Where did the idea of breasts being sexual even come from?

[Shinigami]

Posting this in Chit Chat because I don't see it as a very serious subject, although it could be linked to some (like feminism and patriarchal media, etc.).

What started the concept of breasts being considered sexual/erotic organs? Do you believe they are naturally considered erotic? Do you believe it is a result of being breast-fed as children? (I believe I've heard something about this relating to Freudian psychology)
Or do you think it is a result of something in our culture influencing our minds? If so, what do you believe caused it?
I've heard that breasts aren't considered erotic in parts of the world other than the US, but I don't know how true this is as I haven't looked much into it.

I apologize if this has been asked before, as well.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

One of my old teachers reckoned that women developed breasts through evolution, because humans a long time ago, always did it doggy style, so the man was used to seeing the buttocks. When other positions were adopted, and the buttocks were not visible, this caused males difficulty in achieving erections.

According to my teacher, breasts developed, and resembled buttocks, to help males achieve an erection and continue their evolutionary duties. He reckoned this was Darwinist fact.

Do I believe this? I'm not entirely sure.

[Shinigami]

That's interesting, but I thought our evolutionary ancestors had breasts...? I'm not sure, but don't most primates today have breasts? I'm, err, not very educated into this bit of biology.

[9]

this thread = lol

[Summerspeaker]

Well, human nipples tend to be quite sensitive and lots of fun. Studies suggest that a majority dude-identifying persons enjoy nipple stimulation despite the cultural narrative that only women like it.

The notion that female breasts (in the sense of larger fat deposits) developed just to make guys harder strikes me phallocentric thinking. Other theories suggest they evolved to give something for babies to hold on to. We don't really know.

[Os Cangaceiros]

this thread = lol

Agreed.

[Tavarisch_Mike]

One of my old teachers reckoned that women developed breasts through evolution, because humans a long time ago, always did it doggy style, so the man was used to seeing the buttocks. When other positions were adopted, and the buttocks were not visible, this caused males difficulty in achieving erections.

According to my teacher, breasts developed, and resembled buttocks, to help males achieve an erection and continue their evolutionary duties. He reckoned this was Darwinist fact.

Do I believe this? I'm not entirely sure.


Sorry but thats one of the moste bullshit things ive ever heard.

Ontopic, I think its a european/colder-climate-cultural thing, traditionaly women in the pacific islands, west africa and other tropical areas, tend to go topless out of obvious reasons (clothes in humid, warm climate is not so hygenic ore comfortable) therefor is an evryday sight and considered normal. On the other parts of the globe where you cant walk half naked all year around, clothes becomes natural and therefor you dont tend to see soo many breasts, ore other body parts for that matter, and when you do so its like a chock, this along with the patriachy, where women dont own theire own sexuality/body and religeous thoughts about "purity" tend to resulte in this particular body part to become highly sexualized.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Also, this


I've heard that breasts aren't considered erotic in parts of the world other than the US

is not true. I offer as exhibit A the many Italian horror and giallo films that I've seen.

[¿Que?]

We could also consider it in reference to other parts of the body considered erotic, such as the back, legs, thighs, mash potato, gravy, er...Well, never mind the last two. The point is that why do we consider anything erotic? The best way to find out would be to do a cross cultural longitudinal content analysis of erotica...

[Os Cangaceiros]

The best way to find out would be to do a cross cultural longitudinal content analysis of erotica...

Saying this on the Internet is like saying "Man, I'm really hungry. I wonder where I can get something to eat" while standing in the middle of the largest food court in the universe.

[¿Que?]

Saying this on the Internet is like saying "Man, I'm really hungry. I wonder where I can get something to eat" while standing in the middle of the largest food court in the universe.
Believe it or not, there's actually scholars who do this. I know of a particular one, in a particular southern university, who does content analysis on pornography (because to him, there is no distinction between erotica and pornography) and who uses it to justify claims that pornography is getting more violent and exploitative than it used to be and also to draw correlations between the use of pornography and acting out violence and degrading behavior against women in real life. But there are others who show that the use of certain pornographic materials (what they call erotica) has been correlated with less violence and misogynist behavior. From what I've seen, it seems people use research methods to more or less justify a certain position, and that subconsciously, they design studies so as to reinforce their basic point of view.

[9]

From what I've seen, it seems people use research methods to more or less justify a certain position, and that subconsciously, they design studies so as to reinforce their basic point of view.

imagine.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

My nippees hurt.

[ContrarianLemming]

Breasts developed because human babies have reletively flat faces, if the womens breat was flat then the baby would suffocate, large breasts mean the nose has room to breath, if you put the flat baby face against a flat breat then the babies nose is covered, the baby suffocates.

[ContrarianLemming]

clearly

[¿Que?]

imagine.
Imagine no possessions...

