In Praise of Small-Breasted Women

If the guy you’re with thinks you need different breasts, maybe you just need a different guy.

This is for the lesser-endowed ladies of the world: the women who were dealt too lightly by Nature, who wondered at some point or another if they should correct the injustice through the skills of a plastic surgeon, or at least invest in an arsenal of pushup bras.

Despite the typical male preoccupation with breast size, there are some of us who wouldn’t want you any other way, who see sublime perfection where others see absence.

Maybe we’re just not as vocal as some.

We’re not the guys working construction who whistle chauvinistically from across the street three stories above you as you walk to work.

We’re not the ones throwing themselves at you at the frat party. Or your friend’s wedding, countless drinks in.

Maybe we’re the ones quietly taking you in from five tables away. Listening to your voice. Your perspective. Your sense of humor. The witty way you referenced an F. Scott Fitzgerald line in the middle of ordering your drink.

And yes, don’t worry, we snuck a good, long look at your body.

But maybe it’s not a giant rack we’re looking for.

Maybe we happen to love the sleek lines of your silhouette, the elegant simplicity of your form.

Maybe there’s something fearless and yet vulnerable about your petite frame that draws us.

Maybe we’re actually turned off by someone who’s used to transfixing men with her obvious, womanly attributes.

Some of us grew up as athletes, amongst thin, athletic, small-breasted women and grew to like different physical traits than most guys. Like the tight calves of a runner. Or the strong thighs of a skier. Or the muscular stomach of a volleyball player. Maybe we know that having an athletic woman at your side means being more likely to live an adventurous and daring life. (Not just in the outdoors, but in the bedroom, too…)

Guys like me, like the fact that you’re used to having to win people over with your mind and personality, not what was peeking through your blouse.

For me, an A-cup puts you on the A-list, every time.

Some of us have learned from experience that small-breasted women often have larger minds. Or better moves on the dance floor. Or more optimistic attitudes when the chips are down. Because you’ve been overlooked by luck before. And it didn’t get the better of you then, either.

Hell, some of us are just ass-men.

Don’t get me wrong, I’ve got nothing against large-breasted women. Many of them are good friends—or even exes. And yes, many have just as sharp a mind, as buoyant a spirit, or witty a retort as you.

But there’s something about you A-girls that I just can’t shake.

Maybe you’re just a bit lighter—at how you handle life. Maybe the thing you think you’re lacking has given you so much more. And you’re better able to move around the obstacles of life a lot quicker without it.

Whatever it is, I, for one, am under your spell. I swoon when you walk into the room. I want your first dance, your next kiss, your every smile.

You have more admirers than you know.

If the guy you’re with thinks you need different breasts, maybe you just need a different guy.

 

—Photo avaviel/Flickr

About Mark Radcliffe

Mark Radcliffe is a writer living in New York City. He has a weakness for bourbon, jazz and girls who can drive stick. You can read more of his essays here: www.theradcliffescrolls.tumblr.com and http://markradcliffe.com.

Comments

  1. Those petite women may consider themselves lucky. I envy them. I have a 42dd size bust and I don’t like it .Large causes a lot of problems as anyone my size or larger, some even smaller than me like a 34 size have complained about it because they had problems finding bras. Getting about being large doesn’t help matters either. I’ve been getting that since I was 9, when I grew 38 size breasts.Cathy

  2. The Smaller Mind (aka larger busted) says:

    Congratulations in your process of trying to make smaller breasted ladies feel better about their breast, you managed to other ladies more insecure about themselves because you know breast are the eyes to the soul. Here is an idea, stop making any assumptions about anyone due to physical traits. It’s no different than me saying…”well you know that they say about small feet and a guy.” It’s a stereotype. It’s judgmental. And it just makes you look like a giant douche.

    • Congratulations!

      You showed that you are insecure because you damn care too much about what strangers say on the internet. That’s called external validation. Your internal validation must be so weak

  3. Enjoyed Your Article - Houston, TX says:

    This article is very, very sweet and there was no need whatsoever for you to write any sort of retraction. This was a very endearing, sincere and well written article about what you find attractive…. without putting large-breasted women down. It seems like you can’t win these days. There’s always going to be someone trying to put a negative spin on everything, no matter how positive it may be. Large breasts are worshiped in our society to the point that women are willing to put themselves at risk with surgery to have them… thinking that a D cup is going to change their lives. Chances are, they were already a “10”, but they let the media brainwash them into thinking otherwise. I found your article to be very sweet and refreshing. Not all men want a D cup, like so many women are lead to believe. We need to be confident no matter what our breast size is. Again, great article. Don’t let the sour-pusses make you feel like you’ve done something wrong, because you haven’t.

  4. Appreciative says:

    Wow, this is beautiful and made me smile as I read it. Lovely words that made me look at myself (a small chested woman) a little differently. Thanks

  5. For you folks that have revitalized this fairly old post please make sure to check out the posts that came along after it in response to it. A lot of them appear in the ping backs.

    Here is one I did myself that isn’t in the ping back links (http://goodmenproject.com/good-feed-blog/curves-or-lack-of-curves-dont-make-the-woman/).

    This isn’t to say that you shouldn’t speak up with what you have to say I just want you to see more of the iceberg on this topic.

    • david wendt says:

      You are who you are.Small or large as long as it is what god gave you is ok by me. The only breast augmentation i agree wih is those for medical reasons . Sexy and pretty come in all shapes, sizes and colors. Don’t be insecure.

  6. I can’t believe how awful this is!
    A summary of your article:
    If you have small breasts you must hate yourself. After all, builders and magazines tell you to. But don’t worry!! I don’t find you repulsive! I’ve found other parts of your body to leer at. And I’m also convinced you’ve had to build a better personality because you’re so horrible to look at. (But I’ll take that back immediately and say big breasted women are great too). Also, don’t date douchebags like me. END.

    If you judge women on their appearance, own up to it. Most people do. But don’t think you’re some kind of intellectual superior because you like a “type” that you think is overlooked! I have NO idea why you think women’s self-esteem is so related to breast size. In my experience, women are usually more worried about too much excess fat- not too little.

  7. Major buzz kill. I opened this article hoping for a fresh perspective, a “challenge” to “typical definitions of beauty”. But each sentence induced a cringe larger than the last. Talk about being so saturated in cultural definitions of beauty that, even with the intent of a “challenge”, you end up reinforcing the same tired judgments and fantasies of your “perfect woman”- or perfect body, rather.

    Don’t worry, dude- I don’t care whether the presence or absence of my breasts are to your “preference”
    But I do worry about the guy taking a “good, long look” at my body from “five tables away.”

    Time for an actual challenge, GMP.

    • Jonathan G says:

      Odd, I’m pretty sure I didn’t read the same article as you did. In any case, why don’t you show us/TGMP how it’s done: write and submit an article with a fresh perspective that challenges typical definitions of beauty? I’d be interested to hear it.

  8. It’s an article about boobies. Small boobies in particular. It’s not a social commentary on the injustice of women being judged by their looks.
    In my eyes it’s just a sweet love letter from a man to boobies.
    Men love breasts. It’s biology. Why are women still surprised by this?

    • thank you; everyone else here ranting seems to have missed this point.

    • Mark Radcliffe says:

      Well, actually, as the author, I disagree slightly:

      The piece is titled “In Praise of Small-Breasted WOMEN,” not “In Praise of Small BREASTS.” 😉

      I spend most of my time praising the traits and characteristic I felt (perhaps mistakenly) I commonly found in lesser-endowed women of the world and how these are perhaps more attractive to me than any physical asset. Though, yes, I’m not immune to being attracted to the female body in many ways, and there is obviously mention of that here. I did take many of the criticisms to heart, and even had problems with my own piece myself after sitting with it a while, and published a retraction of sorts here, if you’re interested:
      http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/the-good-life-in-praise-of-large-minded-women/

      • Melinda says:

        For every person who made your article their ranting board because of their own insecurities, there are a 100 more who don’t write but are still moved by your article.

  9. Must you judge people’s personalities according to physical attributes which they cannot control? There are intellectuals – nerdy, multilingual, tome-citing bookworms like me – who have large bosoms and CAN’T HELP IT. I detest my bosom. As a child, I fervently hoped I’d always remain flat-chested, and for a while I thought I’d managed to avoid the ghastly tumescence – until it suddenly materialised somewhat later than expected, adding yet another layer to my loathing of my own body. I’ve encountered the supposedly original “I’m a clever sensitive man, so I like small bosoms” meme before, but this incarnation thereof has sprouted a new, diabolical dimension: the function of denying an ugly girl the only thing she has left, namely, her mind. I’m sorry I don’t make your A list. You seem reasonably clever overall, so in lieu of any cogitative capacity of my own (having been robbed of it by my gargantuan udders) I’ll have to use your logic instead, and assume inverse proportionality between your wit and your bits. It’s a compliment, because I’m sensitive.

    • Hey Ants, there’s nothing to be ashamed of in having generous sized breasts, and a brilliant mind is a blessing too. Many people will judge you (and everyone else) on appearances, not noticing your fine mind first (or maybe never) – but that’s because there are many shallow dimwits about – usually they are confidant and vocal too! Try not to take it personally or spoil your happiness – those folk just aren’t worth the angst.

    • THIS!

      I hate being lumped in as “dumb” just because I have DD cup breasts. I’m also continuously annoyed with “intellectual men” going on about how small breasts = more intelligent and better personality. This is precisely the reason why I feel insecure about my curves. I have a PhD in Physics, work professionally as a writer, speak four languages, none of which have anything to do with the size of my chest.

      Finding smaller or bigger breasts attractive is an aesthetic issue, not an intellectual one. Who I might find attractive is certainly going to be different to someone else’s type, but I don’t try to justify it by making assumptions on that person’s personality or intelligence.

  10. Love it! It’s good to know there are one or two guys out there who prefer small breasts:)

    • Mark Neil says:

      Believe me, there are more than just one or two. It’s just that it’s hard enough not being treated like paedophiles without admitting to liking small breasts. And if you don’t understand the connection, read through the comments, one lady here was told that she needed to find a paedophile in order to date anyone (paraphrasing. it’s in here somewhere).

      • I like women with petite bodies, small breasts (but most definitely adults). I’ve seen comments by people who assume those who like women like that, are pedophiles….calling men cradle snatchers for dating 22 year olds who have petite bodies, wtf is wrong with people? Are we only supposed to be attracted to very curvy women, tall, with large breasts?

        • Mark Neil says:

          Exactly. I feel sometimes we’re shamed for liking big breasts, but we’re shamed, insulted and question for liking small breasts, so if you need to say anything, big breasts are the lessor of two evils (in the eyes of those who judge). I think this is why it appears men like big boobs… And they do tend to catch the eye when walking past and clad in clingy/revealing cloths. I prefer smaller breasts, but sometimes you just gotta take in the eyefull.

        • the fact is there is a huge lie in society that states that 90% of men prefer large breasts and 10% prefer small breasts. the truth is the reverse!!! i myself love small breasts on young girls or women of 40 and over as they usually remain perky if they’re beautifully small. over the years about 90% of men i’ve discussed this with have agreed with me and 10% disagreed. i believe the 10% to have been breastfed, especially those with an especially large breast obsession. This lie has been caused by, the fact that women are naturally competitive and as was mentioned by another commenter, women who are larger will accuse men who state their natural taste for the petite as a taste for underage girls. it’s sad that men have too easily taken refuge in the knuckle dragging reactions of “the bigger, the better” statements in order to be able to express their sexual desires in a extremely feeble way rather than just tell the truth. the result would be to halt young girls with perfect breasts butchering themselves with poisonous, ugly implants. the catwalks are full of girls illustrating the perfect shape for clothing and very few of them have large breasts. i will take a catwalk model, ballet dancer, gymnastic or classy actress any day of the week over a silicon malformed page 3 girl. oh, i just remembered, i’m marrying a girl next month with perfect small perky breasts!! woohoo!!!

          • Oh my gosh all of these comments make me so happy. I have small breasts and I’ve always hated the way I look and here are all these guys that like petite small breasted women like me. You guys are the best. I am so happy and I feel so much better right know you have no idea.

            • @Alex,
              Glad to hear it. I personally prefer smaller to medium size breasts, but most breasts are attractive. Don’t let anyone make you feel insecure about yourself. One of the absolute hottest and sexiest women I know at the moment has A cup breasts, she always hates herself for it and I do my best to tell her they are fine. They look amazing! (Yes I’ve seen them). Not every guy likes breasts, nor do they like the same kind. We’re all individuals whom like different things. Petite, small breasted women can be extremely attractive so I hope it does continue to make you feel great.

  11. Hell, some of us are just ass-men. – LOL
    Actually most guys told me that they don’t like very large breast. Looks like it’s true.

  12. stephanie says:

    basically as a small breasted woman i read this article as follows: “i’m not like those other guys” and then continues to create a dichotomy between women of different breast sizes, and talks about one as having more merit than the other in terms of intelligence (we have larger minds apparently) since, yeah know, intelligence is correlated with breast size.
    this piece is patronizing.

    • Keegan Bosch says:

      Allow me to share a short anecdote: Last week I met a girl, who we’ll call Jessie. Jessie is an absolutely stunning 17-year-old girl; (before you scoff, I’m 18 years old); who honestly does not have a single physical flaw about her. That includes her almost unbelievably pristine 34C breasts. I was having a conversation with Jessie about music, and at one point in our conversation, she stopped me and said “thank you for actually looking at me. You’re the first guy I’ve ever talked to who doesn’t stare at my boobs the whole conversation”.

      Women are very often being noticed for their large breasts, rather than their true beauty, and although that’s another conversation for another time, it relates to this article. Because of the male obsession with breasts, (which arguably is a completely natural obsession, large breasts psychologically represent a good mother), many beautiful women with smaller breasts go unnoticed. If I choose 10 random girls from my high school days, 5 Cs/Ds and 5 As/Bs, the Cs and Ds had more admirers. No exceptions.

      While you may find the piece to be patronizing, you have to look at author’s intent before you get upset about things. His goal was not to create the aforementioned dihcotomic rift, nor was he trying to offend large-breasted women. His sole purpose was to try and help improve the self-esteem of a group which he saw as being under appreciated. I for one believe that this article is a wonderful commentary, and I totally agree with nearly all of it; (though I don’t know if I agree that breast size is correlated with intelligence). However, even in that vein, the author distinctly states “Don’t get me wrong, I’ve got nothing against large-breasted women. Many of them are good friends—or even exes. And yes, many have just as sharp a mind, as buoyant a spirit, or witty a retort as you.”

      As I mentioned before, women with larger breasts are just generally noticed more. And to the author, I have some bad news. I know you prefer things small, but you’ve clearly got some massive cajones for publishing this article and calling out the majority of guys who spend their time so focused on the Cs, that they miss the Is.

      • This is a bunch of BS what you said, Keegan. Since when does breast size have to do with how good of a mother a woman is? Small breasts do the same thing as big breasts when lactating, no difference at all. Plus, small breasts GROW MUCH BIGGER during pregnancy, and they continue to grow during lactation. This whole thing with women having big breasts are better mothers is such a load of Bullsshit! Or that with women large breasts are more fertile…LOL What a joke! People, please, read a book! I can’t believe adults these days have no idea about BASIC things like these. Truth is, the American society has an unhealthy fixation on breasts, and the so-called scientists, which are most likely just some pseudo-scientists who use the popular media to reinforce these obsessive, unhealthy ideas about breast size and what they ought to signify, with misguided, unprofessional, trivial studies. It gives plastic surgeons some more to do, and gets them rich.

        And I don’t know about small breasted girls passing unnoticed…In my school, the most popular and the prettiest girls were the ones with small breasts. I also have small breasts and I can brag about the fact that I have always been noticed, no matter where I went. I never had a shortage of male attention, quite to the contrary.

        I think that you sound quite childish and simplistic by saying that girls with small breasts were being overlooked simply because of their small breasts. When a girl is pretty, she is pretty, and people will notice her regardless of her boob size. Maybe the girls you thought were beautiful but with small breasts weren’t exactly that beautiful by the majority’s standards, and I don’t mean that because of their breasts, but because of their faces and overall appearance.

  13. People annoyed about the obsession with appearance, being obsessed with appearance. Again.
    Just leave it. This oh so righteous ‘anti-attractiveness’ does nothing but highlight your own anger on the subject.
    Just ignore it. Appearance is meaningless. So’s arguing against those who are tricked into thinking it isn’t.

  14. Sarah:
    @Mark, I’ve occasionally had a guy on the street say “hey beautiful” and I don’t wear makeup, and my clothes tend to be comfortable rather than stylish. I only have 2 features that stand out: I have largish breasts and I’ve been told that my face is pretty. Otherwise, I’m pretty average. So if a guy thinks I’m beautiful, I assume it has something to do with breasts+face. With other women, I’m sure other things are noticed.
    Damn. While it can’t be nice to only be complimented on a few features I think you might be selling yourself short by declaring that people only ever think you’re attractive becuse of those few features. In fact if I were to apply your logic to my history of (physical) compliments then the only thing women ever see in me are my eyes (and that’s a compliment from my high school days, I’m 31 for reference) and my hair (I keep an afro).

    But speaking as someone who gets physical compliments about as often as the Sahara floods maybe this is just my wishful thinking talking.

    • Mark Neil says:

      Really, it doesn’t just sell herself short, it sells all men short as well.

    • Well unless I send you a bunch of pictures of myself, I guess you will have to take my word for it that I am basically average looking, with a couple of nice features. Like most people, actually.

      • John Anderson says:

        In my weight training days, I was like many teenage boys, measuring my muscles and checking myself in the mirror. I got fairly conceited and enjoyed the admiration from women. I didn’t mind a solitary compliment, but felt uncomfortable with repeated compliments, compliments that were highly sexual, or when women got physically aggressive like touching. I don’t like sexually aggressive women.

        I haven’t worked out in 15 years. Women will still occasionally compliment me on my body. I’m either particularly ugly (I’m pretty sensitive to that possibility, hence mo picture) or my physique is still above average. Now when I get compliments even a single compliment feels like harassment. I think it’s because it doesn’t feel deserved. I kind of understand where you are coming from.

  15. The Bad Man says:

    LOL, what a load of sexist stereotypes. Too funny man.

    • YES! – What a lot of toss!!! Hilarious!!!!

      “the women who were dealt too lightly by Nature”….’too’ lightly, or just lightly? Seems that you do in fact think that small breasts are ‘too’ small…..and so you then make long and frankly embarrassing stereotypes to try and justify this!!!!

      Breasts are just breasts – most men like them, no matter what the size.
      Most women don’t give a fuck what men think about their breast size – I bet that ones who get implants do it for their own perception of how they look, not mens.

      • Most women care, they really do.No one would have surgery to make them big if the norm for women were to have no boobs at all.The article fails miserably in trying to make non -gifted women feel good. Just reinforce that ” they are ugly, less womanly but they COMPENSATE 😉 ” . Men love big boobs, period.Just like women love large shoulders and well defined arms.Some people deviate from this natural norms because of especial psicologycal reasons (Freud …), witch is very good ´cause everybody deserves to be desired.But number wise, most people are atracted to what nature programed them to.Yes, nature is quit unfair

        • I agree. A lot of guys have this attitude about small breasts. That is

          She needs to be very pretty
          Needs to be in great shape
          Needs to have good personality
          Etc to make ip gor small boobs.

          Seriously, have you ever heard men talk about large breasted women like that. “She has a dd rack but at least shes smart and pretty.”

          Guys really do prefer large breasts. How many guys break their nevks to see aacups? Thats just not how guys or wired or will ever be wired.
          Small breasts are a fault that one must overlook, like having a crook in ones nose. Ive met one guy who actually preferred small boobs.

          Im considering a boob job. I already have one guy offering to come see me-and he lives far away. Rest assure that guys dont do that for a ot b cups.

          • Totally agree. Men don’t like small boobs. Some men just tolerate them, but they never want them. I honestly don’t think they’re all automatically wired to be that way, but I think growing up on porn makes it a lot worse.

  16. VolitionSpark says:

    Good news for the smaller women….you are IN. I have large ones and it is considered a way to be fat, even though the rest of me is in no way fat. I have an intellectual bent…..I read, I have a degree in math and physics, and I cannot stand most reality television shows (exceptions being shows about some jobs or about large families or the man who combs the rivers of the globe looking for large fish)

  17. Great. Another article objectifying women. When will people get the point that saying “I prefer curvy women” or “I like small tits” is still just presenting women as sex objects rather than as people in themselves? How about, I like my girlfriend because she is fucking sexy, confident and awesome, rather than trying to console girls with small tits and make girls with big ones feel bad about themselves?

    • Natalie,

      I agree that the article is objectifying. (See my initial comment in the older comments portion of the thread.)

      However, saying *I* like curvy women/*I* prefer small tits is not, in itself, objectifying. Stating a personal preference does not constitute objectification as the word is defined. Attaching meaning, significance, intelligence, stupidity, and other value judgements to said personal preference IS objectifying though as the word is defined.

      So, I’m fine saying I love my girlfriend’s sexy booty. It doesn’t mean I don’t love her hair, humor, jokes, or overall awesomeness. It just literally means I love her butt, because it looks awesome to me.

      But I understand that it’s difficult to tread a line between objectification/fetishization/exocitizing and personal preference. We can condemn the former, but not the latter.

    • Are men allowed to speak of their attraction to women anymore? I agree the article objectifies due to it’s linking body-types and personalities, but “I like small breasts” alone isn’t objectification. Like it or not ladies part of attraction involves sexuality, and yes to hetero men women are usually sexually attractive, certain parts even more than others. This doesn’t mean they don’t like the rest of you, they still can care about your personality, etc but they’re simply saying I love small breasts, they turn me on the most just like nice women are what I love because I hate being around bitches. You’re more than your body but please don’t assume all men only care about your body if they are paying it a compliment (different to how this author did it, he messed up).

  18. I don’t really care how well-intentioned this article was.

    It doesn’t sound well-intentioned.

