New Stem Cell Breakthrough - 1 hour Boob Jobs

[loomer]

I must admit, I, with my fetish for large breasts, approve, for both the medical and purely cosmetic applications. Fantastic for cancer survivors and mtf transgenders, as has been said, but also good news for those with the same fetish!

[Superman]

Zixinus, is everything this black and white to you? My wife, for example, loves having larger breasts (and I love her having... you get the idea), and she's stated that she would go for something like this to go even bigger in a second. She likes it, I like it... what's the fucking problem?

That being said, of course there are self image issues that some women have... but not all.

[Lord of the Abyss]

There's nothing wrong with a little vanity. As a rule, women like looking good, like being attractive to men ( besides lesbians of course ) and in many cases larger breasts help that. Especially ones that will be normal, not fake. So why not get a bit of modification done, as long as it's well done and she can afford it ?

And ultimately, her body, her business.

[Lord Woodlouse]

But one can imagine the use of the technique in lips as well as breasts. Can male transvestites get boobs and lips as well? Talk about gender confusion.

Transsexuals, I imagine you mean. If you're a transvestite you generally just want to wear clothes of the opposite sex.

While it would be nice to grow a pair and then shrink them down again after wearing a dress, I doubt the procedure is quite that advanced.

[Shroom Man 777]

Hrm.

"Haha, you have small tits!"

"Gasp!" *runs to clinic*

one hour later

"Wow, your tits got big!" *gropey*

"Gasp!" *slaps*

[matus1976]

WTH? You know matus, I've read and reread my comment time and again, and I have no clue as to how you came to say what you did. In fact, I don't know where to begin, but I will make the attempt.

Perhaps than, it is because you don't really know the implications of what you are saying, I guess I thought you were smarter than you actually are, my bad.

First, I did not use the words you quoted: "only to the rich." So right off the bat you're misquoting me.

I was paraphrasing you and relating it to the common bromide, "only those wealthy enough to afford it" is no different than "only the rich can..." get over yourself. It means the same damn thing.

Second, my statement, "Otherwise only those wealthy enough can afford the procedure" proceeds from, and is directly related to, the preceding phrase, which is the sad fact that insurance companies will probably not pay for the procedure, which is what I said. At best I deserved a "duh" from the peanut gallery for making such an obvious statement.

You are oblivious to the fact that at one point in time everything was affordable only to the 'rich' or those 'wealthy enough to afford the procedure' You act like this is not great news because only those 'wealthy enough to afford it' will get it. If you men your statement literally, than it is a moronic and redundant statement. "Only those who can afford to buy cars will buy them!" (duh) "Only those who can afford houses will buy them" (duh) "only those whose names are Tahlan are named Tahlan" (duh) What is the point of making such a statement? Your statement implies that this is not great news for everyone, but only the rich, which glosses over the fact that everything at one point in time was only for the rich, before it became available to everyone else.

Third, your poorly punctuated running tirade which was, Every single product, technology, or medical procedure that has ever existed has at one point in time been available "only to the rich" it is the natural progression by which things become available to everyone else. Can you name one single thing man made that was instantly available to 'everyone' absolutely baffles me. I understand the words you used, but I cannot make the connection between what I said and the impetus for your tirade.

I hope my previous comment clarifies that for you.

Fourth, if I was espousing egalitarianism, I certainly would have done a better job of it, and belittling it as "nonsense" is simply juvenile. Do you really know what egalitarianism is?

I do, clearly YOU do not.

Within the context of this discussion, the second definition is the applicable one.

Here is the Merriam-Webster's definition: 2: a social philosophy advocating the removal of inequalities among people.

Stop right there and think about it Tahlan. No, ok, Let me help you...

So where do you get egalitarianism from my statement that insurance companies probably won't pay for the procedure and the logical conclusion that only the wealthy will be able to afford the procedure?

Hmm, lets see, "only the rich" (er, I mean, only those 'wealthy enough to afford an expensive procedure') will get this, and advocating the removal of inequalities among people hmm, do you really not see the connection between you bemoaning something where only a few people get something, and a social philosophy which advocates the removal of 'inequalities' hmmm.

The other down side is the abuse of the procedure for purely cosmetic reasons, and not medical. Clarification: reconstruction after a masectomy is medical, although I will bet that insurance companies will say it's cosmetic and won't pay for it.

What the hell do you care if someone gets a boob job who you think 'doesnt need it'

I didn't say I did.

You said it is a down side for someone to get a procedure for 'purely cosmetic' reasons, and that it is in fact 'abuse' You are saying that it would be bad (that is, a down side) for someone who doesnt 'need' the procedure (need to you being defined as a medical 'need') to actually get it. Do you not know what you type? Words have meanings sir. It is a 'down side' and 'abuse' for someone who doesnt 'need' this, to get it.

its not your judgment call to make.

I didn't say it was.

Clearly you think it is, as you just made a call. see above.

