[random psychological thought hi-jack]
Has anyone noticed how, in a thread about breasts, that the spelling from all the male participants has been quite woeful, as if they were distracted from typing by other thoughts?
Just an observation.
[/random psychological thought hi-jack]
IIRC:
“I could never be a woman. I’d stay home all day and play with my breast”
Steve Martin
I guess I’ve always considered it a kind of Pavlonian response. Throughout the history of mankind, if a guy was lucky enough to be in contact with bare boobies, a 'gasm was soon to follow. After a few millenia of this, boobies took on the “smell of cookies in the oven” effect for men.
I’m not sure if the cock’s comb theory would really have that much effect. C’mon guys, do you really think our harrier, less erect (posture wise) ancestors would turn down any opportunity for a little free lovin? And the cock’s comb is on the male, and such shows in nature are, in the majority, male.
Disagree entirely Jenner.
This is a straw man. DM’s argument does not rely (IIRC) on cleavage but on roundness, in which particular human breasts do mimic buttocks, unlike, say, ape breasts.
While cleavage is not central to DM’s argument, it supports the mimic argument in general i.e. breasts that not only look like buttocks through being round but also through having cleavage, are sexier or at the least sexy in a different way but for the same reason (buttock mimicry). And as for nipples, no one ever said that breasts must look 100% like buttocks to be able to mimic sufficient to have become a sexual signal.
I don’t know whether Morris assumes this at all. To the extent that he does, I disagree with him. My recollection, though, is that he simply says that humans when courting stand upright and face one another. And therefore buttocks lose their importance. I don’t think he’s suggesting that breasts have to be doing their sexual attraction thing while the couple are doing the deed. They come into play well before that.
I’m not sure that I agree. I don’t think that a woman’s lack of reproductive or general health is reflected very closely by the state of her breasts. But even if I’m wrong in that, I don’t think that is enough. There are plenty of very direct cues in womens faces and general body condition for men to quickly form a view about a woman’s health. And again, while I don’t deny that breasts of a particular shape look youthful, there are plenty of more direct ways of noting if a woman is young. And the youth/health thing doesn’t answer in any way the question of why other apes don’t have breasts but human women do. There has to be something more. And I think DM’s theory may well hit upon that something.
What’s not to like about them? Especially if the owner of those breasts happens to enjoy your liking them?
I dno’t know whht you’rre takling aboot.
As a teenager, I was absolutely enthralled by breasts. Frequent viewings of playboy/penthouse were irresistable to me. Yet I never had any interest in viewing crotch shots. Breasts, partially exposed or even when posed for pictures seem to be thrusted forward beckoning me to to carress and lift these unusual mysterious mostly forbidden melons.
I’m sure however that if I had my own breasts, that I would find them utterly boring.
Great balls of fire.
Thank you, Cal.
Happy
Just out of curiosity, what is so sexually stimulating about buttocks that men will find things that resemble buttocks sexually stimulating?
According to the TV I’ve watched, it basically states that differences in the female body from the male body arouse males, IE poutier lips, breasts, etc.
It’s like with Jazz. If I have to explain it to you, you’ll never know.
One of the perks of marriage is that I get to see Pepper Mill’s bare bottom every night. Yow.
Thanks, Princhester, for making those arguments. Another argument, Jenner, that breasts are a buttock echo is that we can clearly see other buttocks-echos on the fronts of other apes. The Mandrill’s vivid buttock coloration of reds and blues is reproduced on the face, for instance. The point is not that the face looks at all like the butt, but that there is a very clear reminder there.
Perhaps because full(er) breasts are an easy-to-interpret visual indication of sexual maturity in human females as opposed to general health…?
A nice full pair of breasts, like nice wide hips, indicate good genetics and good health. Both men and women are genetically programmed to search for healthy mates, so it doesn’t surprise me that men are attracted to breasts.
Every animal that relies on sex to reproduce has features that cause the opposite sex to want to have sex with it. If it didn’t, it wouldn’t have sex. And after one generation, it would be gone.
I think that saying “what is sexually stimulating about body-feature-x” is not a useful question. You can only answer the question by saying that what is stimulating about that feature is that the feature is one that has evolved to be sexually stimulating. It’s like CalMeacham says. You like jazz or you don’t. You have the genes such that buttocks turn you on, or you don’t.