[Magón]

In my World Sociology Class, we were actually talking about attraction between male and females of different regions/countries around the world. Apparently in Africa, there's a couple of tribes in Zimbabwe or around there, that the women have to cover the lower of their back. they can be naked, showing their ass and everything else, including breasts, but their lower back must be covered.

So when a woman looks for a suitor, she flaps her little lower back cover to the male, showing that she's interested. Somewhere down the line, these people/tribes found the lower back to be sexually enticing, not breasts, ass, or whatever since they're plainly visible.

[Apoi_Viitor]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSYViclto1w

[ZeroNowhere]

I think that ultimately one just has to accept that sexual people make no sense.

[it_ain't_me]

i'm a female, but even i recognize that a pair of really good breasts is hot

if the op wants a serious answer, then it is probably evolutionary. scratch that, it is definitely evolutionary.

[¿Que?]

i'm a female, but even i recognize that a pair of really good breasts is hot

if the op wants a serious answer, then it is probably evolutionary. scratch that, it is definitely evolutionary.
vulgar darwinism < vulgar marxism < marxism

[it_ain't_me]

vulgar darwinism < vulgar marxism < marxism

it's ''vulgar darwinism'' to say that sexual attraction to breasts is probably evolved? sexual attraction is one of the main things that evolutionary theory is good at explaining. so, you're an idiot.

[Axle]

I don't know, I'm a leg man

[¿Que?]

it is ''vulgar darwinism'' to say that sexual attraction to breasts is probably evolved? sexual attraction is one of the main things that evolutionary theory is good at explaining. you're an idiot.
No evolution explains why people reproduce sexually, it doesn't do a good job of explaining sexual attraction on its own (see for example, post 17 on this thread).

[it_ain't_me]

No evolution explains why people reproduce sexually, it doesn't do a good job of explaining sexual attraction on its own

i have no idea what the phrase ''on its own'' is supposed to mean. if it means explaining what factors contribute to sexual attractiveness in a given species, then you're wrong, because it does. also, geographically differing beauty standards can absolutely be explained by evolution and do not somehow prove that sexual attraction is socially constructed.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3682657.stm

[Apoi_Viitor]

breasts are a social construct.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The nipples of both sexes can be erotically stimulated, but I'm told womens' breasts are more sensitive.

Given that, it's unsurprising that breasts are sexualised in (a lot?) of cultures.

[Invincible Summer]

Believe it or not, there's actually scholars who do this. I know of a particular one, in a particular southern university, who does content analysis on pornography (because to him, there is no distinction between erotica and pornography) and who uses it to justify claims that pornography is getting more violent and exploitative than it used to be and also to draw correlations between the use of pornography and acting out violence and degrading behavior against women in real life. But there are others who show that the use of certain pornographic materials (what they call erotica) has been correlated with less violence and misogynist behavior. From what I've seen, it seems people use research methods to more or less justify a certain position, and that subconsciously, they design studies so as to reinforce their basic point of view.

Are you referring to Robert Jensen?

[¿Que?]

Are you referring to Robert Jensen?
<nervous>:laugh:</nervous> Upstanding citizen IMO.

EDIT: I mean in some ways you have to totally respect the guy. He made it onto Horowitz's top 100 list. But sometimes he seems to have this "white savior" air to him, particularly when in the context of the immigrant struggles. To be fair, his activism is fairly diverse, but I honestly can't shake that thought when I see him speak at an event, where pretty much all other speakers are of Spanish descent.

And then there's his whole turn to religion thing, which is totally retarded. I mean, isn't religion one of the most patriarchal institutions (regardless of which religion) that exist in the modern world. What would Andrea think?

[ContrarianLemming]

i'm a female, but even i recognize that a pair of really good breasts is hot

if the op wants a serious answer, then it is probably evolutionary. scratch that, it is definitely evolutionary.

it's fuckin' revolutionary

[¿Que?]

i have no idea what the phrase ''on its own'' is supposed to mean. if it means explaining what factors contribute to sexual attractiveness in a given species, then you're wrong, because it does. also, geographically differing beauty standards can absolutely be explained by evolution and do not somehow prove that sexual attraction is socially constructed.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3682657.stm
Regarding that article, where does it show evidence that good nutritional status is a fecundity cue in men. It could just as easily be a cue for a source of food/resources.

And the actual Journal article even states:

Even though in modern societies reproductive success
results from multiple factors, the biological basis of female
fertility is its important component.Now I wouldn't go so far as to say anything about a biological base. If anything, it is an environmental (including social/material/economic)/biological dialectical base. It may be a stretch, but this could basically be interpreted as Marx's concept of "social being".


