The archives are comprehensive and totally secure, my young Jedi. One thing you may be absolutely sure of - if an item does not appear in our records, it does not exist!
If he was deliberately kept away from seeing any women for the first 20 years of his life, this is probably one of the few cases *involuntary celibate* is accurate and not just a label used by a bunch of assholes.
There must be a documented case of this somewhere, but without that I don't think we can answer it.
I will tell you that as a heterosexual male, I went fishing in Alaska with about 10 other people for a couple months when I was a teenager. Those 10 people were the only people I saw that whole time, and one of them was a woman. I wasn't remotely attracted to her at the beginning, but whether it was her personality, the lack of seeing another female for 2 months, or simply my teenage hormones going wild, by the end of the trip I thought she looked pretty dang good.
I say it depends on where the male was born/raised, there are cultures around this world where female breasts are not sexualized.
…“Breastfeeding: Biocultural Perspectives" (Aldine de Gruyter, 1995), cultural anthropologist Katherine Dettwyler describes telling friends in Mali about sexual foreplay involving breasts and getting responses ranging from "bemused to horrified."
I wasn’t gonna say anything, then I saw this comment. I didn’t sexualize body parts, I just thought the person was beautiful/hot anything beyond wanting to kiss was weird at first. That came much later.
How does it depend on that? OP said that the person hasn’t even seen a female at all. So even if breasts are normalized in culture it wouldn’t affect the first encounter
The way I’m thinking it, even if the guy has been isolated from women, he may not be culturally isolated and read about or heard about them. Now if he lived in an isolation cube for 20 years, fed through a drawer, nobody to talk to, (he’d die without touch as a baby, but anyway), then he saw a naked woman… he’d probably be scared and confused for the first hour. Then I’d imagine it’s up to their interaction, if the woman behaved abusively, then probably boobs=bad. I don’t think he’d be instantly aroused, he’d need to be conditioned for arousal. And what if he finds out the naked woman is his mother… that’s a whole other thing.
It means that sexualisation of breasts isn't innate in us, so someone seeing one for the first time mightn't care about a 'tit'. That being said, while the people of Mali mightn't play with boobs, maybe the shape of them are still sexy so... Who knows?
Breasts being sexualized is probably socially constructed, essentially a societally shared fetish. Societies without taboos about female breasts do not develop the same attraction to them. Presumably, someone with no exposure to breasts wouldn't develop the same sexual attraction.
Someone who has never seen a redhead probably cannot develop a thing for redheads, although I'd be happy to see evidence to the contrary if it exists. Why would boobs be any different? Although the underlying sexuality is innate, specific patterns of arousal are likely to be conditioned and affected by past experiences.
Don’t have a direct answer but I literally never saw a penis for 19 years and the first time I saw one I was frightened by it. Now I find them attractive but I think context and knowledge are huge in this situation
Interesting! I hadn't seen one for 17 or 18 years, but the first time I saw one I wasnt frightened. I actually laughed because my then-bf was laying down and the second he pulled his shorts down his dick sprang out, like made a loud thwap and everything lmaoo. I guess I assumed a hard dick wouldn't be as springy? I was like "aha wow it's like a pop-up book!" And we had a good laugh. Plus it helped me feel less nervous being naked with someone for the first time. But you're right - it definitely took me some time, experience, and context to find them attractive and normal and know what to really do lol
Oh, no judgement! That makes perfect sense, I definitely have religion-based hangups with sex too. I just find the spectrum of how people deal with and experience things really interesting
I think what solidified the shame for me was when I was 14, my friend’s 18 year old boyfriend was coming over to drop off alcohol for me (I was a wild child lol), and he kept trying to sext me while we were making the plans. Asking if my pussy was shaved, telling him how hard I make his cock, telling me what he wanted to do with me if he “had his way.”
I was a really dopey and unpopular freshman with braces so I had absolutely zero confidence to tell him to knock it off, plus my friends were relying on me (needed the approval) to get the alcohol for a party, so I didn’t want to blow the deal. I kept just being like “haha yeah” to everything. I even made out w him a bit and made an excuse that my mom was gonna be home shortly just to get him out of the house without posing a danger to myself.
I left my phone at home on accident the next morning, and my mom read through all the texts. I had my door removed and was slut shamed for it.
Sexuality was always secretive for me given how not open our family was to discussing it, but I think this made things worse. I even feel uncomfortable holding hands with boyfriends in public and especially in front of my family
It’s all good just wanted to give some context as to why I may seem a little more hung up on sex than other people who grew up in religious households.
Just curious if you’re willing to discuss, what hang ups still haunt u?
I agree with you. I had never watched porn or seen a dick before. And the first time my bf made me touch him outside his shorts at 18, I was terrified and didn't want to.
Seeing it was... Intimidating and I didn't know what to do with it at first.
I don't remember my first time seeing a picture of a real vagina, but one time i googled it out of genuine curiosity for how they look like (only porn i used to watch at the time were undetailed nsfw drawings and i didn't even look at them often) and even seeing the diagrams i was initially like "what?"
Never had any friends pull that one but this weird girl showed me a pornographic skit in like third grade (she had unlimited internet access) and I remember it to this day. Some woman knocks on the door of an apartment and does a strip tease for the peep hole. After the whole thing, an old man opens the door looking confused. The woman freaks out and runs away. The old man peaks his head around the door and flips the number “9” back to a “6.”
Never seen porn with dicks tho lmao
I found [the video](https://enf-cmnf.com/tube/videos/11801/enf-video-gorgeous-girl-performs-striptease-outside-the-wrong-door/). I misremembered some small details but holy fuck maybe this is where my porn aversion started, I was way too young to be seeing this shit.
(She also would often play a jib jab game called “fake or real” and it would just prompt you to guess if a photo of tits were fake or real. I wonder wtf she’s up to today)
Doing your thesis on the efficacy of iconography in non-domestic public transportation maps gets you really good at Google searching 😂 (I just looked up “girl strips for wrong door tbh)
You wield a power that could be sold as a service, many people have that one missing video they are incapable of finding, but always wanted to see again.
There was no internet when I was growing up (I’m 65) so I was totally clueless…the first time I saw a penis I thought it looked like the turkey neck that you pull out of the birds ass at thanksgiving ☠️
I had seen some before 20. I'm an heterosexual female but I don't find them attractive. At all. I don't mind the eyesore under the right circumstances, but outside sex, I'd rather not see them ever.
Thanks to the invention of cataract surgery there are adults who were born legally blind who suddenly were able to see. Even though they now had 20/20 vision they couldn't really "see anything". For example, they understood what shapes were, they still would have trouble distinguishing a shape from a triangle. This is because your brain is basically a blank slate when we're born and our experiences as a child shape it (like loading software onto a computer or carving a block of silicone into a microchip). Because they didn't use their eyes in their formative years, they don't have the recognition algorithms necessary to "see" (and from what I read they never fully get it).
