Nature is not the intelligent design of a wise architect, but the result of chance and deep time; it still has infinite flaws. One of these is the intolerable (for us avant-gardists) asymmetry of sexual dimorphism in the human species, without which so-called sexism would have far less to feed on. Sexual dimorphism tends to depend very significantly on sexual selection, which generally correlates with asymmetry between the sexes in parental investment [1]. In the human species, there seems to be evidence that less imbalance in sexual selection is related to greater male parental investment, thus to a more balanced and equal situation [2][3]. Female breasts — as an indicator of a less one-sided sexual selection process — would seem to depend, at least to some extent, on male parental investment. It represents a partial reversal of the usual pattern of male adornment due to sexual selection [4]. Hence, we avant-gardists make them a symbol of gender symmetry.

Since we derive our aesthetics from our ideology, the female breast will symbolically be at the center of our aesthetics and more generally, we glorify the sexualized, provocative, "objectified" and inviting woman. We also hold so-called "pick me girls" in high esteem and defend the right/duty of women to walk around bare-breasted on the streets and in public places.

[1] Brennan, Patricia. "Sexual selection." Nature Education Knowledge 3.10 (2010): 79.

[2] Trivers, Robert L. "Parental investment and sexual selection." Sexual selection and the descent of man. Routledge, 2017. 136-179.

[3] Shuster, Stephen M., and Michael J. Wade. Mating systems and strategies. Princeton University Press, 2003.

[4] Duncan, Melanie. Sexual selection and human breast morphology. Diss. Open Access Te Herenga Waka-Victoria University of Wellington, 2010.