THE PACK Message Boards

i can already tell that nothing good will come out of this thread. this is a bad post. i know i did my fair share of bad threads.

I find wolves quite beautiful as they are, but human breasts (on females only) are one of the few things of value to me concerning the human species (artistic expression and opiates being the other things). I often wonder if I'm completely gay but then noticing breasts make me realize "No, still bisexual."

So heart and brain compete for me. Wolves - beautiful, Breasts - beautiful. Noticible, bouncy breasts - pleasing, smaller, not so noticible breasts - realistic.

I'm inclined to with breasts the same size as human form in gestalt form, fur covered. Nipple viewings reserved for mates and nursing cubs. But then wolves have no tie ups about nudity or "decency".

1 ) Very small, non-bouncy breasts like those of a female gymnast, completely covered in fur.
2 ) Breasts should be small, non-bouncy, flattened, and covered decently in fur, like someone wearing a sports bra.
3 ) Breasts should be as large as in human form, fur-covered and non-bouncy.

This is the current ranking so far. One thing I'd like to point out is the thrid ranking. Boobs are not made of solid , hard matter like muscles. They -will- bounce. It would look un-natural and un-realistic if they were the same general size as they had been when human.

As far as the first two, if its decided that the female Mammaries are added, then I would preferr they be smallish like a gymnist, or slightly flattened with a little more give.

*shakes head* *sighs*

Well it really doesn't matter, it's Brownriggs decision in the end. Either way I'm not gonna be too hung up over such a minor thing.

Trinity wrote:1 ) Very small, non-bouncy breasts like those of a female gymnast, completely covered in fur.
2 ) Breasts should be small, non-bouncy, flattened, and covered decently in fur, like someone wearing a sports bra.

I wa store between those two...

I went with #1...

I've noticed that women in general tend to favor smaller breasts, whereas guys tend to favor larger ones on women. I voted for smaller, myself, because, if women are the ones with them, and if they're shifting form, they're going to aim for what they want--and that appears to be getting them out of the way.

Yeah, big boobies+running=not good
Smaller in gestalt form would be best, but their should still be something left there I would think.

I voted for the gymnist breasts, too. There should still be somthing, though. It'd be pretty wierd if males and females looked identicle.

Can't remember where I heard this quote:

"Anything over a handful is wasted."

Excelsia wrote:But please please PLEASE no additional breasts. One set is enough. AND IN THE NAME OF GOD AND ALL THAT IS HOLY, NO VISIBLE NIPS EVER.

Agreed.

Excelsia wrote:But please please PLEASE no additional breasts. One set is enough. AND IN THE NAME OF GOD AND ALL THAT IS HOLY, NO VISIBLE NIPS EVER.

heh...the pups are going to have a hard time finding them when they get hungry.

I'd say small and no bouncy breats thankyou very much. And Figarou; Milk isn't really developed untill females are pregnat and while they are breast feeding a baby, and on a different note. Men can breast feed, their breats just don't become big because of the male hormones dis allowing it's growth, yet with a little suggestion man breasts will produce milk.

outwarddoodles wrote:Men can breast feed, their breats just don't become big because of the male hormones dis allowing it's growth, yet with a little suggestion man breasts will produce milk.

Suggestion? Do you mean like, "honey, why don't you feed the baby?" or like "here Jim, take this estrogen hormone."

outwarddoodles wrote:I'd say small and no bouncy breats thankyou very much. And Figarou; Milk isn't really developed untill females are pregnat and while they are breast feeding a baby, and on a different note. Men can breast feed, their breasts just don't become big because of the male hormones dis allowing it's growth, yet with a little suggestion man breasts will produce milk.

A man can not produce milk, even if he's given lots and lots of estrogen, ever. Male mammals have nipples, in that the default sex of mammals is female. A male can grow large breasts, and can develop breast cancer as a result of estrogen therapy, but no milk.
Ever.
It is the combination of male hormones and the lack of actual mammary glands that prevents men from producing milk.
Not even women who used to be men can produce milk.

In fact,
BEN STILLER: "You can milk just about anything with nipples."
ROBERT DENIRO: "I have nipples, Greg, could you milk me?"

I didn't mention estrogen here, to get a male's breat to work it requires stimulation of the nipples, aka, suggestion. Male's breast do not become big thanks to male hormones, but will through suggestion.

http://www.unassistedchildbirth.com/mis ... lkmen.html

outwarddoodles wrote:I didn't mention estrogen here, to get a male's breat to work it requires stimulation of the nipples, aka, suggestion. Male's breast do not become big thanks to male hormones, but will through suggestion.

http://www.unassistedchildbirth.com/mis ... lkmen.html

That is extremely cool, and extremely disturbing at the same time! I'm glad you posted that.

Nothin' like learning something new everyday. Its probaly only disturbing because breast feeding has always been told to be a women's job when men are perfectly capable of doing it, people just don't etheir know, or will not do it because soceity places that for the wemon.

I'll believe it when someone can milk me.

Apokryltaros wrote:I'll believe it when someone can milk me.

Really now, some proof right there! And you can easily google something like that up. Thats like me saying I won't beleive females can't breast feed untill I do, when we perfectly know females can produce milk, and now we know that men can too.

Well, I'm not milking you.

outwarddoodles wrote:

Apokryltaros wrote:I'll believe it when someone can milk me.

Really now, some proof right there! And you can easily google something like that up. Thats like me saying I won't beleive females can't breast feed untill I do, when we perfectly know females can produce milk, and now we know that men can too.

Well, I'm not milking you.

If human males can produce milk, then how come male marmosets, who care for the babies, have never been documented to produce milk in order to feed them? (The babies are fed by the mothers)

According to Wikipedia, it's possible (see Male Lactation). It also says there is a species of fruit bat notable for this. However, I would point out that the list of references is rather small and out-of-date (nothing newer than 1994).

-- Vilkacis

To rephrase my stand on this:
"I will believe it when someone can milk Robert DeNiro."

Apokryltaros wrote: If human males can produce milk, then how come male marmosets, who care for the babies, have never been documented to produce milk in order to feed them? (The babies are fed by the mothers)

Maybe...because they are marmosets?

Since the gestalt form is half way between human and wolf, I think that yes they should have breasts, though small. But no visible nipples... unless they're pregnant.

LOL...I just thought about the fact that if any hardcore female gymnasts see this thread...they're gonna be pissed.

But, it's quite true. Their breasts are tiny.