think the volume over time is dependent on diet...I'm not sure if the shape is also affected by this, but it's a good guess. The way our food is processed has changed dramatically in the recent decades.

dankind

For your bookshelves: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/16/books ... views&_r=0

JonnyPistachio

I blame global warming. Or Bush.

Boobs are exquisite, and their evolution is important to science. Thank you for this thread. :P

rick1zoo2

before giving a real answer I will need to do some more research.......lots and lots of research......

BinauralJam

Tracy Lords Boobs were particularly pointy, they might still be, but they definitely were.

JonnyPistachio

BinauralJam wrote:

Tracy Lords Boobs were particularly pointy, they might still be, but they definitely were.

Im pretty sure the magnetic poles have something to do with that particular style. Again, thanks science.

he.who.forgets

afroannnie wrote:

Did someone say boobs?

I have noticed the same thing...it's very easy to pick out the decade a film was made just by looking at the mammary shape. For instance, in late 70's/early 80's slasher films (always plenty of boobs), the majority of boobs are itty bitty. I think some of the trend has to do with whatever female body shape is "in" during that time. This doesn't always hold true, but the trend is there. Let's look at the 50's and 60's, the female body was more curvy in general, thus a fuller mammary shape...along came the disco era of the 70's and early 80's, being very skinny was in..goodbye boobs. Afterall, the main components of boobage is mammary glands and fat.

I do not think bras have anything to do with it as Lisa mentioned...as we all know, I am an advocate of free boobing and I will say that there is very little sagging sans bra. I don't have any kids, but I would say for my age, it's somewhat impressive (if I do say myself).

Anyway..I think the volume over time is dependent on diet...I'm not sure if the shape is also affected by this, but it's a good guess. The way our food is processed has changed dramatically in the recent decades.

I agree...maybe the primary differences that you're noticing have more to do with the casting of actresses and their body type. Perhaps back in the earlier eras, movie producers & casting directors were looking for actresses with a certain shape, and those tastes and trends have simply changed over the years. I'm sure back then, women existed with more 'modern' looking breasts, and vice versa with woman existing today with a more old fashion shape.

Better Dan

This thread is useless without pics.

BinauralJam

JonnyPistachio wrote:

BinauralJam wrote:

Tracy Lords Boobs were particularly pointy, they might still be, but they definitely were.

Im pretty sure the magnetic poles have something to do with that particular style. Again, thanks science.

I thought I felt an attraction :ugeek:

JonnyPistachio

Better Dan wrote:

This thread is useless without pics.

Leezestarr313

JonnyPistachio wrote:

Better Dan wrote:

This thread is useless without pics.

:thumbup:

Thanks for joining the convo! You all made some good points Welcome back, fifthelement :wave:

The casting of women who look according to the beauty ideals of the era is one thing that I defo agree with. A voluptuous Marilyn Monroe, Jayne Mansfield or Jane Russell differs by far from people like Keira Knightley or Rene Zellweger... Hm, and maybe that is the whole thing. The pictures that we see from an era are creating an image of that era in our head. And if it's not for private pics or movies, the only thing that we see is people who were chosen to be published in one or another way, because they looked like the beauty ideal of the time.

And probably rampy and smallish was the hype in the 60's and 70's

norm

afroannnie wrote:

but I would say for my age, it's somewhat impressive (if I do say myself).

kw, your thoughts? :shifty: :corn:

rick1zoo2

norm wrote:

afroannnie wrote:

but I would say for my age, it's somewhat impressive (if I do say myself).

kw, your thoughts? :shifty: :corn:

thoughts? heck, what about pictures?!

Leezestarr313

afroannnie wrote:

but I would say for my age, it's somewhat impressive (if I do say myself).

I would agree (If I may say so ) :wave:

CJMST3K

....and I got banned for a year for a thread titled "Boobies - The Thread" ?!

LloydXmas

norm

CJMST3K wrote:

....and I got banned for a year for a thread titled "Boobies - The Thread" ?!

well, this one is a little more clinical :P


and kat and sea haven't got to the aet yet

Leezestarr313

:shh: :shifty:

CJMST3K

I think another important factor is "shade". Of course, this will be affected by ethnicity.

On larger ones, I prefer pale. Something about that combination works well.

On medium to small, I prefer anywhere from pale to tan.

...but on larger ones, I cannot say I'm a fan of tan.

Go figure.