Boobs exist to make men happy?

This is NOT trolling, I really want to know if there is some substance to the following.

I remember reading an article some ten years ago about the breasts. It claimed that some anthropologist thought that breast have developed to entice men.

Now, you might say: “Whoa! What sexist bull**** is that?!” but the scientists said that women are the only fems of any species who have breasts, even when they’re not producing milk. Other animals just have nipples, till it’s time to breastfeed.

He (I’m sure it was a man) claimed that when man got up and started walking on two legs, the…. uhm… vagina got hidden between the legs, and women needed something else to entice men.

So the conclusion, why men are so fixated with breasts, is that we’re programmed to be just that. And that you gals have them to please us.

Now, I would gladly use this “fact,” when I get smacked over the head for checking out hooters. But I wonder if it’s just bull****?

Anybody know?

CT

I could never be a woman, I’d stay home from work all day and play with my breasts
[i]Steve Martin[/]

I remember reading an article (I think it was more of a sidebar) somewhere claiming that men are attracted to a large chestular region because it is a sign of fertility. Now you and I both know that fertility has nothing to do with cup size but I can imagine way back when some Australopithecine guy thinking bigger rack = more food for the kids.

Of course maybe men are attracted to breasts because we don't have them. Well most men don't anyway...

CT, try this line after you've been smacked: "Sorry, miss, but I couldn't help but notice your tremendous fertility"


Alphagene

Women who have breasts that produce milk have more children that survive; men who prefer women who have breasts that produce milk father more children that survive. The evolutionary focus is on what is best for the child.

Yes, but breast size is not in any way an indicator of milk capacity. When not in use, the milk glands of women are no larger than the milk glands (yes, they're there, and can even be coaxed into functioning) of men.

The human female breast does indeed appear to be pure sexual decoration, like a peacock's tail; it is relatively unusual for such things to appear in the female, rather than the male, but not by any means unique.

------------------
John W. Kennedy
"Compact is becoming contract; man only earns and pays."
-- Charles Williams

Once again, PBS "science of sex" shows come in handy...

I believe one current theory about prominent, permanent breasts is that they resemble the gluteus (bum, for anyone who needs to run for a dictionary). You'll also notice that humans are the only animals that have sex in a face-to-face position; the gluteus gets males excited when facing one side, the breasts (which do look kind of similar) get men excited on the other side. I guess it's a round and squishy = good thing. In a scrounge-for-survival world, any excess flesh on a body would have been attractive.

This trait would have been selected for because humans have no clear estrus cycle, so females who retained their breasts while not nursing would attract more men than those who didn't and thus produce more offspring to carry on the "breast retention" gene. I don't see this as sexist drivel at all - it's so far back in antiquity that WHY breasts evolved has no bearing at all on how we view them today. I will say, however, that I see absolutely NOTHING wrong with men being attracted to breasts, as long as it's not the only thing they're attracted to. Breasts are part of being female, and I see no reason why we can't all enjoy that.

It was Desmond Morris,who has many funny ideas on sex and reproduction who stated that breasts are there to attract men,and the rear to attract them from behind.I forgot the name of his book;you can find it in any library.I think only men would know the answer to this;I can't imagine anyone being attracted to breasts.

I have a copy of Manwatching - A Field Guide to Human Behavior by Desmond Morris here, but this book deals almost exclusively with body language and other forms of nonverbal communication.

The volume you seek is The Naked Ape, a compendium of theories that was considered quite revolutionary about 30 years ago when it first came out. I think many of his ideas are quite valid, in spite of the scathing reviews Cecil tends to give the man.

Oh - Morris' theory is pretty much as Eris stated it. Boobs are a butt for the front, so to speak. They supposedly developed as Man was transforming into bipedalism and the sexual display of the female (on all fours with butt in the air) became less frequent.
Females needed a sexual attractant they could use while walking upright and facing their prospective mate.

That sounds suspiciously like a Beavis and Butthead theory on boob origins. :)

I always imagined men found breasts attractive because they were an easy way to distinguish men from women. The same reason most men find beards unattractive on women.

But the again, that assumes the breasts came first, and the attraction came second.

