<<Jerry, when do you consider sex has taken place?
I would say when the nipple makes its first appearance.>>
He doesn’t specify which person’s nipple.
Obligatory Beavis and Butt-head type chuckles.
What’s weirder is that those man boobs have none of the attraction of their female counterparts (at least for this straight male).
So true.
Untethered female breasts bouncing around underneath a shirt: approved
Untethered male breasts bouncing around underneath a shirt: ack- look away!
Way back in post number four,
Unlike all the other posters, this sounds somewhat objective to me. Women’s nipples, because they become erect when the woman is aroused, should therefore be covered all the time (like penises) so as to preserve the privacy of the person’s thoughts.
One can argue against that, of course, but at least it is an objective difference between the nipple and the elbow, thigh, etc.
All of the body is sexual and if I had to choose the most attractive part I would say the face is what most attracts me to a woman. I can feel sexually attracted to a woman with an ugly body and a pretty face much, much better than the other way around. There is a reason women cover their faces in some cultures.
Everything is sexual and before porn was widely available men have whacked off to pictures of women in swimsuits and even more covered than that.
I will add that this phenomenon is very American and that in European TV you can see naked breasts all the time and no one gives a hoot. So young men like looking at them. So what? What kind of a reason is that to cover them? It seems kind of pathological and insane.
American society is repressed in a sick kind of way regarding sexuality.
There’s also the fact that female breasts and nipples undergo more substantial change during puberty than males’.
I know at least three women whose nipples always look (are) erect - they are simply made this way. They are not walking around aroused all the time, either.
The reason I, as a straight male, am attracted to women’s bodies is precisely because they are women’s bodies. In some ways women are built differently than men, and that’s what I respond to because that’s how my brain is wired. Just like gay men will not be sexually turned on by a woman’s body, because their brain is hardwired to enjoy masculine traits.
I never made an argument one way or the other, as that would be for IMHO or GD.
America’s collective sense of decency is more conservative than the UK’s, and probably most other parts of Europe as well. That is a fact.
I don’t see that as sick, but I’m not going to argue about it since that kind of discussion also is for IMHO or GD.
I think you’ve got the answer.
Also, one can (mostly) tell if a woman has had a climax when her nipples are hard after sex.
And, they’re fun to play with!
Janet Jackson’s nip nearly brought down the country. We have implemented rules and laws to save us from such a thing happening again. Hers was an evil nipple.
Carl Jung also postulated that the 20th-century fascination with flying saucers originated with some kind of desire to return to the oral-fixation infantile stage of development, since flying saucers (in their pulsating roundness) could be seen as a symbolic representation of the maternal nipple – or something. So in that sense, we fantasize about nipples because we have a deep desire to return to the oral-fixation stage, and so the nipple itself is more eroticized than the breast.
In other words, the nipples are where you suck, so naturally they’re a little more important.
Morris’ theory is still accepted by anthropologist Martin Harris, who cited it in his book Our Kind, amonst others.
It’s good enough for me, too, as I’ve argued on many occasions on this Board. See here, for instance:
I’m too tired to rehash it now.
But it’s not at all without precedent that a simian wou;ld move a sexual stimulus from back to front when the mating posture changed from back to front. In addition to the case of humans (in which the buttocks mimic the protuberant buttocks – which is our species’ very unique solution to the problem of walking upright, instead of using a balancing tail), there is the Gelada Baboon, in which the female’s charvcteristic heart-shaped pattern of “blisters” circling the buttocks is duplicated on the chest, along with a vulva-like central marking. The Gelada approach from the front because they spend a lot of time sitting and foraging, unlike other baboons. The female’s chest “blisters” even enlarge and color when she goes “into heat”.
as for why the female nipple is considered “dirty”, it seems pretty clear to me that it’s the nipple’s erotic signal, rather than its child-feeding function, that is being covered up. Male nipples aren’t considered erotic, despite the fact that some men like them stimulated (and some women, for all I know, like looking at them). I’ll bet that a poll of erogenous zones would be far more likely to include female nipples (along with other features) much more highly rated than male nipples.
I think the reason exposed female nipples are considered nudity is primarily a cultural thing, with a basis in our instinctual psychology.
One of the main reasons women have prominent breasts at all is because it’s a sexual characteristic, designed to differentiate women from men - like wider hips. Anything that demarcates women as ‘female’ is likely to become an attractive trait to men. Of course, not all sexual characteristics are regarded as taboo (nothing wrong with seeing a women’s hips, or their long hair, and so on), but over the years in our society it’s simply become the norm that exposed female breasts are nudity.
“Still accepted” is not the phrase I would use when citing a book that was published 20 years ago.
I also suspect you haven’t read Our Kind for twenty years or else you would remember what Harris actually wrote.
He does mention Morris’ theory, which is right after he discusses perineal sexual swellings in pygmy chimps. And then he dismisses Morris with a flourish:
Harris’ position is that humans walk upright and therefore do not present the rump. But this doesn’t imply that a buttocks signal was transfered, but that large breasts were selected because “there is a link between large breasts and reproductive success.”
As for other works, I can’t refute it but I have four other books by Harris and Morris’ name is not in the index of any. Please don’t tarnish Harris’ name by linking him to Morris’ brand of nonsense.