Okay, I just laughed so hard I cried at this 11-page thread on a gaming forum on whether female "dragonborn" D&D characters should have big ol' boobies. Highlights include:
- suggestions that they should look like dragons everywhere except their chests and should be drawn with halter tops
- intense discussion of how the platypus has milk but does it through "leaky skin" not mammaries
- the bad spelling of "mamaries" throughout
- Dejah Thoris, egg-laying Martian with an enormous rack -n- crack, brought in as evidence
- Therapsids, our Ancestors. Dinosaurs with bewbs!
- The usefulness of having a +2 Cloaca of Hiding
- Dragon boobs would produce fluids *other* than milk.
- They could be poison sacs, like toads have, but secreting sticky goo so that men who fight them get stuck to their breasts by poisonous slime. (Scarily detailed!)
- The phrase in all seriousness "if you're saying that draconidae are a clade of therapsidae..."
- hidden nipples under the pectoral scales
- "It may be that that is where they incubate their eggs"
- "many muscles used for explosive, pylometric activities "ball up" when they're relaxed"
- "Perhaps at high levels, Dragonborn can shapechange fluidly" (to have breasts)
- Complaints that telling genders apart by color, weird head crests, or any other way other than boobs would be too difficult
- Someone else pointing out that Gold/Bronze on Pern is not hard to tell apart and there's no boobs there
- Boobs with scales would be "not happy" (presumably because human men, or players, are squicked by the very idea of female signifiers that aren't soft and available for grabbing)
- The lone voice of sanity
I loved this bit where someone refuted the egg-pouch theory by claiming no species would be so senselessly designed as to have heavy things pressing on the lungs and heart:
Carrying eggs that high above the center of gravity is horribly inefficient, as it would strain the back, cause problems with balance, and put potentially dangerous pressure against vital life sustaining organs, such as the heart and lungs.
Right. That's why we have breasts there in the first place? I'm loving it!
I'm telling you, most of this wasn't even meant to be funny. It rests on huge amounts of presumption that femaleness itself exists to be consumed by men and defined by them. Huge amounts of entitlement.
Let's return to the lone voice of sanity on the thread, about halfway in:
The next time we're all sitting around wondering why there aren't more girls in D&D, you can think back to this thread.
This nine page long thread about boobs.
Just putting some perspective on here.
Yes. Exactly. Thanks.
No, wait... I keep going back for more. There is another voice of sanity, this one with humor:
Perhaps they are not not breasts so much as two seperate glands each producing a chemical that when combined erupt in flame.
Actually, that's how my breasts work and that's why I don't let anyone mess with them. They're totally lethal. They're nucular. They give a whole new dimension to the phrase "Torpedo tits".
Back to the forum and its total jackpot of dumbassery; an evo-psych argument that humans have fatty bumps on their chests so that they will look like butts, because primates find butt cracks sexy, and since we walk upright and do it face to face sometimes, we like to be looking at some frontal butt-cleavage:
A quite popular theory among biologists is that the form of a woman's busom is meant to emulate that of her behind, which, apparently, is considered tempting to males of all primates. In other words, a human female's breasts are shaped as they are to excite sexual interest in human males, not to provide nourishment to human babies. You'll note how other apes have mammary glands, but not big, round breasts. The reason, according to the biologists, is that only we humans are fully erect, and tend to view our potential partners from the front. If all this is true, it wouldn't be so strange if all fully erect, sexually active species have the same system, even if they do not feed their young with breast milk.
Last time I checked not all human women had "big, round breasts" at least not outside of comic books. But then the punchline came a few posts later:
It certainly makes sense, though, but it does require that the female's buttocks be a sexual symbol to begin with (and that the buttocks be that rough shape). That theory would work for anything with a tail, and maybe for some humanoids with relatively slender tails (especially if they grow a tuft of hair down the cleavage and onto the stomach to simulate a tail) but a reptilian tail just seems a bit too heavy for that to occur - viewing the reptile from behind would result in seeing the tail rather than buttocks.
So if you assume the same evolutionary pressures are in action with the dragonborn, what you could end up with is a monobreast with the point right in the middle to simulate the end of a reptilian tail. Which may end up with a very similar suggestive bulge when you put armour or clothes over it.
Okay aside from how freaking hilarious is, let's think about this a minute...
These guys assume, automatically, that anything branded female is there to be pornified. In fact the trend in that most annoying junk science "evolutionary psychology" is that pretty much the explanation for the existence of any supposed characteristic in women, mental or physical, is "because men want to fuck it".
But back to the humor. It all reminds me of the Very Small Epiphany I had lately as I stared at the mesmerizing buttcrack of an acquaintance of mine. For the generation just below mine, letting their butt crack fly free is just like wearing a low cut shirt to show some cleavage. I amused and horrified Minnie by explaining this and adding the prediction that within 5 years there will be a fashion of pants that go even lower and have lacy or transparent panels in the back to reveal even more subtly shadowed, alluring, sexy crack. She didn't believe me! Fine! But it did come true about how everyone in 10 years would be wearing hats with cat ears... I called that one too.
BONUS DIGRESSION. Courtesy of me, because I'm on page 4 of 15 of the enormous forum thread without any mention of it occurring.
What about dragonborn dick? Do they have penises? Might they be illustrated with enormous jeweled codpieces? Or alluringly bulgy breechcloths? How will we tell? Why do they have them? Why not? Consider the platypus! The dinosaurs! Tars Tarkan's mighty thews and incredible Martianhood! But no, the forum is remarkably silent.
We should start it up over at Iris!
ANYWAY... pop the stack back out to the lizard-boobs, dragons and maidens.
I far prefer the beautiful theory I read recently: We most often see dragons and princesses together because *maidens evolve into dragons*. They shed their maidenly human skins, leaving behind just enough detritus so that their "rescuers" think they've been eaten. And they turn all scaly and huge and fierce and eat their "rescuers". It makes perfect sense.
P.S. If you know the source of the menacing boob-warning symbol above, and you're not L.Q., you win a prize!