So which came first? The breast or the breast-man?

-Your Quadell

If the theory of "breasts as sexual attractant" holds, then the breasts must have come first. The breast man then ensured that the trait was passed on to subsequent generations.

I don't know about breasts existing to make men happy, but I do know that men are happy because boobs exist. Happy, happy, happy :)

------------------
The overwhelming majority of people have more than the average (mean) number of legs. -- E. Grebenik

Morris even went so far as to say the color and fullness of the female's lips mimics the genital labia of the all fours sexual display - hence the tendency to accentuate them with ochre formerly and lipstick recently. (I wonder if this hypothesis did not take root in the mind of a imaginative, randy 16-year-old Morris).

On a similar note, I read somewhere that men find women's shoulders attractive because they remind them of the curve of the breasts... Make sense I s'pose.

Many of Morris's theories seem off the wall to me, but at least some of his grounding observations, such as that female human breasts appear to have no practical purpose, seem solid. Also, have you ever gotten a good look at a female chimp in estrus?

As to "finding breasts attractive", I'm not sure. Some men do seem to find them attractive, per se, but I don't. What I find sexy (in that department) is a pretty woman showing off her breasts, which isn't quite the same thing. Indeed, I think it matters to me that you can see a woman's face and her breasts in one single close-up field of view.

But I really don't know how typical I am. Most men, no matter how otherwise intellectual, seem to feel an obligation to break into a locker-room va-va-voom mentality when discussing such things.

------------------
John W. Kennedy
"Compact is becoming contract; man only earns and pays."
-- Charles Williams

Jens said:
Far better to turn her over and use the buttocks.

A code I try to live by whenever I can.

Seems the theory is getting a support here. Mostly from men, I note.

Yes breasts are interesting, not alone, but as part of the package. Implants are gross, though (IMO).

Seriously guys: We've heard enough of the "stop staringat /talking to my cheast" from women. After all, they (for some reason that totally escapes me) enjoy loooking at men's butts.

So why can't we just say: The titties are there for us to look at, quit bitching.

ct

pldennison: That sounds different taken out of context!

Some one mentioned the butt is to breasts, and same with the shoulder and I remember that Desmond also mentiond the knees having similar curveature.
To get back to the original question I, being a strong beliver in evoultion and "survival of the fittest", would have to say that at one point women may have been just as flat as men but then some women who had slightly enlarged breasts turned out to be more attractive to the male (what ever the reason is, is proabably another thread of it's own) therefore more attractive=more sex which means that if these larger breasted women are having more sex they are going to give birth to females that will also have larger breastes (genetics) and the cycle will continue beucase society decided that enlarged breasts are more attractive and the women that didn't have enlarged breasts slowly died off. (BTW I'm not trying to offend any women with small breasts but rather drawing a distict line between women with breasts that are NOT enlarged at all (such as a male) and women with enlarged breasts)

PS I hope this all makes sense I kinda started to ramble from the ritalin I just took before I started reading my book

I remember reading an article (I think it was more of a sidebar) somewhere claiming that men are attracted to a large chestular region because it is a sign of fertility. Now you and I both know that fertility has nothing to do with cup size but I can imagine way back when some Australopithecine guy thinking bigger rack = more food for the kids.

That's just half of it. I have no cite for this, but it's the whole "hourglass" shape which is a sign of fertility.

------------------
"Age is mind over matter; if you don't mind, it don't matter." -Leroy "Satchel" Paige

Kennedy, you got any proof that men's nipples can produce milk? I think Cecil answered this one long ago, but I'm not sure. Anyway, I want to see some evidence before I believe that men can produce milk.

I misread this thread as "BOOKS exist to make men happy" (while they certainly help, they have other purposes, too)

On the other hand, I can think of no other raison d'etre for large breasts (assuming "men" is being used in the neuter here).

They're not much use as pillows, since placing a head on them interferes with the woman's breathing. Far better to turn her over and use the buttocks.

Maybe large breasts were intended for the woman's benefit. Having a major sexual characteristic in that area enables a woman to watch how often a man's attention wanders from her face to her chest. Sort of a built in lech detector. Hey, it's no worse that Desmond Morris' theory.