    It sounds like, “Hey girl, let me assume I can validate your existence purely because I’m a man who finds you attractive.”

    Weapons-grade creepy.

    And no, I’m not going to tell you what size my breasts are.

  19. Personally, loved this piece of writing.
    I read it as simply your expression of appreciation for “the under-appreciated” – at least in Mark’s mind. Honestly, after being around enough guys who seem to be intelligent, worldly, educated men but who somehow have not evolved past the “Al Bundy” level of appreciation for women, it’s nice to hear from a guy who’s not interested in marrying a Hooters waitress. And as someone who is, well, forget about A-cup; my bra size now is LOL…. it feels good to have a male-cheerleader, so to speak, who’s willing to say, “You go, sister, I like it like that!”

    I really think the article lived up to its title marvelously.

  20. “Maybe there’s something fearless and yet vulnerable about your petite frame that draws us.” …are you really saying my vulnerable-looking body type is what turns you on? Honestly if someone told me that in person I’d think he was a rapist.

    • And I would think it was a compliment Sarah. The heart of relationships is are ability to be vulnerable, soft and open with one another. If someone told me they thought me vulnerable, I wouldn’t automatically think they wanted to rape me. I would think that I drew out protective feelings in them. Because that’s been my experience with men. They equate vulnerablity to intimacy and softness and feelings in protecting that. Not taking advantage of it.

      • I myself would personally be insulted if anyone thought me vulnerable.

      • Mark Neil says:

        Exactly. Men as protectors has been an ingrained role and part of the male identity for a very long time (and continues to be enforced in many ways even today), so it should not be surprising that a woman who makes a man feel needed in that way would still appeal to him, give him purpose. I myself have never consciously associated “petite as vulnerable” being what appeals to me about petite women, but it doesn’t really surprise me.

      • Then form a relationship with me. Don’t stand there and stare at my body. How the hell can you tell relational vulnerability from a woman’s size anyway? Answer? You can’t. He was talking about how small my body was, which made me vulnerable. Which means A: he was to physically overpower me, or B: he thinks I’m frail and helpless and in need of his saving. Both are yuck.

        • Devil’s advocate here!
          I can definitely understand how a man would associate vulnerable with a petite woman. I like big and tall men (over 6ft, 230 lbs and up). I’m guilty of equating strong with tall. The men I used to date appreciated the size difference. It was exciting for both of us.

          • 6’6, 300lbs here. Nearly everyone feels smaller than me, I do feel a sense of pride knowing that simply being near my smaller friends I’ve helped stop one getting bullied. I’ve heard from some women they like their men to be bigger than them, they feel protected, and it is nice to feel you protect someone. But I am under no impression that smaller people can’t defend themselves, I’d love a woman to fight side by side with me to help defend our kids if we have them. Size CAN be an advantage and I guess a woman could feel quite safe around me simply as I am nearly twice the size of many other people. It can also be intimidating though especially to women I don’t know.

            But I myself am vulnerable at times, both physically n emotionally, a woman of any size can make me feel protected if they love/care for me.

    • I think he means the man being a protector role, I must admit I do feel special when I feel I can protect someone else though I also like knowing they’ll protect me. I don’t think he meant it as a vulnerable for rape kind of way though. Erin also hits the mark pretty well.

  21. 218 comments, LOTS of new commenters – has this article gone viral?

  22. As a small-breasted woman, I, too, really wanted to like this article. I realize that the author had sincere intentions: To celebrate the beauty he sees in women who are often put down as inadequate. But it doesn’t read as real praise. Instead, it comes across as, “Because you are in fact lacking sex appeal other women have, you’ve had to try harder to succeed in other ways.”

    The truth is, when it comes to personality, all women of all breast sizes are equal. We can all be adventurous, smart, fun, athletic, etc. True, it takes a certain resilience to live through being picked on for being flat-chested. It also takes resilience to be seen as a walking pair of breasts. These both come with ways to be insecure and ways to be arrogant. The problem with this article is that it says because you have small breasts you get to HAVE a personality valued by straight men because they aren’t so distracted by your cleavage. (But you still have to be skinny to be attractive.)

    In relationships, what women want is pretty simple: They want to be seen by the men (or women) they date as a whole person, who has values, ideas, adventures, hobbies, opinions, emotions—and yes, an embodied sexual side. When you’re admired for everything but having a sexual side, that sucks. But it also sucks to ONLY seen as a sexual object, as opposed to a full human who enjoys sex on their own terms.

    My last lover said all these amazing things to me, about how he admired me for my values, for who I am in the world, for how I think, for who I’m trying to be. It was awesome, and I absolutely want all of that. On top of that, I want a guy who is 100 percent into my boobs, and finds them just as irresistible and lust provoking as other guys find DDs. I don’t want to hear, “Oh your personality (or your ass or your BMI) makes up for your lack.” I want that raw sexual desire—which is not objectification when it comes with appreciating the whole person—to play on second base to be a part of the package. Is that asking for too much?

    I wish there were a way to celebrate the sex appeal of small breasts that didn’t feel like shameful objectification for the author and didn’t involve insulting other women. Somehow, our society is much more comfortable casually objectifying women with large breasts, but with small breasts, we have to be, like, so much more refined about it. We can’t just say, “I think small breasts are freaking hot!” We have to talk about how elegant and athletic and dainty such the women who have them are. It’s odd.

    • “I wish there were a way to celebrate the sex appeal of small breasts that didn’t feel like shameful objectification for the author and didn’t involve insulting other women.”

      I think any celebration of the female form is going to be interpreted as insulting by some women. They can’t seem to get over the word “objectification” without throwing a conniption fit. It strikes me as an epidemic of massive inferiority complexes.

      And for the record “I think breasts are freaking hot!”

      • Thanks for your comment, Jimmy.

        The thing is, when you’re a woman, you receive thousand upon thousands of coded messages to you every day telling you that your looks are all the matter and that you are unattractive. They’re on TV, on the Internet, on Facebook joke and ads, on subways, on public toilet ads, in stores, on magazine racks. These messages also tell you that you only matter if you can attract a man, and you have to compete with other women, who probably have a physical advantage (bustier, thinner, blonder, etc.) to do so. Guys don’t really process these messages, because they aren’t direct at them. They think, “Oh that’s a hot chick on that billboard,” and go on with their day.

        On the flip side, as a woman, you’ll find yourself in a situation where a man is approaching you with an uncomfortable level of sexual entitlement. Trucker might see you dancing to a song in your car and leer and lick and smack his lips at you. A homeless bum might tell you how he intends to perform a sexual act on you. A group of teen boys might lean out of their car and say, “I’d like to like your pussy.” You get ogled, you get unwanted gropes. One of my unwanted gropers was a serial rapist; he followed me around campus and I had to file sexual assault charges. It did not stroke my ego. I got subpoenaed 10 years later to testify in actual rape case against him.

        So, yes, women are sensitive to these issues. I hope you can give us a break. We want to be respected as fully human; we want to make sure we aren’t just reduced to our body parts, and we also don’t want to feel like we have to buy a million products (go on insane diets, get plastic surgery) to be perfect enough to enjoy our sexuality.

        • I do hope women listen to their friends and family more than the billboards though. I try to let my friends know how awesome it is they do stuff, their intelligence etc. If I compliment a woman I try to ensure I also compliment her personality, what she has done etc. The most beautiful women to me have a heart that is beautiful, and that whole package becomes awesome but I have found with some women that they only listen to the compliments about their body I give, ignore the other stuff and assume I only care abut their body. It’s pretty annoying 😛

          It’s extremely annoying though to be lumped in with some negative assumption of why men talk about a woman’s looks, like it or not physical attraction plays a role in dating and thus looks will be complimented. It seems like some women just want you to close your eyes and ignore their looks completely, any mention of it will be met with disgust and calls of objectification. Simply stating looks alone doesn’t make it objectifying, if that person only focuses on them then sure. But even if there is a lot of media that does objectify women, women need to realize that individual men can pay a compliment without ever trying to objectify women.

          If I admire someones beauty, maybe I see a beautiful woman and look for a few seconds it doesn’t mean I am ONLY interested in her looks. After that initial “Wow! she is beautiful” I think “What is she like, wonder what she does, is she nice? etc”.

          There are times where I wonder if I should even compliment physical attributes or just focus ONLY on other attributes. Is this feeling of objectification common to MOST women, or just a few?

          • I have never really liked being complimented on my looks (such as they are) because why compliment someone about something that they didn’t earn, that they just received by the luck of genetics? It’s like praising someone for having wealthy parents. So if I’m walking down the street and a guy says “hey beautiful,” I mean, really, why should I care? Does it make me a better, more valuable, more worthy person? No. I’d much rather be complimented for something I’ve accomplished through effort, not for something I don’t have a lot of control over.

            • In some cases I think compliments on looks are used as an ice breaker. One’s looks are immediately noticeable so it makes sense that someone would comment on them in hopes of getting a conversation started.

              You’re walking down the street and someone wants to start talking to you and express their interest in you. Which are they going to notice on first contact? The fact that you are physically attractive or the fact that you are the CEO of a company you built from the ground up yourself? Yes you put in a lot of effort to build that company but that’s nowhere near as noticeable on first contact as your looks.

              Now once contact has been made and its clear they are still focusing on your looks and not talking about accomplishments (or asking you about yours) then yeah that could be a problem.

              • Mark Neil says:

                There is also the fact that looks can go far beyond just genetics. Women can take a great deal of effort in making themselves up, with the right hair, the right make-up, the right cloths and attitude, one can really build up what was given naturally. Is it not rude to ignore those efforts?

                • True, but what is generally perceived as beauty in women is largely a combination of genetics and youth. Obviously staying in shspe helps one’s figure, but your face, breast size, and basic body structure are genetic, unless you’ve had a lot of cosmetic surgery. Clothes can’t really make someone more beautiful or less beautiful, they can only enhance or hide certain features, to an extent.

                  • Mark Neil says:

                    I’m not sure I agree with your wording, but I get your point.

                    But overall, I think what is defined as beautiful is a combination of both natural and artifical means. For example, a traditionally defined beautiful women doesn’t look nearly so beautiful with tangled hair, old runny makeup and a baggy sweat-suit as a traditionally unattractive large bodied woman all spruced up and in lingerie. So while I do believe what is defined as beautiful certainly plays off genetics and youth, but to limit it to that alone is rather dishonest. It also doesn’t address my point that, should a woman (whether naturally beautiful or not) takes the effort to make herself up as beautiful as she can, is it not rude to ignore that effort?

                    • I think that beautiful women are often beautiful whatever they are wearing. A woman who is not considered conventionally beautiful will look better in nice clothes, but clothes won’t really do much to change whether she’s “beautiful” or not. Again, what most people call beauty is a gift of genetics and youth, for the most part. If a guy on the street tells me I’m beautiful, I doubt it has anything to do with the effort I put into selecting a wardrobe. He probably likes my breasts or thinks I have a pretty face , neither of which were achieved by any merit I have that others don’t.

                    • Mark Neil says:

                      “He probably likes my breasts or thinks I have a pretty face…”

                      If that is how you think of men, then I think we’re done.

                    • @Mark, I’ve occasionally had a guy on the street say “hey beautiful” and I don’t wear makeup, and my clothes tend to be comfortable rather than stylish. I only have 2 features that stand out: I have largish breasts and I’ve been told that my face is pretty. Otherwise, I’m pretty average. So if a guy thinks I’m beautiful, I assume it has something to do with breasts+face. With other women, I’m sure other things are noticed.

                    • Mark Neil says:

                      So, because you have determined yourself to be average all around except for two features, that’s all men are allowed to notice and like about you? seems to me, it’s you who is objectifying yourself, but worst, you’re then blaming men for it. To believe you are nothing more than boobs and a pretty face (and even this you don’t seem so sure on, it’s only because you were told that)? You may not have had any makeup, but how was your hair? your walk? your confidence? Perhaps that man liked women who felt comfortable natural, and felt that, given the pressure on women to make themselves up, he wanted to encourage the natural look? But I suppose none of these could possibly be the case, after all, all you are are boobs and a pretty face.

                    • Ok, well, look, my original point was that I don’t like being complimented for my looks because whether a woman is considered beautiful, or not, is largely a gift of genetics. Yes there may be some effort involved (staying in shape or whatever ) but that only goes so far. Most women who men find beautiful are young, and being young requires no effort whatsoever. So, in response, you pointed out that many woman put tons if effort into looking good. I agree, but I don’t put much effort into it. So, what men find beautiful about me, if they do find me beautiful, does not reflect effort. Even if there’s more to it than boobs & face, like how I walk, or a “natural look,” well that doesn’t require effort either. So we are back to genes again. A man might as well tell me ” you have beautiful DNA!” So my reaction is kind of a shrug. Look, I’m just saying this is how I personally react when men compliment my appearance , others obviously may feel differently.

                    • Mark Neil says:

                      And as a personal reaction, that’s fine. It’s when you start asserting that men shouldn’t do it because “you’re personal reaction” is to dislike it, where so many other women clearly put in the effort to make themselves as beautiful as they can (genetic advantage or otherwise) because they do want it (though they don’t always like how they get it). It goes further when you attribute to all men your own biases based on how you personally choose to interpret and react to such compliments.

                      PS, I still think you’re objectifying yourself worst than any man could.

                    • Well beauty is a positive quality to go for as it’s a partial indicator of “good genes”, healthy offspring since many features that are beautiful are also good traits (symmetry, weight and body type, skin, etc). Not a perfect indicator of health though,.

                  • I never said in any of my comments that men shouldn’t give compliments, I’m just saying that personally I am not impressed if/when men compliment my physical attributes, and there are women who share my feelings on the matter, though others may feel differently. I would rather be complimented on sime that reflects my value as a human being.

            • Beauty is subjective though, what is beautiful to someone could be boring, ugly to another. So the compliment implies that person is attracted to you, something unique from genetics and luck of the draw. Whilst you might find many people attracted to a supermodel they still aren’t a universal beauty.

              Things that make a person beautiful can be gained by hard work such as exercise to keep their weight in check, various makeup, clothing and hair styling, personality n friendly nature. I don’t see the compliment as saying you’re lucky in genetics, I see it as stating that person finds YOU beautiful and that isn’t guaranteed.

              ” Does it make me a better, more valuable, more worthy person? No. I’d much rather be complimented for something I’ve accomplished through effort, not for something I don’t have a lot of control over.”
              Well on first meeting we can’t really understand your personality but later on sure there is a need to compliment all aspects of a person, not just their looks. You also do have control over your looks to a certain extent, hair style, makeup, clothing, what you eat, what you do, taking care of your skin (eg don’t suntan like crazy leaving sundamaged leathery skin), moisturizing that skin, exercise and fitness, sleep (tiredness shows), personal hygiene, and a whole bunch of other stuff.

              Maybe the beautiful compliment should be read as “I think your clothing, makeup, hairstyle, care of your overall body, hygeine, fitness, etc are all beautiful”. A small thing that can separate people in beauty is dressing decently for going to “town/city”. Instead of wearing torn up “yard” clothing people put on something a bit more decent to mix n mingle with, that adds to beauty for many people I think. Ensuring your hair isn’t daggy, frazzled, in need of a cut or trim is another way. Ensuring your skin isn’t like a couch is another, etc.

          • Yeah, I don’t think there’s anything inherently wrong with appreciating beauty, or paying a compliment. My point was objectification is real, and unfortunately, the men who make women feel threatened or uncomfortable make it harder for everyone else. I think compliments are best when they’re given generously without expectations, and aren’t overtly sexual comments like, “Hey Red, you have a famous ass.”

            A guy can also have this weird assumption (which is encouraged by the media) that all women care about what he personally thinks about their looks. Sometimes, I don’t care. So when my former psycho housemate gets in my face and says I’m lucky he finds me so unattractive, I didn’t care. He thought he was throwing verbal rocks at me, though, because his opinion should that power over me. I did care that the handsome and kind guy I was dating at the time hadn’t kissed me good night yet (eventually he did).

            On the flip side, though, I have been involved with really great guys who were trying so hard to not objectify me that I started to wonder if they liked my physically. One would only only say, “You’re so attractive” and not gendered words like “pretty” or “beautiful.” And never ever “sexy,” even though his body clearly thought so. The latest kept saying, thinks like “The first thing I noticed about you was your writing” and “I love who you are–on the inside.” Eventually, he got comfortable enough to tell me he found me “hot” and “beautiful,” but it took a while. Pretty much, if I decide, “Yes, I want to be in relationship where we get to take off our clothes and fool around,” then you have a free pass to express lust. Because I am full of lust, too.

        • Thank you for your response, Lisa 🙂

          “I hope you can give us a break. We want to be respected as fully human; we want to make sure we aren’t just reduced to our body parts, and we also don’t want to feel like we have to buy a million products (go on insane diets, get plastic surgery) to be perfect enough to enjoy our sexuality.”

          You got it! I grew up surrounded by sisters and have seen firsthand the trouble and anxiety they go through to look beautiful. While I don’t understand exactly what you go through, I empathize with the pressure you must feel. But I hope that you can give us men a break and realize that we can view you and respect you as a fully functioning human being but also obsess a little bit over how beautiful you are. I can respect my girlfriend’s analytical and imaginative perspective on life while still fantasizing about her derriere. The two are not mutually exclusive 🙁 And by harshly criticizing men for appreciating the beauty of women you are stamping out something really special. The catcalls are disrespectful, I get that. The groping is reprehensible, I get that. But a simple man admiring the shape of a woman is not something to be rooted out and attacked. We are physically attracted to your bodies. And once upon a time, you liked that about us.

          “The thing is, when you’re a woman, you receive thousand upon thousands of coded messages to you every day telling you that your looks are all the matter and that you are unattractive.”

          I think women don’t realize that when you’re a man, you receive thousands upon thousands of not-so-coded messages to you every day telling you that your wealth and productivity are the only thing that matter about you and that you are not making enough money. That all a woman will ever want you for is what you can provide for her materially and you simply don’t make the cut, and that this in some way takes away your manhood. That if you can’t attract and provide for a woman you are somehow “not a real man.”

          So yea, we understand what social pressure feels like.

          • Mark Neil says:

            Don’t forget the constant reminder that we are morons that don’t belong in the kitchen, raising children or taking care of ourselves because we are so inept.

          • Jimmy, thanks for your thoughtful reply. I realize the messages coded toward men are just a reprehensible and damaging. And also, largely falsehoods.

            I don’t think there’s anything wrong with appreciating beauty, or having your own turn-ons. I do that, too. I do think objectification is real, and it happens when women become dehumanized in a man’s mind (or vice versa). I think it’s entirely different thing from lust, which can go hand-in-hand with respecting a woman as a person and with love even.

            I guess that’s the point I was hoping to make. I wish Mark had a way to say, “Small breasts provoke my lust” without having to couch it in pseudo poetic terms. But it’s hard to talk about lust on its own without sounding like the rest of the person isn’t being taken into account. I understand its difficult. 🙂

    • “I wish there were a way to celebrate the sex appeal of small breasts that didn’t feel like shameful objectification for the author and didn’t involve insulting other women. ”

      I love small breasts! How’s that?

  23. As an owner of two B-cups I guess I’m kind of in the middle. Does that mean no one likes me? 🙁

  24. Thank you.

  25. “And yes, don’t worry, we snuck a good, long look at your body.”

    I read that earlier today, and I can’t get it out of my head. Skeevy doesn’t even come close.

  26. hahaha oh man. this article in a nutshell: “hey, girls, don’t think having big breasts is the most important thing. i mean, your breasts are the most important part of you, and pretty much the only thing i care about, but they don’t have to be BIG.”

  27. Good grief. Like others, when I read the title, I thought here’s a piece on simply loving women; the short, tall, slim, curvy, whatever shape women are in.

    Instead it was just a male expressing his fetish for small breasts. Just as some men are turned on by the turn of an ankle, others dream of ponderous buttocks, Mark Radcliffe is into the athletic look. Nothing wrong with that I guess, but the following line suggests a rather skewed value system:

    “Because you’ve been overlooked by luck before. ”

    No, in fact I wish I could go back to being a perky A-Cup. I have never felt that the fickle finger of beauty has been unkind to me. Yes I was, and still am, athletic. I think breasts simply get in the way of many physical pursuits. In fact would like a breast reduction – but not that desperate to go under the knife either, besides plastic surgeon probably wouldn’t take me seriously anyway – in American measurement I am now a 36 B cup.

    I did, once, get dissed for having small breasts – I was 17 at the time. I had already decided the guy was a waste of time, and he confirmed my opinion after suggesting I “go on the pill, as the hormone would make my breasts grow larger”. That was not devastating to my self esteem, or “unlucky” rather it weeded out the type of male who sees women as a collection of body parts.

    Not saying ALL men are fetishists – please don’t start gender wars here. I was simply hoping for an article with some depth; a bit of cleavage in fact. Instead it was shallow, flabby – not a hint of intellectual athleticism.

    • oh man. Seriously–I got the same feeling. “Oh, you poor small breasted women. Let me take pity on you and your tiny vulnerability. I’m sure you’ll except my creepy, stalkerish praise because you don’t get that kind of attention anywhere else, do you?”

      Every damn day walking to class, actually. Expect usually its from immature frat boys driving by in their trucks hollering shit like this. Not people claiming to be good men.

  28. Justa Mann says:

    I have always cringed when people from this side of the fence make the crazy claim that MRA’s are sexist. I will cringe with more energy than usual in the future. This article is a load of sexist crap.

    I am guessing MRA’s will address this one. It appears GMP is indeed going in a very new direction under its new leadership.

    • Mark Neil says:

      Could you clarify that second paragraph? Cause there are several pro-men’s stance people (I don’t know which identify as MRA’s and which just prefer egalitarian, though I myself identify MRA) who have spoken up about this article. I’m also not sure which “new leadership” you’re referring to. Tom may have taken a firm stance against some of the hardline feminists that once dominated these pages, but the leadership, to the best of my knowledge, didn’t change, they just had an awakening. But they still publish drivel from both camps, as well as others, like this author.

