# Why are women's chests sexualized but men's aren't?



## Elvish Lives (Nov 29, 2013)

isingthebodyelectric said:


> Resources? Lol. It's just body fat.


Without adequate food ('resources'), body fat and breast tissue diminish to nothing over time.


----------



## Draco Solaris (Apr 8, 2013)

It isn't really the boobs which are sexualized as much as the nipples. In most cases sideboob is perfectly acceptable while full-frontal nipple isn't. That's why pasties exist. So I'm guessing it's because of breastfeeding. Why that makes it taboo I don't know but society is fucked up.


----------



## Purrfessor (Jul 30, 2013)

I love not wearing a shirt. I don't do it for other people, I do it for myself. It's freeing. I would not want women to be forced to keep their shirts on because I would hate to be forced to keep my shirt on. By the way, my chest is very sexualized. And I don't get raped either. Let them be turned on by my chest; it doesn't bother me in the least because I'm free. I really doubt more women will get raped because they are showing their breasts.


----------



## Children Of The Bad Revolution (Oct 8, 2013)

Elvish Lives said:


> Without adequate food ('resources'), body fat and breast tissue diminish to nothing over time.


....

Honestly... A woman with AAA cup breasts are just as fertile as a woman with DD breasts. Unless either of them are infertile/have trouble conceiving for any number of reasons, there's no reason to suggest otherwise the size of one's breasts has anything to do with fertility.

What are men taught about breasts? It's shocking.



> So I'm guessing it's because of breastfeeding.


Breastfeeding is not sexual. Breasts are over-sexualized which leads to the ridiculous, unnecessary over-reaction to something completely natural. That says society over-sexualizes them and these replies lead me to believe men are generally ignorant about women's bodies.


----------



## Dragunov (Oct 2, 2013)

isingthebodyelectric said:


> ....
> 
> Honestly... A woman with AAA cup breasts are just as fertile as a woman with DD breasts. Unless either of them are infertile/have trouble conceiving for any number of reasons, there's no reason to suggest otherwise the size of one's breasts has anything to do with fertility.
> 
> What are men taught about breasts? It's shocking.


They give the appearance of being more fertile, a biological trait males are attracted to. Same as wide hips.


----------



## Elvish Lives (Nov 29, 2013)

isingthebodyelectric said:


> ....
> 
> Honestly... A woman with AAA cup breasts are just as fertile as a woman with DD breasts. Unless either of them are infertile/have trouble conceiving for any number of reasons, there's no reason to suggest otherwise the size of one's breasts has anything to do with fertility.
> 
> What are men taught about breasts? It's shocking.


An emaciated body is an indicator of low caloric intake. Reproduction is resource-intensive, thus larger bodies signal greater reproductive fitness. Evolutionary bio 101.


----------



## Children Of The Bad Revolution (Oct 8, 2013)

Dragunov said:


> They give the appearance of being more fertile, a biological trait males are attracted to. Same as wide hips.


Sigh. Okay then.


----------



## Draco Solaris (Apr 8, 2013)

Stelliferous said:


> I really doubt more women will get raped because they are showing their breasts.


Rapists don't rape because somebody is dressed a particular way, they rape because they want to rape. Any claims of "she was asking for it" or the like are just an attempt to justify their actions after the fact. However, if it was socially acceptable to reveal female nipples in public, as it would eventually become, that would no longer be even an unreasonable excuse. For whatever that's worth.


----------



## Children Of The Bad Revolution (Oct 8, 2013)

Elvish Lives said:


> An emaciated body is an indicator of low caloric intake. Reproduction is resource-intensive, thus larger bodies signal greater reproductive fitness. Evolutionary bio 101.


Not all women with AA/AAA cup breasts are emaciated - that's an insulting thing to say. Low calorie intake? Women have different body shapes and compositions. Some women can eat and eat and not gain any weight - it's just how they are.

jfc so much ignorance. I can't actually take it. I'm out.


----------



## Elvish Lives (Nov 29, 2013)

isingthebodyelectric said:


> Not all women with AA/AAA cup breasts are emaciated - that's an insulting thing to say. Low calorie intake? Women have different body shapes and compositions.
> 
> jfc so much ignorance. I can't actually take it. I'm out.


Good idea.


----------



## Purrfessor (Jul 30, 2013)

Nezaros said:


> Rapists don't rape because somebody is dressed a particular way, they rape because they want to rape. Any claims of "she was asking for it" or the like are just an attempt to justify their actions after the fact. However, if it was socially acceptable to reveal female nipples in public, as it would eventually become, that would no longer be even an unreasonable excuse. For whatever that's worth.


Yes but I am concerned with the initial change. The majority would of course have to adapt. For a great while many young boys who didn't grow up with the openness would get incredible boners.


----------



## FePa (Feb 13, 2014)

Male chest is as attractive as female's to those who are attracted to that gender
The difference is that we can still admire, look and lust for their chest while dressed, while men need the actual visual of bare breasts.