"Breasts are like toy trains. They were intended for children but grown men usually end up playing with them." (Sorry, I don't know who said this first.)

Yes, Cecil did. Yes, men's breasts can produce milk.

------------------
John W. Kennedy
"Compact is becoming contract; man only earns and pays."
-- Charles Williams

For the straight dope on what Cecil really said about male lactation, read this:

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1_093.html


[Note: This message has been edited by Nickrz]

Okay guys - some thoughts from someone who has breasts - you're making it too complicated. They are more than milk producing glands for women too! They're erogenous zones and bring us more pleasure than they do you! Of course men like to look at them -- they're a part of a woman's sexuality.

Side Question:

I saw a magazine that had an artcle about an electric bra that can make a woman's breast larger by basically vaccum-pumping them it out. Did anyone else see this magazine article?

the whole "hourglass" shape which is a sign of fertility.


Newsweek (IIRC) did a lead story 3 or 4 years back on the research being done on attractiveness & evolution. One of the findings reported was waist to hip ratio on women, which also has a marked impact on female fertility. The most desirable ratio was 70%, which also has the highest fertility factor. Although this was not mentioned in the article, breasts should also be an indicator, since the same hormones that cause large hips will also generally produce large breasts.

Sycorax - While breasts are erogenous zones, I have heard that smaller breasts are actually more sensitive so you would think this factor would select for smaller breasted women.

zyada, did they consider that after a woman has a baby she's may not have that figure anymore? Thus, it's seems only an *initial* fertility figure.

Boobrigation: In a largely male society, large breasts are favored, thus women with them have an easier time.

Just a bit off topic, but having larger breasts doesn't always make things easier for a woman. Some of my female friends just wish that people would stop staring or making comments about them...

Back to your regulary scheduled postings.

------------------
Neil

". . .they could as easily have been carrying euphoniums and wearing war paint for all the notice their quarry would have taken of them."
-Douglas Adams, "Life, the Universe, and Everything"

I'll stay off topic for a moment. Large breasts-for a woman- are mostly a pain. I have naturally Big'Uns and I wish I could pop the off or unscrew them or something. Especially in this HEAT. And the strap marks carved into my shoulders are so lovely!

------------------
"On the edge of sleep, I awoke to a sun so bright..."

Interesting how this turned from breasts in general to Big Breasts.

Oh, popokis--conversation ALWAYS goes from breasts in general to Big Breasts.
Signed, Mother of 4 well-nursed babies with no dents from shoulder straps.

Big breasts? See what Cecil had to say about the largest commercially available brassieres:

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1_086b.html

Oops, that was small boobs.
Here are the big ones:

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1_087.html

Here's my theory. Women have large breasts (compared to other mammals) as a way of mimicing lactation.

As someone mentioned, most mammals have an estrus cycle, but humans have developed it into a menstrual cycle where the OVERT signs of fertility are suppressed. Human women will have sex 24-7, while most animals have a very specific and restricted period of heat (well, some women will, anyway!). There are various theories about why this is, most having to do with social structure. I won't go into THAT, it's a thread in itself.

But of course, the bottom line is that human females ALWAYS APPEAR RECEPTIVE to sex except when pregnant (when they may be receptive to sex, but are not fertile for the men around them and cannot hide it). They do not change color, they do not give off strong odors, etc.

Pregnancy leaves signs though. If your belly is flat, you are not carrying a baby and hence are fertile (hopefully). But if your breasts are "small", you may be infertile. If your waist is small and your breasts are large, you just had a baby and are now fertile and receptive again. Perfect. To mimic this state requires women who are not lactating to show large breasts. Hence the bulges of tissue, imitating swollen lactate glands. It's all part of the human woman's interest in not giving away the state of her fertility.

I think this makes more sense than that it's a front-viewed derriere. (please!)

i've read lots of desmond morris and i think he makes a lot of sense...(or maybe I'M the loony, for thinking that). but what i haven't really found answered....what's with the preference for a small waist? maybe i'm not thinking hard enough but i can't see how that makes sense....and who was it that mentioned small breasts being more sensitive? why IS that??

