© 2007 All Rights Reserved. Do not distribute or repurpose this work without written permission from the copyright holder(s).
Printed from https://www.damninteresting.com/staying-abreast-of-human-sexuality/
There are 1.75 million animal species that have been noted and named by our scientific classification system. Of them, there are 5,800 types of mammal. All mammals are warm-blooded and have a four-chambered heart, but so do birds. Most mammals give birth to live young, but there are exceptions to that. Mammals all have hair, but again they share that trait with other creatures—in this case spiders. In fact there is only one truly defining characteristic of mammals that is unique, and that is the trait for with they are named: the mammary gland. All mammalian species posses a gland that secretes or oozes milk for the repast of their young. In most cases the mammary gland becomes enlarged during lactation, and diminishes to almost unnoticeable when the milk is unneeded. However, amidst all 5,800 mammals, there is only one species that has perpetually swollen mammary glands. Odds are you are a member of this strangely anomalous, difficult to explain species.
At first glance the human breast defies explanation, but there are those who have spent careers and lifetimes in pursuit of explaining the relative enormity of the bust. Theories about the abundance abound. As of yet there is no consensus as to why the human female is so endowed, but staying abreast of the emerging ideas can make for titillating research.
Every variety of mammal has some sort of breast. The feature that sets the human breast apart is that in relation to the size of the body, there is no other species that retains a breast in such a swollen state. Cattle teats can be proportionately larger, but only so long as the cow is lactating; the same is true of many other species. It seems logical, seeing how lactation can be a drain of resources, that the animal’s breasts would atrophy when not in use. Some early thought on the origin of the human breast stated that because of the breast’s importance in nurturing the young, biology opted to supply extra fatty deposits to the mammary glands to help the race survive lean times of drought or meager foodstuffs. A fine idea, but it does little to explain the complex psychology surrounding the breast, and one should suppose the same phenomenon would be displayed in other species.
Therefore to handle the riddle of perpetual breasts a zoologist by the name of Desmond Morris attempted to apply gleanings from his animal research. Morris is probably best known for his 1957 art exhibition of paintings created by monkeys and his documentary series “The Human Animal”. Morris has become a somewhat controversial figure by writing papers expounding on how certain human aspects may have evolved. Among the tenets that he’s suggested is a need to exercise our inherent omnivorous heritage by eating everything, and speculation on the development of human breasts.
Morris’ hypothesis is that the breast is a purely erotic affectation—a piquing notion. Most creatures in the animal kingdom tend to have the most success mating in a “male aft” sexual position because of the placement of the genitalia. In quadrupeds such as dogs and cats, all the sexual equipment is right out in plain view framed by large, rounded buttocks. Humans and their unique propensity to stand and walk erect put an end to that straight away. Changes to the pelvic region that allowed for all this walking about also causes a “face to face” mating position to have a higher effectiveness among bipeds. Morris’ contention is that it was more practical for the female to evolve an analog to the buttocks on her front than it was to re-wire the male instinct to desire an alternate sex pose. The breasts took on the roll of buttocks being the frameset of sexuality. There is an obvious cleavage of thought regarding the application of animal instincts and behaviors to humans; some maintain that humans didn’t evolve at all, and some criticize Morris as being unscientific, calling his theories untestable and claiming his methods are too abstract to apply to people.
A related, but more widely held theory is one of sexual selection. In the bygone days of early human history, the males and females were nearly indistinguishable; the male possessed small, inconspicuous genitalia much like the gorilla, and the female had no breasts of which to speak except when she was lactating or ovulating. The increase of hormones during ovulation causes a slight swelling of the breasts. From there the conclusion is obvious: not only could the male find and easily identify females of the right age, but it was at a time of her peak fertility. As males were becoming ingrained with mental coding to equate breasts with sex, the females who displayed larger breasts bred more effectively–thus the trait of extra fatty deposits in the breasts was passed to their progeny.
Like Morris’ theory, there is really no means to disprove this theory of how the breast came about, but it serves to address why females tend to carry around nicely-shaped though otherwise unnecessary blobs of fat, and at the same time address some of the psychological and social issues around the breast. Cultures around the world tend to view the breast differently, but there seems to be a widespread reluctance to letting it hang loose.
In the twenty-first century we’re still strapped to some primitive mindsets about the breast. Many cultures hold that because males do not possess these milk-extreting modified sweat glands, he can bare his chest in public forum whereas a woman cannot. It’s true that women generally have more fat in that area, allowing for a greater curved shape, however, there are men who carry fatty tissue in the same area, and display an apparent boob. Since the glands cannot be seen, what is the difference? Such is the question that the Topfree Equal Rights Association attempts to address. Their wild notion is that the female breast isn’t obscene, vulgar, dangerous, or in any way worse than man-boobs, and that if said male-mounds can be waved free in certain circumstances, then women should at the very least be allowed the same discretion without fear of legal ramifications.
Theories concerning the functional nature of the breast notwithstanding, the breast is certainly emphasized in modern culture as a sexual object. Would the free display of such enhance or detract from that image?
It seems that every few weeks there is a news story in the US concerning a nursing mother being ejected from a public place for attempting to nurse a young one, while at the same time Victoria’s Secret has made a multi-million dollar business of drawing attention to the bust. Janet Jackson’s nipple roused the wrath of armchair quarterbacks across the nation, whereas Playboy is the best selling men’s magazine in the world. The controversy around the topic is surprising considering that breasts are an ailment suffered by 52% of the population.
Since records on the subject began in the mid-1800s, the average breast size in the US has increased from a 32-B to the current average of 36-C. This may be a result of better nutrition, healthier lifestyle, or the result of the aforementioned sexual selection. If the last, however, the current popularity could be an end to natural growth; if breasts aid a female in successful mating, she no longer needs the genes to acquire the advantage, therefore the graph of breast growth may, alas, flatten.
© 2007 All Rights Reserved. Do not distribute or repurpose this work without written permission from the copyright holder(s).
Printed from https://www.damninteresting.com/staying-abreast-of-human-sexuality/
Since you enjoyed our work enough to print it out, and read it clear to the end, would you consider donating a few dollars at https://www.damninteresting.com/donate ?
first!
yay!
i win!
“In quadrupeds such as dogs and cats, all the sexual equipment is right out in plain view framed by large, rounded buttocks.”
You must have one freaky looking cat, Mr Bellows.
Interesting theories, but I think you could have done with a few less pictures…
hogwash! the photos were the best part. The puns were also highly enjoyable.
Yeah, I think the vaguely suggestive photos add to the article. Also, door knockers, blue-footed boobies, watermelons, and maracas wont piss some people off as well as a bunch of bare breasts would. Unless they have a problem with the aforementioned items, but then they just need some anger management.
Is that a titmouse in the first photo?
A bluetit?
Would the free display of such enhance or detract from that image?
Well, there are some cultures in which breasts aren’t covered up. And some where they’re generally covered, but it’s the hips which are found to be attractive. It’s interesting, the significance we attach to our body parts.
Hmm, it seems so! Two knockers and a titmouse, I think!
(The pictures and puns were positively enchanting.)
:-)
Thank you Alan for helping us stay abreast of this most important topic.
In cattle it is the udder, not teats.
i am certainly for the exposure of breasts movement (but only in select women) ;-D
Even though I am a life-long admirer of women and am married to one, this article is not damn interesting. The humor is barely sophomoric, and the information does not approach either obscure or esoteric.
Sorry, Mr. Bellows. This entry fails to meet the high standards previously set by this site.
However, this is the first time that that has ever happened. You’ve established an enviable record, I think.
“Titillating research” heehee
Dr. Evil said: “i am certainly for the exposure of breasts movement (but only in select women) ;-D”
Now Now, we can’t be discriminative.
I disagree, Mr Bellows did an outstanding job. Nowhere can you read up on ariticles that you would never encountered with everyday life. The breast is an interal part of human evolution. If it was not, then there would not be any controversy over it. Anything that sparks conflict is worth writing about.
…did you ever hear the one about two guys walking a breast? I don’t think so!
Back in the 60’s, all the women libbers wanted to burn their bras…then they screamed for support!
Good article…great article…whatever. Can’t wait to read more comments. Next in line please…
Everybody needs a bosom for a pillow.
actually i didn’t know that humans were the only mammal with permanent breasts, so sophomoric or not, it was pretty interesting…
Thank you Jason for the best laugh this one has had all week!
Don’t let the disparaging comments from a few old boobs discourange your budding talent. Do not let them harness your creativity.
The pictures and milk of the article express your ideas in a clear and rich way, with out the homogenizing effect of overt unnecessary modesty.
I would offer you a double D for this well studied and intertaining bite of research.
Love these bits and pieces, after all it is not required that DI! always be focused on heavy subjects; sometimes bouncy and light hearted material is needed, if for no other reason than to avoid the pendulous repetitive weight of free swinging arguments that we seem to find in the comments these days.
I especialy enjoyed the picture of the blue footed boobie. Reminded me of the comment Dolly Parton made about her tiny feet, that things just don’t grow big in the shade. Ha!
Changes to the pelvic region that allowed for all this walking about also causes a “face to face” mating position to have a higher effectiveness among bipeds. Morris’ contention is that it was more practical for the female to evolve an analog to the buttocks on her front than it was to re-wire the male instinct to desire an alternate sex pose. The breasts took on the roll of buttocks being the frameset of sexuality.
Then why is “doggie-style” the number one preffered sexual position of men?
Also,
( . Y . )
I feel like such a boob after reading this.
No, seriously, I’m going to my girlfriend’s now….
… the average breast size in the US has increased from a 32-B to the current average of 36-C. This may be a result of better nutrition, healthier lifestyle, or the result of the aforementioned sexual selection.
I’d put this down to Americans getting fatter, on average, over this period. (I wouldn’t call it “better nutrition”, just MORE nutrition.)
DI as most previous articles, one of the most linguistically- and thematically- ( ;) ) delicious ever. Loved the play of words a lot, well-done.
“. . . the relative enormity of the bust.” “Enormousness,” not “enormity.” Unless you’ve got some weird psychological problem.
Nice article, although in my five years of being exposed to Genetics, I have never heard any correlation between breast size and any genes. There may still be some genes that affect breast size though. Maybe the researchers are too embarrassed to publish the research.
Dizzie: Regarding the doggie style, I think it’s because men are basically horny beasts when it comes to sex.
What knockers!!!! DI article, Alan and masterful use of visual and literal puns, it almost made me pass coffee through my nose this morning. As someone who is qualified to speak on the subject, I can say that I find the top free websites position ridiculous. Tops and bras provide safety and support (and if you are generously endowed, bras are necessary for posture and back comfort), otherwise, when you hit a certain age, your breasts would be droopy and increase the chances of injury. Even before a certain age, breasts are a sensitive body part and could become caught or injured easily. I have been clumsy all my life and have had the experience of running late and trying to iron a dress while topless, I’ll leave the rest to your imagination. To say nothing of mammograms which let you know that accidently slamming a breast in the car door would be more than a little uncomfortable (I know that I am a little attached to mine). Also, in all honestly, really, the majority of women shown on the Top Free website really shouldn’t be.
While I am sure there is some relationship between breast size and implied fertility in our human instincts, I really think Desmond Morris’ theories are more than a little out there. I am more inclined to think that the link between size and implied fertility for purposes of propagating the species would account for the male attraction to breast size more than any of the Morris’ musings.
Once again, nicely done, this should stir up some interesting pillow talk in my house this evening.
Oh, one more thing, I actually made a post without refering to pie but I do need to get some more cream for my coffee. Have a nice day everyone.
martinpolley said: “I’d put this down to Americans getting fatter, on average, over this period. (I wouldn’t call it “better nutrition”, just MORE nutrition.)”
I believe you are exactly right.
DI Article! Loooong time reader, and first time poster, as I have to congratulate some very talented posters. Tink, your comment was almost as entertaining as the article. Spike, also, kudos to you.
— Cheers, BP
Huzzah! An important topic is brought to light!
I’ve been warned by police on occasion for “indecent exposure”, whereas men get to walk topless wherever they like! I say, discrimination! Why can’t we appreciate breasts for what they are: a means of producing food for young. As mentioned above, there is no conclusive proof that we are hardwired to think of breasts as sexual, that we as a culture just attribute sexuality to them. Why can’t I walk around topless??