You are as likely to answer the question why do men finding female human buttocks sexually stimulating as you are to answer the question why do male toads (presumably) find female toads sexually stimulating? You are never going to empathise, really.
The interesting question is rather “why has body-feature-x evolved to become sexually stimulating?”
And when you think that most large female mammals are on all fours, and what lies between the buttocks, and the manner in which such mammals copulate, it’s not too hard to answer that question about buttocks.
The interesting questions about human breasts are (1) why are they rounded in humans when they are not in our relatives (apes) and when they are a bad shape for breastfeeding and (2) why are they sexually stimulating to male humans given the same considerations.
And just in case this all sounds a bit clinical, I should add, to answer your question more directly: “Female buttocks. Mmmmmmmmmmmm”.
Desmond Morris’ hypothosis makes no sense. In any species where the female is always potentially responsive, the males will quickly evolve to require very little encouragement. A description that seems to fit human sexuality rather well. Breasts are surely an indicator of reproductive fittness and it is no wonder that, in general, we expect men to prefer the breasts of women that are of the optimum age to reproduce.
But the is a more subtle question. Why are women always potentially receptive, even when copulation cannot cause pregnancy - when already pregnant for example? It seems that humans evolved to form long-term relationships cemented by sex. Human children need a lot of care, so the hunters in the group need to bring home the bacon - and of course sex provides a good reason for comming home. Males are naturally pre-evolved to seek females for sex for reproduction; evolution hijacked reproductive sex to promote male/female cooperation in looking after growing children. Females that provided the right stimulation and males that responded appropriately turned out to be a winning combination in the battle to produce children that survive for long enough to pass on the genes.
If this is the case, humans are not unique. In some species of owls the female sits on the nest and is brought food by the male. The male is rewarded with sex even though this is entirely non-reproductive - the eggs have be laid.
Isn’t this a perpetually interesting discussion? At least to half of us. I think the real question is: why did men who prefer large shapely breasts have more offspring than those who didn’t?
I don’t believe the buttocks theory and I am pretty sure the “cover-up” began BECAUSE they were sexually stimulating, so I don’t believe the cover-up theory either.
This is like saying that advertising isn’t necessary for Coca Cola, because everyone kniows that Coca-Cola exists, so they can go and get it and drink it if they want. Some people tyhink that one reason MOxie lost so much of the soft drink market during WWII was because they shifted money away from advertising to purchasing sugar. In evolutionary terms, they made a bad bargain. Human sexual advertising is important, because evolution succeeds through both natural selection and sexual selection. To put it bluntly, those who get laid a lot are more likely to have descendants who survive. Advertising helps. I think, as noted above, that breasts serve the purposes of both indicating health and attraccting a mate. And feeding babies. And being sexual stimulus points. Body parts are multifunctional. You can talk and eat with your mouth.
And also, G.Cornelius I for one am not going to find any explanation as to why breasts have evolved in humans to be sexually stimulating enormously convincing unless it is in some way able to explain why they are sexually stimulating in humans, and are not in any other animal, near cousins included.
Further to CalMeacham’s comments, you say yourself G.Cornelius that humans should need “very little encouragement”. Presumably you believe therefore that we should need some encouragement. What do you think that would consist of? How about a feature that human males find sexually stimulating and attractive, but which they can look at without foaming at the mouth and going into rut over? How about, say, a feature like, breasts?
How little encouragement would you think appropriate? You might think men like breasts (WE DO, WE DO!!) but compare how controlled our reaction to them to the reaction of a dog to a bitch in heat.
Breasts actually precisely fit the picture you paint.
Ahem–some do, you know. 
I like relatively small breasts. To me, a woman’s face is the most important body part to attract me. I honestly don’t notice a woman’s breasts unless they are ridiculously small or large. Just a shade under “average” size breasts are perfect as I see it. And I consider myself a run-of-the-mill heterosexual. So I believe it’s not just an attraction that men are born with, I think it’s a cultural thing. I grew up in such a conservative environment that naked boobs were taboo and, thus, my attention went to faces and (to a lesser extent) legs.