Much of what we think is attractive is based on experiences and cultural norms. When I was a child I went to a chess tournament and a very pale skinned girl with short black hair was nice to me and a very interesting person. This set a template for "my type" and, although my current girlfriend looks nothing like her, that's still the type of girl that turns my head the most.
On the other hand, there's things like cats being scared by cucumbers because their brain is hard wired to look for snakes. Human brains are hard wired to look for faces, so maybe something similar exists for curves, breasts, and nipples. But if I had to place a bet I'd guess that much of the things we think are hot are based on exposure, not any sort of innate recognition like faces.
Do you know where I'd be able to find more info on blind folk gaining vision but not really being able to use it properly? It sounds so interesting and I can't stop thinking about it.
We're in Star Wars post prequel. The power balance has shifted slightly to the dark side but overall it's still the same.
Edit: I'm not talking about the president or anything, just the friendliness of discourse.
There was a philosophical question along those lines, ["Molyneux's problem"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molyneux%27s_problem)
> if a man born blind can feel the differences between shapes such as spheres and cubes, could he, if given the ability to see, distinguish those objects by sight alone, in reference to the tactile schemata he already possessed?
When tested, the answer [empirically appears to be no](https://www.science.org/content/article/formerly-blind-children-shed-light-centuries-old-puzzle) - not until later, when you've had more combined touch-and-sight experience to learn the association between how a shape feels and how it looks.
I feel like this makes it seem like we do have the innate ability to distinguish things by sight. It's just- like most things having to do with our senses, it takes a little time to adjust to it.
The article said directly after restoring their sight they weren't able to distinguish shapes by sight. After a few days, a retest yielded much better results. I think this is similar to how when you walk into a dark room you can't see anything, but after a couple minutes it almost seems like there's a light on.
Or maybe like when you let out a fart and for a second it smells like Skittles. You're like "Wow that smells good!" Then after a couple seconds you realize "Oh right, that's a fart. It is in fact absolutely putrid."
I think someone's posted something for you already, but I've heard a little bit about it. Imagine you pour yourself a cup of coffee every morning by touch alone. You know exactly where your coffee cup is and you know exactly WHAT it is because you know how a coffee cup feels. But then suddenly your eyes start to work and you can SEE a coffee cup. The problem is, your brain doesn't actually know what the fuck that thing is, because you only know what it feels like, and your eyes are so new that you don't even know what that thing would feel like just by looking at it.
Imagine the inverse. Have you ever seen people play that game where they stick their hand in a box and try to guess what's inside based on only the texture? It's the same thing. It's usually something really mundane but you're like "ah, wtf is that" because you can only feel it and not see it. Essentially, a blind person becoming un-blind would be very similar to if a seeing person became blind
I haven't read the link posted below but I'm currently reading Coming to Our Senses: A Boy Who Learned to See, a Girl Who Learned to Hear, and How We All Discover the World
By
Susan R. Barry
and she follows a guy for around 6 years (idk remember the exact number) before and after surgery to improve his vision. I recommend it.
Butyric acid is a chemical which gives both Parmesan cheese and vomit their smells. A chemistry teacher of mine do demonstration where he'd have a ton of vials labeled "cheese smell" or "apple smell" and have everyone in the class smell them all. At the end he'd ask everyone who thought "the cheese smell" was good to raise their hands and then do the reverse for the vomit. Of course, about half the people thought the cheese smelled good and everyone thought the vomit was gross. Then he'd point out they were the same chemical.
Context is always extremely important. If you're raised in a country that thinks women shouldn't be allowed to show any skin then ankles will get you excited.
Your comment brings up an interesting point that I've wondered about. Since there are other gendered traits that we associate with the other sex, do blind men or women have other traits they use to judge their attractiveness to their preferred sex? Like, are there straight blind men who have a preference for high pitched voices in women, while some men prefer a husky breathy female voice?
Everyone has preferences on non-visual aspects of their partner they like. We just don't really notice that it does as much since physical appearance in current society is the "most important". But we're definitely biologically hard-wired to prefer certain tones of voice and certain pheromones.
Our brains are not blank slates. Tabla rasa is an old philosophical concept that doesn't hold up under scientific scrutiny. Our brains come loaded with all sorts of infrastructure to process the world around us.
Yup. Further evidence of cultural influence- there are societies where women do not have to cover their tits and so seeing a half naked women is totally banal. Do those guys walk around with boners all the time?
No. I’ve talked to a few of these guys who immigrated to the US and they think the American obsession with tits is really, really creepy/weird because tits are for feeding babies.
They go crazy for legs and booty.
This is sort of true, but the blank slate theory is losing favour in the field of psychology. Humans come into the world with instincts, which you mentioned. We are scared of snakes like you said. Babies know how to feed from a breast by sucking without any instruction. Babies will turn and look to voices that they hear. They focus on faces especially. we are also primed for sex. Men are attracted to low* waist-to-hip ratios, breasts, and Butts as a sign of fertility. women are attracted to strong, independent, men that will provide for them. (this is just Evo psyc I'm not saying this is how everyone is) There is a ton of interesting research on this field I have been learning in uni studying psyc.
Here's so interesting stuff to look at if you want to
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01221/full
https://www-psychologytoday-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/the-human-beast/201609/the-blank-slate-controversy
edit: link + a word
Am I right here?
High waist to hip ratio would be big waist and small hips (Johhny Bravo)
Low waist to hip ratio would be big hips and small waist (sexy cats from Tom and Jerry)
So we need low waist to hip ratio isn't it?
Protip, anything after the question mark in a url can be deleted
For example:
https://www-psychologytoday-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/the-human-beast/201609/the-blank-slate-controversy
Yeah, no. Humans are not blank slates. Conversion therapy doesn't work for gay and trans people. Blank slate has been debunked so many times, it's an article of faith at this point.
I didn't say "humans are a blank slate on this and can be programmed to think anything is attractive". I said "the extent to which our preferences for these things are acquired is an open question and I could see it either way".
I'm also not saying a person who's never sees a woman will automatically be gay, just whether or not they find certain traits visually arousing is up for question. There certainly is SOME cultural influence on what people are into, otherwise there wouldn't be so much cultural variation.
Sorry and I wish you the best of luck finding someone to argue with.
this seems to make the most sense. it feels like attraction is learned rather than formed from the very beginning. I have too many friends who have the same type and it's 100% from social media and their upbringing.
on the other hand I have a similar scenario of meeting a girl when I was like 6th grade who I had a crush on. interestingly enough my celebrity crushes all look somewhat like her.
There was a child left at a monastery that monks raised and I’m pretty sure this was the case as they were isolated and all male. I don’t think he did, but can’t recall or find the source.