On a side note, I was reading “Isle of Woman” by Piers Anthony, when he mentioned that breasts may have evolved the way they did in conjunction with our loss of body hair; according to Anthony, we may have run to the water for safety from predators, in which large amounts of body hair would be detrimental and breasts would evolve bigger to keep women warm and for men to identify them while in the water.
Another possible reason for breast growth given by Anthony could be that, as mentioned above, breasts in the animal world are around during ovulation, when men are attracted to them. Human women need more help than other animals after the birth of our offspring, so we developed breasts to keep men interested. If a male doesn’t know when a female is fertile, he won’t leave her alone long enough for another male to spread his seed and therefore takes care of his female when she needs him the most… :)
lip_ring: I completely support your idea of breast being a means of producing food for young. And yes, I think it’s a form of discrimination, sexism as well.
Although, being warned by police on occasion for “indecent exposure”, is nothing much. Where I come from, men and women, especially of certain race and age, holding hands, or expressing their affection by kissing, CAN be arrested.
Tink said: “I especialy enjoyed the picture of the blue footed boobie. Reminded me of the comment Dolly Parton made about her tiny feet, that things just don’t grow big in the shade. Ha!”
Lets not forget that awards show where Dolly came bursting out to immediately bow off stage. Returning shortly later in a new outfit, and in a manner of explanation she said, “Like my daddy always said ‘You can’t put 20 pounds of potatoes in a 10 pound sack.’”
Hum… no mentions of the seemingly unusual magnetic draw of the male ocular region to the voluminous female chest region. Nor any side-note of the female endowment ratio increase equally related to the male’s failure to control either his verbal skills or his rapidly decreasing mental state on first contact.
murph said: “”. . . the relative enormity of the bust.” “Enormousness,” not “enormity.” Unless you’ve got some weird psychological problem.”
enormity is fine in this case…
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/enormity (note definition #3) It has been accepted to mean greatness of size since the 18th century
please refer also to https://www.damninteresting.com/?p=406#more-406
The Internet is a veritable all-you-can-eat buffet of such misplaced confidence. Online, individuals often speak with confident authority on a subject, yet their conclusions are flawed. It is likely that such individuals are completely ignorant of their ignorance. Cough.
don’t go correcting my Bellows boys if you yourself will need to be corrected =P
Lip_ring…you ever watch Sienfeld? Perfect example as to why breasts should be covered.
Big breasts and human males also have proportionally large genetalia (compared to most other mammals). Any reason for that? Most societies throughout history have been more strict about the man covering his member than a woman covering her breasts, so it didn’t grow in order to attract a mate. Just a few of many questions evolutionists dodge.
lip_ring: I have not read Isle of Women by Piers Anthony, I did however just finish Firefly by him, and the same exact ideas on the development of breasts in women were mentioned there, interesting that he should bring this up in two unrelated books. Also, I do not believe that women should be allowed to walk around topless because of the power many women would lose. As awful as this sounds, I myself have some double D’s and have used the lure and awe of them more than once in my favor to sway the mind of the more easily persuadable gender (hey, its not my fault that a little eyelash batting and a low cut top is all it takes to change a speeding ticket into a verbal warning). I believe that if women walked around topless then breasts would become nothing special, in many cultures where women are allowed to forego shirts, breasts are no longer viewed as mysterious and sexual things but instead as just another part of human anatomy, no more special than arms or legs. While I do believe in equality, the fact of the matter is that men and women are different and have different rules they have to follow.
Big breasts and human males also have proportionally large genetalia (compared to most other mammals). Any reason for that? Most societies throughout history have been more strict about the man covering his member than a woman covering her breasts, so it didn’t grow in order to attract a mate. Just a few of many questions evolutionists dodge.”
I’m confused on your argument here – are you saying that cultural mores have an effect on evolution? Penises (peni? penisus?) on humans grew large before we as a race decided they needed to be covered. There is no evolution argument there.
Dizzee said: “lip_ring: I have not read Isle of Women by Piers Anthony, I did however just finish Firefly by him, and the same exact ideas on the development of breasts in women were mentioned there, interesting that he should bring this up in two unrelated books. Also, I do not believe that women should be allowed to walk around topless because of the power many women would lose. As awful as this sounds, I myself have some double D’s and have used the lure and awe of them more than once in my favor to sway the mind of the more easily persuadable gender (hey, its not my fault that a little eyelash batting and a low cut top is all it takes to change a speeding ticket into a verbal warning). I believe that if women walked around topless then breasts would become nothing special, in many cultures where women are allowed to forego shirts, breasts are no longer viewed as mysterious and sexual things but instead as just another part of human anatomy, no more special than arms or legs. While I do believe in equality, the fact of the matter is that men and women are different and have different rules they have to follow.”
:) I heart Anthony. Firefly is good, but you’re right, it’s a completely different genre. I’d suggest Isle of Women, Shame of Man and… the other one. The series is excellent, as he poses many different theories on the same subjects.
I agree that we as a gender have power in our breasts, but I still think it’s a matter of principle. However, I’ll take 75cents for a man’s dollar if it means I won’t get drafted… hehehe. If being topfree were legal everywhere, how many women would take advantage of it? I would, but I only know 3 or 4 others who would join me. Not many would be topfree, and that would keep the mystique alive. Guns and alcohol are readily available, and they still have an aura of “awesome” about them for some people.
Much more tongue-in-cheek than usual! DI
I agree with the comments regarding the link between obesity and breast size; more fat, bigger breasts. I also recall some time ago speculations about the increased use of growth hormones in cattle raised for food. The increased hormone levels were being cited as one of the factors for stimulating earlier sexual development in American children also possibly lending to increased breast size… Trying to find links.
Nice article, puns and all!
I’ve now got a new view of my front buttocks. And it gives new meaning to showing off cleavage both sides.
Dr. Evil said: “i am certainly for the exposure of breasts movement (but only in select women) ;-D”
In India women wear short tops underneath their saris, but I believe that there are only some breasts that have to be covered. To my amazement, I saw several old women with their long breasts hanging down below the top! The select few of India! Maybe you’d like the same thing?
another viewpoint said: “Back in the 60’s, all the women libbers wanted to burn their bras…then they screamed for support!”
Even though it is a joke, it’s still wrong. Bra burning has never occurred. It’s a myth created by media, and the origin comes from men confusing burning of draft cards with bras. And if you have half a kilo each side, running without a bra will cause heavy bruising… very uncomfortable.
Link from previous comment
http://envirocancer.cornell.edu/Factsheet/Diet/fs37.hormones.cfm
Spike said: “Oh, one more thing, I actually made a post without refering to pie but I do need to get some more cream for my coffee. Have a nice day everyone.”
Obviously someone wasn’t quite through the full pot of morning coffee. I too almost passed coffee through my nose, but it was the reference to “man-boobs” that did it for me. I happen to feel, that like some females, certain males of our species should keep their shirts on and do their part to keep America beautiful.
lip_ring: guns and alcohol have however lost a LOT of the taboo they used to carry, even 10 years ago. It takes time, but as things become more accepted, they lose their power. Just like George Carlin (i think, possibly wrong) said of cursing, it still isnt COMPLETELY accepted, but as the oldest generation dies out and is replaced with the potty-mouthed baby boomers, bad words will no longer be bad. And even if only 1 in 4 women of this generation chose to go topless, within 50 years it would be widespread and heavily practiced. There arent many things left sacred and secret, and most breasts (not including the media, i mean ones that the average man will actually get to interact with) still fall into that category.
Thag: Very interesting view and interesting link. I myself am vegan for this very reason, the chemicals they inject into animals these days scares me. I realize they probably won’t kill me but I just feel like a happier person knowing that I can help prevent at least some of the pollution in this world from hindering my health and well being.
Kris: I have burned my bra on more than one occasion…although those usually involved curling irons or way too much tequila and tiki torches, had nothing to do with women’s lib.
Dizzee: Granted, the mystique is nice, but would you really want to hinder another woman’s right to be topless because you want to bedazzle your way out of a ticket? It’s a question of equal rights, and we should be allowed to expose the same parts of our anatomy as our male counterparts. If we really want breasts to remain secret, than men should be forced to wear shirts, too.
lip_ring said: “Huzzah! An important topic is brought to light!
On a side note, I was reading “Isle of Woman” by Piers Anthony, when he mentioned that breasts may have evolved the way they did in conjunction with our loss of body hair; according to Anthony, we may have run to the water for safety from predators, in which large amounts of body hair would be detrimental and breasts would evolve bigger to keep women warm and for men to identify them while in the water.
Another possible reason for breast growth given by Anthony could be that, as mentioned above, breasts in the animal world are around during ovulation, when men are attracted to them. Human women need more help than other animals after the birth of our offspring, so we developed breasts to keep men interested. If a male doesn’t know when a female is fertile, he won’t leave her alone long enough for another male to spread his seed and therefore takes care of his female when she needs him the most… :)”
Interesting speculation, especially the idea of boobs as bobbers or floaties. I also remember thinking in the early days of women’s liberation that although bra burning was common, it didn’t make much sense. I don’t ever recall reading in history of women being forced to wear bras. I understand that it was a symbol of freedom, but it was a silly one. Before someone gets their back up, I am a woman and proud of it. To the person who said bra burning was a media myth, I personally witnessed some burnings as I was growing up. I also know that running without a bra is uncomfortable and can put a strain on muscle tissue.
Evil Twin, you are absolutely right, just as some women should beautify America by keeping their shirts on, so should some men. Nothing is more unattractive than a large set of “man boobs”. Thank you for your “support”.
lip_ring: i think if women were better taught how to be discreet and sexy rather than naked and overly sexy then this question wouldnt even arise, and no men shouldnt be forced to wear shirts, then it would be really boring to watch my neighbor mow his lawn.
Can we have an amen for the good-looking lawn mowing neighbor?
Mr. Quibbler here, the first photograph is NOT a picture of knockers, those are just handles.
sulkykid said: “Mr. Quibbler here, the first photograph is NOT a picture of knockers, those are just handles.”
Reference Mel Brooks “Young Frankenstein”
Dizzee said: “lip_ring: i think if women were better taught how to be discreet and sexy rather than naked and overly sexy then this question wouldnt even arise, and no men shouldnt be forced to wear shirts, then it would be really boring to watch my neighbor mow his lawn.”
Agreed. If breasts out in the open were not considered sexual organs, but rather they are sexual in private or covered, than problem solved! Well, strippers and titty bars might lose business…
:) to use another Anthony book, in the world of Proton, serfs are always naked and therefore nakedness is no longer sexual, but clothing is.
I just want to put in my two cents on the whole “Equality” thing. I never fought for equality because I always believed that women started off superior. Money’s just money but being a woman is everything!!
Spike: Maybe bra burning, while not practical, was the best of few options. Men were burning draft cards, which was very symbolic and powerful, and maybe women wanted to ride the “burning things” symbolism boat and the best thing to burn was bras. They are something that only women wear (conventionally, at least) and that makes them a symbol of traditional femininity (it seems like there are too many “in”s in that word). Granted, they support wonderfullly, but they are the decendents of corsets, which gives them that Victorian women-control stigma. Can you think of better symbolism for the women’s lib movement?
tampagirl said: “Money’s just money but being a woman is everything!!”
Too bad men don’t realize that! :)
Omg girl power! Now lets all go post nudie pics on our myspaces. That’ll teach those boys whats what.
Jarvisloop, you’re not alone in being unimpressed.
It’s been a long time since I have felt the need to fight the battle of the sexes, Lip_ring. Maybe it’s my age or evolution, but I am more inclined to celebrate the differences between men and women. Having only men in my house, I have come to realize that we are wired differently and that is probably as much instinctual as anything else. In the fight to survive as a species, men and women served different functions, thus our brains are wired to best fulfill those functions on a very basic level (think Maslow’s Hierarchy of Human Needs). We have come a long way, thanks to our sister’s who chose to fight for equality and I appreciate that, but as far as being physically all the same, no way. There are things women and men do that the other sex can’t and for the most part, I’m glad. So while I understand the symbolism, I still don’t necessarily agree.