------------------
"Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past." --1984

Handy - not having been blessed with children , I 'm not sure about this but I don't think a woman's proportions change after childbirth, although her weight may. I tend to remain at 75% (Yowsah!) no matter what I weigh. I remember that the 70% rule is fairly universal no matter what the ideal weight range is - the pre-historic fertility figurines are have this proportion, as did Twiggy! (although an "overweight" woman at 70% is not perceived as attractive as a "normal" woman at 80% or 90% :( ) The 70% figure also held true for fertility rates for different weights.

Gundhilde -
The preference for small waist - or rather small waist to hip ratio - has to do with how women store calories for pregnancy. It takes 9 million calories to carry and breast feed a baby. The female body needs to store enough calories to tide a woman through pregnancy even during periods when food is short. These calories are stored in special fat deposits known as brown fat which are store primarily on the hips and thighs. White fat, OTOH, is stored in the stomach. (This causes the pear & apple body shapes that doctors talk about - brown fat is not as detrimental as white fat)

It probably also helps that a wide pelvis is less likely to cause problems during childbirth; however, IIRC, the fertility rate study was concerned solely with fat distribution.

Finally - why are small breasts (as I recall) more sensitive? The reason is that there is the same number of nerve endings in breasts no matter the size. I don't know if this is true it holds true for me - I'm large breasted & they're not the most erogenous part of my body.

Quote:
"Seriously guys: We've heard enough of the "stop staringat /talking to my cheast" from
women. After all, they (for some reason that totally escapes me) enjoy loooking at men's butts."

I know I'm in the strict minority here, but I've never understood that. I don't look at a guy's butt unless there's something really drawing my attention to it...like a tail or a big sign saying,"Here's my butt. Look at it." I can't figure it out. I'm guessing that maybe the guy with the firmest butt has better thrusting power? Maybe this should be another thread. "What's up with butt gazing?"

I read Morris' ideas about the breasts being a simulation of the rear. I can see how he got to this conclusion although I, honestly, found it kind of disturbing but, hey, that's just my puritanical side talking. Evolution, in and of itself, is neutral. APB9999's theory makes sense also.

I also remember Morris saying that women's breasts, compared to those of other animals, are very ill-suited for breast feeding, hence the idea that they're as much for attracting a mate as for feeding the young. He stated that they'd need to be designed differently in order for the child to eat most effectively.

As an interesting side note, at work, I've had no trouble with guys my age staring at my chest. It's always the guys over 40. Now, I'm certainly not trying to make a general statement about men over 40. I've worked other places where this is not the case. It's just odd how the guys at my current job are. Maybe the young guys are just sneakier..or maybe I'm just not their type :)

I remember reading an article in Discover magazine a couple of years ago about this, and other physical sex attributes in humans. It was pretty interesting, actually. (Duh, it was about sex!)

In regard to the females with big boobs thing, they said pretty much what has been already said: it was a sign of fertility. Not just the boobs themselves, but the overall shape (like what the Newsweek article suggested--and I remember that in that article, a slightly overweight woman with an hourglass shape was preferred over a slightly underweight woman with the same shape--perhaps because the overweight woman would more likely be fertile). Full, healthy breasts and soft, round curves indicate good health and fertility. Meanwhile, teeny Calista Flockhart breasts and straight, skinny hips suggest the girl may not have reached puberty yet, or is malnourished, and thus less likely to be fertile.

What was far more interesting (to me, at least) was that the article said that not only were women's breasts for men to enjoy, but large penises were for men, too! Proof that size does not matter all that much to us womenfolk. The article sought to also answer why human males have comparatively enormous organs when set against those of other primates--for example, a 400lb mountain gorilla has a weensy 2-3" weenie (when erect!). Ms. Gorilla doesn't seem to mind, and it functions well enough to make more gorillas in the world, so why do human males, at half the size and weight, have double the penis length?

