NationStates Jolt Archive

So why do we guys love them? I don't know! I can't think of any evolutionary or reproductive reason why they're considered to be sexual. Who can answer this ancient question?

Because men don't have them is my guess.

Possible answer, guys have a subconsious desire to return to infancy and nurse.

Um, same reason some people find the butt to be sexy... Nerve endings for one thing. Produces a pleasurable response for the female when manipulated right.

Also, heterosexual males are just plain wired to find them sexy. Ain't that enough? Does there have to be a real reason?

Because the upright posture adopted by hominids meant that guy's faces were no longer nearly level with women's asses. That meant that a prime visual cue for sexual activity was eliminated. Breasts grew more voluptuous and succulent to compensate.

Because they are a powerful predictor of femininity that's obvious from a distance. Also, they feel spectacular.

and because we keep them private. in societies where they are on display at all times i dont think they are considered sexy (but i could be wrong)

Becuase they look so damn sexy!!

But then what part of a womans body does not look sexy?

So why do we guys love them? I don't know! I can't think of any evolutionary or reproductive reason why they're considered to be sexual. Who can answer this ancient question?
Then I think you've forgotten the entire purpos of the breast: feed the kid you just made through sex. Cant have a species if you dont reproduce.

:S

Any way, its apparently the symetry of it...though once again i cant spell. Thats to psychological reason behind it. *shrug*

Becuase they look so damn sexy!!

But then what part of a womans body does not look sexy?
Lymph nodes.

and because we keep them private. in societies where they are on display at all times i dont think they are considered sexy (but i could be wrong)


Womens bare legs are on display alot and I still find them sexy.

Womens bare legs are on display alot and I still find them sexy.
Not all throughout history. 100 years ago it was inapropriate for a woman to even show her ancle

Lymph nodes.

Armpits too.

Then I think you've forgotten the entire purpos of the breast: feed the kid you just made through sex. Cant have a species if you dont reproduce.
This is a reason for them to be necessary, but not a reason for them to be sexual.

Breasts are a sign of fertility, and it is pure, physical, animal attraction that is common to all species.

I have no idea. Thankfully and fortunately.

This is a reason for them to be necessary, but not a reason for them to be sexual.
You dont find that sexual?
pfft, what do you know.

Not all throughout history. 100 years ago it was inapropriate for a woman to even show her ancle
Good point. For example in Arabia women have to cover up everything. According to Whispering Legs, when he was there in the Gulf War, Arab men became excited when they saw female American soldiers baring their forearms!

Not all throughout history. 100 years ago it was inapropriate for a woman to even show her ancle

That has no effect on me because it was before my time. The post I was replying to mentioned something about breast being sexy because they are kept private. Unlike legs which are still found (at least by me) to be sexy.

I have no idea. Thankfully and fortunately.

*puts away oestrogen pills*

Damn. :D

Nah, I'm kidding. They won't give me oestrogen yet. :(

Breasts are a sign of fertility, and it is pure, physical, animal attraction that is common to all species.
You have a way with words *admires*

yeah, what she said. i couldnt put it into words but this should put you in your place.

I have no idea. Thankfully and fortunately.

You're too busy being gay and all. Gotta love those hairy butts. Right?

You dont find that sexual?
pfft, what do you know.
What are you asking me? Do I find breast-feeding sexual? No.

Hooters Hooters, Yum Yum Yum, Hooters Hooters, on a girl whose dumb.

You're too busy ....
-snip-
Don't hijack my thread.

That has no effect on me because it was before my time. The post I was replying to mentioned something about breast being sexy because they are kept private. Unlike legs which are still found (at least by me) to be sexy.
oy. *slams head on desk*
I should really stop going to message boards. Stupidity annoys me.

Ok, what is common in all kids bedrooms all across the world? Monsters under the bed. And what are these monsters going to do? Eat you. And where did this come from? Being monkeys up in the tree. Where are the monsters? under you. What are the monsters going to do? Eat you.

End of story.

*puts away oestrogen pills*

Damn. :D

Another one saved from the other team!

Nah, I'm kidding. They won't give me oestrogen yet. :(

There's always Mexico. ;)

Seriously, though, if you're in that position that you need them, I hope you get them soon.

What are you asking me? Do I find breast-feeding sexual? No.
It implies soemthign sexual. They dont exist without sexuality. Now read the other chicks post cuz she explains it better.

You're too busy being gay and all. Gotta love those hairy butts. Right?

They really are something, aren't they?

Now, let's not threadjack. Our butt fetish needs its own thread.

Don't hijack my thread.

Ok Mick, whatever you say.

They really are something, aren't they?

Now, let's not threadjack. Our butt fetish needs its own thread.


Not ours, just yours, you ass-freak.

Not ours, just yours, you ass-freak.

Asses and butts. That's all you write about to me. You should look into that. It's a tell-tale sign, you know.

*stops aiding in the threadjack* *will not post about this again*

Womens bare legs are on display alot and I still find them sexy.
now think about this before you reply and be honest

do you get a thrill out of seeing a womans calves and ankles when she is wearing a dress that goes below the knee? or the part that shows below cropped pants?

Who the fuck is the one asking this question, because if ur a dude I know u aint ever been laid, if ur a chick u want to go out some time?

*In geeky nerdy voice*

BOOOBIIIIIIEEEEEES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :D :D :D

It's like a display for mating or something. Do the colorful feathers of a male peacock get its mate pregnant? No. It is just for getting a mate. Now replace peacock with human, colorful feathers with breasts, and male with female. The breasts might now be some kind of mating thing.

It's like a display for mating or something. Do the colorful feathers of a male peacock get its mate pregnant? No. It is just for getting a mate. Now replace peacock with human, colorful feathers with breasts, and male with female. The breasts might now be some kind of mating thing.
When a woman is pregnant her breasts become larger and her lips redder possibly to become more attractive and keep her mate around while there is no kid.

now think about this before you reply and be honest

do you get a thrill out of seeing a womans calves and ankles when she is wearing a dress that goes below the knee? or the part that shows below cropped pants?

No, more like when she in shorts or bikini.

They can be used in a series of sexual positions, and are lovly to feel.

They can be used in a series of sexual positions, and are lovly to feel.
titfucking is one of the worst 'sex positions' men have ever come up with.

My answer:
1. It is of advantage for the spreading of a man's genes, if he thinks female breasts are sexy, because those breasts are necessary to feed the children:
Imagine a woman without breasts having children: She could not feed them, therefore it would be inefficent to reproduce with a woman without breast.
2. If as much as possible arouses men, they want to have sex more often and therefore will reproduce more often.
(2nd explanation sounds less strange)

Dudes like 'em because they're fun to play with when she won't let you into her pants.

Now, let's not threadjack.

So talking about popping oestrogen isn't off topic? Why the hell are you even posting in this thread?

does anyone know how to ask a girl out and she will defintly say yes?

No, more like when she in shorts or bikini.
do i have to explain why the more leg that shows the more sexy it is??

titfucking is one of the worst 'sex positions' men have ever come up with.

1. call it "spanish style"
2. Er...Why?

does anyone know how to ask a girl out and she will defintly say yes?
rofl

:p

hahha
*clings to her sides*

ah your kidding me.

:fluffle:

titfucking is one of the worst 'sex positions' men have ever come up with.
:(

why is it the worst?

So why do we guys love them? I don't know! I can't think of any evolutionary or reproductive reason why they're considered to be sexual. Who can answer this ancient question?
I have no idea. I've never been one to obsess over them.

does anyone know how to ask a girl out and she will defintly say yes?
certain "girls" only require cash

1. call it "spanish style"
2. Er...Why?
its increadibly degrading...and just looks really uncomfortable. I dont want some guy raming his penis near my face thank you. and while we're at it, get the hell off of me.

Basically its degrading and does nothing for a woman sexually. I mean mentally it may if she's into that, but thoes are few and far between. You can 'train' a girl to be into it, but thats just dumb. Get your kicks some other way.

does anyone know how to ask a girl out and she will defintly say yes?
You just have to know how to pick the right girl. If she's standing on a corner in a high-crack neighborhood, looks really skinny, and a bit out of it you just have to offer her a few dollars.

So talking about popping oestrogen isn't off topic?

Not really, as oestrogen gives you breasts. Look into the biology, pls. K, thanks.

Why the hell are you even posting in this thread?