The vast majority of things we do are not 'needed'

Your words and not mine.

Thank you capt gift for the obvious, I am making a conceptual connection between what you are saying and the necessary logical implications of it. That's called thinking.

What is it meant be 'needed'

What? More bad grammar and missing punctuation? WTH does your sentence mean?

It is a question for you to ponder, "What is it meant to be needed?" In my haste I apologize for dropping the "to" but clearly a half seconds worth of thought would have helped you to understand what was being said. Did anyone else reading this thread have a problem making that connection? Please speak up.

You say that people who don't 'need' this procedure will get it, and that it is a 'down side' or 'abuse' for that to happen. Why is that? What does it mean to 'need' something? When you say "you don't need that (big house, boob job, car, etc)" what are you saying? Words have meanings and are important because they allow us to exchange and communicate ideas. What is the idea behind "need" which you are using? When you say it is a down side or abuse for someone to do or get something you think they don't 'need' then you obviously must be using a working definition for 'need', which is what I expanded on below. Your implication that 'need' is equal to 'medical' need means that 'need' means something necessary for your survival (medical need being something that you need to have done to survive) or, at least, attain some quality of life which you deem acceptable where anything below that (a masectomy removing a breast) qualifies as 'medical need' and where anything above that (a women with a small chest who wants boobs) does not qualify as a 'need' and is instead 'abuse' even though both are based on self esteem questions are not necessities for mere mechanistic survival.

What is necessary for mere survival?

I don't know. I didn't pose the question. You tell me.

I hope you understand the connection now between deriding someone for getting something they dont 'need' and defining what you mean by 'need'

Hardly more than bread, water, and some berries, but I bet you consume a hell of a lot more than that. How many pairs of shoes and pants do you have? Surely you don't 'need' all those. How big is your apt? I bet its a hell of a lot bigger than what you 'need' to survive. Why do you have a computer? You certainly don't 'need' that to survive. What's with those contact lenses? You sure don't 'need' those to survive.

So what's the point of your diatribe?

I don't think further elaboration is needed so I'll defer you to the above comments again.

You act as though someone must justify to you their 'need' for something, boob job or not.

Oh, now it's my actions, and not only my words that condemn me. How do you even remotely justify your statement?

I justify my statement because your statements, the ideas and words you use mean something. Refer again to the comments on 'abuse' and 'down side'

Is your life so un-interesting that you must life to dictate the lives of others?

Uh-oh. More bad grammar. Anyway, your denigrating question and speculation about my life smacks of Strawman Fallacy.

Really? You are here pontificating about the abuse and down side of some medical technology which you think someone doesnt 'need' There is no straw man about it, you are making your own moral judgment calls about what is necessary and un-necessary and applying them to other people. You might as well join the presidents 'bio ethics' board, you would make fast friends with Leon Kass and Francis Fukuyama, who also enjoy deciding what other people 'need' and influencing public policy in that direction.

You are just a little social tyrant in training.

Another fallacy; I just don't remember which one it is; although I do think it is the Ad Hominem Fallacy.

Again, you think you know what’s best for other people, what they 'need' and what they don't 'need' and what is 'abuse' and a 'down side' The fact that you think that a down side to a reasonable procedure making someone feel better about themselves means that you don't think people should be getting that procedure done. That means you spend your time thinking about what other people ought and ought not to do. If you had any say in the matter, I highly doubt you would simply let people decide for themselves if they 'need' it, you would want rules and committees to decide for them, because they are too stupid to decide for themselves. That is a social tyrant in training. Perhaps I am wrong, and you wouldnt care what people did or didn’t do with their own body when no other person was injured, if so, please state that explicitly and I will withdraw my 'social tyrant' charge. But if you actually felt that way, you probably wouldn’t be yapping about what you thought other people 'needed' and did not 'need'.

Why don't you try living your own life instead of telling other people what is and isn’t right for them do with their own bodies.

I do live my own life. Perhaps you should heed your own advice.

I think it's worthwhile to repeat again: Perhaps I am wrong, and you wouldn’t care what people did or didn’t do with their own body when no other person was injured, if so, please state that explicitly and I will withdraw my 'social tyrant' charge. But if you actually felt that way, you probably wouldn’t be yapping about what you thought other people 'needed' and did not 'need'.

I am indeed living my own life because I am fighting for the right to be allowed to live my own life, anytime I see this egalitarian social tyrant non-sense I call it for what it is, because if left to entrench itself and grow, the next thing you know you people will be telling me what medical procedures I 'need' and don't need. It is the same though process which leads to that which you exhibit here, and I am calling it by its true nature. If you don't believe it is right to force someone not to get a procedure because you don't think they 'need' it, than you should be careful about spouting these moral judgments in the first place. I hope I have made myself clear.

- Matus1976

[LadyTevar]

Ladytevar, you rock by the way...

Nit and I agree I'd rock more with a nice set of C-cups.

