Bhm moobs

Dimensions Magazine

Help Support Dimensions Magazine:

big_col

Active Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2010
Messages
44
Location
,
A. Try yoga to make yourself more flexible
B. Wax them, or ask someone else to do it for you
C&D. Learn to appreciate your assets! You only get one body, so enjoy it!
wax them :eek: men are not ment to be waxed, if we were we would have a high pain threshold like women do. Try shaving lot less painful!!
 

GentleSavage

I don't bite too much...
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
237
Location
,
A. Try yoga to make yourself more flexible
B. Wax them, or ask someone else to do it for you
C&D. Learn to appreciate your assets! You only get one body, so enjoy it!
A.) I do do yoga, but my neck only moves so much! And I'm plenty flexible, I can put my legs behind my head... not that is actually that useful but w/e...
B.) I don't mind my hairiness that much, so I wouldn't wax it.
C+D.) In the process of doing this...
 

WillSpark

King Of The Robo-Sluts
Joined
Nov 3, 2008
Messages
1,636
Location
,
wax them :eek: men are not ment to be waxed, if we were we would have a high pain threshold like women do. Try shaving lot less painful!!
Well, in fact, guys do have a higher pain tolerance than women. The only exception is childbirth which women are specifically engineered to make it as painless as physically possible for the body naturally, releasing it's own natural painkillers. So yes, men would have a higher tolerance for waxing than women, though one who's been waxed before would have a higher tolerance than someone doing it for the first time, man or woman.
 

SnapDragon

Filthy Letch
Joined
Oct 4, 2005
Messages
340
Location
,
wax them :eek: men are not ment to be waxed, if we were we would have a high pain threshold like women do. Try shaving lot less painful!!
As a woman who has tried both, waxing is not particularly painful if you do it properly. Any pain that does result from it is significantly outweighed by the lack of a requirement to do it again for another month and not having to put up with itching and discomfort from it growing back. ;-)
 

Esther

Queen Black Acid
Joined
Nov 18, 2008
Messages
2,057
Location
,
Well, in fact, guys do have a higher pain tolerance than women. The only exception is childbirth which women are specifically engineered to make it as painless as physically possible for the body naturally, releasing it's own natural painkillers. So yes, men would have a higher tolerance for waxing than women, though one who's been waxed before would have a higher tolerance than someone doing it for the first time, man or woman.
Haha... while I do believe you, Will... all I could think about while reading this was how much my manfriend whines and bitches when I pluck his unibrow for him.
 

big_col

Active Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2010
Messages
44
Location
,
As a woman who has tried both, waxing is not particularly painful if you do it properly. Any pain that does result from it is significantly outweighed by the lack of a requirement to do it again for another month and not having to put up with itching and discomfort from it growing back. ;-)
I have been on the receiving end of waxing only once and vowed never to go there again it was so painfull you could have heard me scream on the other side of town. I would put up with the itching if i ever went down that road again :D Now where is the Calamine lotion :D
 

WillSpark

King Of The Robo-Sluts
Joined
Nov 3, 2008
Messages
1,636
Location
,
Haha... while I do believe you, Will... all I could think about while reading this was how much my manfriend whines and bitches when I pluck his unibrow for him.
Well, wimpy manfriends notwithstanding, it will vary person to person, but in general, men do have a higher pain tolerance than women, except for that whole "Pushing a baby out of a hole too small for it" exception.
 

Tad

Dimensions' loiterer
Joined
Sep 29, 2005
Messages
13,223
Location
The great white north, eh?
Hmmm, what I recall reading (from a study maybe 4-5 years ago?), was that, at least barring hormonal birth control, women had a higher pain tolerance....except for a few days a month. I forget which hormone shot up or down in levels, but apparently it really affects pain tolerance.

How women and men react to and express pain may tend to also be different, but that is not the same as how much they can actually tolerate it.
 

SnapDragon

Filthy Letch
Joined
Oct 4, 2005
Messages
340
Location
,
Willspark, I don't know where these statistics came from or how accurate they are, but whether it's worked out as mean, median, or mode, they're not applicable to individuals. Statistically, women are far more likely than men to get breast cancer, but that doesn't mean all women have breast cancer and men never have it, or that any woman you meet on the street will have breast cancer or any man won't. People are individuals, and it's dangerous to try to apply statistics to them. Also, it's irrational to say that giving birth is less painful to women than to men, as no man in history has ever given birth to provide a suitable comparison statistic, so far as I'm aware.