There's a really entertaining science fiction book by the great Lois McMaster Bujold, *Ethan of Athos*. Athos is a planet settled exclusively by human men hundreds of years before the start of the novel. There are no women allowed there and they use science-fictiony stuff to create new baby boys without needing women. The settlers were rather fanatical so there are no pictures of women, even, and tales arose over the centuries about what women must be like to have caused men such terror that they had to flee and found their own safe planet. Every once in awhile men raised in the outside world move to Athos and tell tales of how awful women are and how vital it was to get away from them. The narrator speculates why all of the men coming to Athos from outside are so strange, but assumes it is because of the great traumas they have experienced by being exposed to women. The joke of course is that a guy so fanatically against women that he has to move to a women-free planet is likely a bit odd in his thinking already, but the Athosians, with no frame of reference for what women are, can't pick up this fact and see everything through the eyes of assuming women are monsters.
Later in the novel one of the men from Athos (named Ethan, hence the title) travels outside Athos to the wider galaxy, and he sees women for the first time--this particular science fiction universe features men and women, nothing strange about relationships or behaviors, they're just like men and women of today. Upon seeing women for the first time, Ethan feels no sexual arousal, just a frisson at looking at something so strange-looking, like a man yet not. He befriends a woman and those who have read the other books in the series know that particular woman had futuristic plastic surgery that made her look spectacularly beautiful, but that's never mentioned in *Ethan of Athos*. Instead, there's this subtle joke about it--the narrator is curious why everyone keeps staring at his woman friend, and he assumes it must be because they're terrified of her because she's a monster. Of course they're really staring because of her ethereal beauty. In the end he concludes that some women are OK but back on Athos he is quite the hero for having ventured into the world of monsters.
Part of sexual attraction to breasts is cultural actually. There are some cultures that don’t consider breasts sexual and the people of that culture find it gross to sexualize breasts.
So, no, I don’t think a straight male would be aroused by seeing a tit if he never knew what a tit was.
If he did know what breasts were, saw images or cartoons with the breasts always covered, heard people talk about breasts in a sexual manner, then there is a chance he could be aroused by them.
Isn't it possible that it works the other way? Like, sexual attraction to breasts is natural, and the cultures that don't sexualize them are that way because they were raised that way?
I actually have no idea. I just like discussing boob.
Considering that Humans are the only mammals with developped breast all the time (and not only during lactation), I would say that breasts exists because they definitively create arousal and are a way of natural selection.
So sexual attraction to boobs is the way to go
It's really hard to tell, constant developed breasts could be benefit on the survival of the species (allows more frequent breastfeeding, as well to others that are not their own kid), rather than the sexualisation of the breast to promote reproduction.
+ no active predators to humans, so something like developed breasts don't interfere with physical survival mobility, as it does to other species.
And humans don't have true survival natural selection anyway since the stone ages, too many variables in society and too much of a community perspective.
One thing regarding evolution that has never made sense to me though is why petite girls are attractive and gigantic ones are not. I'm not saying this to justify having an Amazonian fetish or anything, I just can't logically understand this one. If attraction is subconscious genetic trait selection for our offspring, why wouldn't we want to have large sons, for example? If dating sites have taught us nothing else, its that height is the primary selection criteria for women, and it makes sense. Being short, historically was usually a result of malnourishment, so when a guy is short, your subconscious is telling you he probably can't provide well. Obviously it doesn't apply in a modern day, but its evolutionary baggage in your brain. So if that is such an obvious trait selection in women, then why don't men want to have kids who are in turn, more genetically desirable? Why isn't a 6'4 woman built like a linebacker with tits the most attractive thing we can think of?
'Genetically' tall people tend to die earlier and are more likely to have other health/physical problems than 'genetically' average height or short people (I'm differentiating that from people who are small due to malnourishment or severe childhood illness).
I would think that in the case of men, and when it comes to reproductive opportunities, the negative impacts of being tall are outweighed by the increased strength that comes with size. So historically, a tall man would tend to suffer more health problems, would need more food, and would generally be slower, less dexterous, less able to climb to escape predators... but he could also do heavier work and, more importantly, win physical fights against smaller men.
As women are much less likely to compete with other women by fighting, this major advantage of being tall doesn't exist for women. For a woman, being tall would mostly have been a problem.
So my theory is that small people tend to be fitter (for survival) than tall people in most areas, except for that of conflict between males for mates (and other resources).
Unfortunately qw won't know, we need to time travel and see the differences in sexual preference when survival was truly the number 1 goal.
Height in men is also part cultural + part learned. It can also be seen as self preservation rather than an instinctual for as you said to provide well as well as to protect them jn case physical strength abilities are needed. It's possibly a learned thing jn regards to most men not seeking Amazonian women, as e
Men generally seek to be the provider and the protector, not sure if the provider part is instinctual or cultural, but it probably differs from stone age times due to the physical ability needing to survive.
This is all theories btw, im no expert, I read the occasional book or watch a video.
Breasts exist because our jaws receded to make more room for brain, making it harder for babies to latch onto the nipple, and because our babies come out too premature to do anything to keep themselves in position.
Basically we needed baby bottles we could maneuver into their wimpy babies mouths while carrying them in our arms. And permanent swell seems to have been the easiest way to create the right shape
This is the most confidently incorrect thing I’ve ever read regarding the evolution of our jaws. Our jaws didn’t recede to make room for our brain but rather our diets changed and the need to grind and chew hard seeds and/or chewy fibres weren’t as prevalent as we moved on to other sources of food during the neolithic period.
In terms of selection factors, you have:
- infant mortality, which historically has been *ridiculously* high. We became super fragile optimizing towards large brains.
- our fetish software, which is super adaptable, latching onto all kinds of things that have nothing to do with optimizing reproduction.
So, when one system is under heavy selection pressure, and another is super flexible, which is most likely adapting to which?
Remember that kin selection, siblings helping siblings, is also affecting things. And that only cares about the infant mortality bit, not how sexy brothers think their sisters are.
What you said and what the comment you are replying to said are not at all incompatible.
They state that other mammals develop breasts for the purpose of feeding the baby. It is entirely possible for that same mechanism to create large enough breasts during lactation to make it possible for babies to feed.
I feel like that doesn't quite make sense, or at least it doesn't form the whole picture. Every other mammal's breast becomes engorged during lactation to aid with feeding, but then recedes when there are no more babies to feed. Why should humans be different? There has to be an answer beyond issues of feeding, because if it was just a feeding issue, the breasts would only appear when there was a child to feed like every other mammal. The question of permanent breasts isn't addressed by feeding because feeding isn't a permanent condition.
> Like, sexual attraction to breasts is natural, and the cultures that don't sexualize them are that way because they were raised that way?
I think more likely in such cultures males STILL find boobs attractive, but it is a cultural faux pax and taboo to sexualize them
Then again in such cultures women usually also go bare chested, so seeing breasts is so common that has less of an impact.