So why are human men so huge? (You gotta love that line, boys!) They called it "locker room" culture--a large penis is a way for a man to show off his status as a man to all the other men. They compared this to a species of bird I've long since forgotten the name of that has brightly colored head decor. The females don't care much about head decor and will mate to their tastes, no matter the size of it, but to the OTHER male birds...well, that guy's HUGE! What a COCK! (pun intended! :D) And so Mr. Big Decorative Bird becomes #1 male bird--to the other males. This also means he is more likely to mate, but only because the other males bow out to him.

Kinda like antlers on a deer, too, except men don't do battle over a woman by batting their penises together. But they should. Would be damn fun to watch!

So, men, got a big member? Well, that's just to prove to other men how manly you are! And yah know, thinking about it, it does seem men talk about their penises, flaunt their penises (and overall nudity), and brag about their penises a whole lot more than women do about their breasts or any sex organ. Men have ample opportunity, then, to determine their place in the locker room hierarchy.

And my man sits near the top. ;)

------------------
"Me fail English? That's unpossible!"

"English? Who needs that? I'm never going to England."

Just a bit off topic, but having larger breasts doesn't always make things easier for a woman. Some of my female friends just wish that people would stop staring or making comments about them...

That is very true, Neil. And men don't always fall for large breasts. For example, I've noticed that out of my circle of friends, the ones with the smaller chests attract the most men, while my more amply endowed friends are passed over. My one friend thinks that maybe males are intimidated by her large chest. Who knows.

------------------
Welfy

I wonder what the king is doing tonight?

I have been lurking, but have to jump in here... to say that it's a myth that smaller breasts are more sensitive. As in most things sexual, people vary - but I am slightly above average in size and can assure you that there is no lack in sensitivity :D Chatting with girlfriends confirms that size has little to do with response. Additionally: if smaller was better, wouldn't all men have VERY sensitive
nipples?

------------------
"May the forces of evil become confused on the way to your house." -- George Carlin

Okay.. I can't believe I'm writing on this topic.

I've got a few thoughts to throw into the fray.. so I'll number them. :)

1.)
I have another curve ball to throw in here. For one thing... has anyone seen breasts in one of the more primative cultures. NOTHING like the breasts we are all talking about. Nothing at all. Not the "soft round, etc" that are supposed to have been attractive. I have a bad feeling that that round and soft bit is really a byproduct of the brassiere. I think we may just be getting a little ethnocentric here and blinding ourselves. (just a mite *w*)

2.)
Another thing.. according to the theory stated in "The Evolution of Conciousness" (I'm sorry, I know it's not the author's personal theory.. he just restates it in the book) there were a multitude of changes that took place (according to this "heat theory" that standing up changes the humidity and heat that the body is subject to..human vs ape stance). Some of these.. The infant's head and cranial size had to be smaller because an upright body requires a more dense pelvic bone, which makes sure the infant is born less developed (because with a lower heat and lower humidity, there is a larger possibility for growing a larger brain), which in turn makes an infant more likely to need longer term care... bringing on attachment and a child that is not born "ready to run" like in many of the other animals. The hands were freed from walking, to become tools (though!!! there are some primative cultures which are known to have feet almost as dextrous as their hands), and the body to utilize less energy.

3.)
Now.. along with this, I'm sure there no longer was the concern of having a severe back ache with all of that extra weight on one local place on the body (*L* That is in some ways a joke.. because one of the causes of back trouble in women is breasts). I do think that the idea of breasts showing the fertility of the woman (just having had a child, so she is ready to have another-post) seems pretty interesting and thoughtful to me.

(and #4 which is my real idea.. the others were just warmer-uppers you know ;) )
I THINK.. though.. there are some biological issues that might be here also. For one.. breasts have special chemicals in the fat stores that keep the fat from being burned until either excersize has EXCEEDED around forty five minutes or in the event of a food shortage. And the breasts, along with the upper arms, are one of the first places the fat goes when there is an overly large caloric intake. In other words.. big breasts means this speciman has fed well and that she has the extra fat stores to provide for a child being born in the event of a scarcity of food. Also, bigger breasts means that since she has been in a place of plenty (of food) so she has had a wider variety of food if the food is more plentiful and she is more likely to be healthy and able to carry a child for the long term that is required. Has anyone seen the difference between a feral horse on the range and one that has been domesticated? It's amazing the change a little extra food can do for a body.

