[QUOTE=big916;269267]don't be hard on yourself about that sexycassie. unless operated on a lot of women's breasts are not symmetrical. most cases it is hardly noticeable unless focusing on it, but what guy would be doing that when in the heat of sex.

most men have testicles that are not symmetrical as well. also men like small and big breasts so don't worry about that. confidence is what is sexy.[/QUOTE]

That just made me fill a lot better. Thank you:)

I hate my breasts. they are uneven, and I wish they were a little bigger. And I really dont get why men like them so much, the twins get in the way sometime.

[QUOTE=sexycassie;269264]I hate my breasts. they are uneven, and I wish they were a little bigger. And I really dont get why men like them so much, the twins get in the way sometime.[/QUOTE]

don't be hard on yourself about that sexycassie. unless operated on a lot of women's breasts are not symmetrical. most cases it is hardly noticeable unless focusing on it, but what guy would be doing that when in the heat of sex.

most men have testicles that are not symmetrical as well. also men like small and big breasts so don't worry about that. confidence is what is sexy.

no long kissing sessions and cuddling are good for bonding. kissing can be for bonding and sexual arousal, where as a partner fondling and sucking the breasts is just sexual. completely different than giving nourishment to her baby. i like the reproductive theory better. a woman that has a healthy amount of fat and curves has always been the most desirable mate biologically.

ps weasel is that you in ICP uniform?

This is a good theory to explain why women enjoy having their breasts suckled. But not as to why a man would be attracted. Men wanted to spread their seed. Not build a relationship. Their job was simple...spread their seed to the women that would best care for a child...

This included large breasts and nipples, (more milk) wide hips for birth, large eyes (I'm guessing for predators) and things like that.

My male brain is completely wired to be attracted to them. I am not particularly proud of that, it is annoying, distracting and embarrassing. I am not too picky about size but if I know there is an implant I am immediately turned off. So there you have it.

The hormone oxytocin is released during touch, cuddles and sex, especially peaking upon orgasm in both men and women. This is known to evoke bonding. It is indeed the hormone that is released in extreme amounts while giving birth and also while breastfeeding (which was the function they first discovered, but there appeared to be so much more! :)).

There's a great book about all the benefits you get from this beautiful cuddle-hormone: "The Oxytocin Factor: Tapping the Hormone of Calm, Love, and Healing". It is written by Kerstin Uvnas Moberg; an MD&PhD from Sweden who combined all kinds of research into meaningful and understandable information. Her goal is to emphasize the 'good side' of our hormonal system. Instead of the main focus of research on hormones that cause you to experience stress and fight-flee-response, she looks into what can help people relax and heal themselves. Our bodies are so beautifully capable of such things!

There may be truth in what you say, Ducy; certain physical characteristics are associated in our minds with fertility and therefor draw us together. Men would want to spread seed for better evolutionary chances. But I believe it is also in our nature to build relationships. These do not exclude eachother. Several theories have stated humans to be very close communities in our primal nature. A strong bonded community gives better chances of survival, especially since our offspring is born in a rather helpless state and requires years of nurturing. I think humans are hardwired to seek for bonding and connection. As we're programmed to release hormones through touch and sex that not only make us feel ecstasy, but also heal and calm us and bond us together. Since our first encounter with this is through breasts, it would make perfect sense why we are interested in again connecting through breasts.

What about cultures in which female buttocks rather than breasts are the center of men's attention?

I'm guessing the word "culture" says it! ;):):D
I think every part of the body is potential in being sexually arousing, given whatever culture. In some cultures some parts of the body may even be forbidden to touch. The preferred positions people have sex in may be culturally defined. It is difficult to differentiate our nature from what we've learned to like as part of our culture (nurture). However, across cultures, those bodyparts that are characteristically different to gender and could be associated with fertility seem likely. Buttocks is one of those (and have the special component of being close to the jackpot!). Let's also not forget that touch on either part of the body generates the hormones mentioned with their beautiful effects on our bodies and minds.

RR, sure bonding would be beneficial to a child but my best guess would be that men don't become fathers till they see the child for a reason. Think about it like this.

