Sign In
Create Account
(4.09 - 91votes)
Cherry Teacher Sakura Naoki
| Alt Names: |  CHERRY TEACHER 佐倉直生 |
| Author: | Tachibana Kazumi |
| Artist: | Tachibana Kazumi |
| Genres: |  Comedy Ecchi School Life Shounen Slice of Life |
| Type: | Manga (Japanese) |
| Status: | Ongoing |
| Description: | A clumsy girl who constantly shows off her panties, even though she doesn't want to. A martial arts expert with a complex surrounding her flat chest. A cool beauty who also is a dangerous lesbian. These and many other girls make up the all-girl's school that newcomer teacher Sakura Naoki has been hired at. Can he help these girls with their many troubles? |
| Go to Cherry Teacher Sakura Naoki Forums! | Scroll Down to Comments | |
The following content is intended for mature audiences and may contain sexual themes, gore, violence and/or strong language. Discretion is advised.
Latest Forum Posts
| Topic | Started By | Stats | Last Post Info | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| No topics has been found for this comic. | ||||
Start New Topic
Highest Rated Series
95 Comments
Sensei sure have a though battle.
Idiots at the comment section debating female attractiveness. Lol.
I pity your narrow views in life. Natural selection will cut you out if you guys choose to be choosy with your partners.
I for one do not discriminate: high school girls, lolis, milfs, housewives, cougars, idols, office ladies, police and army ladies, nurses and doctors, teachers, waitresses and flight attendants, athletes and sportswomen, etc, you name it~!
I love 'em all! ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
but really a debate?, please just have fun, again thank you!!!
No worries, it was over a week ago, and actually based on something from the manga.
Again with this rambling? -.- You guys should use the forums instead of debating here... =.= You'll get the comments locked and purged if ya don't.
Oh lord, what a chapter. Hang in there sensei.
And a warning to all: Death awaits those who would tread upon the comment section
Yes. And mine is that the "specifications" of those markers change, based on the specific culture, the individual, and the time examined. Basically, one cannot have any one specific thing. Closest would be the face (a golden ratio, mention in multiple articles about it, would have to look to find specifics), which does seem to cross cultures, but that could also, when one thinks about it, just the result of one culture's influence over another. 100 years from now, assuming we haven't destroyed ourselves, there may be a new set of attributes people look at as beauty.
...
yeah, I read that link ... it's a MODERN preference by theory and simulation ...
and it's from Germany area ... another country might not think so ...
tell that to middle east when all woman need to be covered by clothes, can't even goes into that preference ... (and it still happen even now)
or at west when they need to fully clothes / dressed at certain country / city ...
and your proof don't even give fact how THE PREFERENCE CHANGED AS AGES GOES BY !
it also basically from simulation and theory about how original Venus shape was before ...
they are guessing here and there, probably right or wrong while my fact still solid fresh and can easily get tracked in their original country ...
note, my fact even easier to be find if you life in one of that place I mention ...
ask your grandpa / historian or veteran fashion for more detail ...
also sexual charm at past seems originated from long hairs for women ...
many country have their women keep long hair at past century, and they give certain charm of sensuality ...
(I still prefer short hairs tough)
another fact is how women treat their hair preciously when they want to be charming, tough in modern age it get somewhat obsolete ...
almost all country have this trait like middle east, China, Indonesia, Malaysian, Japan, etc ...
even at most Western country too ...
again, I said the trend have changed in modern time and now even short hairs can be considered as "cool beauty" depend on how they arrange their charm ...
there's even prehistoric picture how prehistoric man dragging woman with long hairs around ...
however, there are no clear proof about this so it just might be guess around that prehistoric ages ...
my fact based old history, old legend, old picture even sacred book from various religion ...
(actually there are too many to mention, not only from various religion, but various history and legend from various country including their historical legacy at past)
it still somewhat easy to track around at 1500 yr history at past, and there are plenty of fact too how man sexual preference to women at past varied and changed as years and century past by ...
in modern time, the charm mostly goes at face, then breast for most people ...
heck, you can't ask a girl / woman to show their ass / hips before dating, right ?
(breasts size can still somewhat visible by clothes)
unless you prefer free sex before marriage, but that not permitted at most country ...
in prehistoric time when clothes is not common, your theory / fact / comment will hold fact (heck, 35000 - 2500 year ago probably there barely wear thick clothes unless they really need to and can see hips easily as it become more alluring and at most they probably wear only piece of clothes like I said at Rome in past, but as more and more clothes being used in civilization, that your theory / fact / comment become obsolete ...
I also read from your link :
- how many statues have different shape, their chubbiness / fatness, and different WHR based on their country / location they being found ... their shape GREATLY DIFFERENT FROM DIFFERENT AREA !