In other words.. breasts, are a wonderful indication of the health of the potential mother and the greater possiblity of a child surviving. ALSO.. *L* breast milk has a high quantity of fat in it. (Though the majority of it is actually anitbodies passed through the mother to the child to protect the child from diseases the mother is exposed to..since the two are supposed to be inseperable, these antibodies would protect the child from sickness that come their way). And if the mother is skinny to begin with, not skilled at getting enough food, or unable to, then after a pregnancy cut short by not having enough food (creating an underweight baby, one strike against the child and also, most likely born early to compensate for the incredible pressure on the mother to sustain a life when the food is too low to sustain her own - second strike against the child) the child has to deal with not having enough fat in their diet to put on the weight they so desperately need (to help ensure good eyesight, a must for bipedal animals (another idea found in "The Evolution of Conciousness" is the increased ability to see better because of the visibility range changing by becoming bipedal), and energy to learn and grow by storing fat as "baby fat" to be used during growing spurts and for the brain's development (strikes three and four)).

So.. Why choose a mother who hasn't the body fat to deal with childbirth? And what better way to show that you can deal with child birth, but to display it where all can see (namely near the head which has the vocalizations, facial expressions and such and would be a place that would hold most of the male's attention - I mean the head.. *L*)? Another place to display fat is at the hips.. this fat is usually created DURING pregnancy however and is used exclusively for the baby after the child is born. Kinda neat.. there are signs that a woman is pregnant or a good candidate for offspring's survival chances just by the placement of the fat on her body.

Anyhow... just another viewpoint, if anyone would care to respond to it.

------------------
Growing old is manditory. Growing wise is optional.

Wow Sara,
exhaustive coms to mind, even if it's partly a WAG.
So we're back on topic again.

I find it interesting that the consensus here more and more leans towrds the fact that female breasts are there, if not only to make men happy, then at least have a very clear role in the sexuality of humans. It seems that breasts, in some way or another, are there to signal something: Health, beauty, fertility ASF.

The shape, however, Sara. Remember that young (13-15 y.o.) females of primitive people have a shapely form, close to what we in the western world consider nice'n'round. And that's the age where women have gotten pregnant for the first time in their (sadly) short lifes in prehistory. Having given birth once, she's proven her fertility.

I hope this means that I'm now free to look at the hooters of females without being consider a sexist. I can calmly say that I, and every other man, is genetically predisposed to look at'em.

Problem is that I'm particular to .. ahem... bottoms. :)
ct

Sara - you said pretty much the same thing as what I said, except for where the fat was stored for child-bearing. I believe the majority is stored on the hips (at least that's where a lot of mine is!)

And yes, our breasts shape is definitely aided by bras.

Sassy - thanks for clearing that up - now I know who to blame if I'm not enjoying certain attentions. ;)

Charlie - I read somewhere that derriere men tend to be nicer that bosom men. So stand tall in your preferences!

You know? If we are talking evolution and such, then the traits that show up are
the ones that enable the species to survive... in other words, what helps the
species to reproduce.

This is just a pet peeve, but it's more correct to say, "the traits that show up are the ones that don't cause the species to die out." Its a common misconception that all the traits of a species must have had some evolutionary advantage. That's not necessarily true. Some traits are just there, you know? It might have sprung up as a random mutation, and as long as it wasn't a DISadvantage, it would continue to be propagated. And a lot of traits that once served a specific purpose, but are no longer necessary, will continue to hang around - the appendix, for example.


------------------
"For what a man had rather were true, he more readily believes" - Francis Bacon

Sara. For a rundown on acronyms on the 'Net, check "About this message board."

I'l give the short version to you:
ASF = and so forth
WAG = wild assed guess

Interesting enough, I find I'm too nice to women. Not an advantage so far in life, I tell you. Want to exchange more explicit experience...? I'm game. ;)
ct

Charlie::

*L* Okay.. first off WAG? And ASF? I'm not familiar with those.

You know? If we are talking evolution and such, then the traits that show up are the ones that enable the species to survive... in other words, what helps the species to reproduce. (according to popular theory that is). So that would make sense in the long run. Everything is for the kids.

