{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
9/13/2013 8:57:04 PM
31
Are breasts inherently sexual?
It seems like a common trend, particularly for outspoken feminists, is to claim breasts aren't inherently sexual. Usually this in response to some sort of discussion about modesty. I've also seen it here plenty of time. But this just doesn't make sense to me...obviously they're not reproductive organs in most contexts, but that doesn't mean they aren't sexual. And the fact that, long ago or in undeveloped countries, it was considered normal to be bare-breasted in public, doesn't change the fact that breasts invoke a strong sexual response in males (or anyone attracted to women).
So Flood, we all know this forum is the threshing floor of scientific controversy, so what's your opinion?
And in looking up sites for this discussion, I came across a golden Cosmo article:
[url=http://www.cosmopolitan.com/sex-love/hot-sex/hot-sex-tips-challenge-18]How to Have Boob Sex[/url]
Yep. Someone actually wrote that.
As well as the following astute Yahoo response:
[quote][Breasts are] not a reproductive organ, though you can titty fcuk a girl[/quote]
-
They are a reproductive organ actually. A girl once got pregnant when someone slapped her boobs.
-
[i] [/i]
-
14 RepliesAre a man's muscles sexual? Many women are attracted to muscular guys, but all of us know that big muscles have absolutely nothing to do with sex. The only reason that men are attracted to boobs is because it is a sign of health, and the mother will be well equipped to nurse her child if she's got big hooters. Just because you can do sexual things with boobs does not mean that they are inherently sexual. They are only indicative of a mother's health, and men like healthy women.
-
1 ReplyAren't most girls turned on when you grab their breasts? Most girls I dated liked it.
-
My breasts are not gentials. They are a normal body part that serves a purpose. Hands are not inherently sexual, but do people not use them to please? What about legs and ass? What about lips and eyes? They are a symbol for sex in most of western society because society has labeled them as sexual things, then demanding that they be covered up because they hang from the chests of women differently than men, creating a sense of taboo around them. Such an attitude has been so ingrained into society, that we assume it's natural. There's nothing wrong with finding breasts on anyone visually pleasing and sexually arousing. I take issue with shaming women for having them outside the bedroom.
-
ATTENTION......ATTENTION........ BRING IN THE MOTORBOAT ARGUMENT STAT!!!!!!
-
Edited by Gunts: 9/15/2013 3:54:59 AMYes. Me thinks they are. Let's here it for boobs!
-
let's say breasts are sexually stimulating. so what? how does it follow that people should cover them up? does your being naked justify people groping and raping you?
-
Well, I believe they would fall under the umbrella of secondary sex characteristics.
-
Aren't inherently sexual? Lemme check. *Goes to the internet to browse topless women.* Hrmmm. I'm still not sure. *Looks down his pants.* Yep. Still inherently sexual.
-
[quote]It seems like a common trend,[/quote] The only reason it's a common trend is because our society makes it one. [i]"Elbows are sexy!"[/i]
-
I dunno. I just know that they are sexy and this is what they are meant for. Don't flip shit because of the pic. Nothing is showing, nor is there anything to show. The 3d models don't have the nipz.
-
4 RepliesEdited by MurcSpyder: 9/15/2013 1:50:52 AMBoobs are shaped the way they are so suckling babies don't suffocate; seeing as their mouth areas do not protrude much compared to other suckling mammals.
-
Boobs themselves aren't sexual, just like a mouth isn't sexual. However, we as people sexualized them for some reason.
-
Yeah, breasts and butts, believe it or not, are actually just a society-wide fetish. We see breasts and butts sexualized so much throughout our lives that they become a sexual fixation. It's why native African dudes aren't sitting around with chubbies all day watching the bare-chested women.
-
6 RepliesI thought, biologically, males registered breasts as a sign of fertility. That [i]would[/i] make them an inherently sexual body part, wouldn't it?
-
Is it odd that I am taking mental notes on this for my wedding night?
-
Ass was used as an expression of beuty by our ancestors as we waljed on four legs. As we grew into bipedal beings boobs emerged and imitated the shape of the great ass. In the end the ass is the true beuty of a women not the breasts as those are just cheap imitations of the ass.
-
Everything we like about women is inherently sexual. Everything they've got that we find attractive is indicative of how well they can handle and nurse a child. And as all men know, our natural instinct is to reproduce whenever we get a chance.
-
Edited by Banned Tyger: 9/13/2013 9:44:20 PMI can fu[i] [/i]ck them, therefore they are sexual
-
For drawing purposes I don't think so. Society wise I suppose.
-
Those feminists are retarded... That's like saying food is inherently undesirable when you're hungry...
-
3 RepliesI heard that as early human ancestors began to work upright, they began to use breasts as the main method to distinguish between sexes and to help outline a suitable mate. When we were on all fours, that role was filled by a large arse (an instinct which appears to continue on today)
-
In western society, Breasts are sexual. Perhaps because they're considered a taboo, or perhaps it's just how attitudes have changed over time, but breasts are sexual.
-
-
Depends on what kind of breasts we are talking about...