I am who I am. I have brains, skills, talent and endurance. I am also blessed with certain physical attibutes that have according to the article and comments, aloud me to attract a loyal and loving mate, propogate the species and apparently keep afloat in water.
tampagirl said: “Money’s just money…”
Easy to say if you have it.
Don’t be disrespectful of the green
Cultures around the world tend to view the breast differently, but there seems to be a widespread reluctance to letting it hang loose.
Clearly you’ve never been to Boulder.
lip_ring said: “I’d suggest Isle of Women, Shame of Man and… the other one. The series is excellent, “
The other one is: (3) “Hope of Man” and (4) “Muse of Art”. I agree, it’s an excellent series (although I haven’t yet got a copy of Muse of Art.)
surfjay said: “Thank you Alan for helping us stay abreast of this most important topic.”
Spike said: “What knockers!!!! DI article, Alan and masterful use of visual and literal puns,”
If you look really carefully at the first line under the title, you’ll notice this one was written by Jason.
I have to say, I’m pretty happy with the special status of female breasts in this culture. I like my breasts. They’ve never gotten me out of a traffic ticket, but they are very cool for nursing my babies and entertaining my husband. I don’t think I want to live in a society where breasts are “just another body part.” Remember the story about the genie who wanted to make everyone happy so he made everyone rich? All that happened was that money became worthless. We’ve been doing the same thing with sex and women’s bodies, making them worthless.
As for a woman’s “right” to walk around topless, why is that a right? Just because men can do it? How ridiculous. This whole “rights” business has gotten ridiculous. I should be able to do everything my neighbor can do, even if he has more money, more talent, more brains, different biology, etc. Reminds me of Ayn Rand — if he can do something I can’t do, then he shouldn’t be allowed!
I have 3 sons, and I would hope they grow up to respect women. I would also hope that the women around them (including my 3 daughters) don’t make that difficult by not respecting themselves.
I think breasteses are getting bigger because women are getting fatter :P
just in case you are wondering, yes I spelled that wrong on purpose
I don’t think there is anything wrong with women walking around topless, they should be allowed to.
HOWEVER, I live in a Province in Canada that this state currently exists. Women are just as free to walk around topless as men are. Let me tell you, there was much praise from the males when this change to our law first occured. Little fanfare has occurred since. Most of the topless activity occurs at the beaches which is usually healthy young women that maintain and respect their bodies and now want to show them off. Then there are the few that choose to exercise this right in the city, the women that walk around in the city topless are mostly women that shouldn’t.
Being fair, there are many men that walk around without a shirt that should be breaking some sort of law.
Going topless is great….but the person doing it should be comfortable with, and proud of, their body. Respect will be given to those that are topless if they deserve it. If you’ve worked hard at the gym, taken care of your body and now you want to show it off? Fine. Respect given. If you are somebody that has obviously neglected their health and their body and want to show it off? Fine. Your choice. But you lose respect for doing so.
I have zero respect for men that are about 120 pounds overweight and lacking a decent personal hygiene routine that walk around downtown without a shirt on, the same goes for women of similar stature.
Bottom line….there are always a few bad apples, but overall…boobies are great. However they came to be…..I’m glad it happened!
Please, no more dreadful puns!
And to settle the whole breasts-took-on-the-roll-of-buttocks debate, Morris is a boob.
Mombo Man said: “Cultures around the world tend to view the breast differently, but there seems to be a widespread reluctance to letting it hang loose.
Clearly you’ve never been to Boulder.”
Nor to Sturgis during Rally Week.
“… breasts took on the roll of buttocks…”
And just for the record, that should be “role”. My boss does that in memos all the time (“rolls and responsibilities…”) and it drives me up a wall. “The role of a bowler is to roll the ball.”
There. I fell better now.
sioleabha said: “As for a woman’s “right” to walk around topless, why is that a right? Just because men can do it? How ridiculous. This whole “rights” business has gotten ridiculous. I should be able to do everything my neighbor can do, even if he has more money, more talent, more brains, different biology, etc. Reminds me of Ayn Rand — if he can do something I can’t do, then he shouldn’t be allowed!
Yeah….we really messed up when we gave you women the vote too. Why should that be the “right” of a woman? Simply because men can do it? Hogwash!
You do realize how ridiculous this sounds right? I should have the right to do everything my neighbor does. I might not have the ability, money, brains, etc. But if I am able to do it…I should be allowed to.
I’m just glad where I live they didn’t outlaw men going topless instead of permitting women to.
However, the entire argument to allow this change in the law to take place was that women’s breasts are not sexual. Therefore, if a man gropes a woman’s breast it is only assault. Prior to the change in the law it was considered ‘sexual assault’ which comes with a much stiffer penalty.
just_dave said: “There. I fell better now.”
For the record that should be ‘feel’ not fell. My boss does this in memos all the time. “We wiil mett at nonn”
Drives me insayne!
i don’t know why but when you pointed that out i pictured a disembodied butt rolling down a hill and bumping into a disembodied pair of breasts which “took on the roll of the buttocks” and continued down the hill. If you have never pictured a jiggly body-less rack bouncing down a hill, please set aside your maturity and do so and giggle now. thank you.
Gerry Matlack said:
If you look really carefully at the first line under the title, you’ll notice this one was written by Jason.”
That’s what I get for typing when my brain isn’t fully engaged. Also, miss spelled allowed in another post (typed aloud by mistake).
just_dave said: “Please, no more dreadful puns!
And to settle the whole breasts-took-on-the-roll-of-buttocks debate, Morris is a boob.
I agree, Morris is a boob and probably is hung up on bottoms.
sioleabha said:
As for a woman’s “right” to walk around topless, why is that a right? Just because men can do it? How ridiculous. This whole “rights” business has gotten ridiculous. I should be able to do everything my neighbor can do, even if he has more money, more talent, more brains, different biology, etc. Reminds me of Ayn Rand — if he can do something I can’t do, then he shouldn’t be allowed!
I like the way you said this and agree with you 100%. It would be a very dull world if we all were the same.
Last thought, Alan, it looks like this article is one for the Ladies….I can’t usually tell if the people who comment are men or women, but I can today.
lol @ Jeffrey93
also, not everyone SHOULD have the rights everyone else does. This is because we as humans are blessed in that we each have individual minds and personalities. There is a reason we don’t allow 4 year olds to drive tractor trailers, why we don’t let people who are legally blind fly airplanes, and why women can’t go around most parts of the country with the twins flapping in the breeze. America was colonized by puritans, who considered fellatio an act of the devil. Sodomy is still illegal in several states. In Texas at least, it is illegal to use those large vibrating penis-shaped “gag gifts or cake toppers” (as they are labeled here) in sexual manners. This country has so many problems with the things we do in the privacy of our very own homes! We have a long way to go before women are going to be walking their dogs and mowing their lawns topless.
sioleabha said: “I have to say, I’m pretty happy with the special status of female breasts in this culture. I like my breasts. They’ve never gotten me out of a traffic ticket, but they are very cool for nursing my babies and entertaining my husband. I don’t think I want to live in a society where breasts are “just another body part.” Remember the story about the genie who wanted to make everyone happy so he made everyone rich? All that happened was that money became worthless. We’ve been doing the same thing with sex and women’s bodies, making them worthless.
As for a woman’s “right” to walk around topless, why is that a right? Just because men can do it? How ridiculous. This whole “rights” business has gotten ridiculous. I should be able to do everything my neighbor can do, even if he has more money, more talent, more brains, different biology, etc. Reminds me of Ayn Rand — if he can do something I can’t do, then he shouldn’t be allowed!
I have 3 sons, and I would hope they grow up to respect women. I would also hope that the women around them (including my 3 daughters) don’t make that difficult by not respecting themselves.”
Amen! Someone in this thread with a head on her shoulders. Men and women are different because that’s the way they were made, not because it’s the way they evolved. Wanting equality in all things for equality’s sake is a fools errand.
I’m reminded of an old “Love: American Style” episode (Love And The Hand Maiden. Can’t believe I just wasted ten minutes looking that up!) where a guy dates a girl who had posed nude for several magazines. After they start dating he realizes that in the pinups her hands are never showing, and that every time he sees her she is wearing gloves. The biggest challenge of the relationship for him becomes getting her gloves off.
What we desire most is usually that which we cannot have.
Dizzee said: “lol @ Jeffrey93
also, not everyone SHOULD have the rights everyone else does. This is because we as humans are blessed in that we each have individual minds and personalities. There is a reason we don’t allow 4 year olds to drive tractor trailers, why we don’t let people who are legally blind fly airplanes, and why women can’t go around most parts of the country with the twins flapping in the breeze. America was colonized by puritans, who considered fellatio an act of the devil. Sodomy is still illegal in several states. In Texas at least, it is illegal to use those large vibrating penis-shaped “gag gifts or cake toppers” (as they are labeled here) in sexual manners. This country has so many problems with the things we do in the privacy of our very own homes! We have a long way to go before women are going to be walking their dogs and mowing their lawns topless.”
Where I live women very well could walk their dog and mow the lawn topless. They typically don’t…but they have that right.
Blind people can’t fly planes because they don’t have the same abilities as those with sight. Four year olds don’t drive because they don’t have the same abilities as those that are older. Women should be permitted to go around most parts of the country with the twins flapping in the breeze. The reason the other “acts” aren’t taken off the books is because it’s pointless to do so. If you and your ‘partner’ perform fellatio, use toys or partake in some good ol’ sodomy…that’s your business. No cop is going to spring out of your closet and arrest you for it. So why bother changing the laws? They aren’t enforced anyway. However, if a woman were to walk outside topless….that would be enforced.
All variables like this being removed…I should be able to do what anyone else does. How can you honestly say that some 350 pound disgusting hairy man should have the right to walk around without a shirt….but a 5’9″ 120lb gorgeous brunette shouldn’t have the same right? It should at least be considered a reasonable request, even if your society/culture decides against it.
You’re taking what I’m saying out of context. 4 year olds driving? Blind people flying planes? I’m saying, if I have the ability to do so, I should be permitted to do what anyone else does. If I don’t have the same rights as my neighbor…well…I’m not living in a free society.
Jeffrey93 said: “For the record that should be ‘feel’ not fell. My boss does this in memos all the time. “We wiil mett at nonn”
Drives me insayne!”
Know weigh! I cannon belief I did that thus thyme! And I even halve spelling cheque ruining in my Mack’s bowser (can’t stand pea seas!) Tanks four the connection.
just_dave said: “Amen! Someone in this thread with a head on her shoulders. Men and women are different because that’s the way they were made, not because it’s the way they evolved. Wanting equality in all things for equality’s sake is a fools errand.
I’m reminded of an old “Love: American Style” episode (Love And The Hand Maiden. Can’t believe I just wasted ten minutes looking that up!) where a guy dates a girl who had posed nude for several magazines. After they start dating he realizes that in the pinups her hands are never showing, and that every time he sees her she is wearing gloves. The biggest challenge of the relationship for him becomes getting her gloves off.
What we desire most is usually that which we cannot have.”
I’m taking the side I normally don’t. I believe women should be permitted to do whatever men do. BUT…the ‘equality’ shouldn’t go too far. There should be no ‘Women’s Only’ fitness centers if there aren’t allowed to be ‘Men’s Only’ fitness centers. If women want to play golf in the men’s PGA..fine, but the LPGA should cease to exist.
You get equality. Not equality in 90% of things…and then get an advantage in the other 10%. Staying on topic, you said it best…we want what we can’t have. This is only a big deal because so much is being made of women’s breasts. Why is that? It’s because they are always covered. If they weren’t always covered…it wouldn’t be a big deal to see them uncovered.
Look, I live in Ontario, Canada where women are free to roam around topless as much as men are (businesses still require shirts, shoes, etc.). Has this reduced the allure of the breast? Not in the slightest. Am I shocked to see a pair out in public? No. Nor would I have been prior to the change in our laws. Debating this just makes a big deal out of nothing. Boobs are fabulous things, being able to see them far more often won’t change that. Hockey is a fantastic sport…seeing it all the time doesn’t change that. (Uhh..substitute Nascar or NFL if so desired) It seems people are more worried about the breast losing it’s attraction if women are allowed to show them off more. Trust me, it won’t do that to anybody that is currently alive. Generations from now…maybe, they’ll become accustomed to it and the breast will no longer be that intriguing as it is now.