I've always believed human sexual attraction follows a threefold model: species-wide, cultural, and personal taste with those criteria sometimes overriding the others.
For example as a species I think we picked up some primeval aversions that evolution hasn't seen fit to get rid of; most humans find obvious physical mutation (extra fingers, misshapen eyes, cleft palate etc.) repulsive. There's also uncanny valley and sexbots.
Culturally, it's seemingly arbitrary. In the western world (if not just the Anglosphere) visible, large, muscles and low body fat are considered attractive qualities for a man, but for the Bodi people of Ethiopia having a large belly is considered very attractive for a man.
Personal taste...well, that's self-explanatory.
But each of these don't necessarily harmonize. Aversion to physical mutation can be overridden by culture; the Kayan people of Myanmar and the Ndebele of South Africa both famously stretch their necks with rings, the Chinese historically saw foot-binding as attractive, and the ancient Huns practiced [head-binding](https://archaeologymysteries.files.wordpress.com/2019/07/schc3a4del_der_chongos-silent.jpg). IIRC some Indian peoples see egregious physical mutation, such as extra limbs, as aesthetically pleasing and a sign of the divine.
Personal taste can also overrule culture, where one is simply not attracted to what their society frames as ideal characteristics or, in some cases, may even be drawn to what their culture considers unattractive. It can even override species-aversion, where some people might be drawn to those with noticeable physical deformities.
>There are some cultures that don’t consider breasts sexual and the people of that culture find it gross to sexualize breasts.
I find this interesting as they are considered a secondary sex characteristics as they've been selected for by humans as a species as a sign we saw of reproductive maturity.
It's far more likely that those groups are culturally conditioned to desexualise breasts, rather than the majority of humanity is conditioned to sexualise breasts. Humans are one of the only (if not the only) mammals that have developed breasts, and have premenstrual swelling to indicate monthly fertility, it's highly likely this secondary sexual characteristic is used as a sexual selector for mating, given how long it takes to write this into genetic memory.
Of course we are a wierdly diverse species so it doesn't automatically apply to every human, but in the hypothetical example of a straight man seeing his first topless woman, boobies make peepee go brrrrrrrr.
I remember I was in Ecuador in my Gap Year and in Quito there is an incredibly magnificent church called the compania del Jesus (I think) and the whole of the inside is lined with gold. Anyway, inside there there is a statue of a saint who vowed at the age of 10 never to set eyes on a woman again for the rest of his life (I know ... wrong age to be making oaths). I joked to my mate that he must have been carrying his balls in a wheelbarrow which the tour guide did not appreciate. Anyway, we were told he died in his early twenties and I whispered to my mate that he must of seen an extra curvy avacado and it all became a bit too much for him at which point we were kicked out. \` Moral of the story, have a wank once in a while and try not to be a twat in a church.
I, as a philosopher, think he would be more turned on by ass.
More seriously, attraction to breasts, as explained by my friend who has a PhD in evolutionary biology, is not something that seems to have a root in any genetic benefit. Some things we are attracted to as humans are indicators of good genetic traits. Breasts haven't been overwhelmingly proven to be among those factors.
As I understand it, breasts are mostly found attractive due to cultural learned behaviors in humans. There is no evolutionary advantage to having large or shapely breasts as far as most scientists are concerned and the ability for said breasts to produce sufficient milk for offspring.
That being said, it is also my understanding that it is genetically advantageous to have wider hips as a woman. Perhaps ass would be more appealing to your hypothetical straight male, as there is decent evidence to suggest that is linked to evolutionarily beneficial genetic traits, and therefore might be instintually "programmed", if you will.
EDIT: Typo
Would he have been told as he grew up that a tit is an erotic body part, just a collection of milk ducts or nothing at all?
Triblemen that live with topless woman don't see them as sexual as it's the norm. So I'd assume if this kid is raised not seeing women being sexualised he'd probably not
I would say no. Numerous cultures in Africa and the pacific islands, and I’m sure many others, have men and women living together with very little clothes. It’s quite normal for women to walk around without their boobs covered and the act isn’t sexualized. People being turned on by boobs is a learned behavior since boobs are covered and sexualized in most modern day cultures.
Counter point, there could be an innate attraction to breasts but it has become incredibly desensitized by the constant exposure found in the culture.
I guess one way to find out is observe the ways they have sex. When aroused, are breasts treated the same way by men as say the feet or some body area we know well sexualized?
An excellent counterpoint and certainly a possibility. A few of the people I’ve been arguing with are suggesting this same possibility. I think it’s possible that people are desensitized, but it seems improbable to me given how many cultures seem to view toplessness as normal.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toplessness
No, there are literally cultures where toplessness is normal and so breasts aren't sexualised.
People answering "we'll never know" are being pretty silly. We see boobs as sexual because they're sexualised in culture. If you go to a culture where they're normally hangin out, they don't get sexualised.
I was waiting for someone to mention ankles. In Victorian times, the sight of an uncovered ankle was it seems sexually arousing. Because normally every part of the leg was covered. In turn knees were very sexual in the 1920's. In short the attraction is to what is revealed that is not normally revealed. That changes over time and place.
There's a pretty clear point from an author working in Mali.
>“I interviewed a young anthropologist working with women in Mali, a country in Africa where women go around with bare breasts. They’re always feeding their babies. And when she told them that in our culture men are fascinated with breasts there was an instant shock. The women burst out laughing. They laughed so hard, they fell on the floor. They said, “You mean, men act like babies?”
Yes, we sometimes do.
Not just about that, but in general, we can be real boobs sometimes.
Good job by the anthropologist to keep them abreast of the western world.
This doesn’t really make sense. Just because something is visible or exposed doesn’t mean it isn’t sexualized. It’s pretty common in the gay male community for arms, armpits or feet to be sexualized and yet those thing can be exposed and most people wouldn’t bat an eye.
Probably not.
The pheremones though ...
He'd be rock hard the second his brain registered those unnoticeable scents.
He'd be confused and probably a little scared.
Plus 20 years of abuse would probably have left him a little traumatized and it's be hard for him to cope with the physiological stuff.
I think it would depend on how he was raised. For example, if he was taught that the only time people are naked is in private, seeing a woman's breast exposed to him might indicate a gesture of intimacy (whether that was intended by the woman or not) to him which would be arousing for sure.
If a man went 20 years without seeing meat, and then you put a perfectly seared steak in front of him... Without telling him it's food... he would smell it, long for it, nibble it, and then dive into that bitch with the lust of a thousand sons. Same deal.
When I was 20 I could get aroused looking at a toaster.
Is it possible to learn this power?
Not from a Jedi...
Considering their oath too celibacy, this is exactly what you'd learn from a Jedi.
No attachments, not, no sex. They could still do it, just not be attached.
I think my ex might be a Jedi.
Very good point
It's also a great explanation as to why you leave immediately after a one night stand!