I wasn't aware that I wasn't allowed. Oh, wait, I am! Just like everybody else! Gee, imagine that!

NO SHIT! REALLY, do you know a way?

Here's a very interesting opinion as to why human females are the only one to have nelarged breasts (and concealed ovulation, meaning the male can't tell when exactly the female can concieve) :


Alexander and Noonan (R8) argue that concealed ovulation, and the breast as a permanent signal of receptivity, enabled a female to hold on to a mate by reducing paternity certainty at the same time as inviting sexual receptivity, making it difficult for a male to know when she is on heat and thus having to stick around. Receptivity is then both an invitation and ‘sex as a weapon’ to enforce male resourcing compliance. Jared Diamond (R137) calls this the ‘daddy-at-home theory’. Diamond argues that a woman had to conceal her ovulation; otherwise her husband would only stay with her when she was exhibiting signs that she was fertile. The rest of the time, he would be out trying to find other women, who were exhibiting signs that they were sexually ready His absence would be detrimental to his children, and by concealing her ovulation, a woman convinced a man to stay by her side and make love to her throughout the month, so that he could be sure he was fathering the children she bore. However Shlain (R541) notes that several flaws and inconsistencies, weaken the argument that promotes sex as the glue holding human relationships together. If sex served the purpose of ensuring the durability of the human parenting commitment, then parents should become more ardent in their lovemaking following the birth of a baby. Instead, the opposite occurs. Both parents routinely report a sharp fall in their respective libidos. Barbara Smuts adds the ironical twist of females tolerating male mates to protect against coercion by other males, thus forcing males to accept these bonds even when they involved lower-ranking males (Pusey). Wrangham (R658) speculates that pair bonds may relate to food guarding, with the establishment of cooking.

I'd say that I think the reason that female breasts are sexual is for the genetic reason. A woman with big breasts looks like a more fertile mate than one with smaller breasts. Of course... it's really a meh point. Explaining why something is the way it is takes the fun out of it, in my opinion.

how do u ask a shy girl out who is new to a school, and has few friends?
p.s. I already know her, she knows me, but I haven' talked to her in a while.

NO SHIT! REALLY, do you know a way?

My friend if there was a single, secure way to win over girls, 1)there'd be a lot less bachelors and 2)there'd be less divorce. (at least those started by women).

I wasn't aware that I wasn't allowed.

I thought this thread was about femalebreasts. Flaunt your perversion elsewhere.

I have no idea. Thankfully and fortunately.

NO SHIT! REALLY, do you know a way?

Chloroform? Jedi Mind trick?

Ok, I'll be nice. There's no way thats surefire. Just ask her to a movie or something. Have a plan of what to say If you're accepted or rejected. Oh and shower. Lots of teenagers forget to do that.

So why do we guys love them? I don't know! I can't think of any evolutionary or reproductive reason why they're considered to be sexual. Who can answer this ancient question?
in our society its a form of advertising. you seldom find women on the street who are dressing extremely modestly to be drop dead sexy. but a woman in a low cut top and a push up bra is very attractive.

advertising

anything that emphasizes the differences between the genders is sexy. men used to wear cod pieces to make a bigger "bulge" for example.

I'm just askin' her out, NOt 2 marry me!

how do u ask a shy girl out who is new to a school, and has few friends?
p.s. I already know her, she knows me, but I haven' talked to her in a while.

Well, first off, I'd say take it slow, if she's a shy one. Don't rush her into any drastic decision until she knows that she's ready to make it. Let her get to know you while you get to know her. If, after things become more casual and easier for you two to get along, I'd then bring up the possibility of dating as a suggestion. If she says yes and after a few dates, let her know that you want to move beyond a friendship and into a true relationship.

Hope that helps some. ^^

in our society its a form of advertising. you seldom find women on the street who are dressing extremely modestly to be drop dead sexy. but a woman in a low cut top and a push up bra is very attractive.

advertising

anything that emphasizes the differences between the genders is sexy. men used to wear cod pieces to make a bigger "bulge" for example.

Very true. Even look at ancient hellenic sculptures. The man is always in the "arms on hips, head facing up and away" pose because the slight exagerration it gives to the masculinity of the figure improves how it looks to us. Some guy just standing there would look like he was sulking, to us, most likely.

Lymph nodes.
You can't see those, unless they are swollen;)

Perhaps it is for the same reason that many males find voluptuous hips attractive; their instinct tells them that a woman with wider, sturdier hips is more capable of bearing children, ergo, a woman’s breasts, especially if they are larger, ignite a man’s instinct to recognize them as healthy organs to feed possible offspring. Over the years, this instinct has evolved into a form of sexual attraction.

But, then again, I’m a newbie. I freely admit my ignorance. :)

we r friends already, i have not talked 2 her in a while though.

its increadibly degrading...and just looks really uncomfortable. I dont want some guy raming his penis near my face thank you. and while we're at it, get the hell off of me.

Basically its degrading and does nothing for a woman sexually. I mean mentally it may if she's into that, but thoes are few and far between. You can 'train' a girl to be into it, but thats just dumb. Get your kicks some other way.
i dont know about degrading but it is a "special reward" kind of thing as it isnt designed to give the average woman any pleasure whatsoever beyond the "joy" of pleasing her man.

I'd say that I think the reason that female breasts are sexual is for the genetic reason. A woman with big breasts looks like a more fertile mate than one with smaller breasts. Of course... it's really a meh point. Explaining why something is the way it is takes the fun out of it, in my opinion.
Ping,clatter..

I think she likes me too, though.

I thought this thread was about femalebreasts.

Yeah, and oestrogen somehow has nothing to do with those?

Flaunt your perversion elsewhere.

Perversions are made to be flaunted. If you're so bothered, don't read what I write. Or is that the problem? That you just can't help yourself? Homophobes tend to be like that - covet the "perversion" they won't allow themselves.

we r friends already, i have not talked 2 her in a while though.

Well, try to reignite the conversations. I may be wrong, but it doesn't sound wise to approach her out of the blue asking to go out, you know? Let her get ready for it. As for knowing when she's ready, well, that's a hard thing to tell, unless you can pick up flirtings easily (only if she's a flirter). Just get back in touch with her, take your time, then respectably ask her out somewhere. Perhaps not as a date-date, but let her know that you're interested in the possibility of dating.

Ping,clatter..

Now, what you've gone and done there is confuse me.


Although this is a truly random conjecture,Fass, perhaps Drakedia was referring to me, in part? (note that I'm not saying he/she is, just that it MAY be possible) What with it generally having to be physical males who have to ingest oestrogen to develop breasts, like I'll have to, and you were just "tarred" with the same brush. 'course, I'm most likely wrong.

THAT IS THE PROBLEM. I do not know how to "reignite" a conversation w/ her. I only see her once a day. And she USED to flirt w/ me.

You don't honestly think a bull is attracted to a cow's udder though do you?

THAT IS THE PROBLEM. I do not know how to "reignite" a conversation w/ her. I only see her once a day. And she USED to flirt w/ me.

Why dont you post your own post about that topic.
Maybe has to do with female breasts, but it does not really fit the topic.

Perversions are made to be flaunted. If you're so bothered, don't read what I write. Or is that the problem? That you just can't help yourself? Homophobes tend to be like that - covet the "perversion" they won't allow themselves.

Think that "don't read what I write" argument would fly with the mods if someone were to post various other things?

This thread is pretty clearly for straights. Why not post your filth in a thread just for fags? That avoid all this pointless crap...

So why do we guys love them? I don't know! I can't think of any evolutionary or reproductive reason why they're considered to be sexual. Who can answer this ancient question?

If you need to ask, you're probably not ready for the answer yet. ;)

Think that "don't read what I write" argument would fly with the mods if someone were to post various other things?

This thread is pretty clearly for straights. Why not post your filth in a thread just for fags? That avoid all this pointless crap...

By that strained logic, lesbians don't exist. neither do bisexuals.

Do you think that that obvious flame will fly with the mods?

Think that "don't read what I write" argument would fly with the mods if someone were to post various other things?
Certainly not, but that's because they break site rules. The discussion you seem angry about does not break site rules, that I know of.
This thread is pretty clearly for straights. Why not post your filth in a thread just for fags? That avoid all this pointless crap...
Hmm? I don't see a "JJust for Straights" label. I don't see how the question excludes everybody else, because some people who have answered are women, and I bet many of them aren't sexually attracted to breasts.

