Current Events > There's nothing inherently sexual about women's breasts.

(+) Yeah! (+)

GaryGensler posted...

Thank you, Jesus, for creating boobs.

so women alive more than like 2000 years ago were all flat-chested?

ForsakenHermit posted...

Do you really think being sexually aroused by breasts is pure nurture?

The specific way we are surely is. For the vast majority of human history, women weren't covered and presumably men weren't getting aroused at the mere sight of breasts as they do now. As another poster said, we can observe that right now with indigenous people all over the globe. As we've introduced clothing, religious and cultural norms about chastity and covering yourself, and fetishized breasts, we've come to see our thoughts on them as natural when they're a product of culture in very large part. I'm not sure if it's 100 percent, but it's a very high percent.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Yes.

Yes they would.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Just more proof that humans are meant to be boob men and we are blessed

Topic creator sure is lying and no one is fooled.

Choco posted...

so for the sake of this topic and polls like it do we just draw the line at "men are X% likely to be attracted to it"? cause that's still a dumb as hell definition

i dont really care about the definition. i just think that if people are x% more likely to find breasts sexually appealing, there is something inherent about that

It's an interesting thing. I would have to imagine boobs are at least seen as "womanly" in that women typically have breasts that are larger (which is a byproduct of their actual purpose being to produce milk for their children). The fact that it is an associated distinctive trait of women surely makes it more likely to be a target of sexualization. Yes, larger breasts don't mean more milk, but still, voluptuous breasts are probably seen as more "womanly."

Of course, I have to agree with the basis of nurture as well. People bring up feet in this thread, and feet help support the argument that breasts are not inherently sexual at all. I have always been a proponent that the feet fetish is as large as it is due to the fact that we cover feet up so much, which has driven a strange fascination with feet. If we lived in a society where feet were open and free, but we all wore gloves over our hands, I strongly believe the hand fetish would be a bigger phenomenon over feet in that scenario.

I believe women's breasts are not inherently sexual, but I do believe they are the likeliest of non-sexual parts to be sexualized over time.

Closest argument you could make I think is that breasts have a function related to the propagation of the species.

But thats still a bit of a stretch since by the time breasts come into play the species has already propagated, and now you're just feeding it during the early months. >_>

Everyone likes bobs.
Everyone

Literally every aspect of a human can be sexualized, especially one that's generally gender specific.

Would they be less sexualized if women regularly went topless? Yes. But not because they're not meant to be sexualized, it's just a matter of sensory adaptation. If you're seeing titties all the time you're gonna be less affected by them.

Giant_Aspirin posted...

if boobs aren't inherently sexual, how come so many women are sexually aroused / stimulated from nipple and boob play? now i'm wondering if boob having people in cultures where boobs aren't sexualized enjoy having their nipples played with during sexy time

But going by that logic, that would make necks inherently sexual, because some women get aroused/stimulated from being kissed on the neck.

There's nothing inherently sexual about women's breasts

As a man, I must disagree.

I fine the most erotic part of a woman is the boobies.

Blightzkrieg posted...

I fine the most erotic part of a woman is the boobies.

Same