Why men are "allowed" by society to show off their chests is basic animal behavior as male - display, female - choose 

I personally don't like when men think it's ok to go around shirtless in regular situations - let's say, in the middle of the city in a warm day while women are not because we are "afraid" of the consequences...
but I, unfortunately, cannot change everybody's opinion and actions


----------



## Falling Leaves (Aug 18, 2011)

In evolutionary terms, large breasts developed as a means to attract males - unlike baboons and other primates, we procreate face-to-face, so it's more beneficial to have a sexual characteristic on the front than on the back. If you had breast tissue on your chest, you were more likely to reproduce, ergo, those genes got passed forwards. If you think of it that way, it makes perfect sense.

I'm not a male or gay, but I imagine the sexual attraction men feel towards breasts is different to how they feel about ankles (and other parts women have historically been forced to cover up) - it's inherent, rather than being artificially enhanced through mystery. That said, in situations where women are allowed to expose themselves, it's not like men go absolutely mental at the sight of breasts and revert to caveman-want-sex mode, so yeah, I agree there is an element of fetishizing breasts through covering them up. 

In my experience, men stare at your breasts regardless of whether you have them covered or leave them out, so I don't think it actually makes any difference. If a woman wishes to go topless, I think she should; if we allowed it, it wouldn't be long before breasts became 'normalized' and nobody gave them a second thought.


----------



## Madam (Apr 1, 2012)

...because there is nothing particularly attractive about male chest? Although I may be biased because I'm gay. Male chest is pretty much as male back or stomach - flat (or not, if he's chubby), possibly hairy, uhm... that's it really. It's not a big deal. Whereas female breasts are different than the rest of our or anyone else's body parts, it's a special thing. They're also soft and pretty (mostly) and all that. 

I don't think covering up breasts is a matter of sexualization, prohibiton and so on. It's simply that life is more comfortable if breasts are tightly fixed to your body and don't bounce around. Men wouldn't walk around without pants on, even if it was socially acceptable, because having body parts uncontrollably dangle around is rather uncomfortable. It's the same for women. Pointing out that men in gyms have more freedom to exercise topless is a bad misunderstanding.


----------



## Aya the Abysswalker (Mar 23, 2012)

Women's chests are sexualized, they just remain hidden in clothing for most of the time.

Male chests are sexualized. Have you seen a romantic movie aimed at women were the guy is drop dead handsome and starts taking off his shirt in slow motion? That's sexualization.


----------



## beth x (Mar 4, 2010)

The thing that fascinates me is that larger breasted women tend to have more trouble breastfeeding (mastitis) than smaller breasted women, yet a lot of men seem drawn towards the larger bewbs. It can't be in the biological sense that more bewbage is more sustenance for child rearing....unless of course if you go back to times when food was more scarce. Abundant women (not just their boobs) were attractive for the possibility of mating.

I don't really know if you can really get away from the attraction (or sexualisation) to them. I've talked to men I know about the boob attraction and they really don't give me any good answers. They just say things like, 'ummmm but they're boobs'. Nothing really rational about them. This is coming from rational men too. I don't think they get it, I certainly don't get it either.


----------



## Purrfessor (Jul 30, 2013)

Idk I don't find boobs to be sexy. They're just kind of there. Then again I'm not the straightest guy ever... so Idk.


----------



## FePa (Feb 13, 2014)

bethdeth said:


> The thing that fascinates me is that larger breasted women tend to have more trouble breastfeeding (mastitis) than smaller breasted women, yet a lot of men seem drawn towards the larger bewbs. It can't be in the biological sense that more bewbage is more sustenance for child rearing....unless of course if you go back to times when food was more scarce. Abundant women (not just their boobs) were attractive for the possibility of mating.
> 
> I don't really know if you can really get away from the attraction (or sexualisation) to them. I've talked to men I know about the boob attraction and they really don't give me any good answers. They just say things like, 'ummmm but they're boobs'. Nothing really rational about them. This is coming from rational men too. I don't think they get it, I certainly don't get it either.


That's right, I've always wondered if they couldn't see and instead of a boob they were given a little bit of the love handld fatty, rounded up, hahaha if they would notice the difference


----------



## Elvish Lives (Nov 29, 2013)

Stelliferous said:


> Idk I don't find boobs to be sexy. They're just kind of there. Then again I'm not the straightest guy ever... so Idk.


Clearly.


----------



## Purrfessor (Jul 30, 2013)

Elvish Lives said:


> Clearly.


Okay there's a problem with this. Sexual preference is never clear, not even to the individual. From your outside standpoint you should NOT judge somebody's orientation. If you do, well, it usually is because you're either a.) ignorant, or b.) mindless. I don't know why you judge me so, but however you came to the conclusion - it's absurd.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

Elvish Lives said:


> An emaciated body is an indicator of low caloric intake. Reproduction is resource-intensive, thus larger bodies signal greater reproductive fitness. Evolutionary bio 101.


What Is It About Men and Breast Size? | Psychology Today

Interesting study that found men from lower socioeconomic backgrounds prefer larger breasts. The higher the socioeconomic background, the lower they rated large breasts, preferring smaller breasts. Poor men prefer larger breasts. I suppose they are looking for significant fat stores? Because in terms of ability to breastfeed, breast size makes zero difference. But fat stores certainly assist ability to survive when your resources are insecure.