Your a caveman, you have just had sex with 4 different females. You continue to wander and spread your seed because you don't know if the woman is pregnant or if the child will survive. There is no sure thing. If you bonded and stayed with that one girl, you could eventually wind up "failing to spread your seed" due to complications with the reproductive system of the woman etc.

Sure it seems kinda "rare" but think about it. There were no pregnancy tests in the caveman days. No obgyn's or marraiges.

Also about the attraction in other "cultures". I believe that there are deviations from every rule.

In theory the man is attracted to the hourglass figure (there are studies that waist to hip ratio is directly related to life expectancy. The smaller the number the "better" off you are) large breast for feeding, larger nipples and areolas for feeding. Big lips (although I forget the reasoning)

Women are in theory attracted to broad shoulders because it shows strength. Large glutes and calves since it shows speed and power, defined jawline, lean body, basically things that exude "power". They would also be attracted to larger penis's because a bigger penis would mean deeper penetration and higher pregnancy chance (getting it deep inside as opposed to smaller). Sure we know that bigger doesn't mean higher pregnancy rate but the theory is understandable...we didn't know these things as cavemen and women.

But then there are men and women who are chubby chasers. A fair amount of men are small breast loving, aroused by skinny "curveless" girls. Some women do not like large penis's. But there is a subconscious arousal to such things. Sure there are the big butts crowd but they would still have some attraction to breasts. Just not as much.

I for one love small aereolas and nipples. Which goes against the apparent "instinctual attraction" I love breasts. Small, big, fake or natural. (Although I like the rounder shape in larger breasts which is why I am not turned off by fake breasts). I am an "oddity" but with the billions of people in this world, I would have to say its expected. Its like people attracted to young kids. (I'm talking pre pubescent.) There is no instinctual benefit to mating with an 8 year old. These men are out of the norm.

Ducy, I agree with your comments on attraction. There just are 3 things; general, cultural and individual preference. Your likings may vary as an individual and there's nothing wrong with that. There is however a category that is to be called sick: lusting after 8 year olds:mad: This has nothing to do with sexuality, but is for reasons of perverted control. In most species there are physical characteristics to define when a man/woman has reached the age of being reproductive and creates sexual attraction. To flamingo's it's the pink color (they are born white). No pink, no attraction, no offspring.

Your comment ("If you bonded and stayed with that one girl") implies that you think this caveman can only bond with one cavewoman. There is no physiological concept that proves this. Not even in mammals that are monogamous most of their lives. Which is my point; he may have bonded to more than one. A group of humans becoming a strong bonded community.

This type of bonding has not much if nothing to do with biological fathering. The concept of being a biological father to children is a very complicated one that requires insights in longterm consequences. My expectation is that in the era of cavemen; the concept of mind would be that only women had sons and daughters. Men didn't have sons or daughters. They may have had "family" to take care for and protect, but that's in the terms of humans who have bonded, not much by bloodline. Human societies cut off from modern society and unaware of bloodlines, things seem to work that way. And it actually works quite well. Since the concepts of mother nature are so hard, yet inbreed is not favorable, there are some "tricks" that mother nature also created. Like: we attract eachother through pheromones and the pheromones of those genetically related are less likely to attract.

My point of view is that why we lust and love is all in our chemistry.

Trust me RR I find pedophelia disgusting. But I don't know if it is always a matter of "control" that the pedophiles enjoy. What about when both parties "love" each other. I'm in no way trying to argue that it can be right.

You do make a good point. And I guess the bonding would be beneficial for early clans and tribes. I sometimes mistake bonding and monogamy haha. As I've grown I've seen more and more just how "monogamous" men want to be. I used to be a 1 woman man, but now I finnd that I am attracted to many women, and even though I could be monogamous and have a gf, I would rather have a group of "friends". So I guess your theory would best explain this.

Now here is one question I have for you RR. Society dictates that pedophelia is a crime (pedophelia if I'm not mistaken involves pre-pubescent girls). We label all men attracted to people under the age of consent pedophiles though. If I were to engage in intercourse with a 16 year old (I'm 21) I would be labeled as a pedophile and treated as such. But what if that girl is physically developed? We are designed to be attracted to physically matured women. I personally know several girls (between 14 to 16) who are well developed. Large breasts, wide hips, slim body etc. What is it that makes this so bad?