This site is great! I get to read damn intersting articles…then talk about sweater potatoes at great length!!
First time posting, but for this I had to. Great article, great discussion surrounding the article, etc. As for the fear that allowing women to go topless desexualizes the breast, I disagree. Consider, for example, said lawn boy. I’m sure a woman’s appreciation of “him” is not sexual in the slightest (note maximum sarcasm possible). I think context is everything when it comes to sexuality, and the sexual influence of a body part. Also, as for being able to use my body to influence people……I don’t think that’s right. Exploitation of the female body isn’t right, not even if it is the female herself doing the exploitation ( though at the same time, I feel if anyone’s going to do it, it should be the female). Anyway, the point is, I don’t imagine that a “lawn girl” would be any less sexualized than a lawn boy.
just_dave said: “Know weigh! I cannon belief I did that thus thyme! And I even halve spelling cheque ruining in my Mack’s bowser (can’t stand pea seas!) Tanks four the connection.”
Well done!!! Kudos!
Plannah said: “Also, as for being able to use my body to influence people……I don’t think that’s right. “
Are you kidding me?!?! Women CONSTANTLY use their body to influence people. Ever tried to get out of a ticket?!? Women play with their hair….lean over things….bend in just the right ways…..women have this skill mastered. Those that don’t, simply don’t have the body to pull it off. There isn’t a stereotypical attractive woman that hasn’t used her body to influence people. Not one.
I’ve always wanted to know how much breast weight? Do A’s add about a pound? What about D’s? I have never been able to find out. It would just be nice to know when weighing myself… I always think “How much would I weigh without these lady lumps?”
I have never actually heard the phrase “sweater potatoes” before, how out of the loop have i been, was nice to laugh so hard i almost impaled myself on my pen though. And Jeff (may I call you Jeff? good thanks.) I see what you are saying, and I’m honestly shocked that I have to continue to disagree with you. Also, notice I mentioned the USA specifically (well sort of, Canada wasn’t orgininally colonized by Puritans so I guess its more implied) Different countries have different cultures. Simply put, Americans aren’t mature enough to handle that. There would be all sorts of social ramifications. There are all sorts of silly laws and rules out there that aren’t out there just because no one bothered getting rid of them but because its what our leaders believe. As I said before, people are different so laws should be different. You can’t apply the same rule to everyone everywhere and assume its going to work out just fine. Are pedophiles allowed to bathe children? Are convicted violent criminals allowed to legally register hand guns? Is it socially acceptable for a straight man to kiss another straight man on the cheek as a way of saying hello (as opposed to straight women)? Is it socially acceptable for women to grab their crotches or belch loudly after a meal? There are standards and stigmas that are so hard-wired into American society that a lot of things will simply never change, and if they do, all of society will change with it.
wstngtime, you can measure your own breasts by taking an old bra, lining it with plastic wrap, then filling it with chicken fat and refrigerating it until it becomes gelatinous (you will have to use either a full-cupped bra or a sports bra) and weighing that. Mine are rather large and weigh around 10lbs give or take, you have to account for the fact that glands and cartilage inside the breasts also weigh more than fat slightly.
Dizzee, what you’re getting at is what is socially acceptable. Not what should be illegal.
Is it socially acceptable for me to let a five alarm fart going in church…during a funeral? Of course it isn’t. But it isn’t illegal either.
People are different everywhere…but remember, it’s only acceptable for men to walk around topless because it’s been done for so long. You’ve gotta start somewhere.
Personally, I enjoy going to the beach and seeing a nice set of tubes here and there. The real problem I have with this “right” given to women is that it isn’t controlled. I occasionaly wish that for anyone to go topless in public you should be required to acquire a license. If you are a 5’8″, 115lb bombshell of a blonde babe….you get a topless license for $5. If you are a 5’2″ 210lb slob of a redhead….you get a topless license for $975.
I’d rather be able to see one set of lovely looking tubes on a gorgeous girl and have to put up with several mediocre or even nasty fun bags, then not get to see any at all. Makes the beaches way more interesting to go to. Gotta be careful not to get caught staring though! I sometimes feel bad for our kids….they won’t know the difference. They’ll grow up with this. I’m sure my future son will still really dig the fun bags..but he won’t realize how taboo it used to be to see them in public.
I didn’t say that women DON’T use their bodies to influence others. What I did say is that it isn’t right that they do that. Anyway, the original point was that allowing women to go topless doesn’t mean that the sexual perception of breasts will disappear. Women definitely use their bodies. Then again, if their intellect was seen as an acceptable and effective form of influence, maybe they wouldn’t have to use their bodies. I don’t know about the other women on here, but in many cases it has been my experience that what I am saying falls on deaf ears. I use what influence I may.
I would think that the reason behind the increase in average breast size has nothing to do with nutrition, but everything to do with silicone
Social acceptability of something is what laws are based on, and your little “topless license” idea…if you are kidding, then very funny and I applaud you. If you are not, then you are a sexist pig and I am honestly the slightest bit appauled =) Men like you are the reason women should remain clothed in public
Plannah: I use the tits to grab attention and smarts to hold it.
Dizzee said: “Plannah: I use the tits to grab attention and smarts to hold it.”
Wonderful!! Nothing is more unattractive than a brainless bimbo. About the licensing thing…yeah I was kidding. But honestly…if a government proposed this type of legislation, I’d support it. Just for the comedic value. Instead of wondering what bra size women are….construction workers could sit around watching women walk by trying to guess what their licensing fee is. “Eeesshh…I bet that’d cost a good three, four hundred bucks right there!”. Hilarity!
This really does have me thinking though, why are women’s tubes so much bigger than those of other species? Does the bra have anything to do with it? I mean…as far as I know monkees don’t walk around with bras on. Does that allow for more growth since gravity is removed? Just tossing ideas out there.
This talk is perfectly timed…it’s starting to get warm up here in the great white north….should see some bristols starting to come out soon. Hopefully I don’t see many women going topless that have the dreaded ‘furniture disease’ (ie, my chest is in my drawers). Furniture disease would be an automatic $1,500 / year license! ; )
(. )( .) Freeeeeeeedom!
And here I was hoping there would be, for scientific and illustrative purposes, pictures of the real thing.. :(
It is also interesting to note that males are indeed way more well-endowed than neccessary. I wonder how the sexual selection argument has produced the outcome. ;)
I would also like to suggest that boobs of both sexes be covered up in public, as much as I might support the liberation of the female ones. The obscenity of the male ones outweigh the potential benefits of this kind of gender equality :(
Jeffrey93 said: “….
People are different everywhere…but remember, it’s only acceptable for men to walk around topless because it’s been done for so long. You’ve gotta start somewhere.
Personally, I enjoy going to the beach and seeing a nice set of tubes here and there. I occasionaly wish that for anyone to go topless in public you should be required to acquire a license. If you are a 5’8″, 115lb bombshell of a blonde babe….you get a topless license for $5. If you are a 5’2″ 210lb slob of a redhead….you get a topless license for $975.
I’d rather be able to see one set of lovely looking tubes .”
OMG! If the breasts your used to seeing are tubular, my dear, then you have been sorely cheated. No wonder you have this opinion. LOL
I believe the same conditions should apply to topless guys..if your hairy gut hangs over your belt then you have to buy a license to go topless. Concidering the amount of un-attractive gut we girls are exposed to almost daily, then the charges should be twice that for the boobie licenses. :-P
The reason the other “acts” aren’t taken off the books is because it’s pointless to do so. If you and your ‘partner’ perform fellatio, use toys or partake in some good ol’ sodomy…that’s your business. No cop is going to spring out of your closet and arrest you for it. So why bother changing the laws? They aren’t enforced anyway.
I disagree that it would be pointless to remove laws that are not considered worth enforcing, or laws that were enacted during an immature era of a society.
IMHO, if a society with a strongly Puritan background were to demonstrate that it had outgrown such narrow-minded notions, by overtly denouncing and repealing such laws, that society (and the world at large) would be much better off.
I also disagree with those who claim that the breast is “just a baby-feeder and not a sexual object”.
Countless medical researchers, as well as writers of racy stories, as well as just ordinary sexually-involved people, know full well that there is a neural connection between the nipples and the uterus/clitoris complex. Nipple stimulation during nursing helps induce reduction of the postpartum uterus — but it stimulates erogenous nerves as well. Even if that latter stimulation is just an accident of the wiring, it is there; so the breast is indeed also a sexual object.
Now, whether such sex-related things should be OK to be publicly displayed — YES! says this [male] appreciator of the subtlety and beauty (and sexiness) of women’s breasts. We (the members of the world society, not just USA/Canada) need to become more mature, less repressed, about sexuality.
(Note that almost all television shows, and many movies, are allowed to show great amounts of violence and its gruesome results; but almost no TV shows, and not very many movies, are allowed to show as much as a glimpse of a woman’s nipple.)
A step in the right direction, I feel, is the work of a Danish artist and photographer named Eolake Stobblehouse who runs a website devoted to the appreciation of the nude female form, in a style he calls “simple nudes” — not too artsy, but not porn-like either. He calls it
DOMAI [Admin’s note: link not safe for work], which (as a joke) stands for Dirty Old Men’s Association International. Quite normal men, however, and a good number of normal women too, have expressed their appreciation to Stobblehouse for his work in, well, glorifying women’s beauty.
(It should be obvious, considering what I wrote above, but I’ll note this anyway: the DOMAI site is DNSFW (Definitely Not Safe For Work), unless you live in one of the relatively few places that has an enlightened government….)
In the first paragraph:
“All mammalian species posses a gland that secretes or oozes milk for the repast of their young.”
s/posses/possess
Also, SWEATER POTATOES!
Funniest thing I saw all day.
One of the posts mentioned that breasts weren’t sexual. Why is it then that the nipples get erect when a woman is aroused? I have known a girl that could almost be brought to orgasm through playing with said breasts. A good pair skillfully displayed can bring even the most chaste man to attention.
Lip_ring…how do you know human male genitalia were large in pre-humans? Apes and chimps (our supposed cousins) have small units. I believe they also still have a penile bone too. (not sure on that one though)
Breasts: always damn interesting. Let’s be honest, gentlemen.
I sympathize with Morrison’s claims. I do in fact find breasts more attractive when they resemble buttocks more than free hanging breasts (not resembling buttocks).
BOOBEHS. Had to get it out of my system.
OVER THE SHOULDER BOULDER-HOLDER
I am not going to start a serious discussion here….really, but this article has generated more comments than any I’ve seen in a long time. That right there tells you that sex sells and breasts equate sex.
justapeon said: “One of the posts mentioned that breasts weren’t sexual. Why is it then that the nipples get erect when a woman is aroused? I have known a girl that could almost be brought to orgasm through playing with said breasts. A good pair skillfully displayed can bring even the most chaste man to attention. “
Check yer own nipples out next time yer bumpin’ uglies. Men’s have the same reaction. Does that mean the male breast is a sexual part of their body? Hardly.
A ‘good pair’ of sweater potatoes skillfully displayed will bring ‘the most chaste’ man to attention simply because he is not used to seeing them in public. We are like Pavlov’s dog. We see a set of bazooms and associate it with sex, since that is usually the only time we see them openly displayed. That doesn’t make them sexual.
Either way….if ripped guys, ugly guys, fat guys, hairy guys, albino guys, etc. can walk around topless…I see no reason why women shouldn’t be able to as well. Maybe it’s where I’m from, up here you go to the ballet (aka strip bar) and you see total nudity, so the bristols aren’t always the main attraction. Because of that…seeing a good set of fun bags out in public isn’t some dirty perverted thing. I can go to a peeler bar and see more than that whenever I want.
I’m realizing I want to fence sit on this one. Since I live in a place where women are free to unleash their mommy bags whenever they want, I can truly see both sides. And honestly, some very beautiful looking women don’t look that beautiful when you start removing articles of clothing. I’ve seen some gorgeous women that I eventually saw in the buff, and to be honest…they looked better with clothes on.
tampagirl said: “I am not going to start a serious discussion here….really, but this article has generated more comments than any I’ve seen in a long time. That right there tells you that sex sells and breasts equate sex.”