Marx's "materialist conception of history" is based on the following premises: that human beings, in all historical eras, enter into certain productive relations (hunting and gathering food, the relation of lord and serf, the contract between labor and capitalãthat is, certain economic foundations) and that these relations give rise to a certain form of social consciousness. He maintained that: "It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness. . . ." http://www.victorianweb.org/philosophy/phil2.html

This has also been called social existence. It is the basis for the way I interpret the concept of "social construction" and it is more associated with Marx's notion of ideology (the ruling ideas are the ideas of the ruling class) than the symbolic interactionist use, which traces its roots to dewie and jame's pragmatism.

[EvilRedGuy]

WAIT, is this thread fucking serious? It CAN'T BE!
Isn't it fucking obvious? Women has breasts like other female Mammals because the babies can't eat(dosen't have the teeth yet) anything else. Is this thread serious? Sexualizing breasts is just because of ancient human cultures.

[the last donut of the night]

this thread is one of the worst i've ever seen here

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

this thread is one of the worst i've ever seen here

Believe me when I say that there have been far worse. This thread could have turned out worse as well.

[ContrarianLemming]

Believe me when I say that there have been far worse. This thread could have turned out worse as well.

what do i win?

http://www.sexualhealthcare.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/breasts-vert1.jpg

[Quail]

I don't know why breasts are seen as sexual, but I have a feeling an attraction to large breasts could be similar to an attraction to wide hips? Like people subconsciously think that a woman with nice breasts will be able to feed their future offspring better or something.

[Shinigami]

this thread is one of the worst i've ever seen here

Is he referring to my ignorance on the subject, or the way the thread turned out? Well, I'm glad I got answers besides "culture did it" without really explaining.

[Fulanito de Tal]

I think there is a biological factor behind breasts. Something happens in my brain when I see breasts that I believe is not socialized. I get myopic and aroused.

This is me looking at breasts above my head --> :rolleyes:

[Summerspeaker]

The nipples of both sexes can be erotically stimulated, but I'm told womens' breasts are more sensitive.

Anecdotal evidence I've collected suggests that while this may correctly reflect the average, it's far from strictly true. The study on the subject had 82% of women saying that nipple stimulation caused or enhanced sexual arousal versus 52% of men. 78% percent of women said nipple stimulation increased sexual aroused when they were aroused versus 39% of men.


Given that, it's unsurprising that breasts are sexualised in (a lot?) of cultures.But why aren't male breasts sexualized in a lot of cultures? Beyond pectoral muscles, anyway.

I'm somewhat uncomfortable with the pornified image in this thread. I hope that doesn't become a trend.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Anecdotal evidence I've collected suggests that while this may correctly reflect the average, it's far from strictly true. The study on the subject had 82% of women saying that nipple stimulation caused or enhanced sexual arousal versus 52% of men. 78% percent of women said nipple stimulation increased sexual aroused when they were aroused versus 39% of men.

The difference is statistically significant and must have some cause, right? Sensitivity seems the most obvious choice.


But why aren't male breasts sexualized in a lot of cultures? Beyond pectoral muscles, anyway.

Presumably female breasts provide a physical focus that less-developed male pectorals lack?


I'm somewhat uncomfortable with the pornified image in this thread. I hope that doesn't become a trend.

I'm feeling to edit out any further such images that appear. Time and place, gentlemen.

[EvilRedGuy]

Is he referring to my ignorance on the subject, or the way the thread turned out? Well, I'm glad I got answers besides "culture did it" without really explaining.

Are you refering to my post? BUT culture did do it, what more do you need to know? Allso: all peoples aren't necessarily attracted to big breats and wide hips, its entirely psychological!

[L.A.P.]

Well I would think that it's because of every other reason why we find certain traits attractive, because it's all about the baby. Better breast meant better breast milk for the baby so we naturally are attracted to breasts even though that meaning has long been lost.

[Obs]

No bans yet? Holy shit, this thread went better that I'd thought it would.

[Magón]

This is me looking at breasts above my head --> :rolleyes:

Nice. :lol:

[Shinigami]

Are you refering to my post? BUT culture did do it, what more do you need to know? Allso: all peoples aren't necessarily attracted to big breats and wide hips, its entirely psychological!

Yeah. I'm not arguing that culture did it, I'm just saying that saying "culture did it, what more do you need to know?" is kind of like saying "capitalism did it, what more do you need to know?". I was looking for more of an explanation into what exactly culture did, because I hadn't looked into it much before.

[Lyev]

Maybe there is something Freudian about sucking from your mother's teat as a pup, then finding a sexual attraction to breasts later in life... hmmm

[Luisrah]

From what I know, it has to do with evolution.

When humans started walking just with the legs it was harder to see the women's vagina, (as opposed to before).

When that happened, those that were sexually attracted by the breasts of women reproduced more, leaving more descendence than the others, and transmiting that characteristic to their children.