I have respected the law, when I turned 18 I stopped with all sexual activities with girls under 18. But I do have several friends who are still young 16+ (generally close family friends and such) whom are very attractive and if there wasn't a law stating that it was a crime, I don't know how I would react. Does this make me a bad person?

For any outside people please note that I have made it abundantely clear that I have no sexual interest in pre pubescent girls. I am talking about girls who are physically developed.

Ducy pedophilia breaks down into Greek as child love/r which philia's definition has been changed to sexual interest instead of friendship. just as necrophilia is a disorder in which a person has sexual interest in dead bodies. pedo doesn't mean girl but child, so all children who can not give consent are victims of statutory rape and the perpetrator labeled and charged as a pedophile. we have extended what is a child and age of consent varies from 16-18 in the states so culturally we have decided that anyone younger than 16 can not have sex. in the past when we lived from our 30's to 40's so a person 15-18 is at a midlife point, and sex with a 15 year old we would accepted in the culture since she could bare a child. We live longer now and don't think of girls as just baby makers but let them develop themselves and their lives.

What I consider wrong about pedophiles is that they claim to be attracted to children who are;

a)mentally not developed sufficiently to consent
b)physically not yet ready for sex, therefor penetration is not only painful but also could inflict serious damage.
c)emotionally vulnerable; children are still depending on the care and love from adults. They are defining who they are, learning what is right and wrong and how people are supposed to treat eachother. Our upbringing defines us in so many ways; blueprinting us. Whatever learned then, imprints us so deeply and can only be changed through very hard work later (if ever completely).

Pedophelia is therefor misuse of power.

The reason why these laws are there with a specific age, are to draw a line to protect youngsters. These lines are drawn based on general development. Though the law is fairly black and white, I agree in reality there is always a gray area. I can understand your notes on youngsters that are physically developed which may be arousing and they may be physically ready for sex. Yet; one should consider whether her body is able to endure possible pregnancy (despite it's young fertility, it may not be). And as an adult; you should also take into account her emotional and mental development. And yes; there are youngsters that are very mature. It is a fragile thing you're dealing with that makes the conscious run overtime.

Personally; I was one of those mature youngsters. Physically I looked about 16 while I was around 12/13 and soon was guessed over 18. I thought and talked like one too; scary to my peers and even to some of my teachers. I had friendships with older men and women that were twice my age. Most would suddenly get distant as they found out my age. Especially the men; I think they were afraid people would think bad of them. And with some, I do later on question whether they actually had a crush on me. My bf fell in love with me while I was 22. Perfectly legal. Once you're over 18 agedifference does not matter. And I was totally into adultlife; made my own money and had my own house. And as he had confessed his crush, which was rather unexpected to me, I told him that I was immature in these things. To which he replied I was more adult than most people he knew. I added; in the sexual department. He thought shortly and called it "inexperienced". Immature would have meant being unable to handle sexuality as an adult, given my honest respond I was able. Yet the first few weeks of our relationship; he considered and reconsidered many times whether his intentions were honorable, if he was taking advantage of me, if this relationship was right to continue. Note; this was before he knew I had gone through some bad sexual experiences. His constant questioning and doubt only stopped when I told him that the questioning in itself showed that his intentions were good.

Big I know that it has to do with children. What I have read pertaining to the "original" meaning (not the greek but the new age meaning) was pre pubescent.

I don't believe that the length of time we live to affects AOC. I mean we have people living to be in the 100's. By that theory and adult would be around 40. I just find it odd that here in Cali, the consent age is 18. Meanwhile I could go to Florida or Nevada and engage in sex with a 16 year old. I'm just curious how each one of the states has their own rules of engagement. Yes...pun intended...