Does Breast Size Really Matter? - Intelihealth
*Alice Y. Chang M.D.*  
*Harvard Medical School*_Breast size does not influence how much breast milk you can or will produce. Because breast size depends more on the amount of supporting fibrous and fatty tissue than the amount of milk glands, women with larger breasts do not necessarily produce more breast milk. Breast milk production is stimulated hormonally and increases with demand. Increasing the frequency of breastfeeding sessions with a baby increases the milk supply._


----------



## Purrfessor (Jul 30, 2013)

monemi said:


> What Is It About Men and Breast Size? | Psychology Today
> 
> Interesting study that found men from lower socioeconomic backgrounds prefer larger breasts. The higher the socioeconomic background, the lower they rated large breasts, preferring smaller breasts. Poor men prefer larger breasts. I suppose they are looking for significant fat stores? Because in terms of ability to breastfeed, breast size makes zero difference. But fat stores certainly assist ability to survive when your resources are insecure.


Hmm that is interesting. But I am poor and prefer smaller breasts. Maybe this is due to me actually believing I'm better than I really am... or my lack of care for financial security. It's emotional security I focus on more.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

Stelliferous said:


> Hmm that is interesting. But I am poor and prefer smaller breasts. Maybe this is due to me actually believing I'm better than I really am... or my lack of care for financial security. It's emotional security I focus on more.


It's just statistics. Not everyone is going to fit the statistics but that doesn't change the statistical average.


----------



## Elvish Lives (Nov 29, 2013)

monemi said:


> What Is It About Men and Breast Size? | Psychology Today
> 
> Interesting study that found men from lower socioeconomic backgrounds prefer larger breasts. The higher the socioeconomic background, the lower they rated large breasts, preferring smaller breasts. Poor men prefer larger breasts. I suppose they are looking for significant fat stores? Because in terms of ability to breastfeed, breast size makes zero difference. But fat stores certainly assist ability to survive when your resources are insecure.
> 
> ...



The development of secondary sexual characteristics (e.g. breasts) is dependent upon sex steroid hormone production, and the production of sex steroid hormones is closely tied to nutritional status. Absolute breast size, though, has nothing to do with the functionality of the mammary glands. It's only a very general marker of health and reproductive fitness. But just like secondary sexual characteristics in men (e.g. pronounced jaw lines, deep voices), breasts have become a sexual attractant to the opposite gender.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

isingthebodyelectric said:


> Their primary and only biological function is to feed baby infants. Men just think the latter part.


This is true. The breast fetish is actually a learned fetish. 

In tribes where women run around bare chested all the time, its just a normal body part and it doesn't create arousal in the men. 

In our culture, the breast has been mystified. 

Hell, even a flash of a naughty ankle in victorian times could get a gent excited, and these days we surely know theres nothing inherently sexual about an ankle.


----------



## Elvish Lives (Nov 29, 2013)

Stelliferous said:


> Okay there's a problem with this. Sexual preference is never clear, not even to the individual. From your outside standpoint you should NOT judge somebody's orientation. If you do, well, it usually is because you're either a.) ignorant, or b.) mindless. I don't know why you judge me so, but however you came to the conclusion - it's absurd.


I'm not judging your sexual orientation at all. I don't judge anyone's sexual orientation, whether heterosexual, bi, or LBGT.

You wrote that you found breasts to be sexually unexciting, which made me initially think you were going to try to make an argument that sexual arousal over breasts is some ridiculous trap for fools. Then you wrote that you aren't necessarily that attracted to women specifically, which made your original statement make more sense to me. In other words, I think most men are attracted to female breasts, even men like me who aren't "breast men." Your overall lack of attraction to breasts is a function of your relative lack of attraction to women, not the inherent dullness of breasts.


----------



## Elvish Lives (Nov 29, 2013)

Promethea said:


> This is true. The breast fetish is actually a learned fetish.
> 
> In tribes where women run around bare chested all the time, its just a normal body part and it doesn't create arousal in the men.
> 
> ...


Breasts may not hold the same taboo in neolithic New Guinean societies as they do in the West, but that doesn't mean that they aren't considered an important and attractive sexual feature by men in those societies. A woman's hair isn't a sexual taboo in North America at all, but it's still considered a prime marker of sexual attraction.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

Elvish Lives said:


> Breasts may not hold the same taboo in neolithic New Guinean societies as they do in the West, but that doesn't mean that they aren't considered an important and attractive sexual feature by men in those societies. A woman's hair isn't a sexual taboo in North America at all, but it's still considered a prime marker of sexual attraction.


Men aren’t hard wired to find breasts attractive?

No.

And how do we know this?

The same way we discover that many things aren’t biologically-based. By learning about other cultures. And the breast fetish does not exist in them all.

Men and women both resist the claim until they’re reminded of tribal societies. We’ve all seen pictures from National Geographic. And we all know that among tribal people women’s breasts are no big deal.

By the mid-1980s, topless beaches and overexposure to nudity in advertising had a similar effect in Europe. Topless women were plastered all over billboards, magazine and television advertisements because both men and women looked. But by the mid-eighties, no one paid much attention anymore. It was all so blasé. European men studying in the U.S. asked why American men were so obsessed with nudity. What’s the big deal, they wondered.

Even men who are overexposed to porn can lose interest, according to Pamela Paul, who has studied porn’s effect on male sexual arousal. As one man put it,

At first, I was happy just to see a naked woman. But as time has gone on I’ve grown more accustomed to such things.

Now he seeks more extreme stuff.