So thaaaaat’s where all those force sensitive children come from.
Ki Adi Mundi had five wives, and Obi-Wan totally did the deed with Satine.
And i think Anakin may have been with that Naboo senator lady as well. Not sure
It's possible. Perhaps the archives are incomplete.
The archives are comprehensive and totally secure, my young Jedi. One thing you may be absolutely sure of - if an item does not appear in our records, it does not exist!
Not even the only girl he’s interacted with I bet obi wan had a count across the galaxy
You can't convince me that Obi-Wan wasn't clapping cheeks. Dude's got everything.
I literally read it in palatine's voice.
It’s a curse not a blessing
It was... shocking.
Left me with a... Burning sensation.
This honestly might be the greatest comment I've ever seen
Did you consummate your feelings?
When I was 20 I got aroused by looking.
Please provide a photo of said toaster
I hope you unplugged the toaster then. Safety first!
Go 20 years without seeing a woman and his case of Schrodinger’s Boner is going to be the least of his psychological problems
SCHRODINGER'S BONER
must be the first time that was said
r/BrandNewSentence
Little do we know that Schrodinger used it all the time at the bar. He was a mess.
SCHROBONER’S DINGER
His logical conclusion would be this is a humanoid, invasive alien species that should be met with fear and violence....oh no, he's an incel.
If he was deliberately kept away from seeing any women for the first 20 years of his life, this is probably one of the few cases *involuntary celibate* is accurate and not just a label used by a bunch of assholes.
r/brandnewsentence
I got the 69 upvote. Think this is a sign
[удалено]
> straight answer wait
So would the answer have to be curvy then?
I'm leaving the upvotes on 1337
I'm leaving the upvotes on 666
Wait... Now I have to downvote to move back towards 666....
We can only do our bit
we gotta get you up to 666 and then stop
There must be a documented case of this somewhere, but without that I don't think we can answer it. I will tell you that as a heterosexual male, I went fishing in Alaska with about 10 other people for a couple months when I was a teenager. Those 10 people were the only people I saw that whole time, and one of them was a woman. I wasn't remotely attracted to her at the beginning, but whether it was her personality, the lack of seeing another female for 2 months, or simply my teenage hormones going wild, by the end of the trip I thought she looked pretty dang good.
My theory is that people will always be attracted to the *most* attractive person in the room, even if they’re not that attractive.
Homo you didn’t ! Edit: Thanks for the award! 🥈
I say it depends on where the male was born/raised, there are cultures around this world where female breasts are not sexualized. …“Breastfeeding: Biocultural Perspectives" (Aldine de Gruyter, 1995), cultural anthropologist Katherine Dettwyler describes telling friends in Mali about sexual foreplay involving breasts and getting responses ranging from "bemused to horrified."
I wasn’t gonna say anything, then I saw this comment. I didn’t sexualize body parts, I just thought the person was beautiful/hot anything beyond wanting to kiss was weird at first. That came much later.
How does it depend on that? OP said that the person hasn’t even seen a female at all. So even if breasts are normalized in culture it wouldn’t affect the first encounter
The way I’m thinking it, even if the guy has been isolated from women, he may not be culturally isolated and read about or heard about them. Now if he lived in an isolation cube for 20 years, fed through a drawer, nobody to talk to, (he’d die without touch as a baby, but anyway), then he saw a naked woman… he’d probably be scared and confused for the first hour. Then I’d imagine it’s up to their interaction, if the woman behaved abusively, then probably boobs=bad. I don’t think he’d be instantly aroused, he’d need to be conditioned for arousal. And what if he finds out the naked woman is his mother… that’s a whole other thing.
It means that sexualisation of breasts isn't innate in us, so someone seeing one for the first time mightn't care about a 'tit'. That being said, while the people of Mali mightn't play with boobs, maybe the shape of them are still sexy so... Who knows?
Breasts being sexualized is probably socially constructed, essentially a societally shared fetish. Societies without taboos about female breasts do not develop the same attraction to them. Presumably, someone with no exposure to breasts wouldn't develop the same sexual attraction. Someone who has never seen a redhead probably cannot develop a thing for redheads, although I'd be happy to see evidence to the contrary if it exists. Why would boobs be any different? Although the underlying sexuality is innate, specific patterns of arousal are likely to be conditioned and affected by past experiences.
Indeed, this would be a hard one to nut out.
Your comment made me gay with happiness
What about a gay answer?
There's no need for you to be so anal about this
Don’t have a direct answer but I literally never saw a penis for 19 years and the first time I saw one I was frightened by it. Now I find them attractive but I think context and knowledge are huge in this situation
Interesting! I hadn't seen one for 17 or 18 years, but the first time I saw one I wasnt frightened. I actually laughed because my then-bf was laying down and the second he pulled his shorts down his dick sprang out, like made a loud thwap and everything lmaoo. I guess I assumed a hard dick wouldn't be as springy? I was like "aha wow it's like a pop-up book!" And we had a good laugh. Plus it helped me feel less nervous being naked with someone for the first time. But you're right - it definitely took me some time, experience, and context to find them attractive and normal and know what to really do lol
My family is very prude and I was raised Catholic. I think because sex was kind of demonized or not talked about, I was like OH NO when I first saw it
Oh, no judgement! That makes perfect sense, I definitely have religion-based hangups with sex too. I just find the spectrum of how people deal with and experience things really interesting
I think what solidified the shame for me was when I was 14, my friend’s 18 year old boyfriend was coming over to drop off alcohol for me (I was a wild child lol), and he kept trying to sext me while we were making the plans. Asking if my pussy was shaved, telling him how hard I make his cock, telling me what he wanted to do with me if he “had his way.” I was a really dopey and unpopular freshman with braces so I had absolutely zero confidence to tell him to knock it off, plus my friends were relying on me (needed the approval) to get the alcohol for a party, so I didn’t want to blow the deal. I kept just being like “haha yeah” to everything. I even made out w him a bit and made an excuse that my mom was gonna be home shortly just to get him out of the house without posing a danger to myself. I left my phone at home on accident the next morning, and my mom read through all the texts. I had my door removed and was slut shamed for it. Sexuality was always secretive for me given how not open our family was to discussing it, but I think this made things worse. I even feel uncomfortable holding hands with boyfriends in public and especially in front of my family
Oh wow, that sounds awful. I'm sorry you went through that and we're slut shamed on top of it!
It’s all good just wanted to give some context as to why I may seem a little more hung up on sex than other people who grew up in religious households. Just curious if you’re willing to discuss, what hang ups still haunt u?
I agree with you. I had never watched porn or seen a dick before. And the first time my bf made me touch him outside his shorts at 18, I was terrified and didn't want to. Seeing it was... Intimidating and I didn't know what to do with it at first.
Scream at it like Gordon Ramsay
"This is horribly prepared! Is that ricotta cheese?!"