I just am trying to understand where these rules come from. Or how they are decided. Is it just that we as society feel more "right" for ignoring what could be classified as our basic instincts? Again I'm not talking about young children. I am talking about people under the age of consent. I once met a friend of a friend while in Florida. She was 16 which is the age of consent, she was very attractive, (I thought she was 18) and yet if she traveled 2000 miles she would be jailbait and subsequently I would be a sex offender. (Nothing happened in Florida but still)

I had a feeling you would reply right before I did RR lol. I do like the reply you submitted to my question. This has always been an ongoing debate between me and my friends. I have a group of people who think that you should have nothing to do with anyone under 18 and I have some friends who understand my view point and agree that although physically mature and capable of intercourse,, they may not be emotionally ready to have sex (I.e. not understanding that sex is not love, and that there are pitfalls to irresponsible sex.)

I do however agree that there should be a national age not an individual age. If I'm not mistaken countries like spain and italy have 16 as the legal age. A friend of mine who is stationed at the Aviano AF base says that there are ridiculously attractive girls there and that even though they're legal he feels awkward because he was raised with the 18 means yes anything younger is no.

I know that show, Big and I was flabbergasted by some of the things I saw and heard! Posted a thread on that once: http://www.sexinfo101.com/forum/news/28995-teenpregnancy-abortion.html

Yes, we have parking lots for bicycles; people bike a lot around here. To many it's our main transportation. You see these guys dressed up in suits in the morning with their briefcase going to work :) Though you may also find a lot of bikes get stolen or end up in the beautiful canals of Amsterdam ;)

For those curious, this is a great example of how the square in front of Leiden Central Station looks like: [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/65409933@N00/93550353/]Leiden Centraal Fietsen | Flickr

Ok, and now I'll stop detouring this thread ;)

Legal age is 16 here in Holland. Though of youngsters between 12-18, the average age for their first time sexual intercourse is 15. For youngsters between 12-25 it's 16. By the age of 25, about 9 out of 10 has had sexual intercourse. In other words; a little calculation shows that quite some must be breaking the law, especially when we take into account that the legal age includes any sexual activity ;) In Holland teens are rather early with sexual experimentation compared to other countries, but they do it safe.

It is generally accepted that teens experiment with eachother. I wouldn't know to what extend you'd be considered a cradle robber if you'd try to go for a 16 year-old while being 21 or over.

no the time frame for how long we live doesn't affect age of consent i think you meant by AOC, but it does make someone consider a young adult boy or girl at the beginning of their reproductive stage if you're in a survival period. the mormons did this since many tried to kill them along with their religion.

as far as different aoc's in states well that's politics. religion is a big part of that as well as parents not wanting their teenage children to have sex. a national age will never happen because you know states don't like to be told what to do here.

i applaud countries like RR's Holland because their sex ed is not debated over with extremely religious people and their standards. that is my perception at least given studies done between the US and others. the just don't do it until marriage approach is just ludicrous.

Ya see here in the states if I'm not mistaken most carry 18 as the legal age. And I believe the average was 17 (at least when I was 17 it was considered typical. Nowadays who knows??)

I'm actually friends with a girl who wants me. I know her parents and even though I'm 5 years her senior, they are all for it. Their thought process is that being older id be more mature and more knowledgeable of the repruccussions of unprotected sex. I find her attractive and I completely understand their "idea" but all I need is someone saying something and me getting arrested. They've (actually its her mother cuz the dad isn't around) asked me if id teach her things...like jokingly but you start to get the hint after a while. "Oh she came home with a hickey the other night. It was pretty bad, you should teach her how its done hahahahaha."

Big I completely agree...they sshould all be taught safe sex and things like that. My school fired a sex ed teacher because she taught the class how to put on a condom using a cucumber and a condom...

I will tell my children to be responsible, and I will tell them to develop their own thoughts, no blind following. You want pro choice? Fine. Pro life? Ok. I will try to pass on my mentality of sex to them. Personally the whole "sex is love" and all that yada yada messed me up.

Religion is detrimental to the proper development of a person. And I was of course throwing out an extreme for the AOC (yes consent) for society. Its sorta like the 18 for sex, 21 for alcohol and 25 for a rental car...your mentally mature and responsible enough to sign contracts, buy things, serve in the military but your not fit for consumption of alcohol? Or your not allowed to rent a car but you can buy alcohol for 4 years? Its foolish.