Breasts equate sex because we’re programmed to think that. If jugs were bouncing around in public on a regular basis, you wouldn’t think breasts equate sex. You’d think…boobs are boobs. Men would still think they’re marvelous…but they wouldn’t, given time, cause much of a sexual response in men. Give it a couple generations and breasts and sex will only be linked in the bedroom.
Jeffrey93 said: “Check yer own nipples out next time yer bumpin’ uglies. Men’s have the same reaction. Does that mean the male breast is a sexual part of their body? Hardly.
We see a set of bazooms and associate it with sex, since that is usually the only time we see them openly displayed. That doesn’t make them sexual. “
Ok then what does make them sexual?
I don’t react the same way to having my nips stimulated as the few women I have been with did. It is clearly more enjoyable for a female than a male. Are you saying thats pavlovian?
khensthoth said:
“Nice article, although in my five years of being exposed to Genetics, I have never heard any correlation between breast size and any genes.”
Why do you think this trait wouldn’t be affected by genes? I’m no expert, but I’d be amazed if it wasn’t. Pretty much everything else is, and you’d think something like this would be particularly open to influence from natural and sexual selection.
Jeffery93’s agrument doesn’t make much sense, if you ask me. You say we only find breasts sexual because we normally only see them in a context where sex is happening or about to happen. But if thats the case, where does the attraction arise from in the first place? Surely you’d need to build up the attraction with sexual encounters before you’d find breasts attractive at all. Hence virgin males would be completely immune.
Secondly, what about pretty faces? We find faces of a certain shape sexually attractive, and there’s no analogue here which would allow you to explain this attraction in the same way you explain the attraction to breasts. It seems to be instinctual, though influenced somewhat by culture, fashion etc. I see no reason to explain breasts any other way.
This whole discussion reminds me of the Seinfeld episode where Jerry had a live-in who liked to hang around the apartment in the buff. He thought it was great until one day when she had to work hard to open a pickle jar; that sight made him change his mind. I forget the exact line, but the mental picture will be with me for life.
Also, follow the link to the Top Free website provided by Jason; if that doesn’t give you reason to rethink allowing any woman to run around topless, I don’t know what will. Some bosoms are just made to be cradled in a bra and covered up.
Dr. Evil said: “OVER THE SHOULDER BOULDER-HOLDER”
That made me remember a joke from back in my junior high days:
Q: What’s the German word for “Bra”?
A: Holdzemupundkeepzemfrumfloppin
Circlehead said: “Jeffery93’s agrument doesn’t make much sense, if you ask me. You say we only find breasts sexual because we normally only see them in a context where sex is happening or about to happen. But if thats the case, where does the attraction arise from in the first place? Surely you’d need to build up the attraction with sexual encounters before you’d find breasts attractive at all. Hence virgin males would be completely immune.
Secondly, what about pretty faces? We find faces of a certain shape sexually attractive, and there’s no analogue here which would allow you to explain this attraction in the same way you explain the attraction to breasts. It seems to be instinctual, though influenced somewhat by culture, fashion etc. I see no reason to explain breasts any other way.”
I find some flowers to be ‘pretty’. Does that mean I find them sexual? No. The purpose of males of any species is to procreate. We instinctively want to do this with the female that will offer the best genetics to continue our lineage and give us the best chance of creating strong and healthy offspring. “Pretty faces” are typically those that have near perfect symmetry, a sign of good genetics. Perfectly symmetrical would be perfect genes, no abnormalities. This is why we find faces “pretty” and “attractive”.
I doubt that whenever you see a “pretty face” walk by you “stand at attention” if you know what I mean. Breasts are no different. As the article explains, the theory is that the larger the breasts the more fertile the female appears and therefore more attractive for mating purposes. A perfectly symmetrical or “pretty” face gives the same type of endorsement for the female, good for mating purposes.
As to why virgin men seem to instinctively find breasts attractive, well…virgin men also seem to instinctively find an attraction to women (in most cases). Where does this attraction come from? Things can be instinct without being sexual instincts. It’s an instinct to procreate, again…in most cases. Some hard wired “attractions” help us select a suitable partner to carry on our seed.
I’m confusing myself now….let me put it this way. A painting of a naked woman holding a flower is not sexual, it’s art. A picture in Swank of a naked woman holding her “flower” is sexual. Same subjects are used…but different results. Breasts…sexual in terms of instinct when selecting a breeding partner (possibly), not sexual in terms of seeing them creates instant arousal in males.
There are societies on this fine earth that don’t cover up their breasts…ever. That’s where the “attraction” is at it’s prime state. Bigger boobs mean she can feed my offspring better (accurate or not). That’s it. If you want to call that “sexual”, go ahead. I call it survival.
Breasts are sexual because we have MADE them that way. They have been used to arouse men because we know they are there…but don’t see them often. My point is…if every woman walked around naked except for a vale on her face…her face, in your opinion, would become the only “sexual” area on her body.
I think we’re getting confused between what peaks our interest, arouses us, and what is an instinctual drive to pass our seed to the best available mate. Sweater potatoes peak our interest. Anything that you don’t see everyday peaks your interest. Go watch some regulars at the strip bar compared to some underagers. The “attraction” disappears with exposure, therefore it is not a hard wired sexual attraction. It’s something that arouses us because they’re kept hidden all the time. Put them out there…and the rack is just something that slightly peaks our interest….they’re still damn fun, they just don’t have that mystique anymore.
justapeon said: “Ok then what does make them sexual?
I don’t react the same way to having my nips stimulated as the few women I have been with did. It is clearly more enjoyable for a female than a male. Are you saying thats pavlovian?”
The fact they are covered up and we perceive them as sexual regions. It’s in our perception not in our instincts.
Are you sure you don’t get the same enjoyment out of it? Besides, some women get sexually aroused when their partner nibbles on their ear. Is the ear sexual? In my opinion, if you believe a nibble on your elbow (a la Marge Simpson) is sexually arousing to you…it will become just that. It’s in your head. Much like nipples and their breasts have become to some women, not all.
We’re concluding that the breasts are sexual simply because men enjoy fondling, biting, ‘penetrating’ them during sex. You could do the same thing to a woman’s armpit if you truly wanted to, and I guarantee some women would find that incredibly erotic. Pick any part on the body and you can get the same reaction as you do from breasts, in both sexes. It would help if it is a part that is always covered and been linked to sexual activity for generations.
I have absolutely zero fact to back this up, it’s just my opinion. The portion of ear/elbow nibbling is a pretty well known fact. Some women enjoy certain parts of their bodies (not their box, boobs or butt) to be ‘stimulated’ during sex as it arouses them. This does not make those regions ‘sexual’, breasts are the same. Not sexual, but some women find attention paid to them to be arousing.
I’ll second Jeffrey. What different people find arousing differs greatly. I know more than one woman who actively dislike having their breasts fondled. The social-sexual component is just that, social. When ankles were constantly covered, ankles were sexually arousing.
Or to quote somebody whose name I don’t remember: “One naked body draped with velvet is sexual. Thirty naked bodies standing in line for tunafish is not.”
Heh…I knew most of it all along. But you made it sound so geeky. Please don’t take this as a lewd remark though :).
Jeffrey93 said: “… As the article explains, the theory is that the larger the breasts the more fertile the female appears and therefore more attractive for mating purposes…
… I think we’re getting confused between what peaks our interest, arouses us, and what is an instinctual drive to pass our seed to the best available mate. Sweater potatoes peak our interest. Anything that you don’t see everyday peaks your interest. Go watch some regulars at the strip bar compared to some underagers. The “attraction” disappears with exposure, therefore it is not a hard wired sexual attraction. It’s something that arouses us because they’re kept hidden all the time. Put them out there…and the rack is just something that slightly peaks our interest….they’re still damn fun, they just don’t have that mystique anymore.”
Let me get this right: Guys, whether consciously or subconsciously, look for the girl with the biggest bosom because she’ll be better able to care for his offspring? Not in my experience. Most guys would be happy with any girl that’d put up with him. Beggars can’t be choosers.
I’ve been thinking about the discussion about how breasts are considered sexual because they are generally hidden from men, and if they were more out in the open, they would lose their allure… Those “regulars at the strip bar” are no longer attracted to the boobies because of misplaced and unfulfilled desires, not because they grew tired of the spectacle. The regulars once came into the strip joint and soon found that the desire that brought them in the door only grew stronger, yet just watching didn’t fulfill that desire. Kinda like crying wolf; do it too many times without the real thing being there, and before you know it you get no response.
In contrast to that, I am treated to an almost nightly viewing of my wife’s bare chest, and after all the years we’ve been married, I still find myself aroused by the sight. While I am aroused by the sight, the knowledge that she is my wife and the mother of my children, and that I know her as no one else does adds enormously to that arousal. Mama’s Squeezebox is alluring because Mama is, and because we know how to make music together (any other Who fans on board?)
And the comment that we need to “become more mature, less repressed, about sexuality”… while I don’t see anything repressed about the obsession with sexuality in society today, I do see a great deal of immaturity in how sex and sexuality is thrown about today. Those who think our society is too repressed about sexuality have an unhealthy obsession with it and give it undue prominence. If anything, many people today could benefit from a little dose of modesty. You might be surprised at how sexy that can be.
One last thing; are there no proponents of the once-popular notion that there is a connection between men and their attraction to women’s chests and their being breast-fed as infants? I’m surprised that didn’t come up in Jason’s original post.
Oh, and for the record (again), the term you’re looking for is “piqued” (as in “… piques our interest…), not “peaked” or “peeked”.
There. I feel better.
“many people today could benefit from a little dose of modesty. You might be surprised at how sexy that can be.”
Couldn’t have said it better myself.
Boob fight!
Jeffrey
Most of what you said in your response to my comment doesn’t even address my argument. That comment about the woman who is naked except for her face is in fact a perfect parody of your stance, not a critique of mine. And the thing about the painting is just plain silly.
In fact, I get the impression that you don’t even believe what you’re saying, or just dont know what you’re saying.
I hope that doesn’t sound too mean. I don’t intend to cause offence I’m just giving my honest opinion.
We’ll probably never agree so I’ll just leave it at that. Can’t argue about breasts any more!
Happy Mothers Day folks! And thanks for the mammaries. ;-)
Ok folks, my stance is…just to clarify it for you (and partially for myself) is that breasts have been turned into a sexual region by our culture/society and not by our instinctual sexual drive.
The way I see it is, the lovely fun bags serve one purpose…to nurse offspring. Society has created the fascination and linked the breast with sex. If back in the day society took a left turn at Albuquerque instead of a right…we might be having this discussion about women’s knee caps, armpits, noses, whatever! For some unknown reason way back in the day our ancestors decided that it isn’t decent for women to have their breasts displayed anywhere outside the bedroom. If that hadn’t happened….this ‘debate’ wouldn’t have happened either. Men and women would have always been free to go topless…nobody would think twice about it…and the sweater potatoes would still get some good usage during romps in the sack, but they wouldn’t create the reaction in men that they currently do.
Therefore…they are intriguing to men and prompt sexual desires/thoughts in men that see them..but that is the response created by society, not by nature.
Nice Knockers :)
The comments were more interesting than the article this time!!!
Now for some gender equality… the next article is going to be on penises!
Jeffrey93, you’ve forgotten the crux of the very first paragraph: human women have unusually large breasts compared to other mammals. Sexual selection has been invoked as a possible explanation, but if you know of a better one don’t keep it to yourself!
I also want to expand somewhat on the brief explanation of breast sexual selection given in the article. There are other possible sexual selection explanations other than the “hormone theory” (i’m dubbing it) given in the article. I’m currently reading The Mating Mind by Geoffrey Miller which discusses sexual selection in wonderful depth, and here are some possibilities discussed.
One is that large breasts may have evolved as a youth indicator. At younger ages (but after puberty), breasts tend to be larger and perkier than at older ages. Since age is highly correlated with fertility, this would favor a male attraction to large, pert breasts, and so breast size would tend to increase. Of course, this would work against those same large breasted women in their old age, but the benefits probably far outweighed the costs considering it’s a much better bet for a woman to have children at a younger age than older age. Circumstantially, I think most men could attest that large perky boobs are usually preferable to small saggy potato socks!
