T O P I C R E V I E W
Member # 37209
posted 03-19-2008 04:33 PM
I've asked a few of my male friends this, and none seem able to explain. As a girl, I've never found my ever-increasing lumps a source of much interest, but fr a while now I've been noting how guys react to them. I've found that very few guys can talk to me without glancing down, at least once a minute, to my bust. Can anyone (especially the guys) explain what is so fascinating about them?
Member # 36192
posted 03-19-2008 04:39 PM
I always thought that it was the fact that breasts are such a taboo for the public eye. Ever notice guys are able to run around in public without a shirt, but its definitely a no-no for women? I think because breasts are seen as "only a romantic partner can see them" mentality is engrained in our minds, men are fascinated about them.
Its like UFOs or ghosts. People are obsessed with seeing one. Men are obsessed with seeing boobs. haha but that's just my personal opinion.
Member # 27966
posted 03-19-2008 04:50 PM
I do think it's partially a culture thing- perhaps, as acgal said, it's because it's taboo here to see breasts. I could be wrong, but it seems to me that in areas where women may walk around without tops on more frequently (or not wear them at all), the men really don't seem to see their breasts as something with a primarily sexual function. Whenever I see a documentary on cultures that may go topless, it always seems as though breasts are viewed as being just a body part, no different from an elbow or nose.
Member # 33089
posted 03-19-2008 05:27 PM
Hey, I think this is a question for guys, right? Not many for us on here, so I have to give my crazy theory.
So, guys have nipples too and while I can't talk about other guys here, mine are very sensitive in the best possible way. I can easily have an orgasm from having them touched. In some ways they're better than my penis. So it's an easy jump to think that someone with larger breasts than myself would have them be as sensitive and be a lot more fun. Probably bad logic, but that's what's in my head, right or wrong. I think sometimes women think the same thing about their clitoris and a man's penis. My gf used to always be concerned about being too rough because I think she thought it was like her equivalent body part. I explained it's not nearly as sensitive and she should be concerned about being too rough (well, there's always a limit mind you, and I would tell her if she crossed it, btw she never came close). So, females have bigger breasts than I do and that causes me to want to touch. Since that's not appropriate, I start looking because that's about as close as I can get and not be doing something wrong. Much safer to look from a distance and try not to make it obvious. I try to not look if I'm in a close up conversation because I think that is inappropriate too. I try and think about other things, but I'm sure I slip and peek down once in a while. Not good I know.
Member # 3
posted 03-19-2008 06:17 PM
Just FYI? There are also plenty of women who find breasts interesting, appealing or attractive, who are lesbian, bisexual or even heterosexual (there are also some women turned on by their own breasts).
One interesting thing about breasts is that there actually is no practical or biological reason for them to be of any size: women who have the smallest breasts can and do still nurse infants, and plenty of other animals do so without their ducts so visible on the outside. So, in some respects, it does seem that women's breasts are, in fact, decorative.
Member # 33089
posted 03-19-2008 06:35 PM
And who says no one doesn't think looking elbows or noses is attractive or appealing?
Member # 35485
posted 03-19-2008 06:41 PM
I'm readung M. G. Lord's 'Forever Barbie', which is a great read
And it discusses some of this, in a chapter appropriately called Guys and Dolls. I'm not sure how accurate this all is (it was published in the early '90s), but here it is: 'But according to Dian Hudson, editor of Juggs, Leg Show, and Bust Out!, Barbie's body, even without detailed genitalia, is proportioned to inflame all the common permutations of heterosexual male desire. .... "One of the reasons my magazines are very successful is because I realize you cannot seperate sex from love," she explained. "When a man has a breast obsession, he's looking for security and love and blissful, mindless protection." This led her to create Bust Out!, which features narrow-hipped sex stars with huge silicone breasts that, she says, appeal to men who grew up with Barbie. "When the mother holds the baby up where the breats is, it's just huge--as big as his head if not bigger--and it's filling up his vision, filling his nose, filling his ears. Everything is blocked out by the breast, and the breast is comfort and safety. The desire to have a breast as big as your head is really taking yourself back to that infantile period and being able to lose yourself. "I learned this really from doing Leg Show," she continued. "The breast thing was so common I didn't think about it. But I had to figure out why men were obsessed with feet and legs and groveling before them. I learned that men get security from legs, because when a little child is scared, he grips his mother's legs. They're always trying to get up under the skirt, holding on to the legs--and the legs represent safety. A loving mother may pick up the child and hold him, but a less loving, harsher mothe may just leave the child down there, so the legs are all he gets. When a boy with a stern, witholding mother grows up, he often fastens to a harsher, more demanding woman as his love object." ... 'Historiclly, society has eroticized particular female body types at particular times. In Seeing Through Clothes, Anne Hollander shows how from ancient statues to modern photographs, the look of the unclothed figure has been influenced by the fashion of its day. Today, artists sexualize the female breats and buttocks, but from mideival times until the seventeenth century, bellies were all the rage: whether a painting's subject was a virgin or a courtesan, she could not have too big a tummy. Likewise, the mega-mammaries that men pant over in Bust Out! were in the 1500s considered abhorrent, and usually featured on witches and hags. It wasn't until the mid-seventeenth century, when women cinched in their waists with corsets, that commodious breasts became alluring, in, for instance, paintings by Gustave Courbet and Eugene Delacroix. Barbie's breasts make sense as a function of her time--postwar America. Breasts are emblematic of the home; they produce milk and provide security and comfort. Some of the strangest market research in Vance Packard's The Hidden Persuaders dealt with what milk meant to soldiers in World War II. Just as G.I.'s pined over chesty pinups, they also thirsted for milk--and those on the front lines craved it more than those stationed near home. If one makes the link between the meanings of milk and it's infantile source, the top-heav, hourglass shape of postwar fashion that Dior introduced with his "New Look" wasn't soley about hobbling women so that they would retreat from the workplace. It was about meeting the returning troops' profound psychological needs.' It's a fascinating book. The chapter goes on, covering other sexualized parts of the female body--nails, hair, feet, eyes, pubic hair--and also sex psychology, femininity, Playboy bunnies and drag queens. I highly recommend it
Member # 3
posted 03-19-2008 06:53 PM
I have to say, I find a lot of flaws with those kinds of pop-psych theories, especially when we realize that if it was all about getting food and comfort, then talking about it as being a primarily male draw falls apart. Women grow up feeding as well.