- I also read how "obesity was already a fact of life for Paleolithic man or at least for Paleolithic woman.” can become charming too at certain ages / location / civilization (heck, it actually being found at place / age / civilization most suffering from famine and starvation (means "obesity" = wealth / pretty / handsome / ideal perception at past) at middle age and present it viewed as well nourished / healthy woman will give better offspring ... (yeah, I read all full paragraph)
- I also notice how there are difference preference about being pregnant or not can make sexual charming increased at different country (probably somewhat connected to "obesity" ?) ...
- the shape of their ideal changed at preagricultural age, and changed again when they enter agricultural age (this means taste and preference changed as their civilization and ages progress) ...
^^ this FULLY proofing all of my my point ^^
- also the statues they found which picture their "ideal age" and "ideal shape" is different from one country to another ... (this kind of new for me, since my theory "married young can give more offspring, thus people at middle age usually prefer very young wife) this happen in Islam religion, Indonesia, Japan, China, and most Western country ... underage marriage seems banned in most country nowdays ...
Well, 'duh .. your link actually proofing all of my points how sexual instincts for man to women will greatly changed based ages, civilization and location ... ! THANK YOU VERY MUCH !
Yes, but as I noted, those "markers" can differ by both the culture of the men involved, as well as the personal preferences. Think about it, where one person may think Taylor Swift is hot, another will not for the same reasons they the first person liked.
All in all, humans just can't be defined by a few numbers. The very nature of culture itself causes changes that can't be measured or even predicted with high accuracy. Looking at the past can help, but can't be relied on as the only factor. In fact, it could be said that there are too many factors to consider.
Yes I'll concede that but there are any number of similar studies with similar results from various populations, Men are attracted to markers of potential fertility.
facial beauty through unblemished uniformity and symmetry is another marker that indirectly measures the bearers ability to secure food and resist disease or climatic conditions, a pock marked, lumpy lop sided ugly face is unpopular most places.
While I appreciate the article, unfortunately, it still is biased towards "modern" viewpoints. As hard as it is to admit, there is no way we can simply say that this is how people thought back in the time-frame the Venus figurines were made.All this does is reinforce an idea of what the modern idea is, and not if it is something permanently hardwired in. Also, it also doesn't state the cultural mix involved, outside the participants being a mix of male and females from the same university. Results may potentially differ if you did the same test in another, completely different area, say the Middle-East, for example. Also, how do the test givers account for personal differences? How were the participants selected and did they have any idea what they were doing during the experiment? In addition, heterosexuals were used. What would happen if a group consisting of bi- or homo- sexuals were used as well? Is it possible these results would differ? More testing would be needed, at least to me.
Good article, for the most part, but I would have to have more than what it provides.
here
https://www.hindawi.com/journals/janthro/2011/569120/
have an interesting paper on icons of fertility and waist to hip ratio in antiquity.
In conclusion:
the male preference for a certain optimal Waist to Hip ratio doesn't change
...
can you even prove your own posting ?
I can found plenty proof in historical story, legend and old / ancient drawing in that 4 points I mention before ...
1. trading chubbier / heathier / bigger breast female slave with bigger price is truth ...
(the old tribe which trading their tribe female will ask for more for that, even in old writing about slave trading history, it will says the same act for asking higher price, few savage tribe in Indonesian in deep jungle or western still do that)
2. In Indonesian matter, just goes there and find old historian documentary, or just visit any old savage tribe there (it still exist, but your own life at risk if you don't even know what are you doing there ... in some case, they prefer to eat foreign visitor, mainly if you can't communicate with them)
3. About in Old western and Chinese way picturing fat / chubby as wealth, just find some old folk or historian to explain it to you, and yes, there's drawing or old documentary about it ... legend, drawing, story tell about it ...
4. About obesity eating while in pregnancy time is real, even some old folk in several country still believing it (and don't believe what science tell to them) ... usually the one who do this is in area who have plenty food or family with good wealth ...
more clearer about developing interest, is how fashion, style, dressing, etc changed, human perception for the meaning of interest ...
at old past, it believed having long hairs is very charming / sexual ...
then goes by body structure ... but this also combined by their dressing / attire too ...
having clean white clothes is being said as charming / sexual, it also being proofed in old Roma tradition (proof in history and old writing), however at eastern, (Including China) they prefer less clothes and having plenty of colored linen, jewelry have a lot of sexual attractiveness (this already written / told at legend / old story) try reading Bible, Al-Quran and several old script about it ...
however latter in Western, jewelry goes into "charming" category instead of sexual alluring ...
in old eastern way, a whore cover all of her body with clothes and waiting at road near gate or inn ...
but they attract their costumer by make up their eyes (in this case her eyes is the sexual charm) ...
this being written in old story too, read Bible or Al-Quran or any old story about it ...
note, this whoring act still available but very rarely in this present age ...