EDIT:
And what about lesbians, such as myself?

Perhaps it is for the same reason that many males find voluptuous hips attractive; their instinct tells them that a woman with wider, sturdier hips is more capable of bearing children, ergo, a woman’s breasts, especially if they are larger, ignite a man’s instinct to recognize them as healthy organs to feed possible offspring. Over the years, this instinct has evolved into a form of sexual attraction.

But, then again, I’m a newbie. I freely admit my ignorance. :)

That sounds about right. And wide hips are incredibly sexy...

Still people are attracted to different things so theres porbably a good deal more to it, but the fertility thing is a good place to start.

But then what part of a womans body does not look sexy?

The penis.

THAT IS THE PROBLEM. I do not know how to "reignite" a conversation w/ her. I only see her once a day. And she USED to flirt w/ me.

Ah. Well then... if you don't have her phone number, ask for it. Being a friend, I don't think she'd mind. (And if what you say about her flirting before is true, I'm sure she won't.) If you can't manage to see her more than once a day (which I'm assuming is in school), then either ask her during that time or over the phone to see her again sometime soon...either that very day/night or during the weekend. (Note: Never ever email someone to ask her out. That's a No-no.)

Just let her know you want to see her more than just that once a day, and if she's sensitive about these things, she can pick up that you're interested.

Now, not knowing what you're like or what she's like, I can't give a whole lot more advice on it. But I do want to let you know to always be confident about yourself around her. If you're the nervous type about those you like, mentally prepare yourself beforehand (or pray if you're like that). Just get into the "I can do it" mindset and let it run from there. If you can be confident with what you do an say, things will flow a lot more smoothly.

I asked my finace and he said "Because they're a part of you, they feel good, and they're fun to play with!"

There you have it. Straight from the horse's mouth.

Women breasts are sexy because they are restricted to display it. Its in the same manner how you would demad weed more then cigrates. Psychologically you will demand more of whatever supply of products been cut off. ( Sorry ladies I am not saying that I would not like a flash now and then but It why every guy in modern age is looking forward to Cuz we dont see that hanging around too muck anymore). HOW DO YOU THINK STONE-AGE PEOPLE FELT WHEN THEY SAW COUPLE OF BOOBS PASSING BY.)

PLeasure to contribute... Free Land of Krishna Kant. :fluffle:

I asked my finace and he said "Because they're a part of you, they feel good, and they're fun to play with!"

There you have it. Straight from the horse's mouth.

Horse?

You must live in Massachussettes!! :D

Think that "don't read what I write" argument would fly with the mods if someone were to post various other things?

You seem to think your rule infractions will. I have broken no rules, so they will probably fly, yes.

This thread is pretty clearly for straights.

No, it isn't.

Why not post your filth in a thread just for fags?

Because it's not "filth" and this is a thread for us all.

That avoid all this pointless crap...

Oh, the irony of what you say is probably lost on you.

Horse?

You must live in Massachussettes!! :D

lol..She's a friend of mine who lives in Texas. But where she's at, it's close enough. ;)

Um, same reason some people find the butt to be sexy... Nerve endings for one thing. Produces a pleasurable response for the female when manipulated right.

Also, heterosexual males are just plain wired to find them sexy. Ain't that enough? Does there have to be a real reason?
Amen my friend...amen...

We men find a woman's breasts sexy because the media tells us to. We're taught throughout our lives that they are a sexual object. It's the same reason behind shaved legs/armpits. In some regions of the world, *cough* *FRANCE*, women, for the most part, do not shave their armpits. This doesn't deter the French because they are taught that it doesn't matter either way. There is no evolutionary predisposition to liking the boobies. One might argue that weening from breast feeding creates an urge to nurse later in life. That must mean that every woman out there loves the boobies just as much as every hetero guy does. Since most men find it difficult to get their girlfriends into a little 2-on-1 action with her best friend, I'd say that the media has more to do with the booby-loving than an urge to nurse or evolutionary booby loving does.

Perhaps it is for the same reason that many males find voluptuous hips attractive; their instinct tells them that a woman with wider, sturdier hips is more capable of bearing children, ergo, a woman’s breasts, especially if they are larger, ignite a man’s instinct to recognize them as healthy organs to feed possible offspring. Over the years, this instinct has evolved into a form of sexual attraction.

But, then again, I’m a newbie. I freely admit my ignorance. :)

Give that woman a cigar. :D

We men find a woman's breasts sexy because the media tells us to. We're taught throughout our lives that they are a sexual object. It's the same reason behind shaved legs/armpits. In some regions of the world *FRANCE* woman, for the most part, do not shave their armpits. This doesn't deter the French because they are taught that it doesn't matter either way. There is no evolutionary predisposition to liking the boobies. One might argue that weening from breast feeding creates an urge to nurse later in life. That must mean that every woman out there loves the boobies just as much as every hetero guy does. Since most men find it difficult to get their girlfriends into a little 2-on-1 action with her best friend, I'd say that the media has more to do with the booby-loving than an urge to nurse or evolutionary booby loving does.

But then why did we start liking them before the media? Someone had to instigate the boob loving manifesto? And another thing - some animals DO have physical features that are used to attract mates -- what makes you think that this isn't one of the functions of the titty?

No, it isn't.

You're right - it's for straight guys and lesbians, really. But more so straight dudes since the original poster did say:

So why do we guys love them?

Surely a gay dude wouldn't like female breasts in a sexual manner?

And what about lesbians, such as myself?

There's some interesting questions - why are breasts attractive to you? Or are they? Is some other part more attractive?

Curious people want to know.

Not all throughout history. 100 years ago it was inapropriate for a woman to even show her ancle

I dont think there was enough time when womens legs had to be covered (between caveman and sufferage)for us to evolve a brain thing that says "THOSE ARE NOT ALWAYS COVERED; POUNCE WHEN EXPOSED!!' as suggested

THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION IS:
Its because women with the right amount of fat to have children have the best looking breasts.

Too little fat - can't supply a baby with food - flat - less apealing- stay awaay. Women with no body fat were likely to starve to death cave man stlye, as would their children be.

Too much fat - not ideal for baby(restricted blood flow, also makes the baby smaller and lower metabolism for whole life) to produce a child perfectly = ewww, fat. Also fat people were more likely to die in the cave man era because of the fat associated disease and reduced self defense/huntergathering ability and same fortheir kids

Ideal amount of fat for survival is also ideal for childbearing and also somehow seems to make the nicest breasts.

Coincidence? No. we have evolved to find the best qualitites for survival and reproduction in the opposite sex attractive. Muscles in men, ideal breast and ass fat in women

We men find a woman's breasts sexy because the media tells us to.
C'mon,
there is no basis for this assumption: In the Middle-Ages breasts were as well considered to be "sexy" (though I guess they would not have used this term). Who did men tell to find brests sexy then? The church?

C'mon,
there is no basis for this assumption: In the Middle-Ages breasts were as well considered to be "sexy" (though I guess they would not have used this term). Who did men tell to find brests sexy then? The church?

Bwahaahhahahhaaha.

same deal for lesbians except you brains are screwed up so you received the set of qualities that men are supposed to find attractive. Or you jsut feel men are sassholes

There's some interesting questions - why are breasts attractive to you? Or are they? Is some other part more attractive?

Curious people want to know.
Yes, I do find them attractive.

Why are they? That's like asking a guy the same thing. There's not an easily discernible reason behind it, they just are attractive.

Yes, I do find them attractive.

Why are they? That's like asking a guy the same thing. There's not an easily discernible reason behind it, they just are attractive.

Do you find two chicks making out as sexy? :)

Animals don't run around looking for the female with the best titties. Males attract the females in the animal world, though there are exceptions to the rule. Another thing, about the liking of the booby before the media. There is no such thing as "before the media." The media is anything and everything in your environment that influences you. That includes people you know and hang out with, your parents who raised you to be the mindless drone that you are, and your elders who teach you what they know. It doesn't stop at anything that can be printed on paper or seen on a screen. Honestly, think before you type.

C'mon,
there is no basis for this assumption: In the Middle-Ages breasts were as well considered to be "sexy" (though I guess they would not have used this term). Who did men tell to find brests sexy then? The church?

The Tapestries. :D

while on this topic.... does anyone feel breats can be TOO big? sometimes?
its like, what the hell do you expect me to do with that.....
anyone?

Yes, I do find them attractive.