    • John Anderson says:

      @ Justa Mann

      I don’t know if Mark identifies as MRA or not. Many feminists post on this site as well. I’m not even sure that the site is an MRM site in the classic sense. Since GMP is concerned with social justice for men, I can see how you might confuse this with a strictly MRA site. Although many feminist sites claim that they are concerned with equality and justice and breaking down gender roles, justice and equality and breaking down gender barriers for men does seem to be topics restricted to MRM sites.

      Judging from your statement, I don’t think you spend significant time on this site. It’s interesting to me that you decided that Mark was an MRA. Not in the MRM, but specifically an MRA. No preconceived biases there, huh? I myself decided to identify as MRA when I found anti-male sexism present in modern day feminism (note the ACA’s denial of coverage for many men while providing it for women and feminist support of the ACA). Not always blatant sometimes only in omission (note the FBI rape definition that exempts almost every female perpetrator from the count and essentially genders the crime). At times, it is a direct contradiction to what they say. They preach bodily autonomy, but will not support a ban on FGC. I’ve even seen feminists state that they would practice FGC and not for religious reasons. That’s not even the most radical stuff. I’ve seen feminists cheer male rape. I’ve seen feminists advocate for male victims of rape to pay child support to their rapists. Thankfully, this site allows me to meet other feminists, who don’t agree with these things.

      MRA is a fairly recent label so I’m still figuring out what the universal concept of what an MRA is supposed to be, but based on my understanding what Mark wrote would not qualify as MRA regardless of what he identifies with.

  29. I have massive knockers and a PhD from Cambridge. Does that, like, really mess with your head? I’ve never liked all the stereotypes associated with having big breasts and don’t feel I’ve particularly benefited from them, any more than a woman with small breasts will benefit from everyone deciding she’s some bookish wallflower. But hey, thanks for reinforcing the stereotypes all the same. Just what we women need.

  30. Mark Neil says:

    ” If a man truly wants to be a good man, he needs to realize that women are whole people – not simply parts, and he should also speak, write, and act in a way that treats them as such.”

    And likewise, if a woman truly wants to be a good woman, she needs to realize that men are whole people — not simply an ATM and walking hormone, and she should also speak, write and act in a way that treats them as such. Oh wait, is that an offensive statement to make, generalizing like that? I can tell you, it truly bothers me when a woman decides to tell a man that being a “good man” requires him to defer to her expectations.

    “That’s still objectification, buddy. That is still telling me that you fetishize me based on my body parts. ”

    Finding a woman attractive, or even a body part preferential, is not objectifying women. Saying “I looooove A-Cups! Love ’em!” in no way hinders my ability to see the rest, personality and all. After all, saying “I loooove stuffin’! LOVE it!” in no way means I don’t also love the turkey, let alone the rest of the meal (and before you jump on me, if you find the analogy to a meal offensive, too bad, it gets the point across). It also doesn’t mean I can’t like pizza, or cooking things as much as eating them. Any appreciation for the female form is not objectification, and the constant beratement of men for appreciating the female form is what’s driving men away, causing all the “where have all the good men gone?” articles.

    With that said, there were some offensive lines in the article which others have been quite right to object to, but the appreciation of small breasts was not one of them.

    • Firstly, that’s not generalising. That’s stating a principle you should follow. Why are you offended by such a principle if you don’t break it? Secondly, your comparison to women is H I L A R I O U S. Goddamn. Why are you even here?

      If a woman is telling you she finds what you’re saying offensive and objectifying, shut up and listen and don’t tell women how they should feel about your BS.

      You like small breasts. Awesome for you. That doesn’t mean that, in a sea of objectification about women’s bodies of all times, more objectification is good just because it inverts dominant norms about women’s bodies. Doesn’t mean it’s helpful. Doesn’t mean it’s flattering. Doesn’t mean it’s NOT objectification.

      And yeah, analogies to meat do not help you. At all.

      • Mark Neil says:

        “If a woman is telling you she finds what you’re saying offensive and objectifying, shut up and listen and don’t tell women how they should feel about your BS.”

        WOW!!! “Shut up and listen”. So, men’s opinions don’t make a lick of difference to you? A man must differ to a woman’s point of view, regardless of whether that point of view makes any sense, is applicable to all women, or whether or not I even give a damn about your opinion? As a man, I am not entitled to defend my positions, question your concerns or speak up against any unfair assertions? I must simply let YOU define what a good man is, without question, without being granted any feedback. yeah, ok.

        How about I tell you to shut up and listen when I tell you that appreciating looks does not in any way prevent me from appreciating other aspects as well. Oh, but that would be offensive and abusive if I did it, because I’m a guy and on the wrong side of your double standard. I should just accept that, as a man, I’m not entitled to an opinion about anything YOU personally don’t want me to have an opinion on. Apparently, if I don’t treat you as an amorphous disembodied conciousness, I’m being offensive, well, too bad buttercup. If you want to get pissy at every guy who has eyes and enough self confidence to openly state what he likes to see, well, that’s your problem, and your bitter angry life to lead.

        I also have to add, if I shouldn’t tell women how they should feel about my BS, why then should I shut up and listen to you tell me how I should feel about your BS? Your telling me how I should feel, act, speak, etc in order to be a good man and not make you feel bad by noticing the looks so many women CHOOSE to put so much time and effort into. This is so hypocritical it is bordering on the insane.

        “Why are you even here?”

        Because there is a lot to learn, and a lot to teach. Because I don’t like the constant double standards, such as those you demonstrate several times through this post. Because I find some articles amuzing, and some I find to be completely off the mark, and generally enjoy the conversations and debates the raise in most of them, though sometimes there are overly selfrightious twits that think themselves and/or their gender deserve to be given far more credibility than the other gender and never having actually earned that credibility… in the name of equality of course, because everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others, right?

        I’m done shutting up for now.

        • Mark Neil says:

          PS, since when is stuffing, mashed potatoes, cranberry sauce, turnips, pie etc considered meat? My analogy was a thanksgiving MEAL, not just the turkey, as appropriate an analogy that may be for some.

        • Come on folks no need to get the blood pressure rising on this.

        • Mark,

          So, men’s opinions don’t make a lick of difference to you? … As a man, I am not entitled to defend my positions, question your concerns or speak up against any unfair assertions? I must simply let YOU define what a good man is, without question, without being granted any feedback. yeah, ok.

          She wasn’t talking about men though… she was talking about women… about herself. Honestly, your bluster here is kinda over-the-top and unnecessary. Notice she’s just objecting to being objectified. She made no opinions on what defines a “good man”.

          And ironically enough, she’s doing the exact thing in her comment that you advocate you should be entitled to in yours. (See the above quotation.) She’s a woman and so I have ZERO problem with her telling me what’s offensive to women/to her as a woman and what is or isn’t objectifying to women. Personally I agree with her, and I said as much in my initial comment — which is buried under the sea of newer comments.

          That said, if she WERE to make an opinion about men, or what constitutes male objectification, I’d feel entitled — like you are right now — to judge that opinion and tell her if she’s wrong + why.

          However, since your comment is so long and deals with mostly a single misunderstanding, I’ll repeat one salient point:

          JO’S COMMENT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT CONSTITUTES A GOOD MAN. SHE DOESN’T MENTION IT ALL. SHE’S TALKING ABOUT WOMEN, NOT MEN. CALM DOWN.

          • Mark Neil says:

            “She wasn’t talking about men though… she was talking about women… about herself. ”

            The post I was replying to** (but didn’t get included into the string), the one I directly quoted, discussing what a good man really is, very much WAS discussing men. Furthermore, telling me to shut up and listen is very much directed at me and men.

            ** http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/in-praise-of-small-breasted-women/comment-page-3/#comment-151175

            “JO’S COMMENT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT CONSTITUTES A GOOD MAN.”

            Except for the fact it was a response to my response to a woman telling us what it means to be a good man, that basically told me to shut up and listen to what that other woman telling me what a good man is.

            Now, in case your threads aren’t stacking proper, here is how the conversation went:

            Leslie said what it means to be a good man: http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/in-praise-of-small-breasted-women/comment-page-3/#comment-151175

            I told leslies she doesn’t get to tell us what makes a good man, especially when it is so self serving: http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/in-praise-of-small-breasted-women/comment-page-3/#comment-151216

            Jo told me to shut up and listen when a woman is speaking to me: http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/in-praise-of-small-breasted-women/comment-page-3/#comment-152406

            So please, make sure you have all the facts before screaming in caps at me.

            • Mark,

              The post I was replying to** (but didn’t get included into the string), the one I directly quoted, discussing what a good man really is, very much WAS discussing men. Furthermore, telling me to shut up and listen is very much directed at me and men.

              Except that that post was by an entirely different person. I assume you realize that. Notably, Jo didn’t reiterate her points. Jo made her own points, which had nothing to do with your subsequent explosion.

              Now, I find it interesting that you characterize a woman telling you not to tell HER how to feel about objectification = her telling you to shut up. Since when is asserting a person’s right to represent their gender and their gender is presented the same as silencing? We don’t allow women to decide what a man is or how men should feel about anything. You said as much yourself in your comment to Leslie. So I’m confused why you’re suddenly talking about both sides of your mouth, essentially holding a double standard in this case?

              Another problem with your comment is that you’re acting as if Leslie and Jo are the same person, that their comments both agree with one another. But that’s a false equivalency. Jo is not Leslie. One woman’s opinion is not automatically equal to a different woman’s later opinion, especially when the later opinion’s content has nothing to do with the earlier one. Do you understand?

              Personally I find this tactic to be distasteful, as it often used by radfems to shutdown discussions of MRM issues. They’ll hold up one opinion on a topic as representative of later opinions that are fundamentally different in their take on the aforementioned topic.

              So please, make sure you have all the facts before screaming in caps at me.

              So apparently I do have my facts in order and apparently you don’t… As such I believe my LOUD (not screaming) message stands. Calm down and think rationally. You’ll find this is a non-issue. Nobody’s silencing you. Nobody’s shutting you down. You are not being attacked as a man, for being a man, or for having an opinion as a man. Jo doesn’t want you to tell her (or women) how to feel about objectification. You don’t want Leslie to tell you how to be a good man. Neither you or Jo want to be told by the opposite gender how to be about your own gender. You both actually agree!

              So, please, calm down.

              • Mark Neil says:

                “Except that that post was by an entirely different person”

                I do, I even acknowledge it in my breackdown, with links to each post. What you are failing to notice is that Jo’s response to me (which wasn’t in response to her) made the assertion that I should listen to what the other poster was telling us about what makes a good man. She was defending that assertion. Moreover, she did so by telling me to “SHUT UP AND LISTEN”.

                “Now, I find it interesting that you characterize a woman telling you not to tell HER how to feel about objectification = her telling you to shut up.”

                No actually, I characterize a woman telling me to shut up and listen = to her telling me to shut up (and listen). Did you even read her post, or the direct quotes I added to mine? Or are you just coming to her rescue, all white knight like. Here, let me repeat what she said, and I’ll include the link to her post AGAIN so you can check for yourself:

                “If a woman is telling you she finds what you’re saying offensive and objectifying, shut up and listen and don’t tell women how they should feel about your BS.”
                http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/in-praise-of-small-breasted-women/comment-page-3/#comment-152406

                “So apparently I do have my facts in order”

                Given you still don’t seem to realize my getting upset at her for telling me to shut up and listen was because she actually told me to shut up and listen, not because I interpreted it from some “don’t objectify women” opinion, I’d seriously have to question if you really do have all the facts.

                And enough with the “Calm down”. It is an underhanded tactic of trying to assert some kind of unprovoked hostility on my part, implying an irrational mindset. It is an attempt to shut down discussion. The problem is, you are doing it AFTER you have told me I’m wrong.

                • Mark,

                  What you are failing to notice is that Jo’s response to me (which wasn’t in response to her) made the assertion that I should listen to what the other poster was telling us about what makes a good man. She was defending that assertion. </i.

                  No, she wasn't. She was making a different assertion and talking about a different point. Apparently you didn't understand my previous comments, since you said:

                  he can’t even seem to realize that the “shut up and listen” isn’t an interpretation, but an actual quote)Let me try again with you:

                  If a woman is telling you she finds what you’re saying offensive and objectifying, shut up and listen and don’t tell women how they should feel about your BS.”

                  She was saying you should listen to her — and to women — when she/they say how they feel about objectification. Period. Full stop. Fin.

                  So why are you ignoring the first part and third parts of her statement and moving straight to the “shut up” portion? Are you merely looking for any reason to be offended and explode as you have done?

                  I’d not have been so hostile without the shut up and listen. Such a comment clearly intends to end discussion, and I don’t accept being silenced like that.

                  I guess I just answered my above question. Are you really making a tone argument? Are you really upset that someone else is upset at being told how they should feel about objectification? Notice no one has “silenced” you, evidenced by how you are here still discussing the issue. More importantly, telling someone not to tell them how to feel is not attempting to end discussion, but to end insults. I feel the same way when women tell me how to feel about misandry, and so I tell them to shut up to.

                  Did you even read her post, or the direct quotes I added to mine? Or are you just coming to her rescue, all white knight like. Here, let me repeat what she said, and I’ll include the link to her post AGAIN so you can check for yourself:

                  I read the whole exchange. I read your links. I even reread it to be sure I wasn’t missing anything. I’m not “White Knighting”, though your accusation to that effect is very telling. Let me clear something up for you: it is sexist (both misandric and misogynistic) to dismiss a man’s arguments simply because he is disagreeing with another man in favor of a woman. That you’re calling me a White Knight highlights my point that you are not thinking rationally. Like, at all.

                  So let me, for the last time, repeat myself:

                  Calm down. Think rationally. Try to see that both you and Jo actually agree! Look at the facts. It’s incredibly disappointing to see someone so committed to their outrage (or faux-outrage?) that they can’t see reality staring them in the face.

                  But in the end, I can console you so much. If you want to be dishonestly angry, then that’s your prerogative. I said my peace. Hopefully in the future you’ll be less hasty and more discerning? If not, I worry you’ll inevitably become embittered.

                  Take care, man.

                  • Mark Neil says:

                    “She was saying you should listen to her”

                    No, she is saying I should SHUT UP and listen to her. She is saying when a woman speaks, and man should not be aloud to have his say. You accuse me of ignoreing the first and third parts, while you ignore the second, but the first leads into the second, it gives the reasoning why a man should shut up, AKA, because a woman is saying something. It is then compounded by the final part which establishes a double standard, a woman should be not be told how they should feel, but a man should shut up and listen while a woman tells a man how HE should feel.

                    “So why are you ignoring the first part and third parts of her statement and moving straight to the “shut up” portion?”

                    Because I didn’t, but the shut up portion was what made the whole part offensive. Telling me I shouldn’t ignore what a woman gets offended about is one thing, tell me to shut up and listen when a woman speaks is something else entirely. So I need to ask, why are you ignoring that she actually said shut up and listen.

                    “Are you really upset that someone else is upset at being told how they should feel about objectification?”

                    1: I did not tell anyone how they should “feel” about objectification, I objected and defined that appreciation for one aspect of something does not preclude me from appreciating other aspects as well. Objectification is not “I like XYZ”, Objectification is “you are XYZ”. I like breasts does not mean all you are is breasts. The later is objectification, the former is not, and this clarification says nothing about how you should feel about ether assertion.

                    2: I’m upset about being told I’m not allowed to have a say, that, when a woman talks, I should shut up and listen. Have you dug in your heels so much you’re unwilling to see why that particular phrase is so offensive?

                    ” Notice no one has “silenced” you, evidenced by how you are here still discussing the issue.”

                    Really? I thought we were discussing my getting offended by “shut up and listen”, not about objectification. So between the complete change of topic, and your continual “calm downs and accusations of irrationality, yes, the end result is my opinion on objectification has been silenced.

                    “More importantly, telling someone not to tell them how to feel is not attempting to end discussion, but to end insults.”

                    But as you, yourself acknowledged, I never told Jo how to feel, I was speaking to Leslie when she came in and told me to shut up and listen when a woman was speaking.

                    “I feel the same way when women tell me how to feel about misandry, and so I tell them to shut up to.”

                    Then you are wrong for that too. Shut up is nothing more than an attempt to distract the topic away from rational discussion and into a flame war. that is precisely what happened here, and worst off, Jo doesn’t even need to participate, since you jumped up to protect her like a good little boy. Oh, your repeated calm downs and think rationally are used for the exact same purpose. So was my cupcake remark, but I considered the conversation over by then anyways, given the shut up and listen comment.

                    “I’m not “White Knighting””

                    You’ve ignored her comments in favour of defending her. At no point have you even acknowledged that, regardless of what she intended, saying “shut up and listen” is not a good way to promote discussion. You have left her entirely blameless in favour of focusing, not on my opinion on objectification, but on my taking offense to a very hostile phrase. So I very much feel you are white knighting, shut up and listen and don’t tell me how I should feel about your choice to argue with me.

                    “Let me clear something up for you: it is sexist (both misandric and misogynistic) to dismiss a man’s arguments simply because he is disagreeing with another man in favor of a woman.”

                    It is also sexist to villianize a males anger and excuse the poor behaviour of the woman that caused that anger. And to continue to do so, never once acknowledging that that anger may be justified.

                    “So let me, for the last time, repeat myself:

                    Calm down. Think rationally.”

                    That’s the third time you have accused me of acting irrationally (not including those implied within the “calm down” remarks themselves.). Clearly you have already dismissed me and what I have to say. You are unwilling to accept anything I’ve said is anything more than an irrational reaction. You have assumed that your position is superior to mine, and should I just calm down and defer to your greater wisdom, I will see that for myself, but you still continue to ignore the hostility of the shut up and listen comment, and have given no rational reason for doing so, only the fact you are guilty of doing it yourself (so of sourse you are unwilling to see it as the hostility it is).

                    Since you clearly don’t care to have a discussion about objectification, and you clearly aren’t willing to acknowledge the wrongs I replied to (regardless of how wrong you feel my reply was), then clearly all you want to do is protect the poor women from my anger…(AKA white knighting), when the best way to do that would be to shut up and go away. I’m curious if, despite your claim to “for the last time”, can you actually do that (I suspect you can, given this post was largely about you, not Jo, and so long as the heat is off her, you’ve done your knightly duty and sacrificed yourself for her. Good boy.

                    ” Think rationally. Try to see that both you and Jo actually agree! ”

                    Odd, I don’t think we do, because, you see, I think men should ALSO have an opinion, and be allowed to speak it. After all, the shut up and listen part couldn’t possibly been about giving leslie an opportunity to speak her mind, since, being this is text, I’m not capable of talking over her and denying her the chance to speak, so the ONLY explanation is that I am not to ever speak against such assertions, AKA, I’m not allowed an opinion. And as irrational as you say I am, I still have enough faculties to know that’s not what I think.

                    “Look at the facts. It’s incredibly disappointing to see someone so committed to their outrage (or faux-outrage?) that they can’t see reality staring them in the face.”

                    Is this really supposed to convince me of anything other than personal opinions of you which would break the forum rules should I describe them? What’s disappointing is that, until now, I thought what you had to say was typically fairly reasonable. I didn’t always agree, but we don’t need to, but right from the start, you have done nothing but excuse Jo’s hostility while condemning my hostility in response to hers. You have basically come to her defense because I got angry she slapped me.

                    And I don’t give a damn about your disappointment, this also is another derailing tactic. your posts have been rife with them since the start.

                    You can take your console and stuff it, because all it is is another attempt to shame me and silence me, which is no better than Jo’s shut up and listen.

                    “If you want to be dishonestly angry, then that’s your prerogative.”

                    And yet, you’ve spent several posts telling me it’s not, tat I shouldn’t be angry.

                    “I said my peace. Hopefully in the future you’ll be less hasty and more discerning?”

                    If that means I’ll excuse such comments as jo’s, then you’re going to continue to be disappointed.

                    “If not, I worry you’ll inevitably become embittered.”

                    Stuff your shaming language, I’m sick of it.

          • Honestly I think Mark would not have blown up (not as much perhaps) if it wasn’t for Jo’s “shut up and listen”. (And your all caps probably aren’t helping either.)

            • Mark Neil says:

              I’d not have been so hostile without the shut up and listen. Such a comment clearly intends to end discussion, and I don’t accept being silenced like that. It’s also why I’m disliking the whole “calm down” approach Mr white knight is taking (not so much the caps, but capping CALM DOWN is very annoying, given he can’t even seem to realize that the “shut up and listen” isn’t an interpretation, but an actual quote)

            • Mark has a point though, pointing out physical attributes ALONE doesn’t make it objectification. He’d have to only ever point out physical attributes in his life or care mostly about them, or write how the author wrote, to make it objectifying.

              Basically talking about your fav boobies = fine, normal, talking ONLY about your fav boobies and ignoring other qualities in women = objectifying. Of course this also relies on subjective feelings and 2 people can read a comment differently, to one it might be objectifying and to another it could be fine. A question to ask is are some women seeing too much objectification in everything? Are they seeing it where it’s not intended nor shown?

              It’s important for men to acknowledge a woman’s feelings but she needs to afford him the same respect, she needs to understand his intentions could be completely pure at heart and stating I love small boobies ALONE doesn’t have to mean he only cares about her body.

              “If a woman is telling you she finds what you’re saying offensive and objectifying, shut up and listen and don’t tell women how they should feel about your BS.”
              But what if she is seeing it where it isn’t? Projecting her own BS onto him, assuming he is being offensive when he’s not actually objectifying? Do we need to shutup and listen still, or would it be better for both to talk about it, have him understand her and her understand him? We may live in a sea of objectification of women in the media but it’s NO EXCUSE to simply ignore a man’s intention or hyperfocus on a few words whilst ignoring the rest of what he likes. I’ve had experiences where I’ve complimented a woman on both her physical and psychological attributes, her achievements as well but she’s glossed over the last 2 in favour of feeling objectified by the first. It’s annoying as hell for someone to not only misinterpret you, but become offended by your words whilst ignoring half of them.