I much like our sex ed system too. It's pretty good! Very low rate of teenpregnancy. Knowledge is empowering. No sex till marriage? Well, then some of us would be waiting a long while since about 1 in 5 couples never do ;)

I don't know if religion is really damaging your development... I was raised and atheist. I guess it's just how parents decide to handle it. For me the most important would be for my future kids to use their wits, make up their own mind and have their own opinions. I would want them to go to a public school in which they are stimulated to do so. It's funny; my bf renounced the religion of his parents as a young teen and they accepted this. Yet he did tell me that if he would have kids, he would have want them to go to a Christian school, because it teaches you certain values...:confused:

Youngsters become legal adults almost at once around here. We're allowed to have sex, drink alcohol, smoke and get married with consent age 16. Get a drivers license, sell your body for sex or to the army or to science for medical experiments, vote, view whatever entertainment you want, get married to whoever you want, buy sextoys and other erotic items and buy weed at age 18. Thanx to the bloody irresponsible tourists; it used to be 16 and you could buy 30 grams a time instead of 5g. O, and there's something about this stuff effecting your brains; well duh: that's the plan! :rolleyes:

The only things you could be confronted with up to age 23 is that you can't get as much governmental support fe when you lose your job. This has nothing to do with age, the government is just trying to save money and hoping your parents will help you out. You can lose your drivers license a bit easier when breaking rules, as a more "tough" punishment, since statistics have proven there are more reckless drivers among youngsters. Other than that, you're just as adult as anyone else the moment you reach the magical age of 18! :)

RR a reality show called 16 and pregnant is a testimony to how well America's sex ed is working. holland seems to get a lot of things right. i would love to visit there it looks peaceful unlike big cities here in California. one unique thing i saw in pictures my dad took while going to training there was that you have parking lots meant just for bicycles. over all you have a different philosophy then many americans which is refreshing.

my how we have taken this thread in a whole other direction.

True we in the West used to practice a great many things such as child betrothal and child marriage. But that was specifically for reproduction and politics of state and of power. But marriages then were NOT for love which was only for the 'lower orders' if even then. This despite the fact that the Ancient Spartans, circa 1000 BCE, were NOT permitted to marry a woman younger than age 18.

The problem is that such marriages stop her education and restrict her to her biological functions and domestic service duties only, thus enabling her enslavement, to her husband, for all practical purposes. This led to abuse and devaluation of women as individuals.

When the age of consent was 13, abuses (child prostitution) were not curtailed and this is why the age of consent was raised to 18. The point to be understood is that IT ISN'T ABOUT YOU but all about predators who kidnap girls, boys, and women - sexually use and abuse them and then leave them somewhere to die.

But science has moved on since then and we are reasonably certain that marriage before age 21 and the completion of her/his education is NOT wise.

Why men like breasts - men don't have them - breasts are the ultimate symbol of feminine.

Lol sorry for hijacking weasel :p

And EEK breasts are just plain fun. Its amazing how to completely nude people can giggle and laugh like young teens all because of their various parts!

i know why men love them
THEY ARE AWESOME!
spoken by a man who has yet to fondle a pair *sniffle*

[QUOTE=big916;267275]one unique thing i saw in pictures my dad took while going to training there was that you have parking lots meant just for bicycles.[/QUOTE]
Sorry, but I just can't resist to share this beauty! [url=http://www.fietsberaad.nl/index.cfm?lang=nl&section=nieuws&mode=newsArti... Fietsappel (=bike-apple) is a public parking garage for 970 bikes at Alphen aan den Rijn station, shaped like the healthy treat were supposed to take every day to keep the doctor away :)

Now if it were breast-shaped to celebrate this awesome female feature, it would have been somewhat on topic, but helas ;) Hmmm...(thinking) maybe I should hint about that idea somewhere...:rolleyes:

My guy is a boob man,and yes that's what attracted him to me,a picture of my 'twin girls' in a hot pink bra.I love my breasts,i used to hate my body,but my man loves me and my breasts,i don't know why,he just does.

