• Im_old@lemmy.worldEnglish
    19·
    11 days ago

    I had to scroll back in my saved posts to a million years ago to resurrect this.

    • ✺roguetrick✺@lemmy.worldEnglish
      1·
      10 days ago

      That metaphor (breasts as fruit) transcends language though. Whatever you call fruits you’ll end up calling breasts. Here’s the song of Solomon which was semetic.

      I said, ‘I will go up to the palm tree; I will take hold of the boughs thereof.’ Now also thy breasts shall be as clusters of the vine, and the smell of thy nose like apples.

      Instead of viewing things like this etymologically, it’s better to see them as universal metaphors that transcend language and culture. Similar to light and darkness.

  • Majorllama@lemmy.worldEnglish
    6·
    11 days ago

    If y’all could please direct me to the thighs and calves galaxies I’ll be on my way. I enjoy boobs as do most humans, but I am a legs man.

  • stebo@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
    4·
    11 days ago

    In German and Dutch it’s way worse: “Säugetier” and “zoogdier”. Both can roughly be translated to “sucking animals”. I was taught in school that it’s called that because babies suck on the mother’s breasts to be fed and this is a unique trait to mammals. So in conclusion, we all suck.

  • sik0fewl@lemmy.caEnglish
    2·
    11 days ago

    Ackshully, “galaxy” (or rather, “galaxias”) means “Milky Way” already, it’s just a translation. It was less ambiguous when the only galaxy we could see was the Milky lights that covered a lot of our sky.

    Of course, we realize there’s more than one galaxy now, so the meanings have diverged.

  • latenightnoir@lemmy.worldEnglish
    1·
    11 days ago

    I mean… I think we can all agree that boobs are at least universally non-threatening, even without counting the symbolisms of nourishment, nurturance, life, fertility, etc. At least I don’t think we’re at the point where hiding machine guns or hellish snakes in boobs is viable. … Right?

    • queermunist she/her@lemmy.mlEnglish
      02·
      11 days ago

      Yeah this isn’t a universal human thing like the post suggests, it’s just that terms like “mammal” and “galaxy” are rooted in Europe.

      Folks? There are people outside of Europe, and they have different opinions on stuff!

  • Rhaedas@fedia.io
    0·
    11 days ago

    We’re the only(?) species that have evolved them to become more than their basic function. Other species use colors and other features for mating signals, humans use shapes. Definitely wired to be interested in them.

    • the_weez@midwest.socialEnglish
      0·
      11 days ago

      Hold up, are other hominids interested in boobs? Any other mammal? Any non mammals into boobs? How much tiddy science have we really done here? I need tiddy facts.

      • pressanykeynow@lemmy.worldEnglish
        0·
        11 days ago

        Tiddy loving might be a cultural thing. Human species that don’t need clothes care little for the boobs. Though they live south, so either they are used to it or it might be Neanderthal(or other varieties) genes that some of us inherited. We certainly are boob fetishists among the mammals.

        • psud@aussie.zoneEnglish
          1·
          6 days ago

          There’s only one extant human species and we don’t know anything about soft tissue in extinct species of humans