              • Mark has a point though, pointing out physical attributes ALONE doesn’t make it objectification.
                Oh I don’t doubt that.

                Its just that once the shut up and listen came out the chances of civil conversation sunk lower than the Titanic. Even if I were totally disagreeing with Mark I wouldn’t have come at him like that. This could have turned out very differently if the hostility hadn’t have come at him like that, because as you can see he responded with hostility in turn.

                And honestly I was hoping that a mod would have jumped in. Maybe there were none around when this went down.

                • Yup, tone can kill convos quick. It’s why I’ve done the rewording game before, reword a good but hostile comment into something less volatile so others can understand it better without being triggered into defensiveness.

    • Mark:
      What is it with men and comparing women to meat? I do admit the turkey analogy is a little better than the chicken nugget one from another thread.

      • Mark Neil says:

        Since when are stuffing, mashed potatoes, turnips, cranberry sauce, apple pie and icecream meat? You see, I see women as a whole diversity of different things, brought together into a wonderful combination of stimulating deliciousness. The fact I choose to use a thanksgiving dinner for my analogy is because I happened to be eating stuffing at the time (stove top, unfortunately).

        I could ask, why is it some women can’t understand the concept of an analogy, being to demonstrate an issue outside of the dynamics it was previously being discussed in? By using food as an analogy, I remove the gender dynamic, while still getting the idea across… unless someone chooses to inject the gender dynamic back in by accusing me of equating women with meat. I need to ask, do you see yourself as meat, and so associate any discussion of meat as being about you? I suppose it’s lucky I didn’t talk about steak vs roast beef vs hamburger, to add the COW implication to the meat one.

        • Mark Neil:
          I see what you are saying, but comparing women to food especially MEAT makes it seem like woman are here to fulfill a man’s (sexual) appetite,. Women are like an assortment of flavors to be devoured. Food analogies are not the way to go not even by a long shot.

          • Mark Neil says:

            When discussing personal tastes and preferences, food analogies are very much appropriate. If you choose to read more into it than what the analogy was about, that is the projection of your own biases, and not my problem. This is especially noticeable given you’re still attributing what I said as comparing women to MEAT when the very first food I said was stuffing (you do realize stuffing is made largely of bread and spices, no meat necessary).

            I’m not going to apologize because you don’t like my choice of analogy.

    • Mark Neil:
      and walking hormone, and she should also speak, write and act in a way that treats them as such. Oh wait, is that an offensive statement to make, generalizing like that?”

      It would actually be easier to the atm than judged on beauty which is luck of the draw. A woman can get help from a plastic surgeon to create a better body, aside from that she’s screwed.

      There is a reason men are stereotyped as walking hormone is because a lot of men act like a walking hormone. For example, when I used to date the vast majority of men wanted sex on the first date. Right off the bat they let me know they are primarily interested in one thing. The last date I went on the guy admitted he just wanted to have “mad passionate sex,” and of course, no mention of actually getting to know me for who i really am. So there is probably a reason so many women here seem sensitive to being objectified.

      I can tell you, it truly bothers me when a woman decides to tell a man that being a “good man” requires him to defer to her expectations.”

      …But i’ve asked men on how I can better myself. I dont necessarily find suggestions from the opposite sex offensive.

      and the constant beratement of men for appreciating the female form is what’s driving men away, causing all the “where have all the good men gone?” articles.

      And how is omen expecting to be treated like whole people driving men away?

      • Mark Neil says:

        So basically, you’re justifying and making excuses for stereotyping and objectifying men?

        “But i’ve asked men on how I can better myself. I dont necessarily find suggestions from the opposite sex offensive.”

        1: You asked, weren’t told. 2: where their suggestions to defer to a man’s expectations? Is it not possible that the reason you were not offended was because their response didn’t relegate you to the role of servant or unpaid intern?

        “And how is omen expecting to be treated like whole people driving men away?”

        By ignoring that you are also a sum of parts and whinging whenever someone else notes those parts, by claiming acknowledging the parts precludes one from acknowledging the whole. Since you don’t like food analogies, how about sports? I can look at the Leafs and say, I think Lupul is a good player. This doesn’t mean I don’t think anyone else is a good player, and it doesn’t say anything about what I think of the team as a whole. When a man says “I like small breasts”, and gets attacked and accused for objectifying women for it, despite the fact he didn’t objectify women, at no point did he do anything to women except acknowledge there is a type of breast he has a preference for, which happens to be relevant to women due to them, you know, having breast… it kinda makes men want to walk away, because we all know, standing up for himself will only make things worst.

        • Mark Neil:

          “So basically, you’re justifying and making excuses for stereotyping and objectifying men?”

          A lot of times stereotypes have some kind of truth in them, and there’s a reason men are seen as walking hormones ie there own behavior. Seriously, am i not supposed to notice?

          “where their suggestions to defer to a man’s expectations? ”
          Actually, in some ways yes..

          It seems like a lot of the criticism was the tone of the article.
          “You’re a small breasted, deformed creature, but it’s ok because I like you.”
          I think the author meant well, it just came out very offensive.

          • Mark Neil says:

            “A lot of times stereotypes have some kind of truth in them, ”

            I can remember that as a valid excuse next time I hear a complaint about stereotyping women then? For example, if someone stereotypes women as gold diggers, and a feminist complains that’s stereotyping, I’m allowed to jump in and say “A lot of times stereotypes have some kind of truth in them, and there’s a reason women are seen as gold diggers”? Or is this just setting up another double standard?

            “Actually, in some ways yes..”

            In some ways, but not in it’s entirety? It wasn’t “If you want to be a good women, you need to treat your man like the king and speak, write, and act in a way that treats them as such”?

            You also said you don’t “necessarily ” get offended by the suggestions? Do these suggestion that don’t fit into the “necessarily ” exception include the ones where you are expected to defer to a man? Does the fact you asked for input not dull some of the offense (after all, you asked for it)? Keep in mind where the conversation came from, don’t take the question purely on its own, without context.

            ‘It seems like a lot of the criticism was the tone of the article.”

            Oh, I agree. I’ve said a few times now the author did not do a very good job at getting his intentions across, and that what came out was pretty offensive. My problem is when that turns into “any man acknowledge women have bodies and are more than just an amorphous conciseness without physical form, and choose to note that he finds aspects of those bodies to be appealing, attractive, whatever, that he is now objectifying women” or worst, demands that (or makes assertions we can only be real men if) we don’t do that ( “Acknowledge women have bodies …. consciousness …. appealing … objectify women”).

            Please, do keep that in mind. I am not defending this article, but I do find too many of the responses go TOO far in their criticism of men in general, and of what objectification is or isn’t.

            • A lot of times stereotypes have some kind of truth in them, and there’s a reason women are seen as gold diggers”? Or is this just setting up another double standard?”

              I can actually see where some men are coming from with the gold digger idea (although i think the concept of gold digger is more about keep women from having any kind of standards for men ). I have posted criticisms of women on this site, so I’m not opposed to men posting criticisms of women.

              If you want to be a good women, you need to treat your man like the king and speak, write, and act in a way that treats them as such”?
              Actually, not quite that but something along those lines.

              My problem is when that turns into “any man acknowledge women have bodies and are more than just an amorphous conciseness without physical form, and choose to note that he finds aspects of those bodies to be appealing, attractive, whatever, that he is now objectifying women” or worst, demands that (or makes assertions we can only be real men if) we don’t do that ( “Acknowledge women have bodies …. consciousness …. appealing … objectify women”).

              Men have whole culture devoted to treating women like meat, so of course, some woman somewhere is going to feel objectified when men start talking about womens bodies.

  31. I will assume the best and assume that your motives were good in writing this. However, I think you missed something? As a woman, the resulting article only objectifies me. If a man truly wants to be a good man, he needs to realize that women are whole people – not simply parts, and he should also speak, write, and act in a way that treats them as such.
    SMBC’s response (linked above) to this article was great, and Dianna also said it fantastically well, here – http://diannaeanderson.net/?p=1149
    “The answer to the problem of objectifying women is not to objectify them in another manner. It is not to say to a woman, “Oh, you’re feeling bad because you’re not a C or D cup? Let me tell you, I loooooove A-cups! Love ‘em! I think all women with A-cups are fantastic!”
    That’s still objectification, buddy. That is still telling me that you fetishize me based on my body parts. Rather than viewing me as a whole person, you say, “But I like small breasted women!””

    • I honestly think you’re giving it an oversimplified read here, Leslie. I say throughout that it’s not just your physicality I’m attracted to. It’s a combination of various traits I’ve often found associated with small-breasted women. I admit it’s just a perceived pattern, I don’t state it’s an absolute constant and admit it’s fraught with exceptions, it’s just my experience. But to truly objectify you would be to treat you as nothing more than an object to be sexually desired. That’s not happening here. The admiration I’m talking about is about the way you live your life, your adventuresome spirit, your character, your actions, your passions, your energy. That’s what I love you for. As do a ton of other guys who don’t fawn over the first “rack” that comes along.

      • @Mark, you just keep digging yourself in deeper with this idea that small breasted women are superior human beings. It’s really, really offensive.

  32. elizabeth says:

    I will never, never, never understand our society’s obsession with breasts. Every second person (or more, for that matter!) out there has them. Other mammals have them. They’re not different or fascinating or original. They’re designed to feed babies. I don’t care what size my breasts are or what my body looks like, you creep me out beyond all reason if you’re just staring at my exterior and don’t really see me as a person.

    • “They’re designed to feed babies.”

      Alright yeah, but they’re also sensitive enough that physical stimulation can turn a woman on.

      • I would go farther and say no, they’re not “designed” to do anything, because that tends to imply both a designer, and some exclusive purpose that the designer had in mind. Evolution does not work by design, or put limits that say a given trait or anatomical structure can only serve one purpose or function. To say that breasts are only for feeding babies is a moral judgment, not an anatomical fact.

        • So very true…I glossed right over the use of the term ‘designed.’ I think I’m just so used to seeing it.

        • They are for fat storage,too

          • I agree, I’ll never understand it either even within myself. Thats right, when I see a woman who “Fills out her sweater” quite nicely, it draws my attention, but I honestly can’t tell you why. It’s not like breasts make a woman better in bed. There just ‘Ornamentation’ so to speak. It’s kind of like when women say “size doesn’t matter” but yet they get all ‘ weak in the knees’ when they see a 8″ cock and some washboard abs to go with it.t least I see the advantage in that.

    • While I can respect your personal thoughts on breasts if one were to try to make a sweeping generalization (but I don’t think you are doing that here) why not extend that to other parts.

      1. Why pay attention to a guy’s nipples? They don’t even have the usage of feeding babies.
      2. Why enjoy looking at someone’s ass cheeks?
      3. Why be sexually attracted to someone because of their feet?

      But like HeatherN says a lot of women like having their breasts touched and stimulated. So why is it wrong that guys want to touch and stimulate them (unless its that hard to fathom that there are guys that are turned on by the idea that some women are turned on by breast stimulation)? Of course that doesn’t justify reducing you to your cup size, just why people would be interested in your breasts.

      • Great comment, Danny. This is why evo pysch (while informative) is often a poor way to look at human and sexual relations. Me getting turned on by the way your toes look has nothing to do with our offspring. My ass cheeks have very little to do with how I’ll raise our baby or if I get pregnant or not when you deposit sperm in me, but you might appreciate them anyways. My breasts are designed to feed babies…that doesn’t mean I don’t want them groped by my man.

    • Mark Neil says:

      “They’re not different or fascinating”

      Says the person who has them to the people who don’t.

      • Its not even like that either Mark (because I bet money there are plenty of gay women that like breasts).

        Maybe its more like, “Says the person who is not interested in them.”?

        • Mark Neil says:

          Yeah, but as much as Gay women might like them, I am unsure if they find them different and fascinating… after all, they have their own, so likely quelled the fascination when discovering themselves. I could be wrong, not being a gay woman and all, but that was my reasoning for not being inclusive this time.

          • Ah true. And I bet there’s probably a gay woman or two around here that might shed some light from that angle.

            • Could you perhaps be referring to moi? lol.

              So obviously I can’t speak for every lesbian or bi woman out there…because, for starters, I don’t know them all and second, we aren’t all the same. 😉 But yeah, when I first started realizing I was gay I had a heck of a time making sure I didn’t end up talking to a woman’s breasts. I mean not always, but it did happen quite a few times.

              As for why…well I don’t know, really. I mean another woman’s breasts don’t hold the exotic appeal they might do for men, because yes I do have them. But on the other hand, I know just how awesome it can feel to have your breasts stimulated. Is it because my culture has told me that I’m supposed to find breasts attractive if I’m attracted to women? I dunno, maybe that’s part of it…but if so then that’s part of it for men too.

              I’m sure part of it is to do with the way our culture tells women to cover their breasts. A woman can’t go walking around with a completely bare chest, because we’ve created a connection between breasts and sex. And, lesbian though I may be, I’m just as encultured by that. I see breasts as sexual parts of a woman’s body…and so to see cleavage or bare breasts does spark sexual thoughts.

              But like, let’s take this even further…why do I find a woman’s vulva attractive, if I’ve got one of my own? Why do gay men care about the appearance of another man’s penis if he’s got one of his own? And really, for straight people, is the attraction to the other person’s genitals and secondary sex characteristics really all about how you don’t have the same ones? I’d think it’s more then that.

              Also, I’d like to be clear, that (much like straight men) I’m not walking around transfixed by every bit of cleavage I see. We’re all thinking people, and we’re all able to set our more base urges aside and function in the real world.

              • Why yes I was.

                So obviously I can’t speak for every lesbian or bi woman out there…because, for starters, I don’t know them all and second, we aren’t all the same.
                Of course not. I think its quite clear that Mark here or Josh at his post don’t speak for all men.

                I just note that often times when talking about things you tend to offer a different angle (usually that of a gay person and a gay woman specifically). I don’t expect you to speak for all gay women, just don’t want you to feel excluded.

                I dunno, maybe that’s part of it…but if so then that’s part of it for men too.
                Agreed. This conversation is pretty much about breast so chances are we’re not hearing much from the guys looking at dat ass, doz feet, dat hair, doz eyes, etc…

                And besides if you hadn’t have chimed we might not have gotten this wonderful bit:
                But like, let’s take this even further…why do I find a woman’s vulva attractive, if I’ve got one of my own? Why do gay men care about the appearance of another man’s penis if he’s got one of his own? And really, for straight people, is the attraction to the other person’s genitals and secondary sex characteristics really all about how you don’t have the same ones? I’d think it’s more then that.
                That’s pretty deep and may be a question that really gets down to what sexual attraction is all about. I’m betting that for most straight guys they aren’t attracted to women just because they have a vagina and vulva (if that were the case the the thought that “men are slaves to their lust” would have beaten out the idea that “men are so picky about women they invoke -isms toward women” years ago but they both exist).

                • Yeah I think I failed to use proper winky emotes with the bit about “I don’t know them all.” I was making a joke…didn’t actually think you (or anyone else) thought that. 🙂

                  • “I’m sure part of it is to do with the way our culture tells women to cover their breasts. A woman can’t go walking around with a completely bare chest, because we’ve created a connection between breasts and sex.”

                    Great quote. I honestly think men (and women) wouldn’t have such an obsession with certain body parts if they weren’t so taboo. I’m straight, but I can’t help but be turned on by bare breasts, ass, or vulva, despite the fact that I have my own. I think men would be far less transfixed with nipples if they just saw more.

              • Mark Neil says:

                “Could you perhaps be referring to moi? lol.”

                You’re gay? Really? Why didn’t you ever say anything? 😛

                “I had a heck of a time making sure I didn’t end up talking to a woman’s breasts. I mean not always, but it did happen quite a few times.”

                That is actually rather reassuring. I don’t know why.

                “I’m sure part of it is to do with the way our culture tells women to cover their breasts. A woman can’t go walking around with a completely bare chest, because we’ve created a connection between breasts and sex.”

                Despite elizabeth’s assertion that breast are just everyday things not to be seen as any different than any other body part (like a nose or hand), people, everyone, man and woman, see breasts as a sexual part of the body. I say this because, in Toronto at the very least, women CAN walk around with a completely bare chest (subject to certain limitations/dress codes on private property, often applying equaly to men… Oh, and weather, being winters can get a little chilly), but they don’t, except on rare occassions to make a point (and those willing to go at these rare occassions still don’t day to day). This reaffirms that, even women see their own breasts as sexual body parts of the body. So it gets annoying when those same women complain about men seeing them as such too.

                “why do I find a woman’s vulva attractive, if I’ve got one of my own?”

                I just want to clarify my stance, given the “have one, don’t have one” aspect of the conversation. It was the “breasts shouldn’t be seen as fascinating” implication I was addressing with “says the one that has them to those that don’t”. What one finds attractive or appealing, and what one finds fascinating are completely different.

                That said, while you do have a vah-jay-jay, given the awkwardness of getting a good bead on it, it may actually draw some fascination as well as attraction. just my thoughts.

                • “That said, while you do have a vah-jay-jay, given the awkwardness of getting a good bead on it, it may actually draw some fascination as well as attraction. just my thoughts.”

                  Except that still doesn’t address the idea of gay men caring about the appearance of other men’s penises. In fact, it’s something of a stereotype that all gay guys care about is the physical appearance of other men…not just penises, but chest, bum, etc. Personally, I think it’s to do with the way we still think that men care more about the physical aspects of sex and women care more about the emotional aspects of sex. So we assume that, of course, gay men care about the physical aspects of their partners…and we assume that, of course, lesbians don’t care about the physical aspects of their partners.

                  • Mark Neil says:

                    OK, I’ll try one more time, and clarify definitions of what I mean.

                    When I see the word fascination, I understand that to mean an overwhelming curiosity and quizzical interest with the defined something. So when someone with breasts tells me (someone without breasts) that I shouldn’t find any fascination with breasts because half the population has them, I find that an odd assertion, given the half that DOESN’T have them are the ones she’s telling shouldn’t be fascinated. Note, being fascinated with breasts doesn’t preclude ALSO being attracted to them.

                    Now, what YOU’RE describing is attraction, which is finding an appeal with the target. One can be both fascinated with something, and find it attractive/appealing. Or one can find it appealing but not fascinating. My presumption was that men fell into the former category (more often than not) while lesbian are more likely to fall into the later (though, again, I am not a gay women to know for certain).

                    I just want to make it clear what I am saying, because it seems you think I’m saying lesbian’s shouldn’t be attracted to the same things men are, and vice versa for gay men.

                    • Ah I get what you’re saying. And, to be clear, I sort of took your comment and extrapolated on it in my reply…I didn’t actually think you were suggesting that lesbians and gay men shouldn’t be physically attracted to the same attributes that straight women and men are. I’ve just heard that argument before, and I’ve always thought it was strange.

                      Okay so as to the fascination vs. attraction. I guess it all depends on the exact definition of fascination you use. (Ah, language!) Like, to me you can be fascinated with something even if you’re not curious about it, and even if you’re familiar with it. So if we use this definition here:

                      http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fascinate

                      then yeah, I am fascinated with breasts…or at least, I can be. I mean, not all breasts all the time, obviously. But yeah, I do understand that for straight guys there’s also the addition of them being exotic, or at least different to what you’ve got.

                    • Mark Neil says:

                      Ah, I was thinking more definition 1 (with a focus on the unique and unusual nature (to a man)) while you were more definition 2.

                • “You’re gay? Really? Why didn’t you ever say anything?”

                  I totally get you were joking, and yeah I do bring it up all the flipping time. 🙂 But, it’s kind of weird. With the current political and social dialogue, you’re stuck either announcing it everywhere or keeping it really quiet. I am much quieter about it in real life, where most of the time I’m not actually discussing political or social issues, but just getting on with my life. But whenever I do discuss politics or whatever (in real life or online) it’s always there sort of just hanging in the air…so I’ll usually bring it up.

                  And again, I totally get that you were joking and it is kinda funny. And this is totally off topic from the original article…but yeah…I kind of long for the day when I don’t feel the need to either actively keep quiet about it or shout it from the rooftops. 🙂

              • ” And really, for straight people, is the attraction to the other person’s genitals and secondary sex characteristics really all about how you don’t have the same ones? ”

                Doubtful. Male and female arses do not look all that different, but straight people of both genders tend to be attracted to them.

    • Ever seen something that just drags your attention, you try to ignore it but it keeps grabbing it? A glimpse can turn you on within seconds? Because breasts are hidden a lot they can get both the visually appealing attraction and the forbidden fruit attraction.

      If a woman is wearing a revealing top, I’m sorry to say it but you are purposely showing off something known to be quite attractive to many and it becomes quite a big temptation to look at them. But realize that a man who does look at them, even stare at them, can STILL see you as a person, care about and respect you. Breasts though can be extremely nice to look at and considering how often men look at them I’d say there is quite a bit of instinct at play. What really pisses me off though is when a woman wears her cleavage out quite a lot and then get’s shitty that people look (not all women do this of course), what do they honestly expect? Walk out in public showing something that is known to be a major drawcard of men’s vision and you’re damn near guaranteed to have them look. This doesn’t mean you’re showing you want sex or any silly bullshit like that, no personality judgments can be made, it’s just they CAN BE very enticing to look at and it can literally be very distracting to try have a conversation with a woman who is pretty much showing them off.

      It can be hard to describe to a woman, I guess to understand you need to be a male or at least very attracted to breasts.

  33. @GoodMenProject This website claims that you “we let guys be guys, but we do it while challenging confining cultural notions of what a “real man” must be.” What cultural notion are you really challenging with this post? There is nothing being challenged, save for maybe how ridiculous this whole “project” can really become. Rather you’re affirming everything toxic in our culture when it comes to objectification, and in doing so further stripping women of agency. This patronizing drivel does nothing to affirm men and it does even less to affirm that women come in all shapes and sizes, just like men and such posts exacerbate the situation in our culture. I really hope that this “real man” you are striving to affirm can stop looking at women as objects for even just a short while, and work to develop his real brain because in publishing such ludicrous material you seem to be implying that such a possibility is beyond comprehension.