[Darth Wong]

A few thousand dollars? That's hardly "rich person" territory. How many blue-collar workers have a big-screen TV in the den that cost more than that? How many people go on yearly vacations which cost FAR more than that? How many people buy SUVs instead of cheap compact cars, the extra cost and maintenance of which would dwarf that?

In any case, I think big breasts are overrated. A lot of people seem to have absolutely no concept of which physical traits will age well, and big breasts are not among those traits. If a 19 year old gets huge breasts they may catch the eye right now, but in 15 years you're looking at Droop City. In 25 years you'll want to buy her a wheelbarrow.

[Eulogy]

In any case, I think big breasts are overrated. A lot of people seem to have absolutely no concept of which physical traits will age well, and big breasts are not among those traits. If a 19 year old gets huge breasts they may catch the eye right now, but in 15 years you're looking at Droop City. In 25 years you'll want to buy her a wheelbarrow.

So which traits DO age well?

[Darth Wong]

In any case, I think big breasts are overrated. A lot of people seem to have absolutely no concept of which physical traits will age well, and big breasts are not among those traits. If a 19 year old gets huge breasts they may catch the eye right now, but in 15 years you're looking at Droop City. In 25 years you'll want to buy her a wheelbarrow.

So which traits DO age well?

A good personality. Physical fitness. Nice legs. Strong character. A sense of humour.

[General Zod]

In any case, I think big breasts are overrated. A lot of people seem to have absolutely no concept of which physical traits will age well, and big breasts are not among those traits. If a 19 year old gets huge breasts they may catch the eye right now, but in 15 years you're looking at Droop City. In 25 years you'll want to buy her a wheelbarrow.

So which traits DO age well?

A good personality. Physical fitness. Nice legs. Strong character. A sense of humour.

A nice tight ass will age better than lots of curves too, though I suspect that could be lumped under the nice legs part.

[Superman]

Ladytevar, you rock by the way...

Nit and I agree I'd rock more with a nice set of C-cups.

Hang on to this one, Nitram (as if I need to remind you).

[chitoryu12]

In any case, I think big breasts are overrated. A lot of people seem to have absolutely no concept of which physical traits will age well, and big breasts are not among those traits. If a 19 year old gets huge breasts they may catch the eye right now, but in 15 years you're looking at Droop City. In 25 years you'll want to buy her a wheelbarrow.

So which traits DO age well?

A good personality. Physical fitness. Nice legs. Strong character. A sense of humour.

Basically whatever actually matters about a woman?

[LadyTevar]

So which traits DO age well?

A good personality. Physical fitness. Nice legs. Strong character. A sense of humour.

Basically whatever actually matters about a woman?

Indeed

[Lisa]

Where do I sign up for the trial? I have the fat to spare...

If you find out tell me... The 2 for 1 deal (removal of belly fat and growth of breasts) sounds too good to be true.

[General Zod]

Where do I sign up for the trial? I have the fat to spare...

If you find out tell me... The 2 for 1 deal (removal of belly fat and growth of breasts) sounds too good to be true.

The article mentions they're doing trials in Japan and planning to expand to Europe. I hope you've brushed up on your Japanese. (Though good luck finding trials in America with our country's idiotic stem-cell phobia).

[Lisa]

Where do I sign up for the trial? I have the fat to spare...

If you find out tell me... The 2 for 1 deal (removal of belly fat and growth of breasts) sounds too good to be true.

The article mentions they're doing trials in Japan and planning to expand to Europe. I hope you've brushed up on your Japanese. (Though good luck finding trials in America with our country's idiotic stem-cell phobia).

I'm in Canada so I may not have as many issues, supposedly we're on the forefront of stem-cell research... but i figure it would be 5-10 years before it hits main stream.

[Superman]

Where do I sign up for the trial? I have the fat to spare...

If you find out tell me... The 2 for 1 deal (removal of belly fat and growth of breasts) sounds too good to be true.

The article mentions they're doing trials in Japan and planning to expand to Europe. I hope you've brushed up on your Japanese. (Though good luck finding trials in America with our country's idiotic stem-cell phobia).

In Japan now? My wife is still a citizen...

How long does it take again? My wife has already decided that this is a great idea; I'll let you guys know.

[Tanasinn]

Grave news indeed for those of us men who prefer women with smallish or medium-sized breasts.

[Coyote]

Let's see, if all the women in America did this... and the average obesity level.... (calculates)--

Dear God! A nation of "Pandora Peaks"!!!

YAHOO!!

[aerius]

Grave news indeed for those of us men who prefer women with smallish or medium-sized breasts.

Lolitas man, Lolitas, that's where it's at. Gotta get'em while they're still young.

[Darth Servo]

I'm a real hard-core boob-lovin guy and even I don't like "Dolly Partons". A nice c-cup is all you really need.

[Darth Servo]

In Japan now? My wife is still a citizen...

How long does it take again? My wife has already decided that this is a great idea; I'll let you guys know.

Be sure to post pictures.