Meanwhile, studies show that even women learn the breast fetish, with images of a nude woman creating greater blood flow to the vaginal area than images of a nude man. More on that later.

How odd. Breasts turn on Western women, but not tribal men? And hetero women get more aroused by a nude woman than by a nude man?

Fetishes are created by selectively hiding and revealing — making that which is hidden enticing. Both men and women become intrigued. (Women do experience all this a bit differently from men, which I’ll discuss later.)

Meanwhile, a student of mine lived in Iran after the Islamic revolution when women strictly covered themselves except for the face. She told me that every now and again she would pull her veil back a little and watch the men go wild over her “hair cleavage.”

In America around the turn of the last century even seeing an ankle was sexy because they were always covered. In some old family photos one of my grandmothers is pulling her skirt up above her ankle to look scandalously sexy. I couldn’t even comprehend what she was doing until someone explained.

Covering is captivating. If you see the same thing all the time, it’s no big deal.

We always hear that men are visual. This isn’t based in biology. Men learn to become visual, while hetero women are left with nothing acceptable to look at. Culturally, we don’t sexualize the male body.

The fetish feels real enough, but then, much of what is learned feels biological.


Men Arenâ€™t Hard Wired To Find Breasts Attractive | BroadBlogs


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

Reason why men's chests aren't sexualized is because they shave them. It's that simple.


----------



## Purrfessor (Jul 30, 2013)

Elvish Lives said:


> I'm not judging your sexual orientation at all. I don't judge anyone's sexual orientation, whether heterosexual, bi, or LBGT.
> 
> You wrote that you found breasts to be sexually unexciting, which made me initially think you were going to try to make an argument that sexual arousal over breasts is some ridiculous trap for fools. Then you wrote that you aren't necessarily that attracted to women specifically, which made your original statement make more sense to me. In other words, I think most men are attracted to female breasts, even men like me who aren't "breast men." Your overall lack of attraction to breasts is a function of your relative lack of attraction to women, not the inherent dullness of breasts.


Try not to be so vague next time. However I'm not sure if I agree with your last statement.


----------



## Elvish Lives (Nov 29, 2013)

NK said:


> Reason why men's chests aren't sexualized is because they shave them. It's that simple.


Depends on whom you ask ;-)


----------



## Purrfessor (Jul 30, 2013)

You're welcome.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

Stelliferous said:


> Try not to be so vague next time. However I'm not sure if I agree with your last statement.


I personally don't get the same impression. I mean ok, if we are talking about horny teenagers who are going to get aroused by absolutely anything, thats one thing - and I do think theres a lot of that on this site.

As far as people who are more mature in their own sexuality - I have personally known men who weren't breast men, some more apathetic than others to breasts. 

Examples:

- "As long as theres a nipple."
- "Not my thing."
- "Its a naked person." 
- "After working at the video store, a naked woman no matter how hot could stand in front of me and I don't have a reaction." 

And yeah, sure, there are some who are the opposite. I have dealt with a ton of those personally, but even I can recognize the fact that they don't speak for everyone, because I have actually bothered to listen to both sides. 

I think the mere fact that visual preferences differ so much from person to person proves its more sociological instead of biological, anyway.

Beauty Around the World: A Sociological Look at Beauty

Here, guys from different cultures disagree on what a nice breast even looks like:
Men's preferences for women's breast morpholo... [Arch Sex Behav. 2011] - PubMed - NCBI


----------



## Children Of The Bad Revolution (Oct 8, 2013)

Elvish Lives said:


> Clearly.


Ugh that was just rude and unnecessary. God forbid a straight man isn't boob obsessed otherwise he's gay. Men really don't help themselves, do they?


----------



## Elvish Lives (Nov 29, 2013)

Promethea said:


> Men aren’t hard wired to find breasts attractive?
> 
> No.
> 
> ...


Hiding body parts makes the reveal more exciting, clearly, and it also contributes to the genesis of social taboo. However, that doesn't mean that bodies aren't still evaluated by the opposite gender in cultures where they've been demystified.

In Brazil, for example, people are very open about sexuality and show off their bodies to a degree that would be illegal in the United States. Boobs, butts, and all the other giggle-inducing body parts are openly displayed without self-consciousness or sense of taboo. Even so, the opposite sex still evaluates those bodies for markers of attraction. Breasts, hip-to-waist ratio, and overall fitness in women are all still considered important markers of attraction in women. They may not fetishize breasts the way we do in North America, but it doesn't mean they aren't keeping score. In fact, they do it more so, if anything.


----------



## Elvish Lives (Nov 29, 2013)

isingthebodyelectric said:


> Ugh that was just rude and unnecessary. God forbid a straight man isn't boob obsessed otherwise he's gay. Men really don't help themselves, do they?


Half of what you posted in this thread was rude and unnecessary, but I gave you the benefit of the doubt.


----------



## Children Of The Bad Revolution (Oct 8, 2013)

Elvish Lives said:


> Half of what you posted in this thread was rude and unnecessary, but I gave you the benefit of the doubt.