    • And if Mark (or someone else reading) were to recognize the error of their thinking wouldn’t that no contribute to the betterment of men? Or would you rather folks that think this way just stay silent and never change?

    • Well, the GMP editors might reply, too, but my 2¢:

      For me the goal with this piece was to challenge a typical definition of beauty, to provide a contrast to the predominant male obsession with the large-breasted Pamela Andersons, Dolly Partons and Swedish Twins of the world. I’ve seen a lot of men over the years–as far back as junior high–make disparaging remarks about (and to) small-breasted women, as if there were defective, unworthy of their admiration (as if earning their admiration should be their primary goal, which we of course know is ridiculous). As a result, I’ve known a lot of women who’ve come to feel less-valued as a result, and many who’ve even come to see themselves as less of a person, which to me is terrible. It’s no secret many women feel pressure to go under the knife to change themselves to feel accepted. So this is my small effort to try to show some adoration for women who have often gone less appreciated.

      You might say that this is ultimately still concerned with subjective definitions of physical beauty and is therefore inherently “toxic,” but I disagree. I think attraction is a natural part of being human, and we should all think about our attractions and see what we can learn. I think true objectification is when you’re seeing someone ONLY as a sex object, failing to respect and acknowledge their humanity. I don’t think I’m doing that here. Ultimately the physical attraction I’m talking about here is connected to a woman’s energy, personality and character. I realize people are taking issue with HOW I’m connecting them, however, and I welcome the discussion.

      • See this, right here, I’ve no problem with…except yes, as you mention, with the way you’ve connected physical attributes and personality traits.

        It’s funny because when I read the title of your article I thought I’d probably end up loving it. Hurray, I thought, someone who’s finally out to say that breast size doesn’t equal beauty. Except that’s exactly what you did…you just said that small breast size = beauty. And again, it’s not that you’re talking about your preference…it’s the way the article judges women with large breasts. It’s exactly what you were trying to counteract about women with small breasts.

      • Mark Neil says:

        As Heather says, your motives were not bad, it was the method you used. In effect, you did the very thing you set out to counter, you devalued small breasts by saying that small breast help women develop attributes to overcome the deficiency. This isn’t really valuing small breast so much as distracting from them. The Irony is, despite your claims that most men like big breasts, I find many MANY men will admit to having a preference for Asian women, who, generally have a petite stature/smaller breasts, and not the big breasts we’re all told we like. I suspect this is because it’s ok to like Asian women, but as I said earlier, liking a woman with a small frame/breasts makes one a paedophile and open to even more ridicule than the small breasted women themselves, and more often than not, this criticism comes from women.

        • Mark Neil says:

          That said, I don’t think Jenn’s criticisms are very helpful, as they rely heavily upon the gender feminist dogma on male oppression, female helplessness and objectification.

      • I’ll just wait with my small breasts and non-athletic body for “in praise of non-socially acceptably thin women”, I guess.

      • Mark Radcliffe what you said there in your post was fabulous. 🙂 Thanks for saying it. And I appreciate both your insight on how women can be treated regarding the issue of breasts in our culture and your brevity to approach a clearly sensitive topic.

    • See I liked the article, especially as a man who has liked ladies with small breasts.. and it is only since getting into my 40’s that the larger variety even really attracts me. I hear Jen’s woes of objectifying but find the same polorazation going on in her that i’ve found in dating.. woman want this “perfect guy” or the bad boy… and if their guy deviates from perfection, well then he’s a douche and doesn’t respect them. News Flash, the reason you find the right guy only to find out he’s not all that, or has a secret life.. yep, you got it .. He’s a player.. because your ideology plays so easily into that.. The great thing about this site is it attempts to work with where we are as guys.. and yes this article has reflection, appreciation, and contemplation about elegent and simple outer beauty and how it may relate possibly to inner traits.. encourage that sister and expound on it.. don’t be a hater..

    • John Anderson says:

      @ Jenn

      I don’t agree with the article, but I do see value in posting it. Men have just recently started challenging the gender constructs society has created for them and articles like these do serve to spark debate and introspection. There are however certain problems with your statement.

      “What cultural notion are you really challenging”

      The cultural notion that men like large breasts. Unless all the complaints I hear about women’s insecurity about their breast sizes is overblown, this seems to qualify as a challenge to a “cultural notion”.

      “objectification, and in doing so further stripping women of agency”

      How does objectification strip women of agency? Women have agency. It may strengthen a societal perception that women don’t have agency, but it doesn’t strip them of agency. I’ve seen numerous articles and comments on feminist websites that strip women of agency. Every time feminists claim that men commit the overwhelming amount of DV, when they really mean the majority of serious DV, the strip women of agency for their actions. It’s just a slap. What did she do wrong? She couldn’t hurt him anyway.

      “it does even less to affirm that women come in all shapes and sizes”

      I think it affirms that,. It does it in a very condescending way, which is my problem with it.

      It’s ironic that you refer to men as “real men”. Are you implying that there is a gender construct that determines whether a man is a man or not a man? GMP was about what made men good not what made them real.

  34. This is some creepy-ass shit right here. I’d quote the creepy part, but copying and pasting the entire post into my comment seems redundant.

    • Okay, I’m curious as to what about it you found creepy?

      • ApesAmongUs says:

        Absolutely every word in the entire thing. “Who see sublime perfection,” in particular, made me cringe.

        Have you ever head some douchebag intimate that overweight women are easy, so he goes after them? Well, this article gives the same impression only with a different target demographic.

        When he claims to not be like those boys at the frat, he makes it abundantly clear he is exactly those boys at the frat – only a boy at a frat with a twisted perception of women that they have some inherent weakness to puerile flattery used to overcome a lack of self esteem. Basically, you could replace the entire article with “women are insecure and easily manipulated” and it would communicate much the same idea as it currently does.

    • I’m curious as well, I found nothing creepy here.

  35. wellokaythen says:

    Let’s also recognize the many men who may not have a particular preference or who may think of large, small, or average-sized breasts as beautiful in different ways. Or, beautiful in the same ways, for that matter. Small breasts may not be a particular turn-on nor distinct turn-off, just one of many sizes.

    There is the saying “more than a mouthful is a waste.”

  36. I hated having larger breasts whaen I was younger – the obsession with breasts was a horrible focus at a time when I was awkward, feeling self concious, and with a massive lack of confidence. The baggy clothes, wondering if someone is talking to me for me or my breasts – thank god for hitting 30!

    • Valter Viglietti says:

      @Emma: “thank god for hitting 30!”

      Well, what happened then?
      Did they become a valuable and pleasurable asset? 🙂

      I mean, when I was a teenager I was really embarrassed by having a big penis. It showed through garments, and some schoolmate poked fun at me. Awkward!!! 😳
      Then, when becoming an adult, i became glad about my “little” buddy the way it is.

      Perspective and context are everything… and, most of the times, anything has pros and cons.

  37. Bryn Harris says:

    Just as some men like women with small breasts, some women like men with small brains and even tinier penises. So you’re in luck, Mark.

  38. It seems to be that you think all small-breasted women are just…small. Words like ‘athletic’ and ‘petite’. What about women with the traditional pear shape?
    And don’t play up the stereotype of large breasts = tiny brains. It’s just stupid.

  39. Reposted to add a a self intro!

    Hi, I’m Johnny. I’m a first time visitor of this site, and this is my first comment. I thoroughly enjoyed reading the essay, and enjoyed the comments even more. I hope that someone replies to this comment, preferably to respond to its content, but if not at least to welcome me to the community!

    I dont know if Mark is making the “assumption that having large breasts is wonderful and having small breasts is a terrible affliction.” (quoting Sarah above) I think he is just commenting on that mainstream societal assumption. But he does go on to connect small breasts with positive personality traits, and even suggests that the small breasts lead to women of a higher caliber. (Not to worry, I don’t agree at all.) What about the proverbial big breasted girl who develops a stunning intellect and astounding moral qualities to overcome men’s obsession with her breasts? Of course this example also attributes personal development with breast size. Why is it that we just cant get over breasts?? Why oh why? Try as I might, I know that I struggle.

    Along those same lines of personality qualities being attributed to breasts, Mark also describes types of men who like types of breasts!!!

    ‘”We’re not the guys working construction who whistle chauvinistically from across the street three stories above you as you walk to work.

    Why is that exactly? I think what Mark is getting at is that since small breasts are not mainstream hot, guys who work in construction (obviously because they work in as masculine a field as construction they are grunts who lack refinement in their preference of breast size– alas, they are not breast connoisseurs) are not attracted to them.

    So in the end, Mark is maybe saying that the small breasted woman is a specialized niche taste, that only the refined gentleman will appreciate. She has higher qualities that also spring forth as a result of her modest form. Much like a wine can be appraised by its qualities, so too can a drinker be judged by his choice of beverage.
    Of course, where he draws fire is from pinning it all on the breasts. And I cant fault the man for that. Since we’re discussing breasts, and since we love them so much, we like to think that we can judge the rest of the woman from the breasts. Or perhaps we just impose in our minds the qualities of our ideal partner upon the form of our favorite type of breast.

  40. Could we please cut Mark some slack please…?

    I got it…Thank you, Mark!

    Keep writing more essays!

  41. It seems like there are a lot of assumptions being made in this article and comments. Primarily, the assumption that having large breasts is wonderful and having small breasts is a terrible affliction. I dunno, when Iwas younger, I always wanted to be small, graceful, petite, and have small breasts. Instead I’m a tall busty “farm girl” sort of girl. I was teased a lot about my breasts when I started developing — in 4th grade! By age 13, I wore a C-cup bra and I was often hit on by adult men who thought I was 17 or 18. This was confusing, and scary. I wore baggy shirts for years. I was deeply embarrassed by the attention that my breasts generated. It was not the right kind of attention. It involved catcalls and being leered at by strangers and having my friends’ dads act all weird when I came over. I was nerdy and awkward and I did not know that I could use my sex appeal to get anything. I really didn’t. I wanted to be taken seriously. I was friends with geeky guys, many of whom developed crushes on me, but they were too terrified of me to do anything about it. I stopped going to school dances; no one wanted to dance with me, ever. When I reached my 20’s, I had difficulty finding quality guys to date; mostly, the guys who asked me out we’re obnoxious type A personalities. I always felt fat, even when I wasn’t fat. I could go on but I won’t. My point is that everyone thinks someone else has it easier. It isn’t necessarily true.

    • I dont know if Mark is making the “assumption that having large breasts is wonderful and having small breasts is a terrible affliction.” I think he is just commenting on that mainstream societal assumption. But he does go on to connect small breasts with positive personality traits, and even suggests that the small breasts lead to women of a higher caliber. (Not to worry, I don’t agree at all.) What about the proverbial big breasted girl who develops a stunning intellect and astounding moral qualities to overcome men’s obsession with her breasts? Of course this example also attributes personal development with breast size. Why is it that we just cant get over breasts?? Why oh why? Try as I might, I know that I struggle.

      Along those same lines of personality qualities being attributed to breasts, Mark also describes types of men who like types of breasts!!!

      ‘”We’re not the guys working construction who whistle chauvinistically from across the street three stories above you as you walk to work.

      Why is that exactly? I think what Mark is getting at is that since small breasts are not mainstream hot, guys who work in construction (obviously because they work in as masculine a field as construction they are grunts who lack refinement in their preference of breast size– alas, they are not breast connoisseurs) are not attracted to them.

      So in the end, Mark is maybe saying that the small breasted woman is a specialized niche taste, that only the refined gentleman will appreciate. She has higher qualities that also spring forth as a result of her modest form. Much like a wine can be appraised by its qualities, so too can a drinker be judged by his choice of beverage.
      Of course, where he draws fire is from pinning it all on the breasts. And I cant fault the man for that. Since we’re discussing breasts, and since we love them so much, we like to think that we can judge the rest of the woman from the breasts. Or perhaps we just impose in our minds the qualities of our ideal partner upon the form of our favorite type of breast.

    • I sympathize with your experience, and especially agree with the insight at the end that everyone thinks someone else has it easier, which isn’t true. I don’t think you had it easy, or that you’re exaggerating what the experience of being large-breasted from a young age has been like for you.

      I have no interest in challenging your feelings, because they’re your feelings, but in the interest of opening your mind to some of the hardness on the other side, try looking at some of what you said and imagining you’re a man, or more specifically a young geeky man interested in a girl like you, but afraid of hurting or making you feel uncomfortable *because* of the respect and compassion he has for women. Consider this section, and especially the connection between parts I’ve bolded for emphasis:

      I was deeply embarrassed by the attention that my breasts generated. It was not the right kind of attention. It involved catcalls and being leered at by strangers and having my friends’ dads act all weird when I came over. I was nerdy and awkward and I did not know that I could use my sex appeal to get anything. I really didn’t. I wanted to be taken seriously. I was friends with geeky guys, many of whom developed crushes on me, but they were too terrified of me to do anything about it.

      The guys who are too terrified to do anything about it are likely the ones who are terrified *because* they don’t want you to perceive them as those creeps who give the wrong kind of attention. I’m sure I’m oversimplifying the actual experience, but just reading your brief description, it sounds like you were creeped out by anyone who asked you out or showed attraction, and frustrated by anyone who didn’t. That doesn’t exactly leave much room in the middle for a respectful guy who appreciates both your body and mind to connect with you, especially if you weren’t willing to breach the usual gender roles by initiating romantic relationships instead of waiting for the guys you actually liked to make the first move.

      Your comment is a convenient example of the point I’m trying to make, but I don’t mean it as direct criticism or analysis of you. It happens to capture what seems like a common problem to me, which is men being paralyzed into not making a move because they take the “don’t be a creep” message to heart, which is what women swear up and down they want, admire, and desire in a man, but then characterize such men as cowards when they don’t make a move. Or worse – bitter, entitled men who think the women are supposed to initiate relationships with them occasionally just because they’re Nice Guys. It’s a no-win situation.

      • Agreed with this. I don’t know about the choice of word “terrified” but I can relate to not making a move for fear of being too creepy. I find its a tough call.
        She might have labelled me a friend, and I wouldn’t want to move in on her when that judgements been made. Or maybe I’ve been labelled that because when I think I’m making a move, I’m just being friendly.
        Also, in order for a guy like me to have dating success, I have to approach multiple women, I have to be mentally gunning for it. BUT I don’t want to appear to be a hound.
        Talk about a dilemma!

      • @Marcus, you make good points, so maybe I can elaborate a bit. I was speaking of my experience as an awkward teenager, when like a lot of teenagers I was confused about my sexuality and my relationship with the opposite sex. In part because I was a tall busty girl who stood out, I had the strange experience of attracting unwanted attention (e.g. from older men) and also feeling totally ignored by the boys who were my peers. In fact, I now realize that many of those boys were attracted to me, but they were afraid to do anything about it. The dances where no one asked me to dance? Maybe I wasn’t repulsive , maybe they were scared. I’ve looked at pictures of myself as a teen, with the wisdom of middle age, and I don’t see what I used to see. I see a curvy young woman who had absolutely no clue what was going on and no one to help me cope (my mother did nothing to mentor me thru this stage in my life but that’s another story in itself) I feel only compassion now for the boys who didnt approach me in H.S. and I wish I could have done something to help them see me as a real person who was also awkward and scared, and not just as this overwhelming female presence. I didn’t think they were cowards. I thought they didn’t like me. And the ones who had crushes that J was aware of — at that age, it was hard for me to conceive of asking a guy on a date. It simply wasn’t presented as an option any place I looked for guidance.

        Meanwhile I did not have the skills to use my “assets” as an advantage in any way; I was not in a popular crowd and was considered a giant dork. Which is why the assumption that women with large breasts learn to manipulate men annoys me. Having large breasts is not an automatic ticket to popularity or social success.

        • Also, maybe “terrified” was too strong a word for what my guy friends experienced — I don’t really know what they felt , but I was trying to describe my feelings of being simultaneously attractive to men yet somehow scaring them off at that age.

          • Nervous as hell is what I feel around women, especially beautiful women. It’s getting easier but back in high-school that fear was even worse, women can be scary to some men n vice versa I’m sure. It’s damn close to being terrified in some respects, can’t think straight, nervous as hell, unsure of what to do, afraid to be rejected, embarassed, etc. It can be a very real fear, I found it easier being around crocodiles that could kill me, snakes etc.

  42. I also think the greater point still remains hidden. It being that the large breast is seen as unearned – unlike characteristics one has to develop to overcome these unearned assets others may have, that you do not.

    I would think it similar to the praise small dick men receive for having to go the extra mile and be sensitive to make up the inches. We’ve had “in praise of small penises” articles on here as well, and I bet the sentiments were similarly divided. I do have to admit that I’ve known unearned big dick men that have indeed overlooked other areas of personal development. Unfortunately, my sample size is too small to draw any good conclusions.

    • John Anderson says:

      @ elissa

      ” I would think it similar to the praise small dick men receive for having to go the extra mile and be sensitive to make up the inches.”

      The general sense that I get from women is that large penises are great for looking at or touching, but they don’t seem to provide any extra satisfaction during sex. When size was an issue, I heard that it was width that made the most difference. I suppose a larger width would rub against the clitoris more. Men usually think of length when thinking about their size. Is it really width that makes the difference?

      Do you know how hard it is to go the extra mile 6 or so inches at a time?

  43. I’m medium breasted, so I’m a half wit with some so-so redeeming characteristics. Who wants some?

    So Mark – the audacity small breasts…you didn’t really think you could pull this off, did you?

    • Pull off what, exactly?

      Talking about small-breasted women in a culture that typically only worships the Pamela Andersons of the world?

      Or saying that I find these women beautiful? And for characteristics beyond just their physicality?

      Something else?

      • You are doing exactly the same thing that mainstream culture does, but reversing it. You are also making ridiculous value judgments about women’s personal qualities based solely on breast size.

  44. To those who appreciate the piece, glad I could throw a little sunshine your way. May you receive much more of it.

    To those I may have offended, let’s see if can assuage.

    Despite the fact that the essay’s title points to breast size, my underlying point is that, for me (and many other guys), in a sense, it’s not about your breasts. It’s about the characteristics and attributes that I’ve found myself attracted to, and that, yes, I have over time come to see a loose association between them and women who happen to have small breasts. Are there exceptions to that generalization? Of course. This is not a Doctoral thesis in anthropology, but a playful tribute to a group of women that has perhaps not been privy to as much admiration as others. But beyond that, yes, I do now have that physical preference, but I genuinely think it’s because of the personality and character traits I have come to associate with that body type, through dozens of years of life experiences, and dates, and relationships, and observations.

    Part of my motivation to write this came from the fact that I have known a lot of women over the years who’ve felt like second class citizens due to how much more attention their large-breasted friends have gotten over the years. Many of them were mocked tirelessly as they grew up—by women, too. And others still have so genuinely disliked their own lesser-endowed bodies (perhaps due to said societal preferences), that they became less confident as a result. Some have even gone ahead and surgical enhancements. And some of those have done so and regretted it profoundly. This has saddened me immensely, so I’m attempting to give a little adoration where adoration is due, and say simply:

    Skip the boob jobs, ladies. Some of us love you just the way you are.

    And while some will claim this is still just objectification of a different sort, I believe it’s a little more complicated than that: my attraction to small-breasted women is ultimately an attraction to their humanity, personality and own unique energy. Not simply flesh.

    And yes, this is just my preference. To each his (or her) own…

    • I was giving you the benefit if the doubt for meaning well, but now you are actually defending the premise that small-breasted women have superior personalities and intellect. Wow.

      Sign,
      Big-Breasted Dumb Lazy Manipulative Woman

    • Mark,

      I understand the points you raise, and I apologize for the responses you are receiving.

      The extreme irony is that in every single piece on male privilege ever, the number one argument is always that privilege is “invisible” to the people who hold it.

      It’s therefore no surprise that female commenters are coming out of the woodwork to deny their own privilege.

      I guess there’s nothing for it.

      • What privilege?

        • Asks the female commenter ironically?

          • Not ironically. You have the privilege of never knowing what it’s like to be a woman with small or large breasts and to have that be such a fixation by such a large part of society, just as I have the privilege of never knowing what it’s like to be insecure about penis size.

          • I’m serious…this isn’t a gendered privilege, because the issue of breast size only affects one gender. It’d be like me saying that somehow penis size is an example of male privilege.

            • John Anderson says:

              Actually some men develop large breasts, gynecomastia, and it does cause an issue for them. That is a size problem in reverse.

              • Okay, but again that doesn’t make this an issue in which female privilege applies.

                • John Anderson says:

                  @ HeatherN

                  Don’t think there is privilege. Probably should have put FYI on the post. The closest thing I could come up with is that for women breasts are sometimes a financial commodity. At the risk of reigniting the Firefly thing, topless guys could be seen in mainstream magazines and TV. Granted it’s easier to see topless women for free now, but women can still financially benefit from it a lot easier than men.

                  Men have the freedom to walk around topless, while women would get arrested in many areas. So there is that. I can’t really come up with privilege and suspect that the accusation has to do with being upset over having to pay to see women’s breasts.

          • Mark Neil says:

            I have to agree with heather on this one. Heather is pretty good about acknowledging both genders have privilege, but her question here is “what privilege is being discussed here”? How is privilege relevant to liking small breasts?

    • Mark, I usually love your writing. I almost always agree with you and the points you make. But this article was just bad. And your comment did nothing to help – it proves the point of what some of the commenters were making. You have tied personal characteristics to physical attributes. I would have rather you just talked about the flesh. To say that small breasted women are somehow more real or smarter or more interesting than large breasted (or mid breasted) is just plain stupid. Your preference for a specific body type is fine, I think small breasted women should have more admiration – but not because their small boobs imbue them with an imagined superior intellect. Cup size does not have an inverse relationship with intellect or personality or humanity. Any correlation is perceived.