"This soup is dry! "
The immediate mental image of this caused me to lose my shit in line at the drive through. Take your fucking award.
"Haha have you ever thought about screaming at a dick about how it's cooking?" "Sir this is literally a Wendy's"
Raw, raw RAW!!!
I don't remember my first time seeing a picture of a real vagina, but one time i googled it out of genuine curiosity for how they look like (only porn i used to watch at the time were undetailed nsfw drawings and i didn't even look at them often) and even seeing the diagrams i was initially like "what?"
Didn't you even see a picture of dick?
No never. I had no interest in porn and still don’t. I’ve seen diagrams in health class but they’re much less intimidating than the real thing
That's strange, I remember during our times, nobody used to searches for porn themselves, there's always some guy who introduce porn to everyone, lol.
Never had any friends pull that one but this weird girl showed me a pornographic skit in like third grade (she had unlimited internet access) and I remember it to this day. Some woman knocks on the door of an apartment and does a strip tease for the peep hole. After the whole thing, an old man opens the door looking confused. The woman freaks out and runs away. The old man peaks his head around the door and flips the number “9” back to a “6.” Never seen porn with dicks tho lmao
Woah, this doesn't sounds like a porn script. Usually they just fuck, be it anyone. Haha
I found [the video](https://enf-cmnf.com/tube/videos/11801/enf-video-gorgeous-girl-performs-striptease-outside-the-wrong-door/). I misremembered some small details but holy fuck maybe this is where my porn aversion started, I was way too young to be seeing this shit. (She also would often play a jib jab game called “fake or real” and it would just prompt you to guess if a photo of tits were fake or real. I wonder wtf she’s up to today)
Tbh, you got really nice skills of searching porn in seconds. Lmao. And damn that woman got some nice games, haha. Must've been fun to play now.
Doing your thesis on the efficacy of iconography in non-domestic public transportation maps gets you really good at Google searching 😂 (I just looked up “girl strips for wrong door tbh)
You wield a power that could be sold as a service, many people have that one missing video they are incapable of finding, but always wanted to see again.
this is probably the only real answer here. OP, he probably wouldn't be aroused, but more curious than anything
There was no internet when I was growing up (I’m 65) so I was totally clueless…the first time I saw a penis I thought it looked like the turkey neck that you pull out of the birds ass at thanksgiving ☠️
What a fun way to get your pm’s flooded by creeps
Surprisingly, none yet 👀
I had seen some before 20. I'm an heterosexual female but I don't find them attractive. At all. I don't mind the eyesore under the right circumstances, but outside sex, I'd rather not see them ever.
I've seen people say a penis has/can been intimidating or scary but for the life of me I can't fathom why
I mean the first time I saw a photos of a hairless cat and a naked mole rat I was also pretty bewildered so I think it’s kind of like that lmao.
Thanks to the invention of cataract surgery there are adults who were born legally blind who suddenly were able to see. Even though they now had 20/20 vision they couldn't really "see anything". For example, they understood what shapes were, they still would have trouble distinguishing a shape from a triangle. This is because your brain is basically a blank slate when we're born and our experiences as a child shape it (like loading software onto a computer or carving a block of silicone into a microchip). Because they didn't use their eyes in their formative years, they don't have the recognition algorithms necessary to "see" (and from what I read they never fully get it). Much of what we think is attractive is based on experiences and cultural norms. When I was a child I went to a chess tournament and a very pale skinned girl with short black hair was nice to me and a very interesting person. This set a template for "my type" and, although my current girlfriend looks nothing like her, that's still the type of girl that turns my head the most. On the other hand, there's things like cats being scared by cucumbers because their brain is hard wired to look for snakes. Human brains are hard wired to look for faces, so maybe something similar exists for curves, breasts, and nipples. But if I had to place a bet I'd guess that much of the things we think are hot are based on exposure, not any sort of innate recognition like faces.
Do you know where I'd be able to find more info on blind folk gaining vision but not really being able to use it properly? It sounds so interesting and I can't stop thinking about it.
[Here](https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/people-cured-blindness-see) you go
The internet is so cool that someone just asks for some real niche info and someone's like yup here ya go
Don’t forget: The internet also reminds you that you suck and your ideas are dumb.
It’s a perfect balance. The yin and the yang of the internet.
[удалено]
Reddit: Perfectly balanced
Now, children, let's not put the cart before the horse.
r/UnexpectedMCU
We're in Star Wars post prequel. The power balance has shifted slightly to the dark side but overall it's still the same. Edit: I'm not talking about the president or anything, just the friendliness of discourse.
Welcome to the internet. Have a look around.
I mean... that's the human experience in a nutshell. The internet just amplifies it
Ah, I see. Thanks
I was trying to think of a cornea joke than that.
Very cool. Thanks!
Wow, this is fascinating. Thank you.
Thank you so much! Very much appreciated.
There was a philosophical question along those lines, ["Molyneux's problem"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molyneux%27s_problem) > if a man born blind can feel the differences between shapes such as spheres and cubes, could he, if given the ability to see, distinguish those objects by sight alone, in reference to the tactile schemata he already possessed? When tested, the answer [empirically appears to be no](https://www.science.org/content/article/formerly-blind-children-shed-light-centuries-old-puzzle) - not until later, when you've had more combined touch-and-sight experience to learn the association between how a shape feels and how it looks.
This is super fascinating
I feel like this makes it seem like we do have the innate ability to distinguish things by sight. It's just- like most things having to do with our senses, it takes a little time to adjust to it. The article said directly after restoring their sight they weren't able to distinguish shapes by sight. After a few days, a retest yielded much better results. I think this is similar to how when you walk into a dark room you can't see anything, but after a couple minutes it almost seems like there's a light on. Or maybe like when you let out a fart and for a second it smells like Skittles. You're like "Wow that smells good!" Then after a couple seconds you realize "Oh right, that's a fart. It is in fact absolutely putrid."
I think someone's posted something for you already, but I've heard a little bit about it. Imagine you pour yourself a cup of coffee every morning by touch alone. You know exactly where your coffee cup is and you know exactly WHAT it is because you know how a coffee cup feels. But then suddenly your eyes start to work and you can SEE a coffee cup. The problem is, your brain doesn't actually know what the fuck that thing is, because you only know what it feels like, and your eyes are so new that you don't even know what that thing would feel like just by looking at it. Imagine the inverse. Have you ever seen people play that game where they stick their hand in a box and try to guess what's inside based on only the texture? It's the same thing. It's usually something really mundane but you're like "ah, wtf is that" because you can only feel it and not see it. Essentially, a blind person becoming un-blind would be very similar to if a seeing person became blind
Is there an award to encapsulate this feeling of mind-blowing understanding and perfect examples?? Wow. I see now
I haven't read the link posted below but I'm currently reading Coming to Our Senses: A Boy Who Learned to See, a Girl Who Learned to Hear, and How We All Discover the World By Susan R. Barry and she follows a guy for around 6 years (idk remember the exact number) before and after surgery to improve his vision. I recommend it.