I'd love to know how I've been rude to you. I really would.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

Elvish Lives said:


> Hiding body parts makes the reveal more exciting, clearly, and it also contributes to the genesis of social taboo. However, that doesn't mean that bodies aren't still evaluated by the opposite gender in cultures where they've been demystified.
> 
> In Brazil, for example, people are very open about sexuality and show off their bodies to a degree that would be illegal in the United States. Boobs, butts, and all the other giggle-inducing body parts are openly displayed without self-consciousness or sense of taboo. Even so, the opposite sex still evaluates those bodies for markers of attraction. Breasts, hip-to-waist ratio, and overall fitness in women are all still considered important markers of attraction in women. They may not fetishize breasts the way we do in North America, but it doesn't mean they aren't keeping score. In fact, they do it more so, if anything.


If you are trying to claim now, that the waist to hip ratio is another inherent biological preference, well:

Forcefeeding in Mauritania - West Africa Fat Camp - Marie Claire

That one also seems to be again, cultural.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

isingthebodyelectric said:


> Ugh that was just rude and unnecessary. God forbid a straight man isn't boob obsessed otherwise he's gay. Men really don't help themselves, do they?


I think there is a huge spectrum ranging from body fetish to demisexual, with many shades of grey in-between the two. Some people just care way more about bodies, visually than others. Those people have a very hard time believing that there are many other things tied into attraction, like I saw in another thread where two young guys were saying that objectification is all there is to sexual attraction.


----------



## athenian200 (Oct 13, 2008)

Men's chests are sexualized to a degree. The excuse I usually hear is that women have more self-control and can handle seeing men's chests, while men would go around with their mouth hanging open and a "tent" in their pants all the time if they had to see women's breasts.

I'm not sure if that's true, but I'm sure it's widely believed by those who support the status quo.


----------



## Chest (Apr 14, 2014)

because mommy issues in modern culture?


----------



## xisnotx (Mar 20, 2014)

emberfly said:


> In function, neither is sexual.


False.

Women's breasts have a function very related to sex. Ie, once you have a kid, the kid feeds from the boobies. 

That's the main reason...it's because men don't have a sexualized function for their chests, while women do. A woman with "good breasts" (what they think are..ie big, which is, ironically wrong..) will be selected for more often by men, will have more children, will pass on her "good breast" genes. 

This is like...biology 101.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

xisnotx said:


> False.
> 
> Women's breasts have a function very related to sex. Ie, once you have a kid, the kid feeds from the boobies.
> 
> ...


You know, I just posted a study a few posts back showing how men from different cultures will disagree on what a "good" breast even is.

I'm about to post something that I don't actually agree with; its just more bad pseudo-science, but it completely disagrees with _your_ attempt at pseudo-science:



> The researchers say the hormone estradiol is an indicator of a woman’s fertility. The higher levels of estradiol produced by the condition of a woman’s reproductive system are getting support to produce offspring.
> He said that women who produce large amounts of estradiol tend to have a body that is called type ‘Barbie-shaped’. This type is characterized by a body like an hourglass shape, which is grooved with a slim waist and hip bones and large breasts.
> 
> With a shape like that, a woman on average had higher levels of estradiol 30 percent more than round-bodied women and scrawny. Excellence is giving the chance of pregnancy three times greater in women curvy bodied.


So this is saying that curvy women with large breasts are more fertile. In reality, as long as a woman isn't so under/or/over-weight that her fertility declines, shes very fertile. Its not really more complicated. There are a lot of "unattractive" (by whatever your cultural standards) women who have a lot of babies. 

So basically the name of the game is pick which bad science justifies your own opinion. If a guy has a specific body fetish for something, hes going to claim that science says somewhere that body type is the most fertile. Whats actually going on, is a combination of biology -and- socialization, combined with our own personal and subjective life experiences shape what we find appealing.


----------



## chimeric (Oct 15, 2011)

athenian200 said:


> Men's chests are sexualized to a degree. The excuse I usually hear is that women have more self-control and can handle seeing men's chests, while men would go around with their mouth hanging open and a "tent" in their pants all the time if they had to see women's breasts.
> 
> I'm not sure if that's true, but I'm sure it's widely believed by those who support the status quo.


Eh. Men may not have much control over their erections, but they do have control over whether they act disrespectfully. I strongly believe men have just as much control over disrespectful behavior as women do.

The amount women are covered up in a society doesn't correlate with the amount women are respected anyway.

So yep. Women's chests needing to be covered when men's aren't is BS, simply put.


----------



## Children Of The Bad Revolution (Oct 8, 2013)

Lol stop saying it's 'biology 101'. It's not. Stahp.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

chimeric said:


> Eh. Men may not have much control over their erections, but they do have control over whether they act disrespectfully. I strongly believe men have just as much control over disrespectful behavior as women do.
> 
> The amount women are covered up in a society doesn't correlate with the amount women are respected anyway.
> 
> So yep. Women's chests needing to be covered when men's aren't is BS, simply put.


From what I can tell, once they have been demystified in a culture, people can stop acting so immature about them, like in the article I posted where it talked about tribes-people where women go topless, and some european cultures that have nudity liberally in advertising. See a topless woman, and nbd. I doubt all those men are walking around with priapism or those would be very unproductive cultures.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

isingthebodyelectric said:


> Lol stop saying it's 'biology 101'. It's not. Stahp.


Obvious "science trolling."


----------



## xisnotx (Mar 20, 2014)

Promethea said:


> You know, I just posted a study a few posts back showing how men from different cultures will disagree on what a "good" breast even is.