Why are they? That's like asking a guy the same thing. There's not an easily discernible reason behind it, they just are attractive.

Well, supposedly males are attracted to female breasts because of cleavage, which creates something like the ass.... posture... yadda yadda whatever.

I believe your answer gives the best sense clearly "they just are".

Thank you. :)

Animals don't run around looking for the female with the best titties. Males attract the females in the animal world. Another thing, about the liking of the booby before the media. There is no such thing as "before the media." The media is anything and everything in your environment that influences you. That includes people you know and hang out with, your parents who raised you to be the mindless drone that you are, and your elders who teach you what they know. It doesn't stop at anything that can be printed on paper or seen on a screen. Honestly, think before you type.

But animals are attracted to other features, different features for each animal. So why not breasts for humans? And surely SOMEBODY had to say, "Dude those boobs are banging" in the first place before everyone else got in on the action, meaning someone naturally needed to be attracted.

Do you find two chicks making out as sexy? :)

Well, hello, such things are proof of God's existance. :D

Maybe because they are kept covered up most of the time?

while on this topic.... does anyone feel breats can be TOO big? sometimes?
its like, what the hell do you expect me to do with that.....
anyone?

I don't have a problem with size unless they're obviously fake - in which case it's "what were you thinking?". I'd rather a woman be herself and have her own parts - because size of breasts really doesn't matter overall.

Animals don't run around looking for the female with the best titties.

Ya, theyve found other qualities that are ideal for the reproduction and survival of their species

[QUOTE=Anatsu] Males attract the females in the animal world.

Actually, if you divided all the species up, you would find about half the famales are designed to attract, half the males. However the are almost always parts of both. Humans are fairly equal but the females are designed to attract.

There is no before the media. The media is anything and everything in your environment that influences you.

A media (singular medium) is just a form of communication. The above definition is wrong.

That includes people you know and hang out with, your parents who raised you to be the mindless drone that you are, and your elders who teach you what they know.

No, it includes speach though.

Honestly, think before you type

Ya.

i think the reason why men consider breasts to be sexual is 4 reasons:
1) they dont have breasts
2) women's breasts react to changes in temperature, touch, and other things.
3) women keep them covered, leaving much to the imagination.
4) women have different figures, more curves, and these just enhance the figure of a woman.

You're right - it's for straight guys and lesbians, really. But more so straight dudes since the original poster did say:



Surely a gay dude wouldn't like female breasts in a sexual manner?

Im sure hed appreciate the softness though ;)

Animals don't run around looking for the female with the best titties. Males attract the females in the animal world. Another thing, about the liking of the booby before the media. There is no such thing as "before the media." The media is anything and everything in your environment that influences you. That includes people you know and hang out with, your parents who raised you to be the mindless drone that you are, and your elders who teach you what they know. It doesn't stop at anything that can be printed on paper or seen on a screen. Honestly, think before you type.

Generally one refers to the mass media, if one says media. If you did not, ok, but why do you think men consider female breasts sexy, because they are "told" to? Still I think this assumption is strange.

i think the reason why men consider breasts to be sexual is 4 reasons:
1) they dont have breasts.

(assuming lesbians like breasts) why then do lesbians like brests?


4) women have different figures, more curves, and these just enhance the figure of a woman.

This jstu supports the above theory that we find the things that show off females reproductive value sexy.

But animals are attracted to other features, different features for each animal. So why not breasts for humans? And surely SOMEBODY had to say, "Dude those boobs are banging" in the first place before everyone else got in on the action, meaning someone naturally needed to be attracted.

It depends on where you are raised. Different cultures find different parts of the body attractive. Cultures, of course, are learned behaviors, not evolutionary/genetic traits. If someone doesn't know that the titty is sexy they won't be looking for them when finding someone to screw. Obviously somebody had to decide that they were the best thing since cave painting. I'm not denying that. What I am saying is that they are not an object of desire for every hetero man on the face of the planet. Meaning that it is not a evolutionary/genetic thing we are talking about. Somebody had to teach somebody else that the booby was the bomb. They didn't wake up one day and see boobies as a sexual object. People have to be taught what to look for else they become confused and look for anything that moves.

Just because we dont have them I guess.

Generally one refers to the mass media, if one says media. If you did not, ok, but why do you think men consider female breasts sexy, because they are "told" to? Still I think this assumption is strange.

Think about it this way. Animals look for mates who would make the best babies. A woman's rack has nothing to do with making babies. They have nothing to do with fedding the kid anymore. This leaves one answer. People are taught that the titty is sexy. There is no longer a reason for anyone to look at the booby as a sign that the woman is able to feed children. Hell, sex isn't even about making babies anymore. We screw because it feels good.

i dont know about degrading but it is a "special reward" kind of thing as it isnt designed to give the average woman any pleasure whatsoever beyond the "joy" of pleasing her man.

And that's exactly what's wrong with it. Sexual activity with an unequal basis is selfish and wrong.

And that's exactly what's wrong with it. Sexual activity with an unequal basis is selfish and wrong.

So, oral sex is bad in your opinion?

Think about it this way. Animals look for mates who would make the best babies. A woman's rack has nothing to do with making babies. They have nothing to do with fedding the kid anymore. This leaves one answer. People are taught that the titty is sexy. There is no longer a reason for anyone to look at the booby as a sign that the woman is able to feed children. Hell, sex isn't even about making babies anymore. We screw because it feels good.

Contemporary western society may have moved somewhat past the sexual aspects of breasts and intercourse, but that is not true of all contemporary societies. And it is certainly not true of the human species in general. Breasts are a sign of fertility, and of being "of age." And the human mind is hardwired to respond to the stimulus.

[QUOTE=Anatsu]Animals don't run around looking for the female with the best titties.

Ya, theyve found other qualities that are ideal for the reproduction and survival of their species



Actually, if you divided all the species up, you would find about half the famales are designed to attract, half the males. However the are almost always parts of both. Humans are fairly equal but the females are designed to attract.



A media (singular medium) is just a form of communication. The above definition is wrong.



No, it includes speach though.



Ya.

Uhh...just to clerify...the term "media" as it is used is a slang or jargon term. Your definition that it is a form of comminucation only proves my point that media makes the boobies a sex icon. About your theory that animal world both sexes are equally represented in the mating game is wrong. Females are the ones looking for mates. Males are the ones who attract them. I'm not saying that this applies to every species. For the majority of them, though, it does. So again I say, think before you type.

So, oral sex is bad in your opinion?


oral sex CAN be reciprocated....


I think the main problem with the reproductive theory is that it would mean every man attracted to petite women essentially does not want to reproduce.

So, oral sex is bad in your opinion?

Yep.
Although the act can be reciprocated, and theoretically speaking it can be reciprocated at the same time, the only act that can give comparable pleasure to both sexes is normal intercourse.

Contemporary western society may have moved somewhat past the sexual aspects of breasts and intercourse, but that is not true of all contemporary societies. And it is certainly not true of the human species in general. Breasts are a sign of fertility, and of being "of age." And the human mind is hardwired to respond to the stimulus.

Modern society in general, meaning not limited to the Western society, have moved past the reproductive reasons behind screwing. Breasts do mean that you are of age, but it doesn't mean that others will be attracted to them. A man's dropped testicles means that he is of age, but that doesn't mean every woman is going to want him for his sac-o-sperm. The subconcious mind may be hardwired to respond to the titties, but that doesn't mean our concious mind finds them attractive. Remember, there is a difference. The question is why are titties attractive. For humans, at least, for something to be attractive, you must be conciously aware of it. Your subconcious can only drop hints.

I think the main problem with the reproductive theory is that it would mean every man attracted to petite women essentially does not want to reproduce.

Not necessarily - I see a couple of other possibilities. First of all, the man involved may have a comparatively low self-esteem (no offense intended! just arguing theoretically) and may therefore pick a less biologically "attractive" female (again, no offense!). On the other hand, petite women have more child-like figures, and the man involved may feel a protective pseudo-father drive as well as a sexual drive towards the woman. Both of these are only guesses on my part, but I think they're plausible.

Not necessarily - I see a couple of other possibilities. First of all, the man involved may have a comparatively low self-esteem (no offense intended! just arguing theoretically) and may therefore pick a less biologically "attractive" female (again, no offense!). On the other hand, petite women have more child-like figures, and the man involved may feel a protective pseudo-father drive as well as a sexual drive towards the woman. Both of these are only guesses on my part, but I think they're plausible.

