Gestalt-Form Breasts: Should Females Have Them or Not (Poll)

[Vilkacis]

Therefore, I don't think gender has anything to do with pain tolerance, initially. Rather...I believe that one gains higher tolerance by experiencing pain more often and being forced to deal with it. In other words...if male athletes have a higher pain tolerance, it is only because we hurt ourselves more often.

Social and psychological upbringing certainly have a lot to do with it (for example, female athletes were shown to have higher pain tolerances than male non-athletes). However, according to one of the studies I cited, "boy and girl babies show different responses to pain six hours after birth," which would suggest there's more to it than that. Furthermore, a couple of those sources also pointed out physiological differences. For example:

Dr Mogil is now convinced that the pain response in men and women is mediated by different brain circuits—and not only because of his own observations. Obstetricians and gynaecologists have long known that certain drugs are particularly effective in women. Mothers in childbirth prefer nalbuphine to morphine, for instance. Men, however, report the opposite preference when they are in pain.

Both nalbuphine and morphine work by stimulating the brain's endogenous-opioid receptors (endogenous opioids are the molecules that opium-derived drugs mimic). But opioid receptors come in several varieties, two of the most important of which are known as mu and kappa. Morphine binds to the mu receptors, while nalbuphine stimulates the less well-studied kappa receptors. Kappa-receptor agonists, as molecules such as nalbuphine are known, appear to have little or no pain-relieving effect in men.

It later points out that "kappa-opioid agonists not only fail to alleviate pain in men, they can actually make it worse."

-- Vilkacis

[Scott Gardener]

1. Natural-born painkillers:

They're called endorphins.

2. Pain tolerance and whether the toilet seat should be down or up:

I have previously read from a medical standpoint that it was women who have the higher pain threshold. But, I can't quote the sources, so I can't back that up. If other studies contradict that and say it's men, then that's just typical of studies. They go back and forth all the time on all kinds of things. (I wonder in this case whether it's because men or women are doing the studies?) Case in point: four years ago I was at a conference in which a gynecologist insisted that I prescribe hormone replacement for all women past menopause--and not for its effects on reducing bone loss, but because of the studies that showed how much it protected against stroke and heart disease. He even said "it is malpractice" not to do it. Two years ago, a study gets published showing that hormone replacement causes strokes and heart attacks, and soon after, Prempro, one of the leading drugs, gets yanked off the market, and its name pops up in all the lawyer "if you or a loved one has taken (insert name)..." commercials. Studies are not always reliably consistant, especially when it comes to medicine.

3. Being a wimp

It is not neccessarily that most guys want to be macho, though many do. Many others are coerced into it through social conditioning, for the very reason Shadowblaze outlined above; social pressure. I have always been resentful of that expectation. It's one of the few double-standards that actually favors women--though they get more than their fair share of inequalities even in this day and age.

[Renorei]

hmmm...

That seems rather odd to me. Doesn't make much sense, either. Childbirth is arguably the most painful experience a human can endure, so why would males have a higher threshold of pain.

Some men say that males passing kidney stones is more painful than childbirth. I'm inclined to believe not, but I don't suppose we'll ever really know, because even if we asked a woman who's had a sex change to become a man, her organs would never be exactly the same as a natural male's.

Even in the event that the act of passing kidney stones is more painful, I doubt the male body would have evolved to have a higher threshold of pain simply b/c of that, after all the majority of males don't get them. But I would wager that most females do have children, so it makes no sense to me that males would have a higher pain threshold.

hhhmmm...I'm not saying those articles are wrong...but why? Why would men need a higher tolerance? That is what I would like to know.

I will not try to argue about whether or not childbirth is the most painful experience or not, as I could never know, but I do have to ask this...

...why do you assume that being the gender that goes through that experience automatically makes them have a higher pain tolerance? I just don't see the logic there. Women usually scream like they are dying when going through that. Judging by that, I would say those women have a LOW pain tolerance, not a HIGH one. If most women took it quietly and dealt with it without the screaming (and crushing of the hand of the poor fool who offered it in support), then that would suggest a high tolerance for pain.

...honestly, I think the fact that women in general who have gone through child birth complain about how painful it is so often is evidence in itself that their tolerance is LOW. If they could tolerate it...they wouldn't be complaining about it so much.

(My sincerest oppologies to any mothers that may be here on the forums. In case I have offended you...please don't kill me...)