If we are in agreement that it is, in part, a biologically driven force due to the function of a woman's breasts...then we are in agreement.


----------



## Elvish Lives (Nov 29, 2013)

Promethea said:


> If you are trying to claim now, that the waist to hip ratio is another inherent biological preference, well:
> 
> Forcefeeding in Mauritania - West Africa Fat Camp - Marie Claire
> 
> That one also seems to be again, cultural.


Again, that's debatable.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

xisnotx said:


> If we are in agreement that it is, in part, a biologically driven force due to the function of a woman's breasts...then we are in agreement.


I am certainly willing to make a claim about biology's involvement: it often (and not always) makes people attracted to the opposite sex.

When we get into more specific preferences however, you will find the socialization layer. (I posted several examples in this thread, of how it varies from culture to culture, drastically in many cases.)

And even more specifically, our more individual fetishes often come from childhood trauma. 

A lot of it also comes from personal experience other than trauma. I have listened to many guy's stories about how they found the root of their preference linked to childhood experience. One of them saw a sexualized female body, nude for the first time, in a movie that was kind of like a graphic comic book style of the 80s, where the women were very built, with very large breasts (typical 80s comic book woman with huuuge bewbz). So, it was a sexualized image, sexually demystified to him for the first time, and the impact lasted for a lifetime. Though he was able to appreciate other body types, women fitting that general type were his primary preference. I have heard many similar stories. Now, It would be easy for this guy to use the copypasta pseudo-science I shared to try to support his preference as "*the one correct preference*" but he was self-aware enough to link it back to his childhood experience.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

Elvish Lives said:


> Again, that's debatable.


How? 

Are you saying that preference doesn't vary from culture to culture -- I even posted a study showing how men from different cultures can't agree on what a breast should look like. 

If you ask every man in the world what his list of preferences are, you are going to get very different answers (most will be culturally influenced). Are most of them wrong, and only your set of preferences is the one "correct" list? 

Western culture is very narcissistic when it comes to this, I find, thinking that it has the most advanced, only correct way of looking at things.


----------



## Elvish Lives (Nov 29, 2013)

isingthebodyelectric said:


> I'd love to know how I've been rude to you. I really would.


Go back and re-read your posts. Remarks like "What are men taught about breasts? It's shocking." carry a _slight _tinge of condescension.


----------



## Children Of The Bad Revolution (Oct 8, 2013)

I'm genuinely shocked at the general ignorance from men about women's bodies, yes. Didn't mention you in specific though.


----------



## Elvish Lives (Nov 29, 2013)

Promethea said:


> How?
> 
> Are you saying that preference doesn't vary from culture to culture -- I even posted a study showing how men from different cultures can't agree on what a breast should look like.
> 
> ...


I don't think the particular 'look' of the breast is important so much as the fact that they are there. Secondary sexual characteristics are all very general in their appeal, which is why men who don't exactly resemble the Marlboro Man mate all the time. No two people will have the same set of preferences, yet there are patterns to those preferences. Larger men with more muscle mass and more masculine secondary sexual characteristics will _generally _be more preferable to women than those men who lack these features. The analogous statement applies for women.


----------



## Elvish Lives (Nov 29, 2013)

isingthebodyelectric said:


> I'm genuinely shocked at the general ignorance from men about women's bodies, yes. Didn't mention you in specific though.


It's still a condescending remark that is insulting to men and grossly underestimates our collective level of education.


----------



## Children Of The Bad Revolution (Oct 8, 2013)

Elvish Lives said:


> It's still a condescending remark that is insulting to men and grossly underestimates our collective level of education.


But underestimating a woman's ability to have children based on the size of her breasts is okay? And calling women who are petite 'emaciated' is okay?


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

Elvish Lives said:


> I don't think the particular 'look' of the breast is important so much as the fact that they are there. Secondary sexual characteristics are all very general in their appeal, which is why men who don't exactly resemble the Marlboro Man mate all the time. No two people will have the same set of preferences, yet there are patterns to those preferences. Larger men with more muscle mass and more masculine secondary sexual characteristics will _generally _be more preferable to women than those men who lack these features. The analogous statement applies for women.


There is some general attraction, biology driven, sure, like I said to the other poster -- just _way_ more general than many people believe.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

Promethea said:


> This is true. The breast fetish is actually a learned fetish.
> 
> In tribes where women run around bare chested all the time, its just a normal body part and it doesn't create arousal in the men.
> 
> ...


A tribeswoman's breast doesn't arouse me either. Guess why?

*Its not the body part itself, it is the shape for some reason.* 


> According to evolutionary approaches, males are naturally attracted to mates in order to maximize the number of offspring produced. The focus is on women’s youth, health, and fertility as shown by physical features. Because body type is a reliable indicator of health and fertility, men are more attracted to women with a lower waist-to-hip (WHR) ratio and an average body mass index (BMI), neither thin nor plump, because these are associated with youth and sexual maturity.
> 
> During puberty, females produce more estrogen which creates a gynoid body type (fat is deposited on hips, buttocks, and breasts, which creates a smaller-appearing waist relative to the hips). Moreover, despite the common belief that larger breasts are more attractive, it is really the size of the breasts in proportion to the hips, creating the classic “hourglass” figure.