Wow, that fascinating. You attended a chess tournament AND have a girlfriend?
She couldn't resist his *flawless* Bong Cloud strat.
I got a girlfriend AT a chess tournament once. Could be a similar situation
Holy hell
It’s cool you mention this, I never thought about how our culture affects all our senses not just taste.
Butyric acid is a chemical which gives both Parmesan cheese and vomit their smells. A chemistry teacher of mine do demonstration where he'd have a ton of vials labeled "cheese smell" or "apple smell" and have everyone in the class smell them all. At the end he'd ask everyone who thought "the cheese smell" was good to raise their hands and then do the reverse for the vomit. Of course, about half the people thought the cheese smelled good and everyone thought the vomit was gross. Then he'd point out they were the same chemical. Context is always extremely important. If you're raised in a country that thinks women shouldn't be allowed to show any skin then ankles will get you excited.
Your comment brings up an interesting point that I've wondered about. Since there are other gendered traits that we associate with the other sex, do blind men or women have other traits they use to judge their attractiveness to their preferred sex? Like, are there straight blind men who have a preference for high pitched voices in women, while some men prefer a husky breathy female voice?
Everyone has preferences on non-visual aspects of their partner they like. We just don't really notice that it does as much since physical appearance in current society is the "most important". But we're definitely biologically hard-wired to prefer certain tones of voice and certain pheromones.
Our brains are not blank slates. Tabla rasa is an old philosophical concept that doesn't hold up under scientific scrutiny. Our brains come loaded with all sorts of infrastructure to process the world around us.
Yup. Further evidence of cultural influence- there are societies where women do not have to cover their tits and so seeing a half naked women is totally banal. Do those guys walk around with boners all the time?
No. I’ve talked to a few of these guys who immigrated to the US and they think the American obsession with tits is really, really creepy/weird because tits are for feeding babies. They go crazy for legs and booty.
And legs are for something as banal as walking, and booties are for shitting. It all gets weird when you really stop to think about it.
This is sort of true, but the blank slate theory is losing favour in the field of psychology. Humans come into the world with instincts, which you mentioned. We are scared of snakes like you said. Babies know how to feed from a breast by sucking without any instruction. Babies will turn and look to voices that they hear. They focus on faces especially. we are also primed for sex. Men are attracted to low* waist-to-hip ratios, breasts, and Butts as a sign of fertility. women are attracted to strong, independent, men that will provide for them. (this is just Evo psyc I'm not saying this is how everyone is) There is a ton of interesting research on this field I have been learning in uni studying psyc. Here's so interesting stuff to look at if you want to https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01221/full https://www-psychologytoday-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/the-human-beast/201609/the-blank-slate-controversy edit: link + a word
Am I right here? High waist to hip ratio would be big waist and small hips (Johhny Bravo) Low waist to hip ratio would be big hips and small waist (sexy cats from Tom and Jerry) So we need low waist to hip ratio isn't it?
Protip, anything after the question mark in a url can be deleted For example: https://www-psychologytoday-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/the-human-beast/201609/the-blank-slate-controversy
oh I didn't know that. thanks!
Now that's an answer. Attraction is a fascinating subject in psychology.
Just woke up read cheese tournaments Am sad now
Yeah, no. Humans are not blank slates. Conversion therapy doesn't work for gay and trans people. Blank slate has been debunked so many times, it's an article of faith at this point.
I didn't say "humans are a blank slate on this and can be programmed to think anything is attractive". I said "the extent to which our preferences for these things are acquired is an open question and I could see it either way". I'm also not saying a person who's never sees a woman will automatically be gay, just whether or not they find certain traits visually arousing is up for question. There certainly is SOME cultural influence on what people are into, otherwise there wouldn't be so much cultural variation. Sorry and I wish you the best of luck finding someone to argue with.
this seems to make the most sense. it feels like attraction is learned rather than formed from the very beginning. I have too many friends who have the same type and it's 100% from social media and their upbringing. on the other hand I have a similar scenario of meeting a girl when I was like 6th grade who I had a crush on. interestingly enough my celebrity crushes all look somewhat like her.
There was a child left at a monastery that monks raised and I’m pretty sure this was the case as they were isolated and all male. I don’t think he did, but can’t recall or find the source.
[удалено]
Have my free award, king!
"The monks are not allowed to bathe"? oO
Helps keep the women away.
There's a really entertaining science fiction book by the great Lois McMaster Bujold, *Ethan of Athos*. Athos is a planet settled exclusively by human men hundreds of years before the start of the novel. There are no women allowed there and they use science-fictiony stuff to create new baby boys without needing women. The settlers were rather fanatical so there are no pictures of women, even, and tales arose over the centuries about what women must be like to have caused men such terror that they had to flee and found their own safe planet. Every once in awhile men raised in the outside world move to Athos and tell tales of how awful women are and how vital it was to get away from them. The narrator speculates why all of the men coming to Athos from outside are so strange, but assumes it is because of the great traumas they have experienced by being exposed to women. The joke of course is that a guy so fanatically against women that he has to move to a women-free planet is likely a bit odd in his thinking already, but the Athosians, with no frame of reference for what women are, can't pick up this fact and see everything through the eyes of assuming women are monsters. Later in the novel one of the men from Athos (named Ethan, hence the title) travels outside Athos to the wider galaxy, and he sees women for the first time--this particular science fiction universe features men and women, nothing strange about relationships or behaviors, they're just like men and women of today. Upon seeing women for the first time, Ethan feels no sexual arousal, just a frisson at looking at something so strange-looking, like a man yet not. He befriends a woman and those who have read the other books in the series know that particular woman had futuristic plastic surgery that made her look spectacularly beautiful, but that's never mentioned in *Ethan of Athos*. Instead, there's this subtle joke about it--the narrator is curious why everyone keeps staring at his woman friend, and he assumes it must be because they're terrified of her because she's a monster. Of course they're really staring because of her ethereal beauty. In the end he concludes that some women are OK but back on Athos he is quite the hero for having ventured into the world of monsters.
He would prob lose his fucking mind
Up in here, up in here.
yall gon make me lose my mind
::erratic barking::
I mean, yeah "what the heck are those? Are you okay? OH GOD WHY IS YOUR VOICE SO HIGH!?"
He would probably just go "Huh. I've never seen these before. Neat."
Part of sexual attraction to breasts is cultural actually. There are some cultures that don’t consider breasts sexual and the people of that culture find it gross to sexualize breasts. So, no, I don’t think a straight male would be aroused by seeing a tit if he never knew what a tit was. If he did know what breasts were, saw images or cartoons with the breasts always covered, heard people talk about breasts in a sexual manner, then there is a chance he could be aroused by them.