Edit: Pain tolerance really has more to do with personality and state of mind than genetics. If pain tolerance was determined by genetics, then it would be more about, "who feels more pain" not "who can tollerate it better". Pain is a very neccesary bodily function, and if evolution has been tweaking it at all, it has been making us MORE sensitive to pain, as feeling pain is what stops us from killing ourselves, and let's us know when something is wrong in our bodies. Lower pain sensitivity would be a disadvantage in the long run.

Therefore, I don't think gender has anything to do with pain tolerance, initially. Rather...I believe that one gains higher tolerance by experiencing pain more often and being forced to deal with it. In other words...if male athletes have a higher pain tolerance, it is only because we hurt ourselves more often.

I wasn't arguing that women actually have a higher pain tolerance. I was wondering why we don't. If childbirth is so painful, why haven't we evolved to compensate? And for what reason would men need (from an evolutionary perspective) to have a higher pain tolerance than we do? Specific level of pain tolerance aside, it is rare to see a man scream and holler (in any situation) the way women do during childbirth. So, from the perspective of the individual person experiencing pain, it would seem that childbirth is one of the most painful experiences, so why hasn't evolution given us some sort of higher tolerance in order to deal with it better?

I wasn't stating that I believe women have a higher tolerance, what I was wondering is, why don't we?

I also believe pain tolerance has a lot to do with the individual, as you said, and what they are willing to endure. There's a lot to be said for state of mind.

(As for me, I'm having a C-section. Big scar vs. immense pain and resulting floppy vagina? For me, that's not a hard choice to make. IMO, natural childbirth is one of the most unnatural things in the world. Also, one study actually showed that C-section babies grew up to be smarter, presumably b/c there was less head trauma during birth, though there could be other factors at play.)

[Vilkacis]

Here's my own, personal, take on the matter:

Men and women are different. This is well-observed and I think I can take that for granted. Men are testosterone factories, while women chug along on estrogen, but that's only one of the many differences that affect the behavior of each. Although much of the given difference between the sexes is due to nurture rather than nature, I don't think it can really be argued that there are no innate differences.



In my experience, men are more likely to set their sights on a single goal and work at it, complete it, go on to the next task, without really thinking about much else. Men in general seem to be able to focus on a single task much more effectively, while women seem more suited to multitask.

Again, this is just what I have observed personally. My sister, for example, can read a book, watch TV, and hold a conversation all at the same time (I'm exaggerating a bit), while I find myself focusing on the most disruptive of the lot, to the exclusion of the others. My sister likes having music with her wherever she goes, whatever she does, but I find that I only listen to it for a minute or so, then tune it out and forget it's even there as I focus on the task at hand. I can spend the entire day working on an engaging computer problem or some other task and not even realize I'm hungry until I've missed a few meals. No female I know has that kind of single-minded drive.

I believe that men are more task- and situation-oriented, while women are more relationship- and emotion-oriented. A woman brings up a problem to another woman and they'll talk about it and work out their feelings. A woman brings up a problem to a man and he'll wonder what the heck she's expecting him to do about it.

A man who gets in a fight is more likely to lash out physically to eliminate the problem, while a woman is more likely to emotionally devastate their opponent.

A man who is emotionally wounded withdraws and prefers to consider the situation alone and in silence until he works it out. A woman wants to talk it through with someone.

Men can be fighting one moment and act like everything's fine the next, to the everlasting dismay of women (who don't think an issue is resolved until the emotional aspects have been considered).

Again, these are just general (and rather broad) observations, and I may be wrong about some of them. There are, of course, many exceptions to each case.



As to how this regards to pain:

As a male, I find that I can concentrate on the sensation of pain, isolate it, and even pretend it belongs to someone else to a certain degree. I find this dulls the intensity. It also helps if I divert my focus to something other than the pain, so that I can try to ignore it. However, from what I've heard, these techniques aren't nearly as effective for women, if at all.

I suspect women have a much more difficult time sorting out and handling the emotions that come with pain. Men are more apt to just ignore them -- they don't have anything to do with the situation! I am by no means a woman, but I think that women, having a broader perspective (that multitasking thing again), have a more difficult time dealing with the pain since they are unable to effectively ignore it.

On the other hand, however, I think this aspect can also be a strength. In highly emotional situations, such as childbirth, I think the strong emotions involved can act as a driving force that gets them through. I think people are more able to withstand extreme pain in situations where there is great emotional drive.



So.... that's what I think.

-- Vilkacis

[Vilkacis]

I wasn't arguing that women actually have a higher pain tolerance. I was wondering why we don't. If childbirth is so painful, why haven't we evolved to compensate? And for what reason would men need (from an evolutionary perspective) to have a higher pain tolerance than we do? Specific level of pain tolerance aside, it is rare to see a man scream and holler (in any situation) the way women do during childbirth. So, from the perspective of the individual person experiencing pain, it would seem that childbirth is one of the most painful experiences, so why hasn't evolution given us some sort of higher tolerance in order to deal with it better?