Another interesting point is about breast symmetry. Symmetry of breasts can be highly variable, so they make for good fitness indicators (the more symmetric, the fewer mutations, the higher fitness). Once men started paying attention to breast symmetry, high fitness (symmetric) women could benefit from evolving larger breasts which they could show off (“look at my symmetry!”).
Lastly, breast (and buttock) size are correlated with fat reserves, and women with excess fat stores are more likely to be well nourished and stand a better chance of successfully rearing offspring. This could cause men to favor larger breasts. Furthermore, as men began to favor larger breasts, women with physiologies that redistribute fat to breasts and buttocks should become more successful.
Anyway, those are some ideas I thought were interesting (Damn Interesting!). Oh, I should mention that the reason that these kinds of sexual selection mechanisms occured for humans but not other mammals is presumed to be our transition to bipedal walking, which made breasts and buttocks much more prominent for display (as opposed to even our closely related apes).
Jeffrey93 said: “Ok folks, my stance is…just to clarify it for you (and partially for myself) is that breasts have been turned into a sexual region by our culture/society and not by our instinctual sexual drive.
The way I see it is, the lovely fun bags serve one purpose…to nurse offspring. Society has created the fascination and linked the breast with sex. If back in the day society took a left turn at Albuquerque instead of a right…we might be having this discussion about women’s knee caps, armpits, noses, whatever! For some unknown reason way back in the day our ancestors decided that it isn’t decent for women to have their breasts displayed anywhere outside the bedroom. If that hadn’t happened….this ‘debate’ wouldn’t have happened either. Men and women would have always been free to go topless…nobody would think twice about it…and the sweater potatoes would still get some good usage during romps in the sack, but they wouldn’t create the reaction in men that they currently do.
Therefore…they are intriguing to men and prompt sexual desires/thoughts in men that see them..but that is the response created by society, not by nature.”
But breasts are an erogenous zone. They are also a prime indicator of gender. Plus they secrete, and they indicate sexual maturity. I probably even agree with you, but I think it is more complex than you make it sound. You have to ask, Why was it the breasts, and not the kneecaps, noses, etc?
Jeffrey93 said: For some unknown reason way back in the day our ancestors decided that it isn’t decent for women to have their breasts displayed anywhere outside the bedroom.
Could that be because men were turned on looking at them and husbands/fathers wanted to shield them from view to keep the hounds at bay?
Yes there are societies where it isn’t frowned upon for woman to let them hang free. But none of them are modern societies. Name me one country where you go to the mall or office and the women walk around barebreasted. Most places in the US require men to where shirts too…
Sorry but women and men are different…different standards do and should apply. You want to go bare breasted all day long move to Namibia or deep into (whats left of) the Amazon forest
Jeffrey93 said: “I mean…as far as I know monkees don’t walk around with bras on.”
Maybe that’s because the Monkees were an all male band back in the 70’s…
Or was it the 60’s? I used to watch their show on Nick at Nite…
araeo said: “Or was it the 60’s? I used to watch their show on Nick at Nite…”
Hoping to cash-in on the success of the Beatles, NBC put out a casting call for musically inclined young men for an offbeat comedy show called “The Monkees” in 1966. This half-hour comedy featured four musically inclined boobs and their strangely titillating escapades. Though the four actors hired had auditioned by playing and/or singing music, they had never performed music together. Music was written by Don Kirschner to promote the show with the actors providing only the vocals. Nobody expected the success of the record when one song, “Last Train To Clarksville” became a chart topper.
The record was so successful that the actors rehearsed both the lyrics and music to be able to perform live across the USA not as actors, but as a true band. Their second release became the must have number one album of 1967. Though the TV show only survived two seasons, the group continued to perform for a limited time. In a sense, this pop-culture creation was the first music video on TV and also the first designed to market products to pre-teens via music.
Radiatidon said: “Hoping to cash-in on the success of the Beatles, NBC put out a casting call for musically inclined young men for an offbeat comedy show called “The Monkees” in 1966. This half-hour comedy featured four musically inclined boobs and their strangely titillating escapades. Though the four actors hired had auditioned by playing and/or singing music, they had never performed music together. Music was written by Don Kirschner to promote the show with the actors providing only the vocals. Nobody expected the success of the record when one song, “Last Train To Clarksville” became a chart topper.
The record was so successful that the actors rehearsed both the lyrics and music to be able to perform live across the USA not as actors, but as a true band. Their second release became the must have number one album of 1967. Though the TV show only survived two seasons, the group continued to perform for a limited time. In a sense, this pop-culture creation was the first music video on TV and also the first designed to market products to pre-teens via music.”
Radiatidon forgot to mention that this Band/TV show was a phenomena that every pre-teen girl of the 1960’s still recalls with great fondness. And although this maybe an urban legend, Michael Nesbith (the one that wore the ski cap) has always refused to participate in reunions as he inherited the oodles of money his mom got for inventing White-Out.
justapeon said: “Sorry but women and men are different…different standards do and should apply. You want to go bare breasted all day long move to Namibia or deep into (whats left of) the Amazon forest”
Or New York City or the Province of Ontario. I don’t need to move to Nambia or the Amazon forest to be where it’s allowed. Actually…I don’t have to move at all!
Women are different but this is one case where there is no need for different standards. I think we’ll see more places in North America changing their laws to allow women to go topless. Even when the laws are changed, it’s not like you see 100 topless women for every 1 with a shirt on, it’s the other way around.
I apologize about the ‘monkees’ slip. Quite surprised at myself for that gaff.
Dizzee said: “lip_ring: I have not read Isle of Women by Piers Anthony, I did however just finish Firefly by him, and the same exact ideas on the development of breasts in women were mentioned there, interesting that he should bring this up in two unrelated books. “
Anthony must have a trend towards the naked because in the seven books of the Robot Adept series the non-citizen serfs in the series were banned from wearing clothes. So I am thinking that makes nine books+ with a running theme of nudity/toplessness.
FWIW – IC
I’m a student at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago and believe me, I see plenty… of everything. I personally don’t take any figure drawing classes, though I have drawn my share of naked people. This is what I have come to on the subject. I enter a room, and observe a nude woman (or man, whatever) and draw them (and believe me, those nekked people come in all shapes… and sizes). Big deal. I go back to the dorms and continue with my studies.
I go back to the dorms, and observe a naked woman (or man, whatever) in my room, I’m going to have a bit more of a reaction, on either side of the spectrum. This can be looked at in multiple ways:
Number one: it’s good that I can observe and appreciate the beauty of the human form where appropriate.
Number two: it’s good that I can appreciate the beauty of the human form where appropriate.
Like sioleabha said, “I don’t think I want to live in a society where breasts are ‘just another body part.'”
It is interesting to note the cultures where it is acceptable for people to walk around naked, you don’t see people just having sex all the time. This, too can be interpreted in a number of ways.
1. They have become a culture where nudity in public is okay, but sex in public is shunned upon, or
2. They have become a culture where everything is “just another body part”
The major question needs to be asked: Where does the line get drawn, and why? Do I want nudity to remain in my bedroom and in the drawing studios, do I like my particular brand of nudity to be taken to the streets? Do I want to then ask the question: well, now that public nudity is allowed, why not public sex?
And it’s not like there aren’t double standards for men, too.
And besides, of course breasts being attractive is hardwired into the male system. Doesn’t anybody remember what puberty felt like? Many guys out there didn’t even know what sex was when they went through it. also check out comment #88.
If you don’t want to see it, don’t look at it (note: this is only applicable if you know where it is).
lip_ring said: “If being topfree were legal everywhere, how many women would take advantage of it? I would, but I only know 3 or 4 others who would join me. Not many would be topfree, and that would keep the mystique alive. Guns and alcohol are readily available, and they still have an aura of “awesome” about them for some people.”
That is true, and I have nothing to refute that.
Jeffrey93 said: “Look, I live in Ontario, Canada where women are free to roam around topless as much as men are (businesses still require shirts, shoes, etc.). Has this reduced the allure of the breast? Not in the slightest. Am I shocked to see a pair out in public? No. Nor would I have been prior to the change in our laws. Debating this just makes a big deal out of nothing. Boobs are fabulous things, being able to see them far more often won’t change that. …Generations from now…maybe, they’ll become accustomed to it and the breast will no longer be that intriguing as it is now. “
Here’s my standing: I do believe it would be overall to America’s detriment (even if only slightly) to make it legal, but even if it were made legal, not too terribly much would happen (at least right away) because social standards would remain the same for the most part.
This has been a terribly long post, but please allow me to make one more reference that I actually learned in my history class, believe it or not:
In 1863 an artist by the name of Édouard Manet produced a painting called “The Picnic.” It depicted two fully dressed men, and one fully NUDE woman. He tried to display it at an academy-approved art show, and he was denied. The painting sparked ENORMOUS controversy in the art world, (even in the art world, where women are painted nude all the time). WHY? Well, here’s the reason. The controversy wasn’t sparked because of the nudity itself, but because the painting called no attention was called to the nudity itself. The woman depicted isn’t a prostitute, nor is she a Greek goddess, or drawn in a way that represents her character as a model, nothing like that. There was no reason for her to be nude, and furthermore, the men in the image don’t seem to care. They don’t have any expressions on their face of shock: “Oh my, you’re naked!” or lust: “Oh my, you’re naked!” The fact that she’s naked for no reason was what sparked this ENORMOUS controversy. Many many artists today still use the painting as a reference to the appropriateness and placement of censorship today.
Curious…
It seems the natural crowd is having problems recruiting those with less sag.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/05/14/nudist.recruits.ap/index.html
Jeffrey93 said: “So why bother changing the laws? They aren’t enforced anyway.”
Because non-enforcement is a voluntary lack of action, there is nothing to stop enforcement except trust. Would you sign a legally binding contract with me that allows me to detain you against your will, if I promise never to use it? No? Because that’s exactly what you have with unenforced laws. If the laws are removed, you prevent any potential abuse of those laws.
Here’s a few that should probably be on the shortlist for removal: http://www.floydpinkerton.net/fun/laws.html
My last comment was phrased in an unnecessarily nasty way and I want to apologize. Why do comment boards bring out the worst in people(i.e. me)?
I said I wouldn’t comment any more but I can’t help myself, so here goes:
Jeffrey, you may be right but I think the simpler explanation is that our feeling toward breasts was hard-wired by evolution and as a conequence we decided to cover them up. The reasons why evolution would go this way are fairly simple and solid in my opinion (that large breasts would indicate sexual maturity, good health, good ability to feed offspring, and other reasons that people have mentioned). This seems like a logical explanation and a simpler one than that which you have put forward.
I guess the only way to settle this question would be to look at societies where it is not normal for women to cover their breasts, and see whether breasts are still regarded as an especially sexual, especially titillating part of the female anatomy. I wager they would be.
Misfit said: “The major question needs to be asked: Where does the line get drawn, and why? Do I want nudity to remain in my bedroom and in the drawing studios, do I like my particular brand of nudity to be taken to the streets? Do I want to then ask the question: well, now that public nudity is allowed, why not public sex?”
A man can walk around topless or “half nude”, why doesn’t that create the public sex question?
You make my point, sort of. Why is there a relation between topless women…or even completely naked women/men in public and sex? Nudists that have their own “camps” are naked in large groups out in ‘public’. They aren’t constantly breaking out into huge orgies. In fact, that is frowned upon in their community, any indication of sexual arousal or activity in public is not forbidden but definitely not welcome.
Face it…we’re animals. The simple fact that you see a member of the opposite sex naked shouldn’t make you immediately want to mate with them. If it does, then you have serious issues and have allowed society to seriously misguide you. Breasts being displayed in public will only remove their ‘appeal’ if you allow it to. I see many things I like daily, that doesn’t make me like them less or any less interested in seeing them.