(Too, LOADS of women's breasts are smaller than infants heads. As well, gay men milked, and alas, most are not all about the breasts. It also seems pretty weird to explain Barbie -- a toy intended for girls when designed -- as being about men and sex. Those soldiers weren't sleeping with Barbies. Well, maybe a few of them did, but it's never something I've heard as a common practice.) Plus, sheesh... (and this isn't on you, but on what you're quoting), way to reduce male sexuality to nothing but infantilism.
Member # 36725
posted 03-19-2008 08:27 PM
In a human sexuality and cultural perspective class Lord’s work was required reading. I also tended to find many flaws in the theories – but then there seems to be that toss-up of the facts that were often not found. Think of the time WWII was occurring – the milk at the time that people drank, not only soldiers but also people working in factories and such the same, was powdered milk. It’s understandable that there would be want for real milk and that it could very well have nothing at all to do with comfort but rather taste and preference. Many scientists say that it’s actually the sucking motion itself that is calming to infants and not the mother’s breast. The same effect happens with a bottle and that leaves the eyes open for viewing the outside world.
Additionally, gum was a huge thing in that time. If you asked Freud to explain you can be sure to find some answer about psychosexual stages of development and how these individuals were orally fixated – while other theories would point to separation anxieties and that draw to a home effect. Heather brought up a great point about women finding breasts “interesting, appealing or attractive, who are lesbian, bisexual or even heterosexual.” The question is asked often enough about being with a friend and the scenario of noticing their breasts as to whether or not that means that person is attracted to that friend. If you noticed someone’s hair, hands, eyes, anything really does that mean you’re definitely attracted to that person? So noticing someone breasts as a feature of their body really can be just that. You can look at a woman as a form and think of them as being beautiful and it mean just that. Some of the difference comes in because in many cultures breasts are viewed as taboo because of the role of breasts in a sexual sense. That in mind, it’s pretty natural for guys - and really anyone to notice them as a part of the female form and as a part of a particular individual, just as it can be natural for any person not to take such a notice. [ 03-19-2008, 08:28 PM: Message edited by: Stephanie_1 ]
Member # 35506
posted 03-19-2008 10:34 PM
We talked about this a little bit in my psych class, and one girl suggested that part of the attraction to breasts is instinctive. That seeing a rounder, curvier form is instinctively more attractive to males because, as primitive beings, they would seek a partner who would provide them with many children. Large breasts, much like wide hips, might indicate some increased childbearing ability.
I suppose I can see where she's coming from, but I don't necessarily agree. Mostly because, as a female, I'm rather fond of breasts myself. Even my own breasts, to the confusion and amusement of my boyfriend. I mean, come on! They're round and pretty and jiggly and bouncy! ~_^ They're also what makes women distinctly female because, unlike their male counterparts, women's breasts have a function and a purpose. I also agree with Leabug, because I think it has to do a lot with what is given sexual focus in our culture. Boys grow up with the social notion that breasts are a BIG deal sexually - especially if they have a male role model who believes it. My boyfriend's father and older brother, for instance, aren't the kind of guys who have girly mags or posters of half-naked women on their walls, or objectify women at all really. Likewise, while my boyfriend finds my breasts attractive, he doesn't use boobs for a main basis of attraction, and isn't the kind of guy who thinks or says things like "Hey, check out the rack on that one!" My cousin, on the other hand, has a garage filled with posters of half-naked women, outwardly objectifies women, and makes it clear that he loves big breasts and a tiny waist. His son, unfortunately, is learning to follow in his footsteps, because this is what he's learning is expected of him to desire. It's all in the learning experiences and the influences of culture and society.
Member # 37917
posted 05-20-2008 01:02 AM
People select for big breasts, like how in peafowl the peacocks are selected for big fancy tails.
If you look at a chart comparing our great ape cousins to us they have super tiny boobs, and they still breastfeed their babies fine. There are different theories why, one is that dudes just are attracted to big boob racks, like how chick deer are attracted to big antler racks, so we tend to breed in big boobs like deer breed in big antlers, or peafowl breed in big tails. Even little people boobs are big compared to other apes' cleavage. Another theory is that big boobs are to confuse men on some primal level, because big boobs mean you're pregnant or fertile so he'd better stick with you to take care of his offspring. It's a biological way to keep a man around. There's a lot of interesting literature on why boob are there from a biological perspective! Worth looking up science articles on a school library account.
Member # 29978
posted 05-20-2008 09:57 PM
Speaking as a bisexual girl, I'm a huge fan of breasts (including my own). I don't think I can really describe why anymore than the guys you talked to could, but they're fun to play with and I like their shape. I think the curves of women's bodies are one of the main reasons I'm attracted to them - obviously breasts play a large part in that.
It sounds only a little weird when I say that aloud.
Member # 38614
posted 05-26-2008 12:14 PM
I'm not really sure why, they are just attracting. Whether or not a guy is attracted to breast probably depends on the guy. Some guys like boobs some like hair and so on, just depends on that guys personal preference.