People's pain thresholds seem to vary in the types of pain they are most able to tolerate as well as how much. I have a lot of endurance for severe pain if it's short duration, but very little tolerance for mild, niggling discomfort-typed pain such as from colds and headaches, because they interfere with my concentration and my ability to do things. Faced with the choice, I'd rather have a nipple piercing than put up with a blocked nose for a few days. I would hate to break my arm -- not because of the pain, but because it would be so irritating and inconvenient while it healed.

Anecdotally, my tattoo artist said that in general women seem to have fewer problems with pain, but I still wouldn't use this to make an assumption about a person's pain threshold because of what sex it was.

was that, at least barring hormonal birth control, women had a higher pain tolerance....except for a few days a month. I forget which hormone shot up or down in levels, but apparently it really affects pain tolerance.
Probably oestrogen. Large doses mess with your head and it's carcinogenic. Small amounts that occur naturally in the body are necessary for health, but hormone contraceptives contain large amounts of synthetic oestrogens.
 

WillSpark

King Of The Robo-Sluts
Joined
Nov 3, 2008
Messages
1,636
Location
,
Willspark, I don't know where these statistics came from or how accurate they are, but whether it's worked out as mean, median, or mode, they're not applicable to individuals. Statistically, women are far more likely than men to get breast cancer, but that doesn't mean all women have breast cancer and men never have it, or that any woman you meet on the street will have breast cancer or any man won't. People are individuals, and it's dangerous to try to apply statistics to them. Also, it's irrational to say that giving birth is less painful to women than to men, as no man in history has ever given birth to provide a suitable comparison statistic, so far as I'm aware.

People's pain thresholds seem to vary in the types of pain they are most able to tolerate as well as how much. I have a lot of endurance for severe pain if it's short duration, but very little tolerance for mild, niggling discomfort-typed pain such as from colds and headaches, because they interfere with my concentration and my ability to do things. Faced with the choice, I'd rather have a nipple piercing than put up with a blocked nose for a few days. I would hate to break my arm -- not because of the pain, but because it would be so irritating and inconvenient while it healed.

Anecdotally, my tattoo artist said that in general women seem to have fewer problems with pain, but I still wouldn't use this to make an assumption about a person's pain threshold because of what sex it was.



Probably oestrogen. Large doses mess with your head and it's carcinogenic. Small amounts that occur naturally in the body are necessary for health, but hormone contraceptives contain large amounts of synthetic oestrogens.
I understand completely that pain tolerance and threshhold are subjective. But in studies, the majority of results reveal a general increased amount of both in men. A google search on the subject will reveal it to be the majority, though some also make claims of variable results. This si jsut the results of studies, and nothing to prove anything superior or even of necessary truth to you or anyone else. Heck, it wouldn't even be necessarily by stance on the subject. It's just what has been demonstrably shown
 

SnapDragon

Filthy Letch
Joined
Oct 4, 2005
Messages
340
Location
,
I understand completely that pain tolerance and threshhold are subjective. But in studies, the majority of results reveal a general increased amount of both in men. A google search on the subject will reveal it to be the majority, though some also make claims of variable results. This si jsut the results of studies, and nothing to prove anything superior or even of necessary truth to you or anyone else. Heck, it wouldn't even be necessarily by stance on the subject. It's just what has been demonstrably shown
I'm not saying the claims are wrong, but that if there is a trend, it is of no earthly use to you or me or anyone else in this world, and it's dangerous to make assumptions on people of any demographic just because what a trend says about what particular demographic they belong to. We are individuals and we are what we are, because that's what we are, not because a trend says we should fit 'here'.
 

WillSpark

King Of The Robo-Sluts
Joined
Nov 3, 2008
Messages
1,636
Location
,
I'm not saying the claims are wrong, but that if there is a trend, it is of no earthly use to you or me or anyone else in this world, and it's dangerous to make assumptions on people of any demographic just because what a trend says about what particular demographic they belong to. We are individuals and we are what we are, because that's what we are, not because a trend says we should fit 'here'.
It's just using the same method with which we progress in everything to make a claim. We've simply evaluated the situation and this is the general state of things under lab scrutiny. It is simply a social study. There are always outliers or exceptions, and of course there is always anecdotal evidence. This is jsut what the science shows. Nothing more. Evaluating trends is just a way of seeing what is a trend. It means nothing to an individual other than they either do or don't fit the trend. We're both saying the same thing except you're just disregarding the fact that the trend is present at all or matters because you have anecdotal evidence against it. Fact is, the trend is present, and the majority fit into it. That's all.