As far as natural selection goes, it couldn't care less if your life is painful. You could die during childbirth, and the only thing that would matter is that you produced children, and that your children survive to produce more children.

The only way that we would develop higher pain tolerance in that regard as far as evolution goes is if a painful childbirth reduced the ability of that branch of humanity from surviving, which I don't see as the case.

As for why men might have a higher pain tolerance, it is possible that our survival depended upon being able to take a grevious wound and still manage to struggle home. Thus, those with a higher pain threshold would be more likely to live and reproduce. *shrug*



To tell the truth, I don't think it really matters. There might be a notable difference, but I don't think it's a huge one. As was mentioned a few times before, nurture has a lot to do with it as well. Any difference can be overcome in the long run.

-- Vilkacis

[Doruk Golcu]

Hmmmm... we can see that most male mammals fight for females... That might be a reason for higher pain threshold. I looked it up on NCBI (national center for biological information), and the scientific literature out there seems to agree that men have higher pain tolerance than women, so my hearsay seems to have been wrong.

[Kzinistzerg]

It makes sense in some ways, and in others. for instance, painful childbirth makes each chikd more valuable in the mother's eyes (oh, god, i don't want to go through that again so this one had better survive) and probably also ensures a bond- this is rather circutious, but if the father really want's his kid to survive he has to help because right now the female is half-dead. rather than onther things where the child is raised by onyl one parent. and if the dad dason't help and the mom and kid get eaten by a bear, then the guy's malfunctioning genes won't reappaear i nthe next generation. also women don't give birth alot, maybe ten times maximum on their life, maybe more, usually far less. but guys probably routiunely wound them selves while being incompetent, (read: guys wound themselves because they';re out hunting and being mauled by variuos carnivores or kicjed with sharp hooves or smacked i nthe face by a branch) so the pain would be more often and thus gradually dull itself.

[Renorei]

As far as natural selection goes, it couldn't care less if your life is painful. You could die during chlidbirth, and the only thing that would matter is that you produced children, and that your children survive to produce more children.

My thoughts as far as natural selection goes in influencing the pain experienced during childbirth were basically this: I figured that women who experienced more pain during childbirth would be less likely to have more kids, while women with less pain would be more likely to have more. And over time, women would feel less pain during childbirth, because the women who had less pain had more kids, etc. That was my logic behind the thought that women would have evolved higher pain thresholds over time.

[Kzinistzerg]

Did you see what I typed? That is one reason- there may be others. but it's not the number of kids, you have- its the number of SURVIVING kids you have. if you have 300 kids and 5 survive, you're actually worse off than soemone who had 5 kids and 4 survived- due to many other reasons, such as effort involved, peroipds of weakness, food consumed, etc.

[Renorei]

Sorry, I was actually referring to surviving kids. I guess I should have specified.

[Shadow Wulf]

its amaving how people are so interested in talking about breast I though we settled on how the breast should be on a female werewolf.

[Kzinistzerg]

well, actually, come t think of it, i guess it the ratio of kiads- to surviving kids that counts.

[Figarou]

its amaving how people are so interested in talking about breast I though we settled on how the breast should be on a female werewolf.

Not only that...but from breast to pain to child birth in the same thread!!

[Vilkacis]

My thoughts as far as natural selection goes in influencing the pain experienced during childbirth were basically this: I figured that women who experienced more pain during childbirth would be less likely to have more kids, while women with less pain would be more likely to have more. And over time, women would feel less pain during childbirth, because the women who had less pain had more kids, etc. That was my logic behind the thought that women would have evolved higher pain thresholds over time.

Although that does make a certain amount of sense, if we go with that idea, this is what I see:

There would be a threshold of sorts. Those who find childbirth too painful would be above the threshold, and those who don't would be below. Everyone at the threshold and below would have the full number of children. (And I realize this is all a simplification).

Over time, those who are above the threshold would dwindle out, as they produce less children than everyone else. They would either die out or their tolerance of pain would eventually drift below the threshold.

However, once we hit that threshold, the amount of pain is no longer enough to prevent most people from having the full number of children. Hence, the pain tolerance of womankind over time would no longer change as a factor of how painful it is, but would instead depend on other factors. Some family lines would drift toward higher pain tolerance, while others would drift toward lower, but natural selection wouldn't really be pushing them in any particular direction.

