15 Feb 2018, 10:25 pm
Pepe wrote:
Chronos wrote:
Regardless though, I refuse to consider nearly identical and often identical versions of the same body part indecent according to the sex of the person it's attached to. It should not be who is exhibiting it but where and how.
I believe we have conclusively determined you are not male...
While I don't consider nudity indecent (I don't live in the American Bible belt...
), as a heterosexual male there is definitely "a difference of appreciation" of pretty much *any* aspect of an attractive woman as opposed to an attractive man...Why would it be anything else?
While social/cultural influences do affect the way we perceive our opposite sexual interests (god, this political correct terminology is killing me...<sigh>), there is a fundamental reason for us to have a greater interest in potential sexual partners or fantasy partners, and that includes all the bits and pieces associated with the "sexual stimuli"...
An elegant female neck exposed by a ponytail...
A delicate female ear to consider...
Their mesmerising eyes...
The full inviting lips...
The slim arms and legs...
Oh god, the legs!...the legs!...
Leading up to the luscious curves of the buttocks... <pant>
The glistening abdomen...<pant pant>
The cleavage reminiscent of the buttocks...<pant pant pant>
Oh my god!
I can't breath!
I think I am having a heart attack!
<faints due to lack of blood to the brain>
From a male's point of view, I think every aspect of a sexual opposite is attractive, no matter the physical commonalities...
Evolution simply has made most males that way...<shrug>
We will simply have to agree to disagree on this one...
Vive la différence, mon chéri...
Saudi men apparently find shoulders so attractive, they are blacked out in imported western magazines. Afghani men find women's voices so attractive, and even the word "woman" so attractive, the Taliban has suggested that women shouldn't speak around men lest he rape her, and the word "woman" in some areas, has been changed to "spring".
Perhaps many men will find anything sexual that they are told is sexual?
Well let us tell men that nipples aren't.
15 Feb 2018, 11:30 pm
bunnyb wrote:
Let me guess, it's been a while Ermmm...Yes...
Do you want some coffee and cake?
15 Feb 2018, 11:58 pm
16 Feb 2018, 12:12 am
16 Feb 2018, 1:44 am
16 Feb 2018, 2:10 am
16 Feb 2018, 2:30 am
auntblabby
Veteran
Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 114,591
Location: the island of defective toy santas
16 Feb 2018, 2:46 am
^^^does that apply to men with moobs, too? 
16 Feb 2018, 2:54 am
auntblabby wrote:
^^^does that apply to men with moobs, too?
I sure wish it did. Its far preferable to have more fat over your pectoral muscles than around your heart.
auntblabby
Veteran
Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 114,591
Location: the island of defective toy santas
16 Feb 2018, 2:55 am
Spyoon wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
^^^does that apply to men with moobs, too?
I sure wish it did. Its far preferable to have more fat over your pectoral muscles than around your heart.
well, I for one am glad to be more "preferable" then
16 Feb 2018, 3:02 am
auntblabby
Veteran
Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 114,591
Location: the island of defective toy santas
16 Feb 2018, 3:06 am
16 Feb 2018, 3:11 am
16 Feb 2018, 3:17 am
Wolfram87 wrote:
Rubbing the chest of a parrot may well get them all hot and bothered, but that's a kind of terrible example in this discussion since parrots aren't mammals.
And they have neither mammal-ries...
Nor nipples!
16 Feb 2018, 3:33 am
auntblabby wrote:
I never noticed that on female cats. but if they do have them, then it sounds analogous to the red posteriors of monkeys in heat.
All cats have them, all year long. But they are less evident in intact males.
I brought this up becouse it is intresting to note the differece between the proposed hypotheses;
1. for the function of the primordial pouch
2. for the function of the breasts of female people.
(I'm implying here that sexologists are people and thus suffer from their own fetishes...erm biases)
Wolfram87 wrote:
Spyoon wrote:
Wolfram87 wrote:
Daniel89 wrote:
Women's breasts have been sexualised even though they are not sexual parts the censorship of them is a bit weird considering there are men out there who are into feet but we don't censor feet.
This whole "breast aren't really a sexual organ, they've just been needlessly sexualized by society" malarkey really needs to stop. Breasts aren't reproductive organs, sure, but they're secondary sexual characteristics, and have been so since humans started walking upright. There's a reason why human females have permanently engorged breasts, as opposed to other great apes, who only have them while actually breastfeeding. Not to mention that a womans breasts can swell by as much as 25% when she's aroused. Yes, their primary purpose is feeding an infant; their secondary purpose is to attract male attention.
A different hypothesis is that the breast of female humans is engorged because in order to nurture our huge brained embryos we desperately need energy storage. We had to develop those fat sacks on our chest so that our fat deposits wouldn't completely hinder our movement or mess with our vital organs.
Also peoples noses, fingers , cheeks, bellies and knees get swolen too. Those body parts' purpose is not male attetion though, right?
One, that is a different hypothesis, but it's an incorrect one: while it's true that the breasts also contains fat stores, what swells upon arousal isn't the fat, it's the actual breast tissue.
Two, if all those body parts consistently swelled up as a response to sexual arousal, you might have a Point, and we'd all look at it differently. As it stands, human breasts have kind of taken over the role played by the butt in other apes, more likely than not because of our upright stature. Same reason why human males have the largest penises of all the apes.
There is no reliable proof for your hypothesis either ,even if it is the uncontroversial one that evertbody subscribes to .
Important edit;The human butt has never lost the role it plays for the rest of the apes. Humans are perfectly able to look and judge other peoples buttocks, and then they are perfectly able to make correct assumptions about each others fittness (sexual or not). Yes there are actual published papers that I'm refering to but you have to search for them on your own.
16 Feb 2018, 4:06 am
Spyoon wrote:
There is no reliable proof for your hypothesis either ,even if it is the uncontroversial one that evertbody subscribes to .
Yes, medical science is very faith-based like that. Or y'know, not. The fact that you even refer to it an uncontroversial should tell you everything. What are you even trying to argue for here? Is the suggestion that biology is a thing just offensive to you?
Spyoon wrote:
Important edit;The human butt has never lost the role it plays for the rest of the apes. Humans are perfectly able to look and judge other peoples buttocks, and then they are perfectly able to make correct assumptions about each others fittness (sexual or not). Yes there are actual published papers that I'm refering to but you have to search for them on your own.
First, you want to present sources, you go get them yourself or don't bring them up. I'm not doing your work for you.
Second, evolution is a slow process and doesn't backpedal. A nice butt is still a nice butt. What I meant was that since we now walk upright, our butts are no longer at a convenient eye level. Breasts are much more close at hand in that regard.
Also, breasts do swell when a woman is aroused, and I'm fairly sure the butt does not. A far cry from the blazing red rear ends of other apes.