Bigger is not better and breasts on their own mean nothing. I can look at a giant a tit for days and nothing would happen. Imo its the same when it comes to men. The overall body shape counts.

So no, supermodel thin is not attractive for example and I wish women would just stop the dieting crap & fretting over kilograms :\...it aggravates me, because they don't get it and they follow those bs beauty magazines. Its probably the same when it comes to guys. There is a certain middle ground that is sexually attractive, too much to the skinny side or too much to the musclebound or fat side and its just not.

*Healthy & in shape is attractive, just like sane, confident and intelligent is attractive.*


----------



## Aya the Abysswalker (Mar 23, 2012)

Promethea said:


> From what I can tell, once they have been demystified in a culture, people can stop acting so immature about them, like in the article I posted where it talked about tribes-people where women go topless, and some european cultures that have nudity liberally in advertising. See a topless woman, and nbd. I doubt all those men are walking around with priapism or those would be very unproductive cultures.


This.

If we didn't care so much, we wouldn't making a fuss over breasts right now.


----------



## Elvish Lives (Nov 29, 2013)

Promethea said:


> There is some general attraction, biology driven, sure, like I said to the other poster -- just _way_ more general than many people believe.


Oh, I agree that these are very general patterns of attraction, which is something I posted several pages ago. There are no hard and fast rules when it comes to attraction. Believe it or not, men aren't all attracted to the same 10 supermodels to the exclusion of all other women. I myself am most attracted to athletic women, and my girlfriend lifts weights religiously. Some men find women with _any _amount of visible muscle development to be repugnant, which I think is crazy.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

I'm glad I'm not the only one who isn't bothered by nudity. I've gotten some funny looks at the gym. While they can fuck around with their towels getting ready, I'm going to get in and get out quickly. I wear little bikini's at the beach, I have little breasts and don't always wear a bra because of it. I look pretty good naked aside from a few scars. I don't think I have anything to be ashamed of.


----------



## EccentricSiren (Sep 3, 2013)

Grandmaster Yoda said:


> I believe that I read somewhere when society covers up body parts, those parts become more mysterious and thus attractive. Just an idea, I can't back it up. I think a lot of guys would beg to see a woman take her top off, but for me it's really eh..I'd rather not see whether it's sexual or not. Just like I don't really want to see some guy's buttocks. Not doesn't justify telling them what and what not to cover up though.


I think you're onto something here. In some cultures, all the women go topless. I can't say how people in those cultures view breasts, but I can say it would make sense that to them, seeing a bare breast wouldn't be scandalous. It also kind of makes me wonder about cultures where ankles and shoulders have to be covered. Do people feel really sexually aroused when they see bare shoulders, or do they just consider it scandalous when someone walks around when they're uncovered?


----------



## Emerald Legend (Jul 13, 2010)

Grandmaster Yoda said:


> I believe that I read somewhere when society covers up body parts, those parts become more mysterious and thus attractive. Just an idea, I can't back it up. I think a lot of guys would beg to see a woman take her top off, but for me it's really eh..I'd rather not see whether it's sexual or not. Just like I don't really want to see some guy's buttocks. Not doesn't justify telling them what and what not to cover up though.


I think you're on to something. When a woman goes topless the mystery is gone and I'm like she looked better with some clothes on. I was wondering about her boobs, but have no attraction for them now that they're out.


----------



## Purrfessor (Jul 30, 2013)

Yeah seriously. Clothes make you MORE sexy.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

Stelliferous said:


> Yeah seriously. Clothes make you MORE sexy.


To hell with that string bikini come June, bring on the burqa!


----------



## Purrfessor (Jul 30, 2013)

monemi said:


> To hell with that string bikini come June, bring on the burqa!


An exaggeration of what I meant.. but touche.


----------



## wyldstyle (Feb 21, 2014)

If you look anthropologically at societies where breastfeeding is the norm, where children are appropriately nursed to 3 or 4 and even beyond, the breasts are not sexualized. 

And don't think this is so far ago either...backs in the 1900s I read 90% of mothers nursed past 2.

What annoys me a bit is how things are so warped, I even saw a young girl once criticizing her own boibs for not being 'perky' and full enough. This is like a normal, healthy, young woman. It is like there are generations of men expecting them to look like round globes on a chest.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

wyldstyle said:


> If you look anthropologically at societies where breastfeeding is the norm, where children are appropriately nursed to 3 or 4 and even beyond, the breasts are not sexualized.
> 
> And don't think this is so far ago either...backs in the 1900s I read 90% of mothers nursed past 2.
> 
> What annoys me a bit is how things are so warped, I even saw a young girl once criticizing her own boibs for not being 'perky' and full enough. This is like a normal, healthy, young woman. It is like there are generations of men expecting them to look like round globes on a chest.


My oldest child's doctor pointed me to the WHO recommendation of breastfeeding 2 or more years and recommended breastfeeding as long as my daughter wanted to. The Canadian pediatric society had the same recommendations. It was a surprised, given I had planned on breastfeeding 3-6 months. I got fed up around her first birthday and started weaning. She hadn't shown any signs of slowing down even though she had been taking solids since six months. My second child was preemie, never did get the hang of breastfeeding. I exclusively pumped for 12 months and at that point was so sick of that freaking pump I took a rubber mallet to it. It was a well made machine but I lost my shit. My third child, I relaxed a bit but by 18 months I was done, done, done! I've never managed to go the child led weaning route. It's really, really hard! How on earth did they do it for so many generations? 