Breasts are key in arousing women

Any good lover knows that a woman's breasts are closely connected to her primary libidinal zone. Therefore, another reason we like breasts is that we know if we handle these bikini stuffers properly, we can bring women to a state of heightened sexual arousal. Failing that, we can at least tell our friends we managed to get to second base. :D

You are in for many surprises, Fastlove, starting with the discovery that some women do not like breast play and then learning that some references to body parts are better off not used.

Lol fastlove I am hoping you are a youngster...if not then I am quite surprised at the common sense. You respect your lovers. You do not brag. And breast play is NOT the key to arousal. Their mind is the biggest turn on. You can touch all the right places but you have to capture her mind first and foremost. Even wild hook ups requires a mental aspect.

I mean hell a bf must seduce a girl with romance, and love before you "make love". A wild passionate adventure is brought on by spontaneity and confidence. No woman wants a nervous woe is me lover. They want confidence, and openess...someone who knows what they want and isn't afraid to express it. I believe I posted something once about how I once turned my gf into a wild sex machine by going the "romance, dinner by candle light, deep discussion and passion" rather than "groping, kissing, and phsyicality."

[QUOTE=Fastlove;267546]Breasts are key in arousing women

Any good lover knows that a woman's breasts are closely connected to her primary libidinal zone. Therefore, another reason we like breasts is that we know if we handle these bikini stuffers properly, we can bring women to a state of heightened sexual arousal. Failing that, we can at least tell our friends we managed to get to second base. :D[/QUOTE]

lol thats just too funny.. Total BS in most cases but funny all the same....:p:):D

Lol I've had several lovers who were not aroused by breast play. They enjoyed the ample affection I gave them, but it didn't turn them to jell-o. They were all incredibly athletic. One a wrestler, another in the Marines and then 2 in various martial arts. I figure its constant physical stimulation (similar to how wi began to run around shirtless and have lost a lot of "sensations" in my torso.)

I have yet to find a girl whose nipples were directly connected to their clits. These women are incredibly lucky and any guy who finds one is even luckier!

[QUOTE=Fastlove;267546]Breasts are key in arousing women

Any good lover knows that a woman's breasts are closely connected to her primary libidinal zone. Therefore, another reason we like breasts is that we know if we handle these bikini stuffers properly, we can bring women to a state of heightened sexual arousal. Failing that, we can at least tell our friends we managed to get to second base. :D[/QUOTE]

hahaha peoples' naiveté can be so hilarious. please read the forum fastlove and learn a thing or two.

As this is a public descussion "Forum" (and everyone is entitled to there oppinions: My personal oppinion without joking on why I love womans breast: ;) "This is a very "sensitive" topic" As most "woman" do not feel comfortable with there breast. (For, different reasons)

There are some things in life that just aren't meant to be understood. The duck-billed platypus. In-laws. Celery. How Charlie Sheen gets work. (SORRY, CHARLIE) So when I say, yes, absolutely, men are really enthralled with those two pieces of female flesh.
No, seriously. We are. Some more than others -- or at least more obvious than others -- but we are.
As for the why, well, that's a trickier question, and one probably better answered by an anthropologist or psychologist or pathologist. There are as many theories as there are stars in the sky.
Some say the love affair begins when we breastfeed. Others say it's because we weren't breastfed. I've heard that it has to do with the fact that they're always visible but still hidden, and I've read that the attraction has to do with the fact that cleavage resembles buttocks and harks back to our caveman-mating days. (WTH?)
Who knows for sure? Not me. All I know is that every guy I know loves them, and all I can tell you are the Reasons I do.
They're pretty. They're warm. They're sexy. They feel good to touch. They respond to touch. They jiggle. They arouse (some of) you. They make nice handles during certain activities. They feed our babies. They represent life and health and motherhood.We don't have them.No two pairs are alike.
Beyond that, well, your guess is as good as mine. My girl can spend hours in a shoe store, and I'll never understand that. But if it makes her happy, what do I care?
Some things don't need to make sense. They just are.