  45. Soullite says:

    So… I guess that whole feminist concept of ‘deal breakers’ goes right out the window when a man decides to judge a woman’s dating viability on a metric that makes feminists uncomfortable? I mean, this is a community (not here; I wasn’t here at the time, but the feminist blogosphere) went to on and on about the right of a woman to judge men based on a hobby they had 10 years ago. Now they think they have the right to tell men that we can’t judge a woman’s attractiveness based on her appearance?

    Here’s an idea: Everyone has the right to choose their dates and mates by whatever metric(s) they desire, and everyone else has the right to judge them for it. After-all, that’s pretty much what happens anyway.

  46. This is now reminding me of thost “When did this (pictures of very skinny women)…become hotter than this (pictures of not skinny women)”. The problem isn’t that one is hotter than the other. The problem is we are stuck in a system that pits us against each other thinking that one is hotter than the other. Different people have different tastes so why does there have to be some single universal definition of what is “hot”.

    I think the author’s heart was in the right place by trying to add his personal opinion to the mix in a statement that “we don’t all think the same!” (which bears repeating I say) but may have gone too far in seeming to hold his tastes up as “the taste” in women.

    • Joanna Schroeder says:

      I’m 100% with Danny on this. Both the author’s intentions, and the original meme of “When did this ____ become hotter than this _____?”

      As a skinny girl, who was once VERY skinny, the idea that I’m not some certain guy’s “type” never bothered me. But the idea that our culture, as a whole, is willing to say, “your type isn’t hot” to anyone is annoying and offensive.

      I think the main thing we need to look at in Mark’s piece here is this line:

      Some of us grew up as athletes, amongst thin, athletic, small-breasted women and grew to like different physical traits than most guys. Like the tight calves of a runner. Or the strong thighs of a skier. Or the muscular stomach of a volleyball player. Maybe we know that having an athletic woman at your side means being more likely to live an adventurous and daring life.

      The reason this stands out is that he’s clearly saying why he likes this type of woman. He’s not saying she’s better. He’s saying she’s simply what he likes. Because of his history as an athlete.

      I think the thing that is hanging people up in this piece is that he’s not speaking simply about himself. But that doesn’t mean he’s talking about all men feeling this way. He’s talking about himself and guys like him. Just because he’s not saying, “Maybe it’s just me, but I like small tits” doesn’t mean he’s saying that this is the ONE way to be or that ALL men feel this way.

      I could write an article about how I like guys with dark hair and light eyes. And I really do. I always have. I’ve never dated a blond guy. Would people be upset with me over that? I can even tell you WHY I feel this way… In fact we did this in our blog a few days ago…

      She Said He Said: “Once You Go White?”

      And while it may be best not to have a “type” – it’s sort of natural and human. Just don’t try telling the world that your type is better than other types.

      • Well and I’ve no problem with someone having a type. I think part of the problem is, yes, the way he’s failed to specify that he’s just talking about his type. But also part of the problem is the way he’s implied that women with larger breasts are somehow used to using them to get things from men. He’s not just specifying his type; he’s conflating physical attributes with personality characteristics.

        • That’s what bugged me too. As a naturally large breasted women, I don’t exactly appreciate the idea that my large breasts are my only asset and I’ve never had to develop intelligence or a personality because guys are entranced by my magic tits.

          • DING DING DING! I agree. I’m also a naturally large breasted woman, and I was bothered by that too. I don’t skate by through life because my tits are a magical ticket to Everything I Ever Wanted Ever and I Never Had To Work For It. I had to develop a personality too.

          • John Anderson says:

            @ Sarah

            “guys are entranced by my magic tits”

            Oh, that was mean. Am I the only guy on this thread who just developed an instant curiosity? Damn, must look for pictures of Christina Hendricks.

    • “I think the author’s heart was in the right place by trying to add his personal opinion to the mix in a statement that “we don’t all think the same!” (which bears repeating I say) but may have gone too far in seeming to hold his tastes up as “the taste” in women.”

      No – I don’t think so.
      One’s intent is best viewed by one’s actions.
      And the actions here – this article which purports to be from a “good” guy but is really merely objectifying women.
      Worse, because its couched as praise.

      Someone already mentioned its akin to “but I DO like black people – no really, I’m saying I LIKE THEM!”
      (And speaking of prior comments… where did they do? Most seem to have been removed….)

      The problems begin with the title and end with the last line (which has no bearing on the rest of the piece…)

      In Praise of Small Breasted Woman is the same as an article titled:
      Why there’s nothing wrong with Gays/Blacks/Others

      I can’t fathom how GMP published this.

      • If you scroll down to the bottom of the comments, you’ll see a bit in blue that says “Older Comments.” You gotta click on that to go back…there’s only so much on a page.

      • No – I don’t think so.
        One’s intent is best viewed by one’s actions.
        And the actions here – this article which purports to be from a “good” guy but is really merely objectifying women.
        Worse, because its couched as praise.

        But even “best viewed” is not the same as “what their intentions were”.

        Which is rather than making a declaration I said, “I think”.

    • Mark Neil says:

      I agree, what is “hot” is subjective to each individual person (male and female), yet we are constantly being told what we should be thinking is hot. And contrary to popular belief, it is not just men doing this. Last time I was on a feminist site (Jezebel, I think) discussing body image types, I admitted I had a preference for smaller breast and petite frames. I was then told I must be a paedophile. It seemed that if my preferences didn’t fall into what men are expected to think of as beauty, I must be some kind of sexual deviant and into small children. This attitude reinforced, more than any TV add, that as a man, I am supposed to like big breasts more than any other type. Thankfully, I don’t take much stock in such expectations, and continue to have a preference for smaller breasts.

      • Mark, I’m really glad you shared that experience. Because as a smaller breasted women, and when discussing different issues on sexuality and the body online, I have had other women and some men tell me that the only reason a man could like me was if he was a pedophile because I looked like a little girl because I have smaller breasts. I thank God he made me like me and made men out there to be attracted to me..Grown men..to my grown, albeit more petite, body.

        • This bothers me a lot. I know how patronizing it is to be told that the fact that I think smaller women are attractive indicates that I must want to have sex with children. But I can’t imagine how patronizing it is to be a smaller woman and being told that guys are only into you because theyw ant to have sex with children.

          So let me say I am glad you brought this up (and my apologies to anyone that brought it up before, its just that this is where I first saw it in this thread).

          Same thing with pubic hair. A guy preferring a woman who shaves her pubic area is not an automatic indication that he’s a child rapist (and funny enough I’ve never heard anyone, man or woman, say that a woman that prefers guys to be shaved, face or pubic, is a child rapist).

          • “Same thing with pubic hair. A guy preferring a woman who shaves her pubic area is not an automatic indication that he’s a child rapist (and funny enough I’ve never heard anyone, man or woman, say that a woman that prefers guys to be shaved, face or pubic, is a child rapist).”

            Yeah that boils my blood, it couldn’t possibly do with the fact that some people like the “clean shaven” look, the smooth look, prefer to see skin instead of hair in some places. I wonder how many of the women that say that to men, also like men with shaven faces (zomg shaven face looks like a body, thus it must mean they like little boys!!11!)

        • John Anderson says:

          @ Erin

          “I have had other women and some men tell me that the only reason a man could like me was if he was a pedophile”

          Don’t pay attention to them. Those people are assholes. I’ve known women, who were gorgeous by societies’ standards and the only reason I would want them is if I hadn’t met them yet. I wouldn’t be surprised if some of those guys were interested and wanted to hurt your self esteem so you’d go out with them. Some of those women probably couldn’t remember the last time they were petite.

          If you’re interested in a guy, one good way to show it is with a smile. I find it difficult to look away from a woman with an engaging smile. Also, don’t feel bad if he doesn’t respond. A lot of guys are clueless about women, myself included.

          • ” I wouldn’t be surprised if some of those guys were interested and wanted to hurt your self esteem so you’d go out with them.”

            Why is that even a thing? Who wants to be with someone who’s going to make her feel like shit about herself? I’ve been there, and it sucks and makes for a not very fun, stressful relationship.

            • John Anderson says:

              @ Aya

              “Who wants to be with someone who’s going to make her feel like shit about herself?”

              Nobody does. It’s usually immature guys with low self esteem that try to sabotage a woman’s self esteem because they think it will give them a chance. I’ve seen it before. I even did it once when I was 10. A teacher recognized it and told me that she knew I was interested in this girl because I went out of my way to be mean to her and she was the prettiest girl in the class. My teacher told me that if I liked her, I should be nice to her. That was one thing I learned. The other thing was when she threw a box of chocolates another guy gave her into the street. I learned that the prettiest girl isn’t always the most attractive.

              I just wanted to let Erin know that some of these people that are putting her down might be attracted to or jealous of her.

              • Well, I am not sure that’s the case John. But I appreciate the positive advice. I have never had anyone in real life say that to me. Just among discussion online. I think people like to think their body type is best. So I think when women said that to me, they really believed their body type better. And I think the men that said it was born out of a backlash of fear.

                I don’t think liking shaved private parts is because you like little kids either. I do think shaved private parts was made popular by expectations fostered in porn though. 🙂

                Danny said: “This bothers me a lot. I know how patronizing it is to be told that the fact that I think smaller women are attractive indicates that I must want to have sex with children. But I can’t imagine how patronizing it is to be a smaller woman and being told that guys are only into you because theyw ant to have sex with children.”

                Yeah it really boiled my blood the first time someone said that to me. But I know God wouldn’t have made me this way and not made healthy men that could like my body type.

                All body types can be beautiful. I totally get why soemone is attracted to a more curvy woman. But I also get why someone is attracted to petite women too. Luckily for me!

      • I absolutely hate when people assume that of you, I usually keep my preference a secret because I don’t want some idiot to think I like kids. I like petite WOMEN with smaller breasts the most, but they never bother to think that I also love mature minds, intelligence, etc along with it. When I see petite women I see adults NOT KIDS, because they ARE adults. It’s disrespectful to me, it’s very disrespectful to petite women to be told they are kids and it pisses me off.

        @Erin
        “I have had other women and some men tell me that the only reason a man could like me was if he was a pedophile”
        That is horrible horrible horrible, those people should be ashamed of themselves. A person’s body-size doesn’t dictate their personality, nor their age. A woman is still a woman, regardless if she’s a cupped and 100lbs or triple M cup, 200lbs+, whatever.

        There are plenty of people that LOVE petite bodies, and plenty that love all kinds of bodies. It varies wildly. It pisses me off bigtime when others try to enforce their personal tastes on others or act like only 1 bodytype, attribute, etc is attractive.

  47. Hank Vandenburgh says:

    While I don’t think body type is linked to personality, small breasted women conjure pleasant visions of Diana the Archer in mythology. Nice!

  48. Valter Viglietti says:

    “Some of us have learned from experience that small-breasted women often have larger minds”
    Wow, that’s pretty sexist. Even insulting.

    “If the guy you’re with thinks you need different breasts, maybe you just need a different guy.”
    Perfect!
    This sentence is the best of the whole article. It’s not about big or small being worse ot better… it’s about finding someone who appreciates you just as you are.

    Mark, I appreciated your intentions, but this article came out as icky. Your appreciation of small-breasted women is commendable, but comparing people is always going to feel awkward and subjective.
    If you just had expressed your appreciation for A-type women, without comparison, judgment or blaming anybody else, it would have been way smoother.

    • Soullite says:

      I don’t see how it’s commendable.

      Either he likes smaller breasted women (or doesn’t care, and is going after a feature independent of breast size), in which case his pursuit of them is literally no different than the pursuit of a larger-breasted woman, or he’s going after after a woman who lacks a psychical trait that’s important to him, and he’s allowing social judgments to lead him to making a choice that’s wrong for him.

  49. Looks like the author , while trying to praise one type of woman (Physically so) managed to piss off not only every other type of woman, but also the type he was trying to praise! Don’t worry Mark, it’s something all us guys do from time to time( and yet women still wonder why we don’t verbalize more!) I think it probably was someone who did like you who probably coined the pharse “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.” Actually, I’ve never had a particular body ‘Type’. I’ve enjoyed looking and admired the Female body in all it’s variations all my life.Even when I think of my Wife it’s hard to remember all those years ago. When I see a picture it all comes back(yeah! she’s a looker!) The thing about her I remember with no problem is the way she made me feel right from the first time I met her. I was totally disarmed by her and while I’m notgoing to say I knew she was the girl I would marry (the furust thing from my mind at the time) lI knew I wanted to be with her,couldn’t get enough of that. I guess the reason that’s so easy to remember is that’s still the way it is today. So Mark, anyway, do yourself a favor and edit out everything except the last line of your article. That says it all

    • Great comment, bobbt. Good intentions….but wow…offensive and annoying either way.

      Why keep narrowing or moving around what’s considered attractive when we just expand it and have more fun that way. This article is a very typical statement. Everyone else likes big tits. Well I like small tits! Thin women are what’s up. Well thick women are the REAL women! This hair color or race is getting all of the attention right now. Well I like the other hair color or race! Cheerleaders are supposed to be the shit. NO IT’S NERDS NOW! And then circle back around. Seriously? Are men just more into very specific and detailed prefences, whether they be considered conventionally attractive or not…or am I just an odd woman who loves male bodies and personalities in all of their forms (but appreciates and adores my own man the most of course :))? I’m not a ‘type’ person either, so maybe that’s why it doesn’t make too much sense to me.

      For some reason, this seems appropriate:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFjrbmj0CUc

      (With pan flute to boot in case there are any guinea pigs on the prowl.) (And yes, there should be a man version of this song.)

      • “Are men just more into very specific and detailed prefences, whether they be considered conventionally attractive or not…or am I just an odd woman who loves male bodies and personalities in all of their forms (but appreciates and adores my own man the most of course 🙂 )? I’m not a ‘type’ person either, so maybe that’s why it doesn’t make too much sense to me. ”
        Trust me, there are women who’s definition of beauty is quite narrow as well. I think it varies person to person, some have higher importance on looks, others higher importance on personality, some need both quite high. There’s nothing wrong with having a narrow attraction range for individuals, my range isn’t very broad but I do need to be physically attracted to date someone. I’ve tried without it and it’s been a miserable failure, no point denying my desires.

        I don’t think having a broad range or a narrow range is better or worse, I do think in society we all need to be aware that attraction varies person to person and there shouldn’t be just 1 type that is thought of as sexy.

        I can go into specifics about what I like, for me physical attraction is a very strong force but it’s also far easier to discuss what I like physically vs what I like in a personality. I can say I like a nice sweet woman but those are subjective and what I consider sweet could be diff to others. I will say though there is just some mystical thing inside that awakens around certain people, a crush is born and I have no idea how it happens, I can’t say what triggers it, I can’t say only people with a certain bodytype trigger it, but it happens randomly. I think this is important to know because someone may totally drool over the bikini model but might fall madly in love with a woman who society may not think is as hot. Looks matter to a certain point for some people but they’re just a part of an extremely complex human mind attraction.

    • Bobbt, you have to look at pictures to realize your wife is attractive? Why can’t you do that just by looking at her? Perhaps I misundesrtood.

      • I think he means his wife was quite beautiful when she was young but he forgot the looks side of things and remembers how he felt when they first met.

        • Because she isn’t beautiful now? Women are only as good as their youth? I mean, I know we all get older but having to look at pictures of your mate when they were young to think of them attractive is a bit sad to hear as a woman. It just kind of renforces for me that men only really like women when they are young and that they can’t enjoy women’s looks as they get older.

          • Look, regardless of whether it’s cultural or biological (or both, as I suspect), we find younger bodies more attractive. This is true for men and women. Someone can appreciate the beauty of an older woman while still admitting that when that woman was younger the appreciation was more sexual.

            Also, Bobbt didn’t say that he didn’t like his wife anymore, or that he didn’t appreciate her. He didn’t say that he couldn’t stand the sight of her or anything. All he said was that when he looks at pictures of his wife when she was young, he’s reminded of how he felt when he first saw her. He is reminded of how beautiful she was (but there was no implication that he doesn’t think she’s beautiful now).

            • Society certainly finds younger bodies more attractive. But who said society gets it right? Society is often twisted in it’s expectations of roles for many diverse groups of people.

              HeatherN, your assumption that “we find younger bodies more attractive”, as a collective group of people seems to be a rather large assumption of lumping people into a group with, dare I say, “generalizations”. Something you are ususally against in most topics.

              I find that I am not simply more attracted to someone because they have a younger body, but because of whatever chemistry there is between us. I am also not always attracted to 6 foot tall men, men with huge shoulders and 6-pack abs. My attraction to men seems to come more from another source then outright signals of physical beauty. Maybe we will get to a point when we will have more freedom to explore men and women from a more open minded standpoint then just the same old arguements revovling about “biology”. I sure hope so.

              What I can agree with is that younger is more youthful. But I can not agree that younger is simply more attractive for the fact that it’s younger. And I actually think this is more of a reflection of society then biology. Life is meant to be a journey, sexuality included in that. We were not designed to remain 20 forever. Perhaps we weren’t even designed to remain attracted to 20 year olds forever as we age. I don’t know. But I do know our fear of aging makes us put a halt on a lot of naturally progressing “biologies”.

              I thought the comment odd. Kind of a backhanded compliment. Much like article is.

              • I didn’t say it was biology, actually. I said I think it’s probably a combination of biology and culture. And as a culture we do have a narrative that suggests young bodies are more attractive…it’s not a generalization so much as an observation. I’m not saying all men actually think this way, or that all women think this way…I’m saying that’s the way it works, in our culture, at this moment. I also didn’t say it was a good, or bad, thing…I was just saying that is how it works, at the moment in western society. Perhaps I wasn’t clear enough in my short comment, and I apologize for that.

                Also, Erin, I’m not asking you to think that younger is more attractive…I was just saying that Bobbt finding his wife more sexually attractive wasn’t a personal failing of his, so much as keeping in line with social (and perhaps also biological) trends. Also, I was pointing out that Bobbt wasn’t saying he didn’t find his wife attractive now…just that seeing old pictures reminded him of how he felt when he first saw her.

                Like, okay, you say you’re attracted to someone because of the chemistry between you and not because of their body. Fair enough…but with time the chemistry changes. People’s emotions in a relationship don’t stay the same. So 20 years down the road, after being married to the same person, if you saw an old photo and felt nostalgic about the chemistry you had when you first met, that’d be fine. You wouldn’t be saying that you’re unhappy with the emotional relationship you’ve got now…you’d just be fondly remembering how it was in the beginning.

                • Being someone who has been partnered now for 19 years, I can say that when I look at pics of us, him, 18 years ago I also feel a memory/nostalgia hit for “how we were” in terms of innocence, looks, the beginning of our relationship etc.
                  I don’t value him less now that he’s older (certainly see my post on aging and bodies at GMP here), but I do understand looking back and being like…aw…look at us!

          • Mark Neil says:

            ” It just kind of renforces for me that men only really like women when they are young and that they can’t enjoy women’s looks as they get older.”

            Seems a rather hostile generalization to make at all/most men because one man is saying he can get caught up in nostalgia.

            Otherwise, I think Heather covered the rest of what needed to be said

            • No hostility Mark. Just reflecting my own thoughts. While it makes me a little sad sometimes to deal with male expectations of female worth, I’m not hostile about it.

              • Mark Neil says:

                Odd, aren’t you giving heather a hard time for doing just the same thing about youth?

                And whether you yourself are hostile towards men, the generalization, whether you intended it or not, can very much be. To assert that men only really like young women, simply because of the comment of a single, solitary man reminiscing about his wife while looking at a picture of her in her youth IS a hostile generalization.

                And just for the record, lots of people make generalizations, even offensive ones, but that really isn’t an issue for me until I see people complaining about the use of generalizations, while making them themselves. I originally picked out your generalization, not because it was a generalization, but because it was based on a single persons action, and an action that truly wasn’t offensive. But you have since complained about Heathers generalizations, despite you having made one before she even got involved. Keep that in mind going forward.

          • Erin, you got all of that from his comment? I have a feeling he may have meant she IS beautiful, even now, but that the thing he remembers most isn’t her beauty. Doesn’t have to mean she was hotter when younger. So instead of thinking back and remembering her as just being beautiful, he remembers other traits more. Make sense?

            Talking about physical traits doesn’t mean men don’t appreciate the personality traits, can we stop flogging that old dead horse please. Women are not more pure in what they like about their partners yet I see this lil meme trying to pop it’s ugly head up.

            Erin, Now if we do like more youthful looks, it doesn’t mean we can’t enjoy aged beauty. It’s not black and white only 18-25 is hot, and 40 is ugly or something. Ashley Judd I find to be quite hot at her current age, even Helen Mirren in a bikini at the age of 65 was it? I thought she was still a stunner. But is it really some men alone pushing the youth = beauty stuff? Some of the women’s magazines push that perfect skin youthful look so much along with their other body image bullshit that I think they’re hazardous to some or even many women’s self-esteem. Having a discussion with friends the other day on editing photos, one told of his partner wanting quite a lot of retouching yet we felt she didn’t need it at all, she’s already beautiful without needing it. I feel quite a few women are actually ignoring what quite a few men want, focusing on some narrow view of beauty that certain media or certain parts of society say is hot. So I find it hard to believe men simply want younger women as a whole, no doubt some do but not all. But if these women in particular aren’t willing to listen to men in regards to their beauty and just disregard what some like in favour of what others like, then who really is to blame?

            And NO I am not trying to derail, I’m trying to illustrate the effect that some women will ignore what some men like, there are plenty of men who will be happy with how their woman looks yet she wants more more more (I’m sure the flipside will probably be some women happy with their men, yet those men want more more more in regards to muscles for instance). EVERYONE needs to start listening to each other and quit basing their idea of perfect on magazines that undergo retouching, media that is quite limited in diversity and really pay attention to what their local men n women desire. No point assuming all men want thin young women when you have a guy saying he loves older women regadless of body type for instance.