I haven't found breastfeeding had a negative impact on my breasts. They grew about half a cupsize and then shrunk slowly back down. I think women who don't maintain their upper body strength are the ones complaining about how breastfeeding 'ruined' their breasts. Push-ups. Do them. Women worry too much about losing the weight post-partum. Pregnancy is like high altitude training. Post-partum is like returning to sea level, you can really punch it once you've given a little time for recovery.


----------



## wyldstyle (Feb 21, 2014)

monemi said:


> I haven't found breastfeeding had a negative impact on my breasts. They grew about half a cupsize and then shrunk slowly back down. I think women who don't maintain their upper body strength are the ones complaining about how breastfeeding 'ruined' their breasts. Push-ups. Do them. Women worry too much about losing the weight post-partum. Pregnancy is like high altitude training. Post-partum is like returning to sea level, you can really punch it once you've given a little time for recovery.


Pregnancy/weight gain is what will do all the damage. And, if you have naturally large boobs, large natural boobs will be saggy.

I went between 24-30 months with mine. Near the end it is a really gradual weaning, they only nurse occasionally then you just realize, oh, they didn't ask to nusrse in a few days...


----------



## devoid (Jan 3, 2011)

Your argument is invalid.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

wyldstyle said:


> I went between 24-30 months with mine. Near the end it is a really gradual weaning, they only nurse occasionally then you just realize, oh, they didn't ask to nusrse in a few days...


I found once I got to the one year mark, I was just feeling so intruded on. I think I'm a pretty cuddly person. But there's only so much touching I can take. Sort of like when I stayed with my aunt and uncle as a kid and my aunt would constantly be fixing my hair. It really got on my nerves. I started to duck and swerve whenever I passed within arms reach of her. 

You didn't find yourself getting aggravated nursing that long?


----------



## wyldstyle (Feb 21, 2014)

I get what you are trying to say Devoid, but all of them could go shirtless outdoors and not be considered legally indecent.


----------



## wyldstyle (Feb 21, 2014)

monemi said:


> I found once I got to the one year mark, I was just feeling so intruded on. I think I'm a pretty cuddly person. But there's only so much touching I can take. Sort of like when I stayed with my aunt and uncle as a kid and my aunt would constantly be fixing my hair. It really got on my nerves. I started to duck and swerve whenever I passed within arms reach of her.
> 
> You didn't find yourself getting aggravated nursing that long?


No I didn't get aggravated...the only thing that sucked was nursing while pregnant. It feels icky to me.

What you experienced is not uncommon though! Some women get that touched out feeling. I have never had that happen.


----------



## Elvish Lives (Nov 29, 2013)

devoid said:


> Your argument is invalid.


I advanced this argument about 5 pages ago, but I didn't think to include the gay porn as evidentiary support. Good work.


----------



## devoid (Jan 3, 2011)

Elvish Lives said:


> I advanced this argument about 5 pages ago, but I didn't think to include the gay porn as evidentiary support. Good work.


Sweetie it's not just for gay men. x3


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Aya the Whaler said:


> Women's chests are sexualized, they just remain hidden in clothing for most of the time.
> 
> Male chests are sexualized. Have you seen a romantic movie aimed at women were the guy is drop dead handsome and starts taking off his shirt in slow motion? That's sexualization.


You mean like this scene?


----------



## Children Of The Bad Revolution (Oct 8, 2013)

Um yeah but female's are sexualized a whole lot more in comparison and a whole host of issues come into play because of this. Men aren't disrespected if they show their chests.


----------



## Aya the Abysswalker (Mar 23, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> You mean like this scene?


Yes. Also a lot of characters are made pretty so they can be sexualized. Why do you think half of the comic book heroes is pretty? Even Bruce Banner and Bigby Wolf.
Same goes for most actors and characters in anime and video games.
What do you think things like Diabolik Lovers and Free! are? They're nothing more than sexualization for females.
Tumblr is filled with that as well. A deep fascination with beautiful men kissing each other or self inserts where you love the pretty hero or fix the bad boy.
That's sexualization. Women hide themselves in shells while doing it and don't need an open shirt to do it, but why do you think tumblr is filled with girls fangirling about some model or rock star or character? Most of the times they're not even that good, they're just pretty.

(Nothing against you, just need to say this for the 100th time)


----------



## Aya the Abysswalker (Mar 23, 2012)

isingthebodyelectric said:


> Um yeah but female's are sexualized a whole lot more in comparison and a whole host of issues come into play because of this. Men aren't disrespected if they show their chests.


What's desrespectful about a woman showing her big boobs? What's desrespectful about a woman being sexy and dressing sexy?

If you make a big fuss about it, everyone will make a big fuss about it. Breasts are just breasts. Leave them be.
Most of the guy I know are not even into breasts, their main attraction point is asses and legs.


----------



## Elvish Lives (Nov 29, 2013)

devoid said:


> Sweetie it's not just for gay men. x3


You're either a diner waitress or my grandma because they're the only two people who've ever called me 'sweetie.'


----------

