But, in a pinch, you’d find them attractive if detached, right? Or at least you’d still find them. 
It’s a hypothesis popularized by Desmond Morris in The Naked Ape. I don’t think many “real” anthropologists agree with it. At any rate, stuff like this is impossible to prove, and guys like DM who spout it as if it were scientific fact aren’t helping educate the general public.
Hmm, before I met my girlfriend, I was never turned on by breasts much. I was always more interested in ahem “other” parts.
However, once I found how much pleasure she derived from it, I learnt to focus my attention there. And now, I very much like playing with breasts.
Breasts come with women attached, you say? :eek:
Well, wouldn’t you?
I think it’s just an innate fascination.
Just like one could ask do I like the sounds of a guitar more so than the sounds of a drum?
I’d also like to take this oppertunity to say that I’m friends with a girl who was on “Good Morning America” some time back because of her breast. She was on there because she was the first one to get some kind of NEW (type) of breast implant that looks (and feels) real.
And let me tell you folks something; this girl and I are just plutonic friends but she did give me the privilage of seeing them in the buff. As some one who was never really a big fan of implants all I can say about hers is… :eek:
I hope these new ones catch on… is all I’m saying.
Also which leads me to the OP.
Why ask why?..
Just enjoy…
Um… okay, granted, I’m definitely not a breast man. But c’mon, “no one really knows?” Even I can understand why they’re be appealing.
- Visible. Guys are visually stimulated. That one’s pretty easy.
- Round. Curves are pleasing.
- Cleavage. I’m as much a homo as you’re likely to find, and I still sometimes see cleavage and get the urge to just bury my face in it and go “bfhfghfghghghghffrghghrh.”
- Nipples. They’re fun to play with, using hands or the mouth. On breasts, they’re right out there for easier access.
- Symmetry. There’re two of them, usually. Most humans have two hands.
As for Desmond Morris’ theory about breast cleavage == butt cleavage, that assumes that on an innate level, most humans are into the butt stuff. I dunno about that.
They’re big & fluffy or small & perky & they may even contain beverages!
What’s not to like!?!
Can’t… stop… laughing!
Actually there are some theories going around on that topic. Apparently some musicologists feel that the altitude of early cultures impacted the music they developed- basically higher altitude lead to higher pitched instruments, which travel better, and people at sea level might prefer drums.
I’ve always wanted to meet someone from Hades. 
I could go for a “bfhfghfghghghghffrghghrh” between a pair of nice boobs but definitely not the ass. But then, I’m not a guy. Still, I’m skeptical on the breast cleavage = ass cleavage theory.
I like boobs because they have no bones.
*Props to Outrageous Nevada, KPPC-FM 106.7 *
For me, really, breasts are part of a woman’s allure (although I’m not a ‘breast guy’) merely because they’re for the most part uncompromisingly female. You don’t see very many guys prancing about with perky tits, and it’s a good association. Boobs=chicks=Good!
I always assumed it was a little more deeper than cultural. Does a female peacock like the male’s plumage because of a peacock culture? How about the chicken and the rooster’s waddle? I doubt it, it’s more like hard-wired.
That doesn’t necessarily mean boob-lust is hard-wired with us, of course. I’d bet it’s both; somewhat hard-wired and culturally re-inforced.
I also agree with the OP that this is simply a factual anthropological question.
For me, I think it’s mainly hard-wired. One fine day when I was about 12 or 13 they suddenly became extremely interesting. I’d seen them all my life (my family wasn’t very self-conscious about nudity), but something just clicked on at this point in puberty. I’m too old for there to have been much cultural influence; nobody talked about them much, and there certainly wasn’t anything showing on TV.
The cultural aspect, for me, seems to revolve around the obsessive need to keep them hidden, except for maybe a tease. I’ve been to a few nude beaches and found that, while my interest didn’t disappear, it certainly diminished.
You are my new hero. That is all.
Even though I find a nice small hip to waist ratio (with two appropriately developed legs of suitable length attached below) to be more compelling, I still find cleavage endlessly fascinating. If you drew a V shape on a telephone pole, you’d probably find me sitting in front of it 8 hours later with a line of drool hanging out of the corner of my mouth and a completely glazed expression on my face.
Boobs=naked woman=sex=reproduction=second or third strongest human instinct. (right behind survival and or rationalising)
Simple.
Plus they feel awsome.
- Soft, smooth warm make for pillow-like comfort.
- The way they go with the general curviness of the figure.
I vote cultural.
Why? Because it’s pretty easy to get “desensitized” to boobs. If it was “hardwired” I’d think it’ll take longer than a few days to get over boobs.
When I went to the Dominican Republic for the first time I got exposed to topless sunbathing. At first I was doing a lot of looking (not staring, just corner of the eye type of thing). After a week though, it was no big deal to me.
Boobs still hold their appeal during sex/foreplay because, well, they’re fun ways to drive my GF crazy. But in terms of pure visual attraction, it looses it’s appeal after a little while.
And I’ve done the “head in between the boobs” thing. Very fun!
In The Ascent of Woman, Elaine Morgan rejected Morris’ theory as rooted in sexist bias. Her theory: Humans evolved near water, probably rivers, and were adapted to spend a lot of time in it – and to dive in at any moment, to escape land-based predators. (This explains why we have noses which protrude from the face and are shaped to keep water out; no other primate has this feature, except for the proboscis monkey, which is also the only nonhuman primate that’s good at swimming.) Human breasts are safety-knobs for a baby to hold on to when its mother’s in the water, so it doesn’t get swept away by the current.
How much that theory is accepted by the scientific community, I have no idea.
That sounds quite dubious to me. First, I thought the aquatic ape theory was largely dismissed (although that is not my reasoning). If you’re playing in a strong current, what would you rather hang onto for safety? A large soft ball of flesh the size of your chest with no handles to grab, or some nice long hair. Seems to me there are far better parts of a human to grab onto.