In other news, I like my moobs personally. Hell, they've been complimented before. And I can lick them, though I can't suck them.
 

SnapDragon

Filthy Letch
Joined
Oct 4, 2005
Messages
340
Location
,
It's just using the same method with which we progress in everything to make a claim. We've simply evaluated the situation and this is the general state of things under lab scrutiny. It is simply a social study. There are always outliers or exceptions, and of course there is always anecdotal evidence. This is jsut what the science shows. Nothing more. Evaluating trends is just a way of seeing what is a trend. It means nothing to an individual other than they either do or don't fit the trend. We're both saying the same thing except you're just disregarding the fact that the trend is present at all or matters because you have anecdotal evidence against it. Fact is, the trend is present, and the majority fit into it.
I'm not disregarding any facts. I am saying that if such a trend exists (and with respect, you have not provided a link to a scientific paper, or at least a news article, so I consider it as anecdotal as my own knowledge on the matter, but that's beside the point), it should not be used in any sort of application to individuals. It is also not a standard scientific method anywhere, so far as I know, to compare available data with complete absence of data (i.e. how painful giving birth is in women compared to men). My issue was that you suggested a person should attempt something considered painful because he fitted into a demographic in which there was assumed to be a trend of having a high pain threshold relative to the entire sample.

Say people of a certain ethnicity make the best athletes, which has been suggested before, because of the numbers of African-Caribbean people doing well at the high end, and that there is a trend in such people to be more athletic than the general whole. It doesn't make sense because of this to recommend to a young person of this ethnicity that she pursues athletic activities at the expense of other activities because her genetic background might give her a statistical advantage. She is an individual and needs to pursue what she enjoys and what she thinks she has strengths in. This is why I think statistics (ab)used in this way can become very detrimental to people.

Statistical analysis has its uses, but such trends are only of use to people doing research about large groups of people. Using figures like these to attempt to guess at people's nature I think is harmful because it can end up as justification and bolstering for discrimination. You are an individual and your pain threshold is whatever it is, and any trend amongst everyone else and how you fit into it is no help to you. Someone I know once said that an operation that has a 1% chance of death might be reassuring to someone about to undergo it, but it's of no comfort to the people whose relative fell into that unfortunate 1%.
 

rellis10

tuh-maw-tow
Joined
May 6, 2010
Messages
3,806
Location
, Male
I'm not disregarding any facts. I am saying that if such a trend exists (and with respect, you have not provided a link to a scientific paper, or at least a news article, so I consider it as anecdotal as my own knowledge on the matter, but that's beside the point), it should not be used in any sort of application to individuals. It is also not a standard scientific method anywhere, so far as I know, to compare available data with complete absence of data (i.e. how painful giving birth is in women compared to men). My issue was that you suggested a person should attempt something considered painful because he fitted into a demographic in which there was assumed to be a trend of having a high pain threshold relative to the entire sample.

Say people of a certain ethnicity make the best athletes, which has been suggested before, because of the numbers of African-Caribbean people doing well at the high end, and that there is a trend in such people to be more athletic than the general whole. It doesn't make sense because of this to recommend to a young person of this ethnicity that she pursues athletic activities at the expense of other activities because her genetic background might give her a statistical advantage. She is an individual and needs to pursue what she enjoys and what she thinks she has strengths in. This is why I think statistics (ab)used in this way can become very detrimental to people.

Statistical analysis has its uses, but such trends are only of use to people doing research about large groups of people. Using figures like these to attempt to guess at people's nature I think is harmful because it can end up as justification and bolstering for discrimination. You are an individual and your pain threshold is whatever it is, and any trend amongst everyone else and how you fit into it is no help to you. Someone I know once said that an operation that has a 1% chance of death might be reassuring to someone about to undergo it, but it's of no comfort to the people whose relative fell into that unfortunate 1%.

I never thought i'd say this.....

Less Point Making...More Moobery. This thread isnt called "Which gender has the higher pain tolerance and why?" it's called "Bhm moobs". :D
 
2

Latest posts

Top