So, the way I see it, some women in this simplified model would gain higher pain thresholds as you said, but only to the point where it is barely bearable.

-- Vilkacis

[NarnianWolfen]

My two cents: As far as I'm aware, cows, goats, and humans are the only females in the mammalian kingdom with udders all the time, and even there I may be wrong about goats and cows. Boobs are gross. Female werewolves would logically be smaller than males, and there's a thing to females that're different than males anyway. A female doesn't need breasts to be noticeable as a female. LOSE THE BOOBIES, I say. (And no, I'm not hating on breasts because I lack them. I don't lack them. I wish I did.)

[Kzinistzerg]

it's certainly more exposed- I can;'t think of an evolutinary reason to have thenm stick out so much except they wouldn't be able to grow fast enough/ produce enough milk for a child, but meh.

[Anubis]

sorry i have this impuse to say this since this thread opened well here it goes, BOOOOOOOOOOBIES!!!!!!!

[Renorei]

My two cents: As far as I'm aware, cows, goats, and humans are the only females in the mammalian kingdom with udders all the time, and even there I may be wrong about goats and cows. Boobs are gross. Female werewolves would logically be smaller than males, and there's a thing to females that're different than males anyway. A female doesn't need breasts to be noticeable as a female. LOSE THE BOOBIES, I say. (And no, I'm not hating on breasts because I lack them. I don't lack them. I wish I did.)

I agree with you. However, it appears that the majority don't (and it appears AB has already sort of decided how he feels about this). So, as a result, I've had to become resigned to the idea of boobs on a werewolf. Frankly, I hope it doesn't end up that way, but if they do have boobs, we can at least influence the appearance of said boobs before the movie is made.

This part here goes out to everyone: if werewolves are gonna have boobs or the suggestion of them, could you post a pic showing your ideal level of boobage for a female werewolf? It's nice to get a visual image. This also applies if you think they shouldn't have boobs. If you're a booby opponent, could you post a pic of a female werewolf that lacks boobs and still looks feminine?

I posted a pic earlier in this thread of a gold female werewolf that didn't have boobs, but had a significantly rounded chest. I think something like this could work, because although no boobs are present, they are hinted at. (she definitely still looked feminine).

[Figarou]

This part here goes out to everyone: if werewolves are gonna have boobs or the suggestion of them, could you post a pic showing your ideal level of boobage for a female werewolf? It's nice to get a visual image. This also applies if you think they shouldn't have boobs. If you're a booby opponent, could you post a pic of a female werewolf that lacks boobs and still looks feminine?

Level of boobage? Is there a button on the werewolf that can have them adjusted?


"OOoooooooo...what does this button do?" --Dee Dee



As for a pic, these boobies look ok in this one.

http://img395.imageshack.us/img395/9427/file01519mi.jpg

[Renorei]

As for a pic, these boobies look ok in this one.

http://img395.imageshack.us/img395/9427/file01519mi.jpg

I do have nice ones, don't I?

(thanks once again silverclaw)

[Figarou]

As for a pic, these boobies look ok in this one.

http://img395.imageshack.us/img395/9427/file01519mi.jpg

I do have nice ones, don't I?

Yup!! *presses button*

[NarnianWolfen]

Here are a few links for my point, all art (c) their respective artists:

http://www.kyoht.com/archive/art/browse ... ersDay.jpg
http://elfwood.lysator.liu.se/art/s/t/s ... r.jpg.html
http://www.goldenwolfen.com/archive/200 ... rigins.jpg

There's never really defined breasts, but each still maintains femininity, or I think so.

[23Jarden]

The last one has boobage! it's just the angle... I think... only the artist can tell...

[Renorei]

Here are a few links for my point, all art (c) their respective artists:

http://www.kyoht.com/archive/art/browse ... ersDay.jpg
http://elfwood.lysator.liu.se/art/s/t/s ... r.jpg.html
http://www.goldenwolfen.com/archive/200 ... rigins.jpg

There's never really defined breasts, but each still maintains femininity, or I think so.

Those are some pretty good examples. I love the facial expression on the one in the first pic. So peaceful!!

The second one, I think, does a good job of depicting a female werewolf in a fierce manner, but the third one is best at capturing the femininity. I like those two best. 23 is right, the last one does have ever so slight boobage, but I don't think that would be too bad. A blending of these two for a female werewolf would be good, I think.

[ChaosWolf]

As for a pic, these boobies look ok in this one.

http://img395.imageshack.us/img395/9427/file01519mi.jpg

I do have nice ones, don't I?

Yup!! *presses button*

Perfect...