          • Wait a second there Erin! I meant NO SUCH THING! If anything, looking at pictures of us togeather then and now, I realize why people think she’s years younger than me (even though we’re the same age) She’s definately aged better than me! What I’m saying is that even as we mature(well, she’s matured,I’ve gotten old) she still attracts me physically. I’ve told her many times “You know how much I love you, well i’ve always lusted after you as well!” Look, all I’m getting at is that while our looks change over the years, the way she makes me feel hasn’t changed one bit. Someone asked me recently”Why do you think your wife married you?” I told him I’m still trying to figure out why she agreed to go out on a date with me, but I’m sure grateful she did!

  50. gabby watts says:

    My biggest beef with this piece is the patronising tone. “…overlooked by luck”? Thanks for condescending to us enough to say, “Maybe the thing you think you’re lacking has given you so much more.” Some of us actually PREFER our small breasts; we are not just ‘making do’ with our horrible luck.

    Worst compliment, ever. No thanks.

    • Agreed wholeheartedly.

      • Yeah, I hate to say this because I think Mark’s heart was in the right place but I also feel a bit patrionized too like the other ladies above me mentioned. LIke having smaller breasts means I’m missing something so it’s built my character stronger? I don’t know about that. I know women with larger breasts with great character and haven’t had easy lives either. And I personally think women of all sizes can be very beautiful. From Christina Hendrick and Jennifer Love Hewitt types to Kate Hudson and Gwen Paltrow.

        Look, I appreciate a positive nodd to women with smaller breasts because our culture is obessed with “bigger is better”. And women are given the message too much about their bodies and sizes way too much from society AND men that contribute to those messages. So many women get surgery to become something other then they are. But I’m a little at odds with the more specific comments made in the article.

        Mark, I know your heart was in the right place and it’s greatly appreciated. But there are some good points made by the commentors about some of the stereotypes your post alluded to.

    • Exactly. Being a ballet dancer is much easier with small breasts than with large breasts, so I’m quote thankful for my chest size and do not want any bigger.

  51. QuantumInc says:

    Feministe had a really good post about why articles like this don’t help, in fact it is titled: “Why “I prefer small boobs” isn’t helping”
    http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2012/04/09/why-i-prefer-small-boobs-isnt-helping/

    It’s pretty clear that Radcliffe is talking about a personal preference. The poetic language is nice, especially if you feel the same. However there are few times where your personal preferences are relevant to another person, or where it could be conceivably appropriate to tell them to another person. I suppose any athletic types with A-cups now know Radcliffe is available to them…

    However in the context of helping women there are much better things to say. For example you could talk about the diversity of body type preferences in general. Your preference could serve as an example, but Radcliffe should have mentioned somewhere that other men like different bodies in general, and that any woman could find a man who specifically wants men who look like her. Which I’m pretty sure is what he is trying to saw, but he got lost waxing poetic about the pretty girls.

    But even better would be what the Feministe article said. A woman’s beauty shouldn’t really matter! Seriously how many places can one imagine where there is a practical benefit to being hot, pretty, or beautiful. Maybe initial attraction for sex and/or romance, becoming a model of course, or an actor to a lesser degree. Of course it can make a small difference in many other encounters, but realistically it’s only a small bonus.

    No one says a hot friend isn’t a good friend; unless the job description includes giving straight men boners there is no point in giving a hot chick hiring preference; even a beautiful one night stand better also be horny and good in bed. Meanwhile there are plenty of women who get judged in that way.

    • Valter Viglietti says:

      @QuantumInc: “A woman’s beauty shouldn’t really matter!”

      So it should a man’s looks… or his money… or clothes…
      but they do! :roll:

      People have tastes, people have needs, people have preferences, and they choose partners basing on those.
      Maybe isn’t PC, but it how life works.
      I like what I like (and so do you), and no “should” will ever change that.

      • Regardless, you’re going to find that person physically attractive, especially if their personality is so darn attractive, so yeah, physical attributes inevitably play a part.

    • “A woman’s beauty shouldn’t really matter! Seriously how many places can one imagine where there is a practical benefit to being hot, pretty, or beautiful. Maybe initial attraction for sex and/or romance, becoming a model of course, or an actor to a lesser degree. Of course it can make a small difference in many other encounters, but realistically it’s only a small bonus.”

      Just to clarify, would you agree a persons physical appearance matters to a certain degree in dating, romance, attraction, even falling in love? I agree that it shouldn’t matter say for a CEO, and other areas where beauty isn’t actually needed.

  52. Muah ~ Thank you! You made me smile 🙂

  53. Dr Mandeep says:

    i dont understand can someone like or even love a woman for the pure physical reasons ! why cant men look beyond the physicality of a woman and see how much space he has in her heart,how much she thinks of him all the time and how much he means to her. A woman is always ready to accept the man as he is and a man would just look for nice bosom or well shaped asses or long hair ! ufff i am tired of al this now.

    • Valter Viglietti says:

      @Dr Mandeep: “why cant men look beyond the physicality of a woman”
      Wait, don’t women do the same…?
      How many women have you ever heard saying to a guy “You’re ugly like hell, but I like you anyway!”…? :mrgreen:

      Most people choose partners basing on (at least partially) attraction: it’s not PC, it’s not egalitarian, but it’s how we works.
      Personally, I never gave much importance to looks. But I have my tastes and preferences, and I reject being blamed because of those.

      @Dr Mandeep: “A woman is always ready to accept the man as he is”
      You must be living on another planet. :mrgreen:

      • Haven’t you noticed the “hot woman married to schlubby, unattractive guy” standard that is commonly seen on TV and in movies? It’s never the other way around.

        • Haven’t you noticed the “hot woman married to schlubby, unattractive guy” standard that is commonly seen on TV and in movies? It’s never the other way around.
          But how often does it actually happen or at least does it happen as much as we see it in movies and tv?

          Also doesn’t help that there a lot of guys who are not as bad off as those protrayals on tv that have nowhere near the success of those characters.

          • I don’t know how often it happens in real life; probably, as you say, not nearly as often as on TV. It’s just that on TV it’s acceptable to see, whereas you rarely (never?) see an overweight, homely woman with a fit, hot husband on TV. Or maybe these days you do, I don’t actually have a TV.

            • Pretty sure I’ve seen the “homely” wife with the hot husband in some movies, comedy ones. Can’t recall the titles though. Seen it plenty in real life though, along with the reverse. Usually in these cases it’s after marriage one of them gains weight and the other may have been lucky to not gain as much or remain the same, maybe even lose weight.

              Speaking as an overweight male who was once obese I can say it’s pretty damn tough for some overweight men to get attention from the opposite sex from what I noticed at least amongst friends, that included both sex only and relationship stuff. I noticed the overweight women seemed to get partners easier than the men, though possibly the overweight men were just more shy and didn’t ask out others much where the women didn’t have to do the asking out and chasing. All anecdotal evidence however and I may have read the situations wrong so take with a grain of salt!

              There seems to be a major fatphobia in culture atm which reduces the attractiveness of nearly all overweight people it seems, especially with the percetions of them being lazy, slobbish, gluttonous, etc. When you reach the obese stage however the attractive drops dramatically I think.

        • John Anderson says:

          @ Jill, Head GearGal

          In Married With Children, the nerdy Marci married the handsome Jefferson.

          • I only barely remember that series, but wasn’t the joke that he was a complete himbo? Not that she was homely, just that he was dumb? I can’t really remember.

            • John Anderson says:

              There were two Marcis. The prudish Marci married to Steve and the insatiable Marci married to Jefferson. Al always made fun of Marci’s looks. I feel bad for bringing this up, because it was in relation to the topic on this thread. I heard that her character was changed when Amanda Bearse came out as a lesbian. They made her horny for men and so Jefferson had to be a good looking guy. I heard that it was to try and hide the fact she came out. Yes, Jefferson was an idiot.

    • “why cant men look beyond the physicality of a woman and see how much space he has in her heart”

      I always find it odd when women complain about men’s standards. We aren’t the picky ones. You are. Most of us don’t have a line of women we are choosing between.

      • Soullite says:

        In all fairness, most of them don’t have lines waiting to date them, either.

        I think we men should be careful to include all women when we talk about women, and not just the 8’s, 9’s and 10’s.

        • I agree here. It’s easy to assume that all women have lines of men just waiting for them. Not true. The super beautiful ones? Sure. But if you’re a woman who isn’t super beautiful and is lazy enough to go to the store in just her sweat pants, no make up, and a messy ponytail – ain’t nobody gonna be asking her out.

          • I’m a waitress, and I consider myself to be fairly pretty. But any compliments or comments I have received from customers have been from women. The only time a man has made any sort of indication of interest was the time an old man in his 80’s pinched my butt. Otherwise, most men just aren’t that responsive.

            • Valter Viglietti says:

              @Steph: “But any compliments or comments I have received from customers have been from women”

              It’s mainly because most men are scared of the reaction. They likely think you are pretty, but they do not dare saying it.
              Lots of women complain about men commenting on their appearance. We don’t want to look creepy, so we – mostly – shut up.

            • I’ve found plenty of women to be attractive, but I don’t tell them. Especially strangers after reading how unwelcome compliments can bother some women, I don’t want to risk making them feel uncomfy. Totally what Valter says, we don’t want to look creepy.

          • Valter Viglietti says:

            @Steph: “go to the store in just her sweat pants, no make up, and a messy ponytail – ain’t nobody gonna be asking her out.”

            Personally, I love ponytails, I prefer women with no make up, and sweatpants are no problem. 🙂
            Please do not think all men have the same tastes and attitudes. 😉

        • Soullite, thanks for what you said. I think too often a lot of guys will only pay attention or care about the experience of really really attractive women and not consider what happens in a regular girl’s life.

    • John Anderson says:

      @ Dr Mandeep

      Physical looks are important. The problem arises when someone places too much importance on them and it overrides everything else, unless you’re just hooking up and then it is probably the only thing that is important.

      For me, looks are important, but they become less important as I start to realize some of the things you mentioned. I also believe that men and women can be just friends. There are women I’m friends with that I’d like to sleep with, but I know they wouldn’t want to sleep with me. They’re wonderful women so I’ll abstain. I also have a female friend that I’m not physically attracted to, but she has made positive comments about my body and has recently expressed sorrow over not having had a relationship with a man before. If all she wanted is a sexual experience, I care enough for her to give her one, but I don’t want her falling in love with me.

    • To be fair, some women are similarly shallow – sometimes it’s just the human condition.

      I do get annoyed at the constant barrage of dudes who say things like “I just don’t like short hair on women” and “not too many muscles, I might as well date my best friend” or similar. When I had short hair, guys used to compliment me by saying “I usually hate short hair on women but on you it looks great.” Um, okay…wow, I’m so stoked that I’ve managed to overcome your ridiculous hair bias, dude.

      My personal biggest peeve are the guys who say “I want a girl who can go out and get dirty but then clean up and look like a supermodel at a nice dinner.” Sheesh! How about one single attribute that isn’t utterly shallow?

      I was stunned when I met women who would never consider dating a guy shorter than a particular height, or something like that. Weird.

      Still, not all men are like that and not all women either.

    • “A woman is always ready to accept the man as he is ”

      I’m sorry, but if this were even remotely true, there wouldn’t be this rash of “what’s wrong with men, and why won’t they date me?” articles.

  54. Some time ago this website published an article entitled “Could I Fall in Love With the Bus Driver?” where a female author mused on whether or not she would ever be able to love a man who was lacking in power and money.

    I was shocked at the wild insensitivity the piece displayed. Surely the author must have realized that, in a culture where the worth of a man is tied to his power and wealth, this was an extremely offensive conversation to have openly. To say nothing of how oblivious the piece was to female privilege.

    At the time, I wondered what the reaction would be if a man had written a piece entitled “Could I Fall in Love With a Small Breasted Woman?” Wouldn’t that inevitably result in shock and outrage?

    I would like to thank those commenters who have responded exactly as I thought they would.

    Don’t ever change.

    • Dr Mandeep says:

      hmm you really made a point there ! May be not…honestly i would find it very difficult to take my commitment to the full extent if the man is of not of a particular ‘stature’. But u have given me a very important point to think upon. yes it happens,we like someone and the moment we know that there is a large financial divide,we back off ! That’s not good too. As a woman i had always paid attention to one side of the story,thanks for introducing the other side to me.

      • How many women would like to date or marry someone working at McDonalds, or more specifically a lower paid job.

        • HeatherN says:

          Here’s the thing…I have no problem with the part of this article that is about the man saying his preference is for small breasted women. We all have preferences. I, personally, fall for the Christina Hendricks body type every single time. It doesn’t make me a bad person. It doesn’t mean I’m objectifying or fetishizing the female body. It just means I’ve a preference for big curves. Similarly, I have a preference for women who are in academia. It doesn’t mean I am somehow fetishizing education…it’s just what I generally prefer.

          The problem in this article is when Radcliffe takes those preferences and then draws sweepingly generalized conclusions. It’s when he assigns a social value to having large or small breasts. Similarly, the problem with someone not wanting to date someone who works at McDonalds, or whatever, is the way that people who have such jobs become less valued.

          • Yeah I couldn’t stand the associating body type to personality. I use to do this quite a bit, very beautiful women I felt would be bitches due to bullying I received so I would assume all were like that. Luckily I learned differently and know now that looks isn’t really related to personality at all. If I had kept assuming that of beautiful women I would have lost out on some very important friendships!

          • I think the social values have already been ascribed to all of these bodies, and Radcliffe is incorporating those into his admiration. Why we like what we like is both outside the political, and driven by those same forces. The body isn’t without a cultural context.

            • Yes the social values have already been ascribed to different body types…the problem is he is perpetuating them. By perpetuating the stereotypes associated with both large breasted and small breasted women, this article is just as bad as one written by someone who was praising women for having big breasts. It is just stereotypes and a reinforcement of false body type = personality type generalisations.

              Again, my problem isn’t that he explains his preferences. Heck, if he were to analyse his preferences and question whether his love of small breasted women was because of the cultural narrative surrounding both large and small breasted women, as well as the cultural expectations for what straight guys will enjoy, then I’d also have no problem. But no, he’s not examining his own cultural bias…he’s just blindly following it or blindly rebelling against it.

              It’s like, okay…one of the most frustrating things with heteronormativity is when people don’t even realize they’re doing it. When someone says something like: “I support gay people, I don’t get why anyone else cares what someone does in their sex lives.” It’s an attempt at being supportive, but it falls so short of the mark because it fails to recognize that sexual orientation affects more than just someone’s sex life. It actually ends up reinforcing the stereotype that gay people only care about sex.

              This article is similar, not the same, but similar. The attempt was to be supportive by saying that “hey small breasted women, you’re pretty too.” But instead it just ended up reinforcing all of these problematic stereotypes about women and men.

          • John Anderson says:

            @ HeatherN

            ” I, personally, fall for the Christina Hendricks body type every single time”

            So do I, but I think that has to do with the porn influence to some extent.

    • Mike L
      I’m not so sure if its so much about privilege as much as s practicality. I’ll be honest and admit I wouldn’t date a guy with some kind of financial stability, not necessarily rich with a lot of power.

      • Soullite says:

        No, it’s privilege. Thinking that you have a right to someone’s money without ever making any of your own is probably the single biggest female privilege there is. If you want money, make your own money. That’s all there is to it.

        And please, spare the ‘but men make more!’ speech. Making 78% of what a male Goldman banker makes is still making more money than you’ll ever practically ‘need’.

        • “Thinking that you have a right to someone’s money without ever making any of your own is probably the single biggest female privilege there is.”

          If our society monetized traditional female roles, then I’d agree with you. However, it doesn’t. The assumption that your husband’s money is also your money comes from the fact that, traditionally, women weren’t able to make their own money. Now, yes, women have jobs too. However, it’s still true that today a woman who wants to be a full time mother will still end up making no money…thus she’s left requiring that her partner makes enough money for her too. And our society is still set up in such a way that a family works best with on stay-at-home parent (who will not be making money) and one bread winning parent.

          • Soullite says:

            Privilege is also in finding excuse why things are different when they apply to you. The human mind is very good at rationalizing things away.

            • “Privilege is also in finding excuse why things are different when they apply to you.”

              Except that I’m a single lesbian who’s always been financially independent. So it doesn’t apply to me.

              • Soullite says:

                A lesbian is still a woman. You were still socialized as a women. It does indeed apply to you.

                Thank you for proving my point.

                • I read your comment as implying it applied to me personally…as if I were trying to rationalize it because I was married and expected to own my husband’s money.

                  So what were you actually trying to say, then?

                  • Personally I’m not comfortable supporting my partner regardless of gender. Chances are I will make more than my partner because of the job I’m in. And I don’t expect my partner to give me money. However, I do expect my partner to be able to support themselves independently. That means if we moved in together I would expect that they are able to pay their share of the bills. I have supported more than one partner financially (paying for all the dates, paying for various things of theirs, paying all the household expenses etc.) and I’m just not into doing that again. I’ve even had men openly admit to thinking we’d have a great relationship because I made money and they didn’t make a lot. While I would date someone not making as much as much me they must be able to fully support themselves and not be looking at me like a walking ATM that will give them money. So I can empathize with men who have this issue. But it’s certainly not a gender neutral issue in this economy. I’m also seeing many men insist on women being gainfully employed as well and judging based on that alone.

                    • Right, I wasn’t saying I don’t understand men having a problem with being expected to support their partners financially. I was just saying that it wasn’t an example of female privilege.

                    • Valter Viglietti says:

                      Kat: “not be looking at me like a walking ATM that will give them money.”

                      I completely agree with you.
                      And yet, many women believe they are entitled to what you just wrote, to a man who’s a “walking ATM” :roll: for them. For them, “being a man” includes the will to pay for the woman.

                      I don’t know if this is privilege… but sure as hell, it’s a double standard.

          • HeatherN,

            You are demonstrating the blindness (voluntary?) that is necessary to even believe that “privilege” exists in the first place.

            Supposedly, men have privilege because they historically got to “choose their role” in society. But this is false: men had to be wage earners. Men who did not earn a wage could not marry, end of story.

            Women supposedly lacked “privilege” because they were expected to carry out “non-monetized” roles.

            But you have to make pretend that men never wanted to caregivers, and that no woman ever enjoyed financial security, in order for the theory of privilege to work the way its supposed to. This is a considerable amount of societal control that is being completely ignored.

            It’s especially ironic because the first idea in the theory of privilege is that it’s “invisible” to the person who holds it, and here come the women claiming that traditional female privilege doesn’t exist…

            • Mate, I didn’t use the term “male privilege” to describe the division of labour between wage earners and non-monetized housekeeping. I was simply saying it isn’t female privilege.

              • HeatherN,

                You responded to the comment “No, it’s privilege.” With a statement that began with “I’d believe you if…”

                It’s hard for me to draw other conclusions…

                • I will clarify. If it were true that women had been able to make their own money and yet were still expecting to be owners of their husbands’ money, then that would be female privilege. If the converse were true, men had been able to chose their jobs to suit their whims and women were the only ones stuck in their gender role, then that’d have been male privilege. The reality, however, is that the traditional male and female roles (with regards to the division of labour within a household) restricted both men and women.

            • Thankfully Heather (unlike a lot of feminists) doesn’t take the situation you describe here and call it male privielge.

              The expectations that men are the ones that go out and work and women are the ones that stay in the home and work each have their ups and downs.

              But Mike I do feel what you’re saying about we’re supposed to believe that in those expectations men got all the ups and women got all the downs.

            • “Men who did not earn a wage could not marry, end of story.”

              Oh, wow…this is not true at all. Both men and women historically have had to marry according to their “station”. A poor/wageless man would of course marry; he would marry a poor woman. But he definitely could marry.

              • Jill,

                Reread the portion you quoted. It has nothing to do with what your comment addressed.

                I think a man who cannot earn ANY MONEY at all would find it very hard to marry anyone — poor and destitute alike. Marriage costs money, because you have to PAY to have to recognized as valid.

                Just saying.

                • “Supposedly, men have privilege because they historically got to “choose their role” in society. But this is false: men had to be wage earners. Men who did not earn a wage could not marry, end of story.”

                  That is the passage I’m referring to, and it’s not true at all. Poor men could, and did indeed, marry. And they still do.

                  • Jill,

                    Okay, let me put it more bluntly. Poor men can marry. Broke men cannot.

                    In olden days and today, you need money to get your marriage recognized. Back then it was to the church (or in my ancestor’s case, the synagogue). Today you gotta pay the state.

                    Again, you’re trying to fit one argument onto a completely different topic. Square peg, round hole, y’know? Nobody denies men have some privilege, even poor men have some privilege. (Marginal privilege.) Even/especially poor men in olden days.

                    But a broke man still can’t get married. And that’s been true for centuries.

                    So, sorry, but in this case of a very specific single instance… you are wrong.

                    • I would concede if you could find me ONE PERSON who is desperate to marry but just flat can’t come up with the $30 city hall fee to do so, or what have you.

                      I’m not arguing about privilege, I’m stating that men (or people, for that matter) of any financial situation can and do get married and always have.

                      The person who posted the statement I responded to is incorrect.

                    • Jill,

                      I can drive to Golden Gate Park in San Francisco and find you two dozen such homeless couples who cannot afford to eat everyday, let alone pay 30 bucks to get married at city hall. And historically, in nearly every single society, even non-western societies that define wealth differently, you needed to “pay” to get married. If you had ZERO monies, you could not get married.

                      Seriously, why is this so difficult for you to grasp? Real talk: I feel like I’m saying “tomato” and you’re hearing “dracula”. More importantly, why are so committed to denying being wrong regarding something so inconsequential? It’s not like you’re suddenly wrong about everything in life just because you’re wrong about broke men not being able to get married.

                    • “I feel like I’m saying “tomato” and you’re hearing “dracula”.”

                      Real talk: for real laughed out loud. I get that feeling too.