Fastlove before you start telling the senior members about the purpose of this website, remember that this site educates tons of people everyday. By stating that "Breasts are key to arousal" most people will take this new "knowledge" and wind up being let down when they realize there is more to this than just playing with "tits". You gotta seduce a womans mind and body. There are more than breasts, there is the neck, the stomach, butt, inner thighs.

If you are going to state your opinions, make sure they are stated as opinions.

In my opinion breasts are a key part in arousal.

Then people will debate with you rather than tell you to read up.

Myself I'm a big fan of large breasts. I personally think the reason is from sexual cycles apes used to go through in which their secondary sex characteristics would become more pronounced during their fertile cycles. Since humans are rapidly evolving creatures, our male need to spread our seed often came into conflict with the female desire for a guardian male. To that end women who could keep males under the impression they were always fertile were able to have more food and stable places to raise their children in exchange for frequent sex from their paramour.

While this is something we haven't really confirmed yet, it seems the most plausible theory to me. Men respond to breasts on a purely autonomic level. The ones who reproduce the best seem aware of how to go about pleasing their partner the most effectively. So successful males will keep in mind that all skin is a potential erogenous zone, if properly handled.

Roi, you and some others, really need to read Sex at Dawn before you go spouting antropological reasons why this or that. Let it be known that after Mssr.s Smith & Wesson, and his pal Mr. Remington, the need for a guardian male is somewhat diminished. But even before then...

Let me explain: before we became farmers, women mated with whomever they fancied and bore their children accordingly, since paternity was uncertain, every man had to care for every child lest that child be his - so every child had lots of daddies looking after him. And as every group sex experienced man knows, if you anger one woman, you have angered them all and no man's getting any therefore every man will prevent any other man from angering the women.

This same pattern of behavior can still be seen in "immediate return hunter-gatherer" societies today - yes, there are still a few around.

Stop thinking like chimps and start thiking like bonobos.

BTW - I for one am bored with 'breast play'. Esp if you grab without permission.

I don't mind breast play,but it doesn't turn me on as much as clitoral stimulation.I like it best when my nipples are licked or pinched.

I've always found big warm hugs while he murmurs to me the best - mmm - nothing's better than a nice big teddybear!

Nice theory, Do you think it is true?

EDITED: REMOVED SIGNATURE LINKS.

MODERATOR 3

Have you bothered to read any of this john? For god sakes he's asking what we think about it. Everyone has stated their opinion. If you bothered reading you'd find some agree while others don't.

[QUOTE=CollierAlda1;267244]My male brain is completely wired to be attracted to them. I am not particularly proud of that, it is annoying, distracting and embarrassing. I am not too picky about size but if I know there is an implant I am immediately turned off. So there you have it.[/QUOTE]

My new bf agrees with you. He doesn't care about the size, but implants turn him off big time. (Not my problem, fortunately.)
I don't think a man should be ashamed of being attracted to breasts, just as long as he remembers there is more to a woman than just her bra size. (Same goes for a woman - there's more to a man than just his penis size.)

THANK YOU
i think i should thank you very much for you can waste lot of time to write this post .....
thank you again for your sharing..

EDITED: REMOVED SIGNATURE LINK
MOD. 3

This is a good theory to explain why women enjoy having their breasts suckled. But not as to why a man would be attracted. Men wanted to spread their seed. Not build a relationship. Their job was simple...spread their seed to the women that would best care for a child...

EDITED: REMOVED SIGNATURE LINK
MOD. 3

[QUOTE=weasel;267239]Why Are Men Mad About Mammaries?

"Breasts facilitate "pair-bonding" between couples. Men evolved to love breasts because women are likelier to have sex with -- and/or become attached to -- lovers who handle their breasts."

"When women's breasts are suckled, as they are during breastfeeding, the hormone oxytocin is released. Oxytocin hellps the mother bond with her baby. She feels loving and attached. The same reaction might happen if a man sucks and fondles a woman's breasts during foreplay. Therefore, the logic goes, men pay attention to breasts because doing so may help them attract and retain mates."

What do you all think?[/QUOTE]

I also think so.

EDITED: REMOVED SIGNATURE LINK
PLEASE DO NOT POST LINKS TO 3RD PARTY VENUES

MODERATOR 3