That is if we talk evolution. Any other means of talking the subject, I think might get ME thrown out. *L*

------------------
Growing old is manditory. Growing wise is optional.

Mark:: I agree with you completely. Thank you for rephrasing that statement. :0) I'll try and remember that next time I try to go for the "easy" answer. :)

Charlie:: Thanks for that info. I'm bad about going to the HELP directory.. something akin to my father asking for directions. *L*

Too nice to women? What exactly IS too nice to women?

------------------
Growing old is manditory. Growing wise is optional.

Too nice to women? What exactly IS too nice to women?

This is really going off on a tangent, so I'll keep it short:
I find that, when dating a woman, being attentive, friendly, polite, honest and ... Oh, simply nice, this is awarded with becoming a very good friend, who eventually gets to hear her complaining about the bastard she's dating and having sex with.

Now, if I'm indifferent, cool, a bit sloppy about showing up on time, and ... generally being a bastard, get to take her to bed.

Women don't like nice men, they want big bad brutish fellas (not really brutal, just giving an air of being so).

How's that for a sweeping statement? :)

ct

This is really going off on a tangent, so I'll keep it short: I find that, when dating a woman, being attentive, friendly, polite, honest and ... Oh, simply nice, this is awarded with becoming a very good friend, who eventually gets to hear her complaining about the bastard she's dating and having sex with.


Has there been a thread about this? I'd be interested in discussing this as I HAVE seen women like that but certainly think they're more the exception than the rule. I also wonder who'd want to date them anyway except some sadist?

If there isn't a thread, perhaps we shall make one ;).

Topolino.
You know, of course that your nick is the name of Mickey Mouse in Italy!?

I was thinking this, when I wrote the post. It was in no way trolling, but women I know tend to agree. Nice guys don't get nearly as many dates as the ones who're not so nice.

Will you do us the honor of picking a forum and starting this thread, and maybe we can come back to topic here, if it isn't exhausted by now.

ct

I'm with Charlie on this one. I have always found the more piggish braggarts to be A) sick, and B) horrifying. I have a lot of female friends, and.... one amazing soul mate. She and I became friends, then awesome friends...long before we became lovers.
It ain't the disposition of flesh, it's the inclination of the cerebral cortex. :)
Power to yas, all who love love as much as we love lust.
Typer

Charlie, how's this for a broad generalization:
For men, sex is at least partly a visual thing, for women, less so.

Actually, men are primarily visually oriented when it comes to sex, and women are primarily touch & emotion oriented. (This was told to me by a sex therapist)

Rich & Zyada:

A friend of mine once said that men can get horny from looking at a picture of a sexy woman. A woman can look at a picture of a sexy man, like the way he looks, but not get horny. I've asked women about this, and they confirm it. Maybe that's why porn doesn't work all that well with women. It's based on the visual.

Actually, many perfectly straight women get horny looking at pictures of naked women. (This has been seriously checked in lab experiments with brain-wave readings and stuff, and it happens much too often to explain it away as "unadmitted lesbian tendencies".) The best guess is that, because naked women are supposed to be sexy, they carry the message either way.

It's not exactly common, but not exactly rare, either, for married couples to visit strip clubs together.

------------------
John W. Kennedy
"Compact is becoming contract; man only earns and pays."
-- Charles Williams

the original post claimedthe scientists said that women are the only fems of any species who have breasts, even when they’re not producing milk. Other animals just have nipples, till it’s time to breastfeed.Is this really true? Do cows have udders only when they're producing milk? If a cow is being raised for beef rather than for milk, is there no noticable udder?

I once read a parody of "Playboy" which included a spoof of the cartoon feature "Little Annie Fanny," itself a spoof of "Little Orphan Annie." "Annie Fanny" is ultra-breasted and seems to lose her clothes in every story. In the parody, titled "Little Orphan Bosom," the buxom title character constantly falls on her face--literally. At one point she meets a group of nursing women who call themselves "Our Nation's Mothers," and one says that breasts are for "nursing babies and NOT for salacious display to men!" Little Orphan Bosom answers, "Golly, Our Nation's Mothers, how many babies would there be to nurse WITHOUT men?" Our Nation's Mothers had no reply.