If one has a protective, pseudo-father drive AND a sexual drive...wouldn't that be a bit creepy? He sees the woman as a child needing his protection but at the same time wants to f*** her brains out. I would say that's a bit creepy.

Yep.
Although the act can be reciprocated, and theoretically speaking it can be reciprocated at the same time, the only act that can give comparable pleasure to both sexes is normal intercourse.

A lot, if not most, women cannot reach orgasm through simple, "normal," penetrative intercourse. You don't know a lot about sexology, do you?

It is a combination of alot of the things listed. The taboo aspect(they are covered up),the nurturing(comforting)aspect,and of course the fact that we are friggin' horny pigs(its in our DNA)!!! Breastages rock!!!!

*Looks at all these terribly crude postings, caused by animalistic and savage interests*

Thank God I'm asexual.

For humans, at least, for something to be attractive, you must be conciously aware of it. Your subconcious can only drop hints.
And that's where you go wrong. Someone who finds pleasure in hijacking cars, or ritualistically executing innocent victims, or even obsessively ordering one's sock drawer, is not acting consciously but subconsciously. After all, if you follow Freud, neither self-preservation (ego) nor society (super-ego) ascribes any particular pleasure to any number of actions - it is our genetics (id) which does that.

When a woman is pregnant her breasts become larger and her lips redder possibly to become more attractive and keep her mate around while there is no kid.
This is true.

My answer:
1. It is of advantage for the spreading of a man's genes, if he thinks female breasts are sexy, because those breasts are necessary to feed the children:
Imagine a woman without breasts having children: She could not feed them, therefore it would be inefficent to reproduce with a woman without breast.
2. If as much as possible arouses men, they want to have sex more often and therefore will reproduce more often.
(2nd explanation sounds less strange)
Those make sense a lot, especially the first reason, I had not thought of that.

does anyone know how to ask a girl out and she will defintly say yes?
Stop the thread hijacking!

Short answer: you can't control her brain. She is either attracted to you or not. So, there are no guarantees. Just go for it. It's better to regret something you did, than something you didn't do.

Now go start your own thread.

do i have to explain why the more leg that shows the more sexy it is??
You've made a good point, it's all about the thighs. Those are mostly hidden from view and still retain their exciting quality.

its increadibly degrading...and just looks really uncomfortable. I dont want some guy raming his penis near my face thank you. and while we're at it, get the hell off of me.
You don't like that? I suppose blowjobs are completely out of the question then? :(

anything that emphasizes the differences between the genders is sexy. men used to wear cod pieces to make a bigger "bulge" for example.
lol, that made me think of Spinal Tap!

You don't honestly think a bull is attracted to a cow's udder though do you?
I don't know. Maybe they are.

This thread is pretty clearly for straights. Why not post your filth in a thread just for fags? That avoid all this pointless crap...
Just for straight men? Then tell Ashmoria to stop posting too. Also, stop hijacking my thread. If you continue abusing Fass like this you'll be warned for flaming.

And that's where you go wrong. Someone who finds pleasure in hijacking cars, or ritualistically executing innocent victims, or even obsessively ordering one's sock drawer, is not acting consciously but subconsciously. After all, if you follow Freud, neither self-preservation (ego) nor society (super-ego) ascribes any particular pleasure to any number of actions - it is our genetics (id) which does that.

Sorry, but behavior such as ritualistic murder is learned. The person has, in most cases, an unusual upbringing or some traumatic incident in his/her life. The killing/hijacking thing is a way to fill the confusing void in their life. Also, the obsessive ordering of the sock drawer is most likely OCD in some form and you might want to have it checked. You might be surprised where else it can pop up. Another thing...Freud was a drug addict who was in love with his mother. Can you possibly trust a thing that guy said? Many of this theories was but a way to justify his lust for his mother. The guy was just sick in the head.

A lot, if not most, women cannot reach orgasm through simple, "normal," penetrative intercourse. You don't know a lot about sexology, do you?

How many women do you know who reach orgasm through oral sex? Much less with breasts. So your rebuttal is logically unsound.

Yep.
Although the act can be reciprocated, and theoretically speaking it can be reciprocated at the same time, the only act that can give comparable pleasure to both sexes is normal intercourse.

Virgin, eh? Well, don't worry - a few years from now you'll learn all sort of things people can do. And who knows, you might meet a woman who can't orgasm from "normal intercourse", but makes like a bronco when other actions are employed.

As far as the "titty boff" goes, some women enjoy it for the simple pleasure of watching the man's face do strange things. Others enjoy it for other reasons. Your milage may vary.

And that's where you go wrong. Someone who finds pleasure in hijacking cars, or ritualistically executing innocent victims, or even obsessively ordering one's sock drawer, is not acting consciously but subconsciously. After all, if you follow Freud, neither self-preservation (ego) nor society (super-ego) ascribes any particular pleasure to any number of actions - it is our genetics (id) which does that.

You're only up to Freud? Oh, wait until Jung and Stevenson. Then you can read Masters and Johnson.

I'll just end the thread right here as far as the argument is concerned. There are simply too many variables to define in a logical manner why the booby is the bomb. It is pointless to try as one argument summons several rebuttals. Rather than wonder why we love the titty we should embrace the fact that they exist. After all, what else would we possibly look at while pretending we care about what the person at the other side of the table has to say?

(P.S. I'm sorry if anyone is offended by my previous statement.)

How many women do you know who reach orgasm through oral sex?

Every woman I know reaches orgasm through oral sex.

Much less with breasts. So your rebuttal is logically unsound.

Umm, you should reread what you have written. Yours is the flawed logic. Especially the one that only "intercourse" is OK because it gives "equal pleasure". No it doesn't. Nothing in sex gives equal pleasure. If you think it does, then I may just have to question if you've ever even had sex.

Sorry, but behavior such as ritualistic murder is learned. The person has, in most cases, an unusual upbringing or some traumatic incident in his/her life. The killing/hijacking thing is a way to fill the confusing void in their life. Also, the obsessive ordering of the sock drawer is most likely OCD in some form and you might want to have it checked. You might be surprised where else it can pop up. Another thing...Freud was a drug addict who was in love with his mother. Can you possibly trust a thing that guy said? Many of this theories was but a way to justify his lust for his mother. The guy was just sick in the head.

I agree that many quirks and so forth are a result of "nurture" and not "nature." But both are characteristics of the id - they have nothing to do with, or in some cases, go against both self-preservation and the societal norm. Also, just because Freud was a wacko doesn't mean his theories are. You can't attack the hypothesis through the hypothesizer (I may have just made that word up) - it's a classic ad hominem fallacy.

I'll just end the thread right here as far as the argument is concerned. There are simply too many variables to define in a logical manner why the booby is the bomb. It is pointless to try as one argument summons several rebuttals. Rather than wonder why we love the titty we should embrace the fact that they exist. After all, what else would we possibly look at while pretending we care about what the person at the other side of the table has to say?

(P.S. I'm sorry if anyone is offended by my previous statement.)

I will honor this request. Enjoy the breasts!

Males attract the females in the animal world.
Depends on the animaland culture. There are som human cultures where men decorate and adorn themselves to attract women, rather than the other way around as it is in western culture.

I agree that many quirks and so forth are a result of "nurture" and not "nature." But both are characteristics of the id - they have nothing to do with, or in some cases, go against both self-preservation and the societal norm. Also, just because Freud was a wacko doesn't mean his theories are. You can't attack the hypothesis through the hypothesizer (I may have just made that word up) - it's a classic ad hominem fallacy.


I can. I did. I'll do it again. Freud's hypothesi were all attempts to justify his lust for his mother. Because of this, none of his thoughts on the matter could possibly be considered at face value. To take the ramblings of a psych ward patient for fact would be just as foolish. Just because this guy has the "Dr." in front of his name doesn't make him right. Besides, the human mind is far too complex for any one man to come to a clear conclusion. There are simply too many variables to consider. You must stop thinking about this as a scientific matter and more of a logical one. Unless, of course, you are limited to quoting from someone else's book...

Depends on the animaland culture. There are som human cultures where men decorate and adorn themselves to attract women, rather than the other way around as it is in western culture.

You did a good job of selective reading there. I'm fairly certain I said that there were exceptions to the rule. Perhaps thou wouldst read the post in its entirety before thou wouldst post in rebuttal. About the entire "Western Culture" thing, for the most part, each sex does its share of the wooing. Women ask for a good ol' fashioned screw just as often as men do.

