Main Non Mammal Mammaries Discussion

Collapse/Expand Topics

12:15:16 AM Dec 19th 2012
"Played with in Feminine Intuition. The first couple models of the JN line play this straight, including metal breasts. The final JN-5 model, though, is just a little more delicate in build then a 'male', with a tapering waist and a voice described as liquid and musical."

A couple notes that I felt would be natter if in the entry:

Since Asimov wrote Feminine Intuition and was known for an impressive sense of humor, it's likely the 'really female' models were lampooning the use in fiction of obviously gynoid robots. And for anyone familiar with how robots are named in Asimov's tales - the robot's name was Jane.
09:34:53 AM Jun 17th 2012
Would navels count as a gender-neutral example of this trope? They're an exclusively placental feature, after all.
02:18:29 PM May 22nd 2012
Isn't the trope name a bit misleading since it can apply to anthropomorphic mammals? As is, the implication is that the trope is only about giving breasts to non-mammals.
04:43:27 AM Oct 12th 2016
On the flip side, I'd say we not count female anthro mammals having human mammaries, since it's pretty well justified.
09:47:45 AM Oct 12th 2016
How is it justified?
04:34:27 AM Feb 22nd 2017
I have to agree with Octorok here. The Laconic page is also dearly confused, since it explicitly states that this does not apply to mammals. I think this trope needs another name, not that we need to split anything off since the bottom line is that this is about the use of boobs on creatures that don't usually have them, mammal or otherwise, as a means of visually indicating their gender. I'll go ahead and edit the Laconic page to be more accurate to what the trope page itself actually says, but in the meantime perhaps we might consider just renaming the trope to something like Non Functional Boobs or something, or even My Boobs Are Up Here.
01:27:07 PM Mar 30th 2012
Would it still count if the character does have breasts, despite being all or part non-mammal, but not to a particularly notable extent?
03:50:30 PM Jan 14th 2012
Can we just delete all the Aversions? Subversions and other forms of playing with a trope are understandable but otherwise what's the point?
11:00:02 AM Mar 4th 2010
edited by Willbyr
Willbyr: Moving these examples here, since I couldn't find any reference to the title or the Garjla or Grishie in a Google search.

  • The Garjla were an alien species of humanoid reptiles in Cosmos Eternal. But it was worth noting that, while the species correctly did not have nipples or navals, the females had very definable curves, as opposed to the heavily muscled forms of the males. The species is stated to hatch from eggs and it is clearly explained that they cannot breed with humans, so this was possibly done to make the species more appealing. There are two Garjla main characters, though, and both are male.
  • There's an alien race in Cosmos Eternal called the Grishie, which are stated to be warm-blooded amphibians that, similar to frogs, spend their infanthood in the water and the water only, then become land animals when they reach childhood. The problem? Female grishie seem to have human-like curves, though they do not have nipples or navels. But it is worth noting that Grishie give birth to live tadpole young, rather than laying eggs. One of the main characters is a female grishie doctor, though she has fairly modest curves and dresses conservatively, lessening the curiosity of the situation.

Collapse/Expand Topics