LONG thread but what did I expect? Some random thoughts and answers:

KEEVES, yeh the beef BREEDS have smaller udders than the milk BREEDS.

LADIES WITH BIGUNS: Understand about the back aches and boorish men ,but aren't you glad God got that udder idea out of his system before he got around to humans?
( Gallagher I think)

STERLING: I've seen those ads . They are similar to those ,um, cylendrical vacuum pumps for guys and work just as well, which is NOT. (Wonder if they feel as good , not that I am speaking from experience.)

Zayada: You said that the SAME hormones that cause BIG breasts cause Big hips.At some time in a woman's life some hormones kick in and her breasts develop and her hips widen. But I don't know that they are the same ones. Besides I don't think its the hormones that determine size but genetics. Did you mean genes? I don't think the same genes determine hip and breast size. There are a lot of women who are not in 'proportion, so to speak.

SOMEBODY: asked 'Why aren't mens nipples sensitive' or similar. Welllllll....
next time you get the chance, put a lip lock on your man and do what you like him to do with you. I think you'll reconsider your opinion.

I believe that MrJohn is actually confirming my point when he writesthe beef BREEDS have smaller udders than the milk BREEDS.You seem to be saying that that beef breeds do have udders even when they are not nursing, just like women have breasts even when not nursing. In sharp contrast to dogs, horses, etc, which have only nipples, and no large round milk tanks.

Getting off the sex topic, what exactly is -*L* ?


------------------
>^,,^<
KITTEN

Coarse and violent nudity. Occasional language.

Mr. John - The hormone estrogen is responsible for developement of secondary sex characteristics. Other factors responsible are genetic (both in how the body responds to the estrogen and when puberty occurs) and available calories.

I've seen very few naturally non-proportional women - most of those were very large all over but still disproportionate. If the women you are referring to were, umm, exotic dancers, they may not have been natural.

They are more than milk producing glands for women too! They're erogenous zones and bring us more pleasure than they do you! Of course men like to look at them -- they're a part of a woman's sexuality.
I think your underestimating us men's complete subservience to the breast. You would be ashamed by the thoughts that go through us guys minds on the topic of breasts. I understand that women are attached to them (pun possibly intended), but realize that a little stimulation by touch can't compete with the total depth of our darkest, most animalistic urges to drink of the sweet nectar of the bosom. I'm gonna go on a limb and say that in men's formative years the breast, the embodiment of the forbidden fruit (sex), is the single most important thing in our lives, beyond god, family, and country. Its really quite pathetic, but damn, I can't get enough of 'em. Note: I never commented on size being an issue. Ladies, I ask you this. Have you ever had to tell men to pay more attention to your boobs? I doubt it, your likely smacking guys, and yelling at them for staring, and telling your men that you have a head ache when he slips his hands up your shirt from behind. I submit that this is evidence that they are more important to us, than they are to you, if the other way were the case then you'd be begging us to play with 'em. If thats the case I can give you my number! :o

Oh yeah Omniscient?

What about those women such as myself who derive great pleasure from breast stimulation as well as having deep, dark, animalistic urges and fantasies that involve our breast?

I think we gotcha beat.



------------------
>^,,^<
KITTEN

Coarse and violent nudity. Occasional language.

Seriously guys: We've heard enough of the "stop staringat /talking to my cheast" from women. After all, they (for some reason that totally escapes me) enjoy loooking at men's butts.

So why can't we just say: The titties are there for us to look at, quit bitching.

They are NOT there for you to look at while she's trying to run a business meeting. Keep your eyes on your damn briefing books.

Aw, come on Matt. Quit being so damned politically correct. Of course she's not there to show off her tits and find a mate.

But on the other hand. A birds plume is always there, even when he (almost always a he) is trying to catch a worm.

ct

They are NOT there for you to look at while she's trying to run a business meeting.
Keep your eyes on your damn briefing books.

Thank you!

I remember the story of a woman who was talking to some guy. He just keep looking at her chest while she was talking to him. Finally, she just grabbed them both, bobbing them up and down to insinuate that they were answering him.