Breasts are not sexual, they are a part of the woman’s body to feed offspring. I could care less if some men say they don’t want to see them in public because it would remove their sexual appeal or sexual interest in breasts. I also don’t care if some women say they feel their breasts are sexual or private or whatever and shouldn’t be displayed in public. The simple fact is there shouldn’t be a law saying women are not permitted to remove their shirt, but no law saying the same for men. Every single woman isn’t going to walk around topless, but women shouldn’t have a restricting law placed on them simply because they have the biological means to feed their offspring.
It’s more of an equal rights thing than anything else.
Breasts being displayed in public will only remove their ‘appeal’ if you allow it to. I see many things I like daily, that doesn’t make me like them less or any less interested in seeing them.
Isn’t that the exact opposite of what you’ve been saying all along?
I’ve probably swayed back and forth. Either way…that’s not really the issue. I remember saying near the start that I really like hockey….seeing more hockey games doesn’t make me like hockey any less. Makes me like it more actually. Breasts would be the same, I think. It all depends on the the individual. You can either see all the fun bags at the beach and let it make you that much more interested in your partner’s set OR you could see all the sweater potatoes at the beach and allow it to make you completely lose any interest in them.
Sure it could make them lose their allure…but it might not. I don’t think there is any way to say with any certainty it would or it wouldn’t.
Seeing jublees in public shouldn’t be any different than seeing gorgeous women in public. You like to look at them…but that’s it. I see lots of beautiful women….that doesn’t mean beautiful women have lost their appeal to me. I’d still like somebody to explain to me how breasts are “sexual”. How are they at all related to the act of procreation?
Jeffrey93 said: “I’d still like somebody to explain to me how breasts are “sexual”. How are they at all related to the act of procreation?”
Have you ever asked your lady–presuming that you are involved with at least one–how her breasts change, and how they feel, during sexplay? They change size somewhat; their sensitivity increases; the nipples erect, and become more responsive to stimulation. Such stimulation has connection to the uterus and clitoris, as I posted above (post #88), at least in part to help reduce the postpartum uterus by stimulating contractions. These contractions are related to the contractions of the uterus during orgasm; in fact, some women can have orgasms just from having their nipples stimulated. That, to me, indicates a strong sexual aspect to the breasts.
Lastly, breasts have a definite connection to procreation–not in the preliminary stages (conception, gestation, and birth), but in the next crucial phase: feeding the newly “disconnected” offspring, as well as providing antibodies to help fortify the immature immune system.
(Also, since they are regarded as sexually attractive–at least to some people–they can help bring about the procreation by encouraging sexual interaction.)
Silverhill…the girlfriend also gets goose bumps sometimes….so..her skin is also sexual. The pupils in her eye also get bigger…so her eyes are sexual. Her toes curl…so her toes are sexual. Her breathing gets heavier…so I guess her lungs are seuxal. Her ear lobes swell and get sensitive…so her ears are sexual.
Give me a break…lots of stuff in a woman’s body changes during intercourse. The breasts have zero to do with the act of sex. Society has made them into a ‘sexy’ feature that causes arousal in men. That’s it.
Oh and FYI….the male nipples become erect during sex as well…..so are man boobs sexual? Using this logic, not saying it isn’t understandable, pretty much every part of the body would be considered ‘sexual’, since the entire body goes through changes during the act of mating.
Totaly off topic.
Got my Damned Interesting! magnet today! Whooeee, Thanks Alan,et.all!
(Sitting in the corner pinching my tits waiting for the b(.)(.)k.
Yeah, give it up Jeffy, trust me, they Are a sexual organ; the boobs, I mean not the magnets…though I guess you could say that boobs are a sex magnet… LOL
Jeffrey, i think you missed a paragraph or two above the one you quoted from me.
Misfit said: “It is interesting to note the cultures where it is acceptable for people to walk around
naked, you don’t see people just having sex all the time. This, too can be interpreted in a number of ways.”
My statement about the public sex was not an argument in that public sex will become an issue, nor that it is one currently. My question was hardly even a statement of opinion. It was posted more as a question of… if we repeal this law, will someone use this to an argument for some NEW thing? That portion of my statement was posted in a fashion more geared as a “what does everybody think of this possibility” question.
Jeffrey, wasn’t the basis of your whole argument the notion that we only consider breasts especially sexual because they are covered up? Now I don’t know what you’re saying.
As for your question about why breasts are sexual. It’s just a fact that in the minds of most men they are. I’m not saying this from a pro or anti topfree position. I couldn’t care less about that.
Are you honestly saying that you don’t find a woman’s breasts to be a particular focus of sexual interest? Your point that they have nothing to do with procreation is, firstly, false, because for most men they ARE a significant element of a woman’s physical attractiveness (hence they encourage procreation), and secondly, irrelevant. A body part doesn’t have to be directly involved in reproduction to be considered sexual. As you say, even a elbow can be seen that way. It just happens to be the case that most men find breasts a particular turn on. Maybe, you’re different.
We can disagree about how this state of affairs has come to be, but the fact is that most men think breasts are sexual.
And your reasoning has yet to account for the crucial fact mentioned in the article. That human females are unique among mammals for having permantly ‘swollen’ breast in adulthood.
Do you really think there’s no connection between the erotic status of breasts in our culture (most human cultures, I’d be willing to bet) and their unusally large proportional size in comparison to other animals? Considering they don’t serve any practical function except when used to feed young?
Circlehead said: “Jeffrey, wasn’t the basis of your whole argument the notion that we only consider breasts especially sexual because they are covered up? Now I don’t know what you’re saying.
As for your question about why breasts are sexual. It’s just a fact that in the minds of most men they are. I’m not saying this from a pro or anti topfree position. I couldn’t care less about that.
Are you honestly saying that you don’t find a woman’s breasts to be a particular focus of sexual interest? Your point that they have nothing to do with procreation is, firstly, false, because for most men they ARE a significant element of a woman’s physical attractiveness (hence they encourage procreation), and secondly, irrelevant. A body part doesn’t have to be directly involved in reproduction to be considered sexual. As you say, even a elbow can be seen that way. It just happens to be the case that most men find breasts a particular turn on. Maybe, you’re different.
We can disagree about how this state of affairs has come to be, but the fact is that most men think breasts are sexual.”
I’ve lost track of my point so many times I’m not even sure where I stand on this. But you are stating things that make sense to what I have said. Men find them to be part of the attraction. It’s society creating the sexual allure of boobs. Not nature. A pretty face can encourage procreation, but I’m not going to say a woman’s face is a ‘sexual’ part of her body.
The point about topless women and the sexual nature of the breast was raised because in Ontario where women are allowed to go topless it was deemed that the breast was not a sexual part of the woman’s body and can therefore be displayed in public. The negative impact is that if I grab a handful of some strangers sweater potatoes I will be charged with assault, where previously I would have been charged with sexual assault.
Jason, I found your article to be damn interesting and a fun read. Although a few of the puns were a bit trite, others were certainly clever enough to make up for them. Not being a birder I would not have guessed the bird species without the comments, and I’m guessing I’m not alone in that… I wonder if the longterm widespread presence of growth hormone in milk and dairy products has had anything to do with the recent increase in breast size in American women. If so, the even more recent increase in public awareness of hormone additives and the increasing availability of non-hormone-containing dairy products could lead to a change in that trend down the line.
Pardon the possible redundancy of this response, as I largely browsed and skipped most of the comments thus far.
One reason for the relative permanence of the human female’s mammary glands is mentioned in Jared Diamond’s book “Why is Sex Fun: The Evolution of Human Sexuality”. This book provides the most convincing arguement I’ve heard so far, and seems to go well beyond the article above.
The human breast, he argues, serves much the same purpose as the other unique sexual characteristic of our females: hidden ovulation. Unlike other mammals, and most notably other primates, our females do not visibly display their ovulation cycles, and thus their fertility. Most other primates, for instance, exhibit a notable swelling and color change of the face and pelvis. This allows most primates to engage in sex only when it’s productive, IE, when the females are capable of being fertilized. Humans, however, don’t do this. We have sex whenever we damn well please.
Diamond’s arguement is in favor of many evolutionarly benefitial factors, but his primary point is that constant abiguity of sexual readiness guarantees females more sex, and thus closer bonds with their partners. This encourages the male to participate in child rearing, and to stay close to home. In a tribal community, this type of behavior became necessary in raising and passing knowledge to children. Other primates, however, do not have to teach their young to build fires, shelter, etc. So, this is not as important.
It is just a theory, but I thought it was worth noting. Personally, I feel it holds more weight than others’ that I’ve learned of at this point.
. . . biology opted to supply extra fatty deposits to the mammary glands to help the race survive lean times of drought or meager foodstuffs.
. . . it was more practical for the female to evolve an analog to the buttocks on her front than it was to re-wire the male instinct to desire an alternate sex pose.
I’d like to meet Mr. Biology – he seems very wise. I guess we’ll never know why women have swollen breasts until we get to ask him personally . . .
The puns were great. A note on sexual selection though: one very interesting case of sexual selection occurs in ducks. Male ducks compete to get females; they are very promiscuous so there is a lot of competition. Some male ducks evolved large phalluses, and so female ducks evolved large oviducts. Male ducks then evolved larger and more twisted phalluses and the females consequently evolved larger and more twisted oviducts. It’s an example of “runaway sexual selection”. Wired Science has more information here: http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/05/duck_genetalia_.html
Stop with the puns already!!!
I’m 5’4″, 110 lbs, used to be a full C cup but had a kid and went down to a B. I don’t think women should be allowed to run around in public hanging out, nor do I see why they would want to, even though I am considered an attractive, healthy woman and no one would probably mind seeing them. Equal rights or not, those puppies can’t handle a bunch of flopping around. So I don’t see how a 200+ lb woman would want to run around like that. All I can think is OUCH.
Add to that, especially here in America (and being in the business world amongst men) it has taken women a lot of years to get the rights they have today, such as voting, the ability to have a career and have children, and other things of that nature, that running around topless I think would change. We fight for every ounce of respect we’ve gotten over the years, there are women, a very good friend of mine included, still trying to “break through the glass ceiling” to rise to the top. We still make $0.81 on the dollar compared to men, which is better than it used to be, but I think running around topless takes away from that.
It is interesting though that we have such bigger begonias than any other mammaried mammal. I really thought cows had us. I wonder why that it. Also very noteworthy, why is it my step mom, who is 5’3″ and 150+ lbs had A cup boobs (before the implants) yet I’m an inch taller and 40+ lbs lighter and have a natural C cup? If it were true that fatter=bigger appendages, than theoretically she should be much more endowed than me. And if it were ALL genetics (and I think most of it is) than how come me and my mom are both C cups, but my sister is a bean pole A cup? She does take after my dad’s side of the family more, so that could be a large part of it, but still…we got the hair and eye color of my mother, just different body types. We are both very thin, but my breasts are much bigger than hers. It’s definitely something to think about! DI!
Ephesians 5:3
I’ve had large breasts since I was 13 years old. I’m shocked that none of the comments I’ve read mentioned that breasts are a secondary sex characteristic. Obviously they are sexual, as they appear just as the body is getting ready to reproduce. It’s the first signifier to boys and men that women are physically ready for sex. Since birth control, people started detaching sex and reproduction, but obviously breasts were once necessary to keep babies alive. Now we have baby formula and a culture built around the exploitation of sex wholly unrelated to reproduction. Birth control is wonderfully freeing and I would never, ever get rid of it, but it did ready us for this super- sexualized culture. I supposed humans were always obsessed with sex, but it seems so much more readily available now.
So, anyway, a 13 year old girl with large breasts gets as much attention (staring, cat calling, etc.) from adult men as 25 year old women with large breasts. In our current society (I’m from NY), 13 year old girls are not psychologically ready for sex, so we have covered up the giant neon sign on our chests. It seems that once a woman is psychologically mature (some people never get there), she SHOULD be allowed to wear her body proudly and without interference from others. No one should make her feel uncomfortable whether they like or dislike what they see. Gender roles are WAY too far ingrained in us from infancy to change so suddenly and there are certainly some Americans who cannot deal with naked breasts out in public maturely. I wouldn’t go nude in public if it were made legal tomorrow, but I certainly support the idea. I don’t think clothing should be required of anyone. Fashion is absurd, but fun. In my opinion, modesty is a good thing when it comes to deeds, thoughts and actions, but modesty is completely superfluous when it comes to our bodies. So much importance is placed on how we look. The pretty people get all the open doors in this world and the uglies have to work harder, be smarter. Duh. This probably will not change, at least the idea of what is beautiful DOES change (breast size included).