^^ this is sub trait beside body which determine sexual allure from female to male, by wearing material to charm male ^^
I already give proof from all of my statement ...
now, can you even proof your saying about "universally same in all ages" ?
because you haven't even mention any proof in your posting, and I start thinking you are trolling around here ...
Any you wonder why I can't take you seriously.
No, it simply does not. Not only there is ample research to confirm this, not only there is ample everyday evidence to confirm this(ask yourself why girls in mangas have huge round eyes for example, when asians - who draw it - don't), it would also make no evolutionary sense whatsoever for human males and females to be attracted to "different things". Natural selection starts with partner selection, and therefore males and females of any species will be universally more attracted to certain attractiveness markers, which are indicators of biological fitness. No exceptions.
Anyone who says something like "everyone has different preferences" is utterly ignorant about human sexuality.
your reading comprehension is atrocious my argument is based solely on hip to waist ratio, nothing about breasts or other secondary sex characteristics.
Unfortunately, the part about your argument about going back 200k years is a bit hard for you to prove. The fatal flaw here is that you are assuming that everyone has the same preferences. This couldn't be further from the truth, and can be demonstrated in real life. Please don't assume that just because you feel that a certain way is the best, that someone else from another time and/or place would agree. What is looked at and believed todday to be true may or may not have any real relevance to the past, especially as far back as you were using.
What we know to be true about health is not the same knowledge as it was all that time ago, heck even a decade can make a difference just due to how much new info can come out. Just look at the beauty standards of the Middle ages and Renaissance times. The artwork from those times showed women to be more "plump" than what is the sup[posed standard for today. Heck, today those women would be told they need to diet. Back then, the "beautiful" women of our time would be rather unsightly, thin and avoided.
Now, I will agree that there has been one thing that has been shown to cross cultures, and that is a ratio based on face (locations of eyes, nose, size of nose, etc), which obviously has nothing to do with breast size. Several articles have been written on this actually, so I am certain you can find them if you look. Breast size, on the other hand, is merely a cultural and personal preference, nothing more.
if you others are trying to refute the ~0.7 hip to waist ratio then you're ignorant this is hardwired into the male psyche.
it transcends all boundaries of time or distance you could take paper cutouts of various waist-hip shapes anywhere in the world or back to any point in modern human time (200,000+ years) and get the same results.
men like fertile females because those who like optimally fertile females with the most reliable birth canals go on to have the most descendants.
this is at the core of human sexual attraction, every other secondary selection factor else is built atop this fundamental.
(strange that I'm agreeing with BCS here but somewhat opposed to his arguments on another thread)
You got to it before I could.
Different times/societal values is what it comes down to in the end. Just look at what is considered "beautiful" now. Now go back a hundred years, and things look different. You can see differences easily within a decade alone.
...
depend on what age, centuries and location you are at ...
1. healthier looking female are more precious than skinny one ...
sorry to says this, but in slavery this really happen ...
2. In old tribe (in Indonesia,) plumper woman in same tribe might be mated even by several male, since it believed to have better offspring ... tough other female at other tribe can be seen as different "resource" ... like being cannibalized ... (I exactly know this because I used to be Indonesian citizen before and see old documentary ... gosh that black and white picture thing seriously out of age)
3. At poor old tribe area in Western, having chubier = handsome / pretty since it being connected as "wealth", at old Chinese tribe this also happen (yeah, I know it sound like nonsense, but it really happen even in story and legend they have) but latter in China middle age, the man should be the chubbier one, and the woman should be the slim skinny one ...
4. In middle age Western, they believe EATING A LOT when pregnant will make pregnancy goes easier (but actually it isn't, obesity at pregnancy time actually endanger baby and mother)
in this age however, the research and trend goes at hips shape or breast shape / size ...
tough there's several thing different based on "sex appeal" like belly button, nape, breast, ass, etc ...
No they weren't. Or rather, the it's all about waist to hip ratio(of 0.7 ideally), if you can pull that off with a plump body somehow more power to you, but our sexual instincts didn't change a damn bit in the past 5000 years, much less 500 or 50. The very idea is absurd evolutionary-wise.
Nope. But, it is actually more related to situation with the larger hips (which is was a correct observation).
In the past (and actually in some societies still today), "plumper" women were preferred of skinnier ones. This is because the female was viewed as being healthier, thus (much like the larger hips), more likely to give birth to, and survive a pregnancy. Larger breast size assists in this impression.
As for our society, where health is less of an issue, breast size is now more of a personal preference, although there could be an argument made that supports the idea that our society generally supports larger breasts in a beauty stand-point, within limits of course, since once they get to a certain size, they get kinda bleh (unless you are really into that sort of thing, which once again is a personal preference).
Holy chet! He found the right answer!
An old saying in Spanish: "Tit that the hand can't cover, isn't a tit, it's an udder".
And as recommendation for the chips, mayo and chili flakes or mayo and basil and a dark beer in the fish batter.