Animals don't run around looking for the female with the best titties. Males attract the females in the animal world.

Among birds males attract females. Among most mammals the female attracts the male. The male might make overtures at anytime, but the female is only likely to be receptive when she's in estress.

Look at the lion for example. A lion drawn in by a pride of lionesses will try to chase off their current boyfriend. If he succeeds he will then kill all the children. Males as well as females. How do the lionesses usually respond to this murder of their family? By having his babies. And she will try to entice him into it. She'll prance around him waving her pheremones in the air waiting for him to pounce on her.

Go back a few hundreds year ago, and flat chested women were considered sexy. The flatter you were, the better. They had clothing to make a women look more flat. Kinda like the opposite of now. Times change. Don't ask why.

Then I think you've forgotten the entire purpos of the breast: feed the kid you just made through sex. Cant have a species if you dont reproduce.


Actually, that isn't true. Have you heard of a mule? It's parents are a horse and a donkey, but a mule is not considered part of either species, it is it's own. It does not have reproductive organs, thus it cannot reproduce.

Sorry, but behavior such as ritualistic murder is learned. The person has, in most cases, an unusual upbringing or some traumatic incident in his/her life. The killing/hijacking thing is a way to fill the confusing void in their life. Also, the obsessive ordering of the sock drawer is most likely OCD in some form and you might want to have it checked. You might be surprised where else it can pop up. Another thing...Freud was a drug addict who was in love with his mother. Can you possibly trust a thing that guy said? Many of this theories was but a way to justify his lust for his mother. The guy was just sick in the head.

Yes, but would Neon Genesis Evangelion be even a tenth as good as it is if it were based on behaviorism rather than psychoanalysis?

Why are female breasts considered to be sexual?
Because of this... or that...

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-3/968097/Tuli.jpg

Possible answer, guys have a subconsious desire to return to infancy and nurse.
Thats it!!! I want to be nursed!! :D

Now let's look at the females. "Human females are unique in their breasts, which are considerably larger than those of apes even before the first pregnancy" (Diamond, p. 74). Since the female gorilla and her baby are comparable in size to their human counterparts, the bulk of the huge (by primate standards) human female breast consists of fat, not milk glands, and breast size varies greatly among human females without affecting their ability to nurse young. Thus, the explanation cannot be based on the need to nurse infants. Rather, human female breasts are secondary sexual characteristics that evolved to attract mates. According to Desmond Morris (1967), this took place along with the switch from front-to-rear to front-to-front mating, the pendulous shape and cleavage of the breasts mimicking the pre-existing attractiveness of the female buttocks. This also, according to the theory, explains why men find other pendulous shapes (like ear lobes) and other cleavages (like toes in low-vamped shoes) such a turn-on.

http://www.skeptic.com/04.1.miele-immoral.html

That article also has some interesting things to say about evolution and the penis.

It's also to be noted that, while the female breast is (nearly) universally seen as sexual, the degree of exposure and the dimensions do vary widely, within populations, cultures, and ven individuals.

Modern society in general, meaning not limited to the Western society, have moved past the reproductive reasons behind screwing. Breasts do mean that you are of age, but it doesn't mean that others will be attracted to them. A man's dropped testicles means that he is of age, but that doesn't mean every woman is going to want him for his sac-o-sperm. The subconcious mind may be hardwired to respond to the titties, but that doesn't mean our concious mind finds them attractive. Remember, there is a difference. The question is why are titties attractive. For humans, at least, for something to be attractive, you must be conciously aware of it. Your subconcious can only drop hints.

We *may* have moved beyond it culturally, but the reasons are still driven by reproductive insinct. Remember that sexual response is primarily a function of the hypothalamus, not the PFC.

Now, what you've gone and done there is confuse me.
I was putting my pebble in the voting urn.....
Im agreeing with you! :)

So why do we guys love them? I don't know! I can't think of any evolutionary or reproductive reason why they're considered to be sexual. Who can answer this ancient question?

You've noticed that we love them, have you also noticed that we like some better than others. The shape and size of breasts are a subtle indicator as to how suitable the woman is to be a mother. Same goes for the hourglass figure men like. The bigger the breasts the more milk they can produce to feed our offspring, the healthier our children will be.

Yes, but would Neon Genesis Evangelion be even a tenth as good as it is if it were based on behaviorism rather than psychoanalysis?

Heh. Now that's a good question, and I must say that it would not have been nearly as good without what I lovingly call the "psycho-bable."

There have been theories that back in the days of caveman the mroe fat you had on your body, the more likely you were to survive the harsh winter. Breasts are fat. A mate that can survive is an ideal amte. Bam. Evolution.

I think this whole argument is pointless. Not everyone loves big breasted women. I, in fact, hate when girls have HUGE breasts. They are unactactive to me. Therefore this argument is based off of a male stereotype and should be considered void.

Thats it!!! I want to be nursed!! :D
ROFLMAO!!! You are a sick puppy! :D

ROFLMAO!!! You are a sick puppy! :D
All the more reason to be nursed!! :cool:

Becuase they look so damn sexy!!

But then what part of a womans body does not look sexy?

Mucus Membranes.

All the more reason to be nursed!! :cool:
Rationalization alert! Rationalization alert! :D

Apologies in advance for the long post - feel free to skim by. Every post Anatsu has made in this thread needs addressing, and I'm just bored enough to tackle the issue.

We men find a woman's breasts sexy because the media tells us to. We're taught throughout our lives that they are a sexual object.
Stating something doesn't make it fact. How exactly does the media 'tell' us to? By showing cleavage? By casting women with large breasts?

This claim is utterly backwards - the media shows us women with a certain type of bust because that is what we find attractive. It is ridiculous to assume that the media would go "we need a hook... what's something we can make people like... I know, breasts!". Far more likely that the media decided to use a preference people already had - they checked focus groups (as the media is wont to do), discovered a positive reaction to models with a certain type of bust, took those results and used them.

It's the same reason behind shaved legs/armpits. In some regions of the world, *cough* *FRANCE*, women, for the most part, do not shave their armpits. This doesn't deter the French because they are taught that it doesn't matter either way.
Again, ass-backwards. It's far more likely that the media in france recognised that the people treated armpit hair as a non-issue, and so reacted in kind - in countries where people react negatively to armpit hair, women shown in the media are encouraged to shave.

Again, the media is reflecting and enhancing views already prevalent in the society, not acting as the origin of those views.

There is no evolutionary predisposition to liking the boobies.
Stating something does not make it true - this is completely and utterly false, and simply proves you have no education in the area you are trying to debate. More on that later.

One might argue that weaning from breast feeding creates an urge to nurse later in life. That must mean that every woman out there loves the boobies just as much as every hetero guy does.
The weaning argument is one in favour of a biological basis, yes. If you did not jump straight to hyperbole, you'd see why. Most women do, in fact, see breasts as a sexual part of the body, especially their own. However, there is a difference between identifying a body part as sexual, and actually finding it attractive. Most men will agree that breasts are a sexual body part, but some aren't overly attracted to them, some prefer smaller ones etcetcetc.

Since most men find it difficult to get their girlfriends into a little 2-on-1 action with her best friend, I'd say that the media has more to do with the booby-loving than an urge to nurse or evolutionary booby loving does.
Your argument is not connected to your conclusion. Nice try though.
Wrong again about the lack of evolutionary reasons for breasts being considered sexual, though.

Animals don't run around looking for the female with the best titties. Males attract the females in the animal world, though there are exceptions to the rule.
False, false, false, false, false. In mammals (which humans are, you'll note), it is mostly the females attracting the males. Hence the heat cycle which ensures males know exactly when a female is in heat. The females create signals which attract the males; the males usually fight over the females, and to the winner goes the spoils.

These are not 'exceptions to the rule' - in mammals, females attracting males is the rule.

Another thing, about the liking of the booby before the media. There is no such thing as "before the media." The media is anything and everything in your environment that influences you. That includes people you know and hang out with, your parents who raised you to be the mindless drone that you are, and your elders who teach you what they know. It doesn't stop at anything that can be printed on paper or seen on a screen. Honestly, think before you type.
Oh dear, so by 'media', you actually mean 'society'? So this is actually an issue about how society influences society. What an unfortunate choice of words.