                      I suspect I’m referring more to the original commentator’s intent regarding privilege and historical roles; like somehow men can’t get married if they’re broke but women can? It seems like you’re referring to broke PEOPLE but the original comment was about broke MEN. Broke people have obstacles to many things, but those obstacles are equal for men and women. The original comment suggested that obstacle was only in place if the broke person was male (and referred to broke men not being able to get married in what we can refer to as “olden times”, which is flat out not true).

                      I think the issue is that we flat out don’t agree. I don’t believe that $15 is that big of an obstacle to getting married and I don’t think there’s a single person out there who just CAN’T come up with $15 if it came to that. And I would, in fact, classify such a person as “broke”. You seem to be saying that broke = no access to any money, no street pennies, no quarters found on the sidewalk, no handouts, no nothing.

                      But you know, we’re conversing on a point that really isn’t that important to the discussion. In conclusion: Dracula!

              • Yep. My great and great great grandparents were married. And quite poor. One set lived in dugouts in Missouri in the 1870’s or so. Poor. Dirt poor, actually, and no pun intended. Married.

              • The argument that some destitute men managed to marry carries no merit. We can point to women who wielded political power in the middle ages (Elizabeth I), women who managed to pursue their chosen careers well before birth control (Marie Curie), and women for whom there is clearly no “glass ceiling” (Meg Whitman comes to mind).

                This does not mean that middle age power structures were not patriarchal, nor traditional female roles rigid, nor does it disprove the glass ceiling.

                You have to look at trends, not at individuals. But most of the commenters here (and I’m looking specifically at Julie Gillis) should already know this because it’s the exact arguments that are used to support the theory of privilege (a group can be privileged even if individual members are not).

                In older pseudo-feudal systems women could GAIN status through marriage. This implies that men were required to marry “within their station” but the same was not the case for women. The legal structure that enforced this was simple: if women could not own property or inherit, then a man could not gain control over property through marriage. Thus a woman could go “up” in the world by marrying a man with a lot of property, but the latter wasn’t true.

                This is demonstrated through demographic studies as well as through art. Look at any novel by Dreiser (or Maugham for that matter) and you’ll see this exact situation playing out.

                This was also confirmed decades ago by sociologists, like Aulette, and Rubin before her, who noted that in lower class families the “blame” for class standing always falls squarely on the man: even into the 1990s.

                But hey, don’t take the word of demographers, artists, or sociologists, just look at individuals you may know and make pretend that they’re representative…

                • ooh, I’m being looked at!

                • Actually, in many patriarchal cultures (England and India come to mind), women could only make a good marriage if they had a sufficient dowry. There were even charities set up in England that provided dowries to poor girls who were otherwise unmarriageable.

                  In feudal England, younger sons could not inherit anything. Under the system of primogeniture, only the oldest son had a right to inherit. Younger sons of aristocratic families had only a few options: join the military for life, join the clergy, or marry a woman with money.

                  • Sarah,

                    You are describing a single period in British history, but the story is far more broad than that.

                    According to Hajnal’s work, in 1900, in Belgium, 85% of men in the 20-24 age cohort were single. For the 25-29 cohort, 50% were single. The comparable numbers for women were 71% and 41%. The men would not “catch up” until they were approximately 45, and even then ~16-17% of both genders remained unmarried.

                    The “catch up” was identified as older men who scrimped and saved and were then able to attract younger women.

                    The relevant numbers for England in 1900 were 83% and 47% for men in the younger cohorts, compared with 73% and 42% for women. The pattern largely held.

                    However, Wrigley and Schofeld, in their reconstruction of British demographics going back to the 1600s, did not find that this was always the case. They discovered that prior to the 1750s, the demographics do not match the marriage trend that was observed later.

                    They theorize that this had to do with the Industrial Revolution, which occurred at around this time in England (it would not spread to continental Europe or the US until the 1800s), which dramatically changed earning patterns. As men were able to earn more, their ability to earn became an ever larger part of their identity, leading to where we are today.

        • No, it’s practicality. For one thing, if I’m going to be with a man, I will want to have kids. It’s much easier to be reproductively successful if the man has is financially stable. Not too mention some guys will simply disappear if they feel they can’t financially take care of a family.

          I’ve seen first hand what happens when women dont take into account if a man is financially stable-overworked, very stressed women.

          I actually make pretty good money, but i expect any man I date to be financially stable.

          I personally wont date a guy who isn’t financially stable.

          I’ve dealt with men who were quite wealthy, and mostly they dont care if the woman is making money. Once again it’s practicality. These men dont need another $1M, they are more interested in someone who will hold down the fortress and someone who is generally agreeable.

          • Mark Neil says:

            Remember this next time someone points out the gender gap is about choices, not discrimination. Because right here you are acknowledging a man MUST make money while a women doesn’t, though can. This results in far more pressure for men to make more money vs women, and the end results is men DO make more money

            • Mark Neil:
              ITA with you believe or not! I think the gender gap thing is way overblown. The extra 23 cents or whatever the man makes probably goes to someone with a vagina anyway. Plus, I could sit here and write a book about why women earn less.

          • Practicality. It’s practicality if a man chooses a beautiful woman as it’s a good indication usually of good genes, a woman who isn’t overweight, no disabilities, good skin, hair, etc. Is it practical to allow the mother to work after childbirth? Maybe it’s more practical to have her home for the first year since she has the feeding mechanism built in.

            Practicality you exclude quite a lot of low income men I presume, but we can also exclude quite a lot of people from our dating pool for legitimate concerns such as health, vitality, lifestyle, etc.

    • Please note that someone’s chosen career path says a lot more about them than do physical attributes that are beyond their control.

      • Like how much money their parents had? Or what language was spoken in their home growing up? Or how successful the public school they were assigned to was? Or how many parents were in your home? Or what kind of culture you were raised in?

        Because you’ve got about as much control over those as you do about your appearance…

        • You always have the choice to change your circumstances, choose a particular career or path, etc. to the best of your ability. Life ain’t 100% fair and not everyone can have it all handed to them. But everyone has choices about what to do with their life, for the most part.

          • Jill,

            Respectfully, your comments seem contradictory. You’re willing to admit that life “ain’t 100% fair” and that implicitly some people have a much harder time than others with respect to their career paths and goals in life.

            Yet you also try and draw a magical line between career path and physical attributes. I would submit that if “life ain’t fair” and some people have an impossibly hard time pursuing their chosen careers due to the circumstances of their birth, then the end result is ultimately the same as if they had been born with different physical attributes: in both cases their happiness is threatened by something beyond their control.

    • I appreciate nice tits

  55. I’m pretty surprised that GMP published this; it’s so obviously a poor fit for what the site tries to accomplish; or at least what I think the site tries to accomplish.

    I’m personally not interested in hearing about how a dude thinks I shouldn’t feel bad about any particular feature I might have. I already know that my looks are just fine, thanks. I don’t need validation from some dude who seems to think I need his approval to feel good about myself and my appearance. Thumbs down to this one.

  56. Have to say I don’t agree with the generalizations based on body types in the article, and many of other commentators have said it better than I could.

    I will say though that I do find small to medium sized breasts the most attractive, it just happened that way and it’s simply preference. Doesn’t mean larger breasts aren’t attractive though! It’s troubled me to hear from women who were insecure about their smaller breasts, some of which felt “men” only like bigger breasts. So I wanted to shout it out at the top of my lungs that I, a man, love smaller breasts and I know I am not alone. But please also understand that is simply a part of what I am physically attracted to the most, it doesn’t take into account the various personality traits I like, the strong importance I have for closeness, respect, care, and a strong companionship.

    I do NOT however assume personality traits based on breast size, nor is it the only thing I care about. I feel it’s quite wrong to assume a personality because of breast size or any other physical trait.

    I also HATE the words “real woman” and regularly pull people up for the shaming behaviour they do, real women are all shapes n sizes and I really hate seeing people use it as an excuse to insult thinner women.

    It’s a pity this article might have had good intentions but it definitely missed the mark horribly!

  57. You snuck a good long look at my body?

    What did that look tell you? That I have a genius IQ, that I’m well traveled, have a great sense of humor, speak three languages, and am a gourmet cook? That I’m deeply spiritual, foster animals from shelters, and play lacrosse?

    Don’t patronize us any more, Mr. Radcliffe. No one’s buying it.

  58. This comic, by Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal sums up perfectly the mistake Mr. Radcliffe has made. http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2571#comic

  59. I think I know where you were trying to come from but I have to agree with what some of the other folks are talking about here. Its one thing to say “I like ___!” but its quite another to act as if your preference is something that others should aspire to.

    Me personally if we are just talking about looks (bearing in mind that there isn’t too much of a link between looks and personality) and boobs its all about proportions. But again this is just based on visuals and I wouldn’t dare think that since a given woman’s breasts are a certain size its an indicator that she would be someone I’d like to date (or even have sex with).

  60. MouthAgape says:

    I’m in shock a site called The GOOD Men Project would post such a thing.
    There is nothing worse than objectifying women while trying to couch it as “praise” and purporting to be a good guy.

    Who allowed this to get posted on the site?

  61. I second all the negative comments about this article. Come on, dude. Breast size has nothing to do with personality, and you know it, and pretending it does for the sake of a device in your prose piece is kitschy, irritating, and in bad taste.

    This pisses me off as much as the whole “real women have curves” thing. Real women have curves, real women are sticks, real women have small breasts and DDs and are fat and skinny and in between and are stupid or geniuses or annoying or funny…real women are…ANYTHING A WOMAN CAN POSSIBLY BE!

  62. So do my medium sized breasts indicate a medium sized mind and a body that neither attracts nor repels men? Or wait – they mean nothing except that I have breasts because I am human. They don’t indicate which books I have or have not read. They don’t indicate my level of wit. They don’t indicate my intelligence. They don’t even indicate my level of athleticism or how strong my sense of adventure may be. The only way for you to truly determine any of that is by getting to know me.

    If you want to say that the notion of one body type being attractive to all people is wrong, then say that. Say that you happen to prefer slender figures while your buddy prefers fuller figures and yet you and your friends have appreciated all manner of looks in women. Say that our looks don’t define us, our minds do that. Say that you value intelligence above cup size. Say that you value knowledge above looks. Say that you wish to get to know a woman for who she is.

    Stop doing what the rest of the world seems to be doing and making character judgements based on looks.

  63. ConcernedMan says:

    This article is in no way indicative of “what enlightened masculinity might look like in the 21st century.” It is the same old sexism of the 20th century wrapped in an wonderfully insidious, self-congratulatory shell. Mark Radcliffe does nothing but fetishize a woman’s body, subtly insult men who don’t agree with his desired trait in women, and not so subtly insult women who don’t meet his ideal. Just as protecting free speech includes protecting speech you don’t like, true body positivity means positivity and acceptance for all body types, not just what you like.

    Looks at the broad generalizations in this article. Large breasted woman are easy, humorless, stupid, lazy, un-adventurous, and worst of all, they must obviously garner their self confidence from the objectification of their bodies.

    Take the sentence “Don’t get me wrong, I’ve got nothing against large-breasted women. Many of them are good friends—or even exes” and apply it to race. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a racist, I’ve got plenty of black friends. It doesn’t excuse racism, and it doesn’t excuse sexism either.

    I for one hope that whem my daughter grows up, A cup or DD cup, size 6 or size 26, she has the self esteem and intelligence to identify and avoid sexist assholes like Mark Radcliffe and his ilk.

    • Well said! This kind of thing is no better than the “construction workers whistle chauvinistically from across the street.” Actually I think it’s a little worse. This article creeped me out a lot. What, should we all fall down in gratitude that the writer doesn’t dismiss us for not having big breasts?

  64. As one of the well endowed, I have spent an entire lifetime of men talking to my boobs. Pity that they can’t answer the questions posed, but maybe that’s _because_ they are boobs …in the classic sense of the word.

    Everyone has breasts. Men, women, mothers, fathers, grandmothers, grandfathers, rabbis, priests, nuns, and pastors. They are part of the human body. Women’s happen to produce milk to nourish the young. Maybe, just maybe, if you could get past your obsession with the damn things you might actually be able to have a cogent conversation. When, of course, you’re not entranced by the elegant silhouette of our petite forms.

    Oh, wait! You have a penis! What was I thinking? Maybe about how big it is? Or if I stare at your crotch, maybe I can, by sheer will, turn it into a tent pole? Or maybe just a little bitty tent peg. Whatever. I’m sure whatever you have you’re worried about whether we think it’s big enough.

    Probably not.

  65. Last time I checked I was not defined by the size of my breasts nor do I look to men to hoot and holler for my daily dose of confidence. I’m glad YOU have decided to let women know we no longer have to be ashamed of our breasts if they are the “wrong” size. How magnanimous of you. Now I suggest you aim your gaze and ideas a little higher.

  66. You do know that not all small-breasted women have “petite frames” or are athletic? All this is doing is fetishizing a different body type than that which is portrayed as the media ideal and being self-congratulatory about it. I have smell breasts and far from a petite frame, thanks for calling me unattractive indirectly in exactly the same way the media does every day!

  67. As a large-breasted woman who has just recently learned to truly love her breasts, I used to envy smaller, perky, more obedient boobs. I wanted to like this article. I really did. But it just contributes to ths sterotypes of both big-chested and small-chested girls and adds to the polarization around women’s bodies. Fat VS. Skinny, Big tits VS. small tits.

    And obviously women with big chests are not athletic and women with small breasts are?

    “Maybe we’re actually turned off by someone who’s used to transfixing men with her obvious, womanly attributes.” – Yes, I know some men enjoy looking at my tits. But I resent that this sentence implies a level of manipulation.

    “Guys like me, like the fact that you’re used to having to win people over with your mind and personality, not what was peeking through your blouse.”
    Mother Fucking EWWWWW. This statement is so insulting, I have no words.

    “Some of us have learned from experience that small-breasted women often have larger minds.”
    THIS CONTRIBUTES TO A STEREOTYPE THAT BECAUSE I HAVE BIG TITS I AM NOT SMART. OH, AND I AM EASY I HAVE HAD TO FIGHT THIS MY WHOLE LIFE!!!

    And obviously women with big chests are not athletic or adventurous and women with small breasts are?

    “Don’t get me wrong, I’ve got nothing against large-breasted women. ”
    This smacks of “I am not racist, some of my best friends are black.” You make generalizations and then assert that they are not detrimental because, hey, you have some friends who have big boobs.

    This article is simplistic, dualistic, polarizing, insulting, and just serves to further stereotype women by their bodies. It is not something I would expect a male ally to write.

    • I was going to comment but you said it better than I could. I realize the article was well intentioned but it comes across as pretty insulting to women of all shapes and sizes.

    • HeatherN says:

      Word.

    • John Anderson says:

      @ Missy

      “And obviously women with big chests are not athletic”

      Although I don’t agree with it, it may be because breasts are to some extent perceived as a function of body fat. I use the term perceived because I’m not 100% sure of the physiology, but that’s what I heard. Very few women can be perceived as having a high percentage of body fat (although many guys prefer it that way) and still be considered athletic unlike men who could become nose tackles or sumo wrestlers.

  68. Deanna Gallavan says:

    This is not a rhetorical question: Big or small, why does it have to be about how a woman looks? My husband contends “men are visual creatures” – what say ye?

    Do I want to be loved for who I am? Yes, but this article distills “who I am” to a cup size.

    • John Anderson says:

      “why does it have to be about how a woman looks?”

      It doesn’t. It just seems that way because looks is all most of have to go on before we actually meet other people. I remember asking women to dance and having them turn me down. I would think that it’s only a dance. I’m not asking you to marry me. People really need a place where they could just meet and get to know each other without the sexual pressure of trying to get a girlfriend or boyfriend. That’s probably why people office date or meet someone at school. You get a chance to see what’s inside.

  69. I understand the intention of this article: to praise non-conforming/non-traditional female bodies and promote alternative models of feminine beauty.

    But it fails. Objectification of a person, whether based on small or large breasts is somewhat demeaning. It’s as demeaning as when women praise men with small dicks, expecting a high five for challenging mainstream beauty standards. It just isn’t genuine to say you love small breasted women because they’re smart or funny or athletic or whatever just on account of their tits. Those things are unrelated.

    The generalizations don’t work as impersonal “we” statements. Who is “we”? Who are these people that assume big-breasted women are not as often — oh, but halfheartedly not always! — unused to transfixing men with their mind and personality? Is it improbable to imagine a group of big-breasted women who’re smart, charming, and attract men based on a combination of these attributes? Certainly not all, or even most hetero men date women just for looks or personality. It’s typically a combination.

    But that’s just one example of a bad generalization. There are other examples which the post goes back and forth on contradictorily, and which I’m sure other commenters can point out. It would’ve been better if instead of making objectifying value judgements on behalf of a vague group of men you had simply said, “this is what *I* like and why.” Seriously. Speak for yourself in this case, because this article just tastes wrong to me.

    • I agree with you. completely. And I wonder why it is that in order to praise one attribute, we need to insult another.

    • Zek, thank you for saying this! This article left the same icky taste in my mother. To make another comparison, it’s akin to when men praise “real women” for having “real curves.” Frankly, no lady should feel like she is less than a woman because she is lacking in “real curves” (whatever the hell “real curves” are anyway. I mean, I understand the sentiment behind that phrase, but c’mon people, all curves and bodies are valid and therefore “real.” The only curves, or not-curves, that aren’t actually “real” are the ones generated by photoshop).

      The wonderful thing about human attraction is that it’s so endlessly diverse. Instead of making sweeping generalizations about what body type is the most truly beautiful or precious (“Hey small breasted ladies, worry not! *I* know that you are the real *gems* of the female species”), why don’t we settle on the following notion: for every individual body that exists (man or woman or people who identify as being somewhere outside of or in between those categories), there is at least one person out there who finds that body incredibly sexy and appealing just as it is, who wouldn’t want it any other way. That’s physical attraction at it’s best; someone loving and admiring a body (even their own!) not for what it could be or for what standard or type it adheres to, but for the mere reason that they just find it so inexplicably effin hot.

      Yes, I know that notion is incredibly romantic and unrealistic and ignores the very real and very pervasive ideals we have about bodies in our society (not to mention the very real effects those ideals have on people). I know I’m ignoring the fact that many people do actually have “types” that they prefer. I know that what I said didn’t even touch on some of the problems of mere physical attraction and how that ties in with bodily objectification and fetishism. And I know the notion that “all bodies are beautiful” is considered dumb and cheesy, but when we break it down to the scenario laid out above, isn’t it true on some level?

      Also, on a totally different and completely snarky note…thanks dude-author, as the obvious authority on this matter (being a dude), you have suddenly reversed all the years I spent growing up in a patriarchal society. You also should have mentioned that I don’t need to wear make up either.

  70. My good god the generalisations in this article. And not just about big busted women, but alao about small breasted women, and abou men too. I’m on my phone or I’d say more. I may comment more tomorrow when I’m my computer.

    • John Anderson says:

      Pretty much what I got out of it too. I’ll give Mark the benefit of the doubt and assume that he was doing it to make women feel better about themselves rather than pretending to be the sensitive guy to get more tail.

  71. Bravo, Mr. Radcliffe. I’m also a fan.

  72. Finally, some recognition! This made my day. Thank you!

  73. What a boost this has given my self-esteem. Thank you.

  74. RedRider says:

    Why, thank you Mr. Radcliffe.

Trackbacks

  1. […] are weaker or somehow lesser. You’re allowed to be attracted to a certain body type (say, small-breasted women) or to have small breasts without implying that women with larger breasts are unathletic, slovenly, […]

  2. […] This is a comment by eureeka on the post “In Praise of Small-Breasted Women“. […]

  3. […] for a reason. The tone is often one of blokey and bumbling efforts to do the right thing that go horribly wrong, and as for the comments, […]

  4. […] In Praise of Small-Breasted Women — The Good Men ProjectApr 22, 2012 … Despite the typical male preoccupation with breast size, there are some of us who wouldn’t want you any other way, who see sublime … […]

  5. […] little while back, I got myself in a bit of hot water with a piece I wrote called In Praise of Small-Breasted Women. I had a number of supporters, many of whom identified themselves as members of that unique club […]

  6. […] I won, but man, it was powerful. And I totally blame the Glosswitch persona for this. That, and the Good Men Project small-breasts article. I mean, I’d like to think this blog isn’t just the verbal equivalent of me dancing […]

  7. […] was thinking of this yesterday because for some idiotic reason I decided to read “In praise of small-breasted women“, that piece from The Good Men Project that’s already gaining cult status amongst those […]

  8. […] This comment is from HeatherN on the post “In Praise of Small-Breasted Women.” […]

  9. […] the ponderously “thoughtful” sleaze that finally came to full fruition in 2012 with the Good Men Project. But wait, I’m getting way ahead of myself here (and also a tad obsessed with the Good Men […]

  10. […] thank you, Glamour (although the Good Men Project’s “small-breasted women” man may still want to have words with you). As for the rest of us, we are all eternally grateful that […]

  11. […] This is a comment by Brian on the post “In Praise of Small Breasted Women“. […]

  12. […] thought I would rewrite your breast size obsessed article, from a female and penis sized perspective, just to see what happened.  To be honest it’s […]

  13. […] great articles from The Good Men Project; In Praise of Small Breasted Women and Hunting the Elusive […]

  14. […] absurdity began when Mark Radcliffe spoke of the wonders of women with small breasts. Days later Josh Bowman e-slobbered over ladies with “curvaceous sensations,” disclosing he’d […]

  15. […] the Good Men Project has everyone up in arms (um what does “up in arms” actually mean?- have to admit I am […]

  16. […] boundary-breaking works on sexual desire ever to appear on the internet: Mark Radcliffe’s In Praise Of Small-Breasted Women, in which he bravely explained how more than a handful’s a waste and he would like to get his […]

  17. […] Mark Radcliffe’s In Praise of Small Breasted Women […]

  18. […] This post is written in response to In Praise of Small-Breasted Women by Mark […]

  19. […] this article is my response to Mark Radcliffe’s piece, In Praise of Small-Breasted Women. It’s all love, Mark, but I have to big up my big‐breasted girls out […]

Speak Your Mind

*