You’re right, getting money out of politics is necessary for correct decisions to be made by the government.

Or how about this:

The body is a super complex chemical eco-system. Messing with it is understandably super difficult, if you do not want to cause damage. All drugs have side effects. Known or otherwise. Using drugs for any reason is like throwing a funnily shaped wrench in to a factory you do not fully understand. It always causes problems. In medical science we try to figure out what type of wrench causes the least destruction while providing some benefit. We then weigh the benefits against the downsides. Leave these decisions to someone that has dedicated their life to this science. Let them make educated guesses for you. Instead of you just guessing. Generally, don’t use any drug unless you have to. Stop as soon as is recommended by your doctor. Assume that any drug you use, will have a permanent, accumulative detrimental effect on the body. Just to be safe.

They are used to there being teams in everything. If you are not like me, you are with the enemy team.

Legacy from a time when it was used as authentication. I guess. I sure find myself not reproducing my past signatures very well. Never got me in to trouble.

I’m afraid I will get malware, just stepping in to the play store. Yep.

Just install the bare minimum and get out asap.

Nice recommendation! I tried it and it’s probably the first keyboard I actually like.

Neat! * thumb up *

I wager the reason why people are not dueling each other, to solve their differences today, is that they simply have more options in how they go about it. I don’t think the survival rate of stab wounds factor in to the decision at all. We have a more accommodating legal system to turn to. One that serves more people than ever.

On another note. If you have to pay for your own medical cost and you live in a place like the USA; then you would probably want to die. If you live in a more civilised pace, then your fellow citizens will pay for your treatment and then promptly lock you up for wasting taxpayer money and endangering yourself and others, like a crazy person.

I feel out of the loop here. What’s a homework site?

So this brought balance to the forces?

I am not arguing that this happens everywhere, in the same way and is then set in stone forever. People in different places and times had different circumstances. Hence, they could have chosen to handled things differently. Cultural norms can also sometimes change over night. Look at the sexual revolution of the 60-70s for example.

I was trying to answer the question where this norm comes from. Not why this norm isn’t universal.

It seems obvious to me that a culture that have normalized breasts in everyday life, would also consider them less sexual in nature.

I agree. I think that is where we are heading. In societies with high quality of life and high standard of eduction, it is already an expectation. Unfortunately there are places today, that are still somewhat mediaeval.

To clarify; the reason why males might have initially made these requests of their partners is, I reason, insecurity and perhaps fear. Imagine you live in a society where you can not expect protection from anyone except maybe your own family. You find yourself in that threatening situation. Your choices of what to do about it are limited. From the perspective of both the victim and her husband. If most peoples choice are the same, it might become a norm and part of the culture, eventually. You can imagine how the resulting behaviour would probably have been supported by both sexes. Because they feel safer. Because it’s practical and easy. With time it becomes pointless. But it’s culture. It’s tradition and somehow valued on that merit alone.

If I were to find myself in that situation, today, I might have told my wife “let’s leave”. My choices in that moment are still limited. Of course I can report the incident to authorities and what not, after the fact. That sucks for me. It probably sucked even harder 12k years ago.

I have never found myself in this situation, but I can imagine it. And I think my wife would cover up, not because she wants to, but because it makes her feel safe. That is not great. That is not an argument for bad behaviour. Thankfully we generally feel safe where we live.

Evolution doesn’t have a preconceived goal it goes for. There can be pressures of all different kinds. I did not intend to convey that sexual pressure was the sole factor on the evolution of breasts. Clearly they have other functions. I only make the observation that it is a sexual signal for males in the vast majority of mammals. I believe humans are the only mammal with breasts that doesn’t shrink when they are ready, as it were. But I am a proponent of the hypothesis that it was evolved as a trait of sexual secrecy, to confuse males, so the female can attract the favour of more males.

It’s alright to disagree with the premise that there were sexual pressure on the evolution of breasts. You would probably be in the minority in the scientific community on that one though.

For the record; I fancy myself an egalitarianist. I believe in women’s rights. I do not believe slavery is good for any kind of society. I really believe males and females are very similar. Small differences in our physiological makeup. That is all.

I’m sorry it came of that way. It was not my intention. The gold bar part is perhaps a bit unfortunate. I was trying to illustrate and emphasise to the reader that doing anything carries a risk and that people of different regions and cultures have made different choices to manage those perceived risks based on their circumstances.

I believe people, more often than not, make choices out of practicality. Morals, religion, politics, fads, all come and go. “Hey, wife, those guys are staring, I know it’s not convenient, but can you cover up” has probably been said by males partners pretty consistently over the years.

The word steal might have been a bad choice too, now that I think about it. Perhaps kidnap would have also worked.

Since we are all going; here is my take. Breasts were always sexual in nature. For most species they signal fertility and what part of the cycle the individual is in at the moment. At some point human females evolved to have perpetually inflated breasts. There are a few different theories as to why that happened, but it is beside the point for this discussion. So considering they were evolved to attract or dissuade males, I say they certainly have a sexual function. In addition to this, breasts play a big part in sexual pleasure for the wearer.

Now consider people pairing up in monogamous couples. The male suspects that other males might be motivated to pursue his mate by the visage of his mates nice boobies. He asks his mate to cover them up so he feels more safe in his position. Now hundreds of years pass, and what do you know, it is in grained in the cultures. It’s not really too bad for the women, so they have lived with it, for the sake of peace. Sometimes it is even convenient to be covered. For example in cold weather. I bet there is a correlation between climate and a cultures willingness to have boobs in the open.

Tribes have not only hidden their populations breasts, they have been known to hide their women all together, so the neighbouring tribes don’t steal them. I feel that this is a bit similar. Put a gold bar in a glass display long enough, and someone will try to take it. Everything carries risk. If your society isn’t good at maintaining law, then it’s a bad idea to display the gold bar. In some places it might not be an issue at all. All women could go around topless as well, but the risk that they are approached by an aspiring male will probably be slightly increased.

So why do it now, in my amazing, functioning, egalitarian and lawful country? It is down to history and people being comfortable with what we have always done.

My humble opinion is that we abolish any law that prevent any boob owner from showing them anywhere. But I’m lazy, so I won’t start a revolution over it.

We all need this cat.

I guess it’s hard to figure out if your audience wants to see more of your character or if they are tired of them and want something new. When I watch characters in danger situations, I am mostly not in much suspense. By default, I assume the characters we follow are going to survive to the next scene. When they don’t, I am usually surprised. I guess it’s really about if you want to see stories where character find themselves in danger situations. I’m all about realism, but I kind of understand that following one characters story rather than having to reintroduce new ones all the time is probably better. If they keep dying I will probably not care about them and not be very invested.

In band of brothers allot of the characters end up surviving the war. Some didn’t. But I think the survivors were the most interesting to follow. And that is based on true stories. The survivors are the ones I remember most fondly.

I once tried spitting all day when I was a kid. There is this sudden pain when your throat dries up enough and sticks closed. It is not pleasant and you will instinctively retain every little drop of spit after that.

Bob was the first. It was only bob and the universe sized computer. Bob decided that he would simulate a universe with his universe sized computer. Then big bang happened. Now bob is everywhere. Through observation we can infer that he was made out of atoms.

Are you saying he is a dumbass?