Firstly, 'media' is (as has been pointed out) a word used most commonly to describe 'the media'. In the context of this debate, it was perfectly reasonable for people to assume you meant 'media' in the form of advertising and the like. As a newbie, you'd do yourself many more favours by admitting it was a poor choice of words, rather than snottily implying that people should have just read your mind and worked out what you meant, instead of trusting what you actually wrote

Secondly, your new 'definition' of media as 'anything and everything in your environment that influences you', if anything, acts directly against your claim that attraction to breasts is not related to evolution. Because, what's the driving factor of evolution? Could it possibly be outside factors such as the environment an organism is living in? And what's the driving factor of people finding breasts attractive (according to you)? Could it possibly be outside factors such as the environment an organism is living in? Apparently so!

Now, this is again ignoring the physical reasons that breasts-as-sexual-parts are, in fact, related to evolution. But we'll get to that eventually.

It depends on where you are raised. Different cultures find different parts of the body attractive. Cultures, of course, are learned behaviors, not evolutionary/genetic traits.
So what, would you say, is the drive that leads humans to be social animals? What leads us to create culture? What causes us to react to cultural trends? How can a culture be a 'learned behaviour'?

Again, you don't seem to understand evolution. Humans evolved to be social creatures. Thus, to argue that evolution has nothing to do with culture is patently ridiculous. Also, I would argue that breasts are considered 'sexual' everywhere. The only difference between cultures is whether larger or smaller breasts are preferred, and the degree to which they are considered taboo.

If someone doesn't know that the titty is sexy they won't be looking for them when finding someone to screw. Obviously somebody had to decide that they were the best thing since cave painting.
Yet another case of 'stating something doesn't make it true'. Why did 'someone have to decide' breasts are attractive? Do you truly think that all behaviours must originate with a conscious decision by one person?

I'm not denying that. What I am saying is that they are not an object of desire for every hetero man on the face of the planet. Meaning that it is not a evolutionary/genetic thing we are talking about.
Your argument and conclusion are flawed and, also, do not follow. Breasts can be considered 'sexual' without being universally attractive. Just like sugar is considered 'sweet', but not everyone likes it. Very few straight men will deny that all breasts are not sexual, nor will they claim not to understand why anyone would find them attractive. The disagreement tends to be more a matter of size, or of other body parts (especially the hips and buttocks) being more attractive.

Maybe I should highlight the difference between something 'not being desirable' and 'not being the most desirable'. Because they aren't the same thing.

Somebody had to teach somebody else that the booby was the bomb. They didn't wake up one day and see boobies as a sexual object. People have to be taught what to look for else they become confused and look for anything that moves.
That's right. It's a little known fact that if you raise a child away from the 'media' (or, you know, 'an environment', given your definition), and then introduce it to other humans, it will have no way of deciding a preference[I]/Sarcasm

Unless you have studies that back up this 'lack of corruptive 'environmental factors' leads to no preference for breasts', I suggest you reconsider using this as an argument. Currently, all you have is an unsupported, unlikely and, frankly, illogical hypothesis.

Think about it this way. Animals look for mates who would make the best babies. A woman's rack has nothing to do with making babies.
Ahh. The point where you show that not only have you not read through this thread (for this has been addressed), but that you know literally [I]nothing about what you're talking about. As was already addressed (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8970938&postcount=95), breasts do reflect something about her ability to 'make babies'. I'll try to make this simple, since the original post seems to have completely failed to educate you. If you'd like the more eloquent version, there's the link above.

Too little fat = smaller breasts = higher likelihood of complications during pregnancy or birth, plus difficulties feeding the child.
Too much fat = larger breasts = higher likelihood of complications during pregnancy or birth, plus difficulties feeding the child.

Though fashion trends have effected the preferences of people for larger vs smaller breasts, it is still arguable that there is an evolutionary basis for assuming breasts are used as a measure of childbearing ability.

Therefore, it would seem logical to conclude that there is also an evolutionary reason for men to use breasts, at least in part, as a way of judging potential mates.

They have nothing to do with feeding the kid anymore.
Um... breasts are actually still used during breast feeding. Just because many women now choose to bottle feed doesn't alter the biological purpose for breasts, or the associated biological stimulus.

But again, the main reason they are attractive is most likely not to do with nursing, but to do with body fat and childbearing.

This leaves one answer.
Only if you have no information from which to draw other, more concrete conclusions...

People are taught that the titty is sexy. There is no longer a reason for anyone to look at the booby as a sign that the woman is able to feed children. Hell, sex isn't even about making babies anymore. We screw because it feels good.
We've always screwed because it felt good. Other than that, your conclusions are once again unconnected to your arguments, and are thus totally unsupported.

You're just plain wrong, in other words.

Uhh...just to clerify...the term "media" as it is used is a slang or jargon term. Your definition that it is a form of comminucation only proves my point that media makes the boobies a sex icon.
Using slang in debates is rarely a good way to get your point across. Furthermore, the definition of media as 'communication' does not prove your point. 'Communication' does not 'make' people think that breasts are 'a sex icon'. This whole argument is laughable.

About your theory that animal world both sexes are equally represented in the mating game is wrong. Females are the ones looking for mates. Males are the ones who attract them. I'm not saying that this applies to every species. For the majority of them, though, it does. So again I say, think before you type.
Again, we are here discussing only mammals, because that's what humans are. The reproductive patterns of fish, birds, insects or whatever else do not apply as directly. And in mammals, it is the females that attract the males. Hence the whole 'males fighting over the females, females having a heat cycle' thing. Not to mention the fact that in many social mammal species, the females form groups which adult males hunt out in order to breed.

That is, the males are the ones looking for mates. Females are the ones who attract them. The direct opposite of what you are trying to claim, you'll note.

Also, you should read this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8970688&postcount=55). It gives further information to support this whole stance (in a round about way, I suppose). Funny how you missed it before, since it's in this same thread...

Modern society in general, meaning not limited to the Western society, have moved past the reproductive reasons behind screwing.
Sex was never just about reproduction in humans. It has always been used more to cement bonds between partners. The fact that you claim we have 'moved beyond reproductive reasons' shows you need to do more research.

Breasts do mean that you are of age, but it doesn't mean that others will be attracted to them.
But the issue here is not whether people find them attractive, it's whether they have a biological or evolutionary reason to do so. Breasts showing that a woman has come of age (and is thus able to breed) is a biological/evolutionary reason for men to find them attractive.

Changing the issue to make it fit your argument is a poor tactic in a debate.

A man's dropped testicles means that he is of age, but that doesn't mean every woman is going to want him for his sac-o-sperm.
But, in relation to the actual topic we're arguing, it does help explain why the women who are attracted to that are, and ties that to a biological/evolutionary explanation.

The subconcious mind may be hardwired to respond to the titties, but that doesn't mean our concious mind finds them attractive.
Actually, you can be attracted to something subconsciously. You can even act on those attractions subconsciously. This claim just adds psychology to the list of things you talk about without, apparently, understanding.

Remember, there is a difference. The question is why are titties attractive.
Incorrect. The question is actually 'why are breasts considered sexual'. It's right there at the top of the thread. And the answer is not, as you claim 'because society tells us they are'. Also, 'attractive' is not the same as 'sexual'. Maybe someone should have pointed that out earlier.

For humans, at least, for something to be attractive, you must be conciously aware of it. Your subconcious can only drop hints.
Blatantly false.

If one has a protective, pseudo-father drive AND a sexual drive...wouldn't that be a bit creepy? He sees the woman as a child needing his protection but at the same time wants to f*** her brains out. I would say that's a bit creepy.
Yes, because evolution wouldn't favour males who protected their pregnant mates, would it now? And since humans have heat cycles, a male would always know when his mate was pregnant, and thus when to stop having sex/protecting her, right?

Oh wait, that's ass-backwards again. Ah well, you almost had a point.

Sorry, but behavior such as ritualistic murder is learned. The person has, in most cases, an unusual upbringing or some traumatic incident in his/her life. The killing/hijacking thing is a way to fill the confusing void in their life.
Funny, I was unaware of this psychological breakthrough. Please would you provide a credible source for this claim, since everything I've been taught suggests it is incorrect and unsupported pseudo-bullshit.

Also, the obsessive ordering of the sock drawer is most likely OCD in some form and you might want to have it checked. You might be surprised where else it can pop up.
That was an example, I believe, not something the poster confessed to. Also, considering the poster, I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest they already knew it was an example of OCD and that that was the actual point.