As for losing their appeal: my boyfriend and I live in a naked house. Not on purpose, we just shed our restrictive clothing when we get home and have done so for years. This does not keep him from being very aroused by my breasts during sex even though he sees them bare in non-sexual situations about 70% of the time. I hope that if public nudity (stopping at toplessness? Eh?) were made legal here, the taboos would fade away, breasts wouldn’t be such a big deal, but people would still enjoy them during sex. They’re still fun to grab and play with. It still feels good.
Now I’m thinking about safety. A nude woman in public has something to fear, and that’s disgusting. A CLOTHED woman in public often has something to fear. So would walking around naked eventually reduce the fear of harassment and rape? I don’t think it would make much difference. Women usually know what to wear. Clothing optional means most people will still cover up and those who will harass us will probably do it whether we’ve got a top on or not.
As the owner of a large rack, I can say damn, these things are overrated! They’re heavy and attention grabbing even when you don’t want attention. They get in the way. Sometimes they hurt or itch or swell. They don’t feel THAT great when you play with them, though it can be nice. Women would lose some power if their breasts were on display. Yes, we would, but it’s not really the kind of power that I appreciate. At ages 16-22 I used cleavage and a smile to get out of tickets, to charm my way into and out of situations. I was a cute girl and I knew that meant something to people, not just men. It was currency, but only because of our beloved patriarchy. It’s nice to be appreciated for being attractive, but it’s nothing I accomplished. I’d rather have power because of the aforementioned deeds, thoughts and actions than because I’ve got larger than average mammaries. That doesn’t mean I don’t still use femininity to my advantage sometimes, I’m human and we’ll use anything we’ve got, and brains don’t always cut it in a man’s world. Money does, though. It’s always the haves and the have nots.
Well this comment has devolved into stream of conciousness and this comments section is already 19 days old, so I’ll close here. Why do I have these things? I like the front-butt idea, I heard a lot about that theory several years ago. I think it was on a tv show hosted by John Cleese of all people. There was a video of a closeup of cleavage and it zoomed out to show that it was butt cleavage and how similar it was to chest cleavage, but I’m not so sure about all that. Natural selection makes a lot of sense, but in the end, I don’t care why. I love and hate them, and like anyone, the grass is greener and I wish I had cute little breasts. If I ever get pregnant or gain a lot of weight, I’ll probably be filling out an F cup, dragging these bitches around and they will be the bane of my existence.
P.S. This article itself was disappointing. I’m clearly not a writer myself, but the writing was hard to wade through, the puns were awful and it struck a feminist nerve in me somewhere. Good thing there are so many other great articles to read on DI today.
“However, amidst all 5,800 mammals, there is only one species that has perpetually swollen mammary glands.”
A bit late to comment I’m aware but this isn’t strictly true. Bonobos are renowned for having prominent mammary glands.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobos
http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.primates.com/bonobos/bonobos-sexual.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.primates.com/bonobos/bonobos-sexual.html&h=625&w=600&sz=52&hl=en&start=1&um=1&tbnid=1PXL13a1ph7MiM:&tbnh=136&tbnw=131&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dbonobos%26svnum%3D10%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26rlz%3D1T4SUNA_en___GB221%26sa%3DN
I’m 57 years old and have been a size 9-10 since age 17.a D cup until the age of 43 when menopause hit. After going up several cup sizes and getting tired of wearing huge bras, I had reduction. Of the 9 pounds of breast tissue that was removed, LESS THAN A QUARTER POUND WAS FAT. By the way, in a low cut top my cleavage reminded me of buttocks!
JoJo that is hilarious!! 9 pounds, seriously that much? Musta been some huge mams!
Circlehead said: ”
A body part doesn’t have to be directly involved in reproduction to be considered sexual. As you say, even a elbow can be seen that way….”
Forgive my clipping your comment short, but only wanted to point out a couple of things that might settle this bit of needless debate. There are “Leg men”, “Boob men”, and “Ass men”; Though you guys might not know this, us gals have had you tagged for eons. What is one guys appreciative nod is anothers, OMG look at those!
Flash back to the guy on Allie McBeal, who got his jollys tickeling a gals “waddle”, the loose skin below her chin that some girls are horrified to discover growing @ age 45 or so.
Now a cultural thing, Geishas, painted the back of their necks to resemble a vulva, this is supposed to be very arousing and erotic to the clients they entertain.
I personaly can appreciate this, as a pinch on the tits will freeze me, but a nuzzle on the nape will almost cause a melt down and swoon, at the least garanteed goosebumps.
(I know, T.M.I.)
JoJo said: “I’m 57 years old and have been a size 9-10 since age 17.a D cup until the age of 43 when menopause hit. After going up several cup sizes and getting tired of wearing huge bras, I had reduction. Of the 9 pounds of breast tissue that was removed, LESS THAN A QUARTER POUND WAS FAT. By the way, in a low cut top my cleavage reminded me of buttocks!”
Darling, I do believe you have just become one of the most popular gals on this site. LOL ;-)
Love the puns, and the pictures even more so.
Thanks for particularly intelligent and articulate comments from Skytree and Meeshymeg.
Remember when debating illegality, that it means it’s a CRIME. Is it really fair for a woman to get a criminal record and pay a fine (or even go to jail??!) simply for feeding her baby in public?
The debate reminds me of the tv ad for an icecream which poses the question “when do bathers become undies?” They answered it as basically “whenever you’re not in sight of the beach”.
I think laws against creating a public disturbance are more appropriate and more easily accomodate shifting societal norms. Women breatfeeding while waiting for the bus would be ok, but not in a court room. It’s all about context. A man in bathers who strayed too far from the beach and was wandering round a shopping centre in what are effectively underpants is inappropriate.
I know that this will be a little…ok…maybe a lot, off topic, but it seems that part of the underlying discussion is the effect of breast in sex. So, my insight, question…whatever, is , do women really enjoy sex the way that men do, or is it more of a tool to get to men, or something else entirely? Obviously, I am not female, or I would probably not have to ask this, but you’ll have to excuse the rantings of a “newbie at life”.
PUNS!!! SO MANY PUNS!!!!
hey khensthoth, if breasts are solely for nutrition of infants, than why does it feel so good when nipples/breasts are kissed, caressed, etc. The result doesn’t seem to be the same for men…hm
I went to a traditional Zulu “kraal” here in South Africa, and it was clear (at least to me) that the difference between my “western” mindset on breasts, and THEIR views were vast distances apart. I doubt any of them even thought of me thinking of their breasts. I still remember (this was in 2001) that it was a privilage obtained by age and importance in the village that allowed the woman to COVER up their breasts. Girls of various ages danced around gleefully, totally unaware of any sexual implication, for sexy to us is not quite sexy to them.
Don’t men have breast because we are all female early on?
Jeffrey93 said: “Ok folks, my stance is…just to clarify it for you (and partially for myself) is that breasts have been turned into a sexual region by our culture/society and not by our instinctual sexual drive.
The way I see it is, the lovely fun bags serve one purpose…to nurse offspring. Society has created the fascination and linked the breast with sex. If back in the day society took a left turn at Albuquerque instead of a right…we might be having this discussion about women’s knee caps, armpits, noses, whatever! For some unknown reason way back in the day our ancestors decided that it isn’t decent for women to have their breasts displayed anywhere outside the bedroom. If that hadn’t happened….this ‘debate’ wouldn’t have happened either. Men and women would have always been free to go topless…nobody would think twice about it…and the sweater potatoes would still get some good usage during romps in the sack, but they wouldn’t create the reaction in men that they currently do.
Therefore…they are intriguing to men and prompt sexual desires/thoughts in men that see them..but that is the response created by society, not by nature.”
Ah but you’re forgetting the female side.
In NYC actually, a judge recently decided that if a male was allowed to walk around topless, so could a female, after a case in which a woman was arrested for doing so. I like the idea of being able to, and maybe it will develop into something more comfortable, but even if I were allowed to, I don’t think I’d be quite okay with that yet, considering how much of a rarity the exposed female chest is in public areas. Legal or not, it’s still taboo, and would probably lead to some sort of confrontation with some undesirable or another that I would prefer to avoid.
Thoroughly enjoyable puns, by the way.
I just spent 30 minutes reading through ALL the comments made.
My Two Cents:
1. Meeshymeg, you made a lot of sense and I really enjoyed your input most of all. (anyone reading this should have a peek at it)
2. Jason, great article, people should be open-minded and thankful for such excellent entertainment on a weekly basis without having to PAY.
3. Huge Boobies should be called – “Hoobies”
hm, i recently heard of a case in ontario where a lady was walking around topless, got arrested and then fought it on the basis that it was sexual discrimination. And apparently she won. I dont know if this means girls in canada can walk around topless are not… and keep in mind i heard this story second hand, so I’m not 100% sure that this really happened. lol kinda useless post i guess…
I know I shouldn’t be surprised this is such a big deal in the US ( country where men can get a criminal record for sexual misconduct by going for a pee in the bushes) but I am anyway.
In Germany – and I guess in most of western Europe – there are no laws at all restricting toplessness nudeness. Most public pools and some beaches have house rules against it, but generally there is no rule against women going shopping topless.
Some legalese to follow… Bear in mind that I’m not a lawyer and this is the product of 30 minutes of internet research.
The only offense that could be construed would be “Annoyance of the public” (§118OwiG), which is not a crime but only an infraction. That would necessitate “grossly improper conduct”. I don’t think toplessnes would make a case for this in any court.
In case of full nudity there could be a case made for “Exhibitionistic behaviour” (§183 StGB). Interestingly the law states that “a MAN who harasses another person through exhibitionistic behaviour…” So women are actually getting away with this under german law. Women can’t be exhibitionists ;-)
Anyway this is an offense that requires someone feel harassed and to file a complaint. (That alone would ensure women get away with full nudity more than men.)
A somewhat special case would be Exhibitionism in front of children which could be construed as sexual abuse. I don’t feel like doing research in that direction right now.
In general, though, for the fact of “exhibitionism”, a sexual motivation is necessary, so simple nudity would probably not be much of a case in front of a court.
“Erregung öffentlichen Ärgernisses” (§183a StGB) – what is commonly known as “Indecent behaviour” in english) – requires “to publicly conduct sexual acts” and yes, you can be fined or even go to jail for that.
So after all’s said and done there are no laws against public nudity in Germany and to my knowledge there haven’t been for at least two decades. Now do I see topless women walk through the precinct regularly? No. In some bigger parks you see a few topless sunbathers in the summer but that’s about it. Sorry to burst your bubble ;-)
Why is it the feminists always cry foul over things like this, but keep silent when they have an advantage over men? I don’t see any movements for the inclusion of women in military drafting during times of war.
Doubt anyone is going to read this now, but the fact that we see the breasts as a sexual attraction is a part of American society, not world wide. There are places in Africa where they are attracted to the opposite sex based on the size of their stretched earlobes.
Also, as far as breast sizes increasing over the years, I am fairly certain that there is some hormone in chicken that allows women to develop larger than had they not eaten it. It’s possible that in the mid 1800s people didn’t eat as much chicken as they do now, and/or they didn’t alter the chickens in any way back then.
Agrees…..Ive noticed a big difference in school kids today compared to just 25 years ago. (girls get all the luck)
I know this is an absolutely ancient article, but I’m going to chime in anyway.
150 years ago being sexually attracted to breasts was considered a fetish. It was thought of roughly the same way we think of foot fetishes today. Somehow over the last 150 years that fetish has become so widespread that it’s now considered normal in much of the 1st world. Personally I suspect Victorian morals are to blame….hide something and it becomes intriguing. But I don’t have any evidence to back up that suspicion. That being the case these theories that the human female breast evolved as an attractor for sex are almost certainly wrong.
Sometimes the men, and even other women including the inlaws like you for nothin’ better than that.I mean breast size. I had larger the breasts than my siter inlaws and my mother inlaw and they all remarked about it and told me they were glad that I was more bosomy than them.Cathy