Another thing...Freud was a drug addict who was in love with his mother. Can you possibly trust a thing that guy said? Many of this theories was but a way to justify his lust for his mother. The guy was just sick in the head.
As someone already pointed out, this is a pointless argument. Freud's theory of the id, the ego and the superego are not effected by his fixation on his mother. The drug addiction also does not effect this. Discrediting the authority does not discredit their argument (as has been pointed out). If you want to debate here and be taken at all seriously, learn the basic rules of debate, or prepare to be called on them repeatedly.

I'll just end the thread right here as far as the argument is concerned.
Speaking of egos...
You cannot end threads. Making statements like the above probably won't win you many friends.

There are simply too many variables to define in a logical manner why the booby is the bomb.
Maybe there are too many variables for you. The rest of us seem to be doing ok, actually.

It is pointless to try as one argument summons several rebuttals. Rather than wonder why we love the titty we should embrace the fact that they exist.
While I'm all about the embracing of breasts, I quite enjoy the arguing, also.

After all, what else would we possibly look at while pretending we care about what the person at the other side of the table has to say?
We could always just carry books or hand-held games with us everywhere... I know that's what I do.

(P.S. I'm sorry if anyone is offended by my previous statement.)
Anyone offended by that would be better off growing a thinker skin ;)

I can. I did. I'll do it again. Freud's hypothesi were all attempts to justify his lust for his mother.
All? That's a pretty impressive claim. In fact, it would almost seem to suggest you actually haven't read any of his hypotheses, but have simply heard he had a fixation on his mother, and have thus decided none of his claims could possibly be valid (hey, not to worry. Even I went through that phase. It's still utter bollocks though).

Because of this, none of his thoughts on the matter could possibly be considered at face value.
Who's taking them 'at face value'? Most people who know anything about Freud also know about his character. I still don't see how any of that effects his theory of the id, ego and superego... which is, after all what you are trying to argue against.

To take the ramblings of a psych ward patient for fact would be just as foolish. Just because this guy has the "Dr." in front of his name doesn't make him right.
Just because he had a thing for his mother doesn't make him wrong. To take every theory of Freud as fiction would be equally foolish.

Besides, the human mind is far too complex for any one man to come to a clear conclusion.
Funny, one would imagine that your conclusion (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8970917&postcount=90) seemed fairly clear. Where exactly is there room for the complexities of the human mind in 'the media makes us do it'?

There are simply too many variables to consider. You must stop thinking about this as a scientific matter and more of a logical one. Unless, of course, you are limited to quoting from someone else's book...
Actually, logic would seem to agree with science here. Funny how that happens.

You did a good job of selective reading there. I'm fairly certain I said that there were exceptions to the rule.
Yes, but last time you said that it turned out the 'exceptions' actually were the rule. So you'll excuse us all for doubting you.

Perhaps thou wouldst read the post in its entirety before thou wouldst post in rebuttal.
My rebuttals include your whole posts, so I guess I don't need to worry about this?

About the entire "Western Culture" thing, for the most part, each sex does its share of the wooing. Women ask for a good ol' fashioned screw just as often as men do.
And this proves that breasts are not attractive for biological reasons.... why?

while on this topic.... does anyone feel breats can be TOO big? sometimes?
its like, what the hell do you expect me to do with that.....
anyone?
Yes. Any discussion of deviation from other "ideals" aside, if they can be used to club a baby harp seal to death, alone, or in tandum, they are probably too big.

Becuase they look so damn sexy!!

But then what part of a womans body does not look sexy?


I agree with that one

Apologies in advance for the long post - feel free to skim by. Every post Anatsu has made in this thread needs addressing, and I'm just bored enough to tackle the issue.

[ Large economy size snippage! ]

And this proves that breasts are not attractive for biological reasons.... why?
Excellent exposition. One might even say "exhaustive!" :D

Apologies in advance for the long post - feel free to skim by. Every post Anatsu has made in this thread needs addressing, and I'm just bored enough to tackle the issue.

-snip-

Thanks. That needed doing. I didn't want to spend the time doing it.

Yep.
Although the act can be reciprocated, and theoretically speaking it can be reciprocated at the same time, the only act that can give comparable pleasure to both sexes is normal intercourse.
Actually, even assuming the male is uncircumsized, if both parties orgasm then it is highly probably the female walks away with more enjoyment given the difference in the number of nerve endings involved.

Because the upright posture adopted by hominids meant that guy's faces were no longer nearly level with women's asses. That meant that a prime visual cue for sexual activity was eliminated. Breasts grew more voluptuous and succulent to compensate.

Bad evolutionary theory. The genes dont sit around a big table during conception and decide whats going to be different. It happend completley at random and then if the result is good, the mutation becomes dominant ans spreads to the rest of the species.

Why do women like men's eyes so much? They always say there the most prettiest part but whats so good about them (apart from allowing you to see)?

Why do women like men's eyes so much? They always say there the most prettiest part but whats so good about them (apart from allowing you to see)?

Probably a trust thing, considering the general perception that if you can look someone in the eyes and say something, you aren't lying.

I'd attempt to tie it to evolution and childraising and so forth, but I'm meant to be studying philosophy now (I bet everyone can guess how well that's going >.>)

-ubersnippage-

Holy shit! This looks like the long-winded replies I used to make on the PC Gamer forums. That said, I agree 100%. I was thinking about doing a similar retort, but it looks like you've already done the work for me (well, I just woke up about ten minutes ago, so I probably wouldn't be able to do something so... big). So, what do I say to that? Thanks!

YAbout the entire "Western Culture" thing, for the most part, each sex does its share of the wooing. Women ask for a good ol' fashioned screw just as often as men do.
True, but that was not my point. My point was that in western culture, it's mostly the wearing the makeup and jewellery in order to attract men.

I think this whole argument is pointless. Not everyone loves big breasted women. I, in fact, hate when girls have HUGE breasts. They are unactactive to me. Therefore this argument is based off of a male stereotype and should be considered void.
I never said anything about HUGE breasts in my original posts. I don't like huge breasts either. So, do you like women with no breasts? Unless your answer is "yes" then the argument is not void.

True, but that was not my point. My point was that in western culture, it's mostly the wearing the makeup and jewellery in order to attract men.

True, though I find the whole jewelry/makeup thing ridiculous. You should be attracted to the person, not the products.

Lymph nodes.

The view up a nostril.

True, though I find the whole jewelry/makeup thing ridiculous. You should be attracted to the person, not the products.
I agree. I was just pointing out facts. The jewellery and makeup market is undeniably large.

Rationalization alert! Rationalization alert! :D
This topic is THE breast topic currently on NS. Rationalizing a desire to be nursed is normal, healthy, and extremely desirable. :D

Lymph nodes.

Size of lymph nodes = quality of immune system. So bigger is better? (in comparison to body size of course)

(assuming lesbians like breasts) why then do lesbians like brests?

I like my gfs breasts because of the reasons that where mentioned. I just do. And besides they are soft and sensitive.

And I am sure she likes my breasts for the same reasons.

I agree. I was just pointing out facts. The jewellery and makeup market is undeniably large.

Yep. I knew what you were saying, though. I was just stating my opinion on it :).

I like the appearance of breasts, too. It's definitely not because I don't have any myself. ;) I really can't explain it. Perhaps it is a subconscious desire to be "mothered" and get back to early, early childhood?

Two very good reasons. First off, they are quite sensitive, due to the need for mothers to have a reason to suckle babies. Second is quite similar. Big breasts mean that more milk, to our minds, will be suplied to nourish our children and make them strong. It is the same reason that wide hips were seen as a desirable quality, less risk of death in childbirth. Now that is less of an issue, but breast milk is still important and is burned into our racial conciousness. Sorry ladies, but it will probably still be the case for a long time. Biological imperitive is a powerful force.

Breasts are beautiful, the most sexually attractive thing a woman has that is unique to her body.

They are round, curvy, and soft...like pillows.

So why do we guys love them? I don't know! I can't think of any evolutionary or reproductive reason why they're considered to be sexual. Who can answer this ancient question?
I imagine there was a time when bare breasts were considered to be unexceptional, but when Goddess worship was suppressed, the boobs went with it: it is covering them up for all these millennia that has made them more special.
http://www.mythicimages.com/image/s-lg-snake.jpg