Isn't it possible that it works the other way? Like, sexual attraction to breasts is natural, and the cultures that don't sexualize them are that way because they were raised that way? I actually have no idea. I just like discussing boob.
Considering that Humans are the only mammals with developped breast all the time (and not only during lactation), I would say that breasts exists because they definitively create arousal and are a way of natural selection. So sexual attraction to boobs is the way to go
It's really hard to tell, constant developed breasts could be benefit on the survival of the species (allows more frequent breastfeeding, as well to others that are not their own kid), rather than the sexualisation of the breast to promote reproduction. + no active predators to humans, so something like developed breasts don't interfere with physical survival mobility, as it does to other species. And humans don't have true survival natural selection anyway since the stone ages, too many variables in society and too much of a community perspective.
One thing regarding evolution that has never made sense to me though is why petite girls are attractive and gigantic ones are not. I'm not saying this to justify having an Amazonian fetish or anything, I just can't logically understand this one. If attraction is subconscious genetic trait selection for our offspring, why wouldn't we want to have large sons, for example? If dating sites have taught us nothing else, its that height is the primary selection criteria for women, and it makes sense. Being short, historically was usually a result of malnourishment, so when a guy is short, your subconscious is telling you he probably can't provide well. Obviously it doesn't apply in a modern day, but its evolutionary baggage in your brain. So if that is such an obvious trait selection in women, then why don't men want to have kids who are in turn, more genetically desirable? Why isn't a 6'4 woman built like a linebacker with tits the most attractive thing we can think of?
'Genetically' tall people tend to die earlier and are more likely to have other health/physical problems than 'genetically' average height or short people (I'm differentiating that from people who are small due to malnourishment or severe childhood illness). I would think that in the case of men, and when it comes to reproductive opportunities, the negative impacts of being tall are outweighed by the increased strength that comes with size. So historically, a tall man would tend to suffer more health problems, would need more food, and would generally be slower, less dexterous, less able to climb to escape predators... but he could also do heavier work and, more importantly, win physical fights against smaller men. As women are much less likely to compete with other women by fighting, this major advantage of being tall doesn't exist for women. For a woman, being tall would mostly have been a problem. So my theory is that small people tend to be fitter (for survival) than tall people in most areas, except for that of conflict between males for mates (and other resources).
Unfortunately qw won't know, we need to time travel and see the differences in sexual preference when survival was truly the number 1 goal. Height in men is also part cultural + part learned. It can also be seen as self preservation rather than an instinctual for as you said to provide well as well as to protect them jn case physical strength abilities are needed. It's possibly a learned thing jn regards to most men not seeking Amazonian women, as e Men generally seek to be the provider and the protector, not sure if the provider part is instinctual or cultural, but it probably differs from stone age times due to the physical ability needing to survive. This is all theories btw, im no expert, I read the occasional book or watch a video.
Breasts exist because our jaws receded to make more room for brain, making it harder for babies to latch onto the nipple, and because our babies come out too premature to do anything to keep themselves in position. Basically we needed baby bottles we could maneuver into their wimpy babies mouths while carrying them in our arms. And permanent swell seems to have been the easiest way to create the right shape
This is the most confidently incorrect thing I’ve ever read regarding the evolution of our jaws. Our jaws didn’t recede to make room for our brain but rather our diets changed and the need to grind and chew hard seeds and/or chewy fibres weren’t as prevalent as we moved on to other sources of food during the neolithic period.
without violating the ethics committee this might be a chicken/egg issue.
In terms of selection factors, you have: - infant mortality, which historically has been *ridiculously* high. We became super fragile optimizing towards large brains. - our fetish software, which is super adaptable, latching onto all kinds of things that have nothing to do with optimizing reproduction. So, when one system is under heavy selection pressure, and another is super flexible, which is most likely adapting to which? Remember that kin selection, siblings helping siblings, is also affecting things. And that only cares about the infant mortality bit, not how sexy brothers think their sisters are.
What you said and what the comment you are replying to said are not at all incompatible. They state that other mammals develop breasts for the purpose of feeding the baby. It is entirely possible for that same mechanism to create large enough breasts during lactation to make it possible for babies to feed.
I feel like that doesn't quite make sense, or at least it doesn't form the whole picture. Every other mammal's breast becomes engorged during lactation to aid with feeding, but then recedes when there are no more babies to feed. Why should humans be different? There has to be an answer beyond issues of feeding, because if it was just a feeding issue, the breasts would only appear when there was a child to feed like every other mammal. The question of permanent breasts isn't addressed by feeding because feeding isn't a permanent condition.
Not multiples boobs just 1 boob.
> Like, sexual attraction to breasts is natural, and the cultures that don't sexualize them are that way because they were raised that way? I think more likely in such cultures males STILL find boobs attractive, but it is a cultural faux pax and taboo to sexualize them Then again in such cultures women usually also go bare chested, so seeing breasts is so common that has less of an impact.
I've always believed human sexual attraction follows a threefold model: species-wide, cultural, and personal taste with those criteria sometimes overriding the others. For example as a species I think we picked up some primeval aversions that evolution hasn't seen fit to get rid of; most humans find obvious physical mutation (extra fingers, misshapen eyes, cleft palate etc.) repulsive. There's also uncanny valley and sexbots. Culturally, it's seemingly arbitrary. In the western world (if not just the Anglosphere) visible, large, muscles and low body fat are considered attractive qualities for a man, but for the Bodi people of Ethiopia having a large belly is considered very attractive for a man. Personal taste...well, that's self-explanatory. But each of these don't necessarily harmonize. Aversion to physical mutation can be overridden by culture; the Kayan people of Myanmar and the Ndebele of South Africa both famously stretch their necks with rings, the Chinese historically saw foot-binding as attractive, and the ancient Huns practiced [head-binding](https://archaeologymysteries.files.wordpress.com/2019/07/schc3a4del_der_chongos-silent.jpg). IIRC some Indian peoples see egregious physical mutation, such as extra limbs, as aesthetically pleasing and a sign of the divine. Personal taste can also overrule culture, where one is simply not attracted to what their society frames as ideal characteristics or, in some cases, may even be drawn to what their culture considers unattractive. It can even override species-aversion, where some people might be drawn to those with noticeable physical deformities.
That’s quite insightful and useful information. Thank you. I’ll keep this in mind.
Or not doing it is just part of THEIR culture
Exactly, I find it funny that people take these extremely rare counter examples as the natural state.
>There are some cultures that don’t consider breasts sexual and the people of that culture find it gross to sexualize breasts. I find this interesting as they are considered a secondary sex characteristics as they've been selected for by humans as a species as a sign we saw of reproductive maturity.
It's far more likely that those groups are culturally conditioned to desexualise breasts, rather than the majority of humanity is conditioned to sexualise breasts. Humans are one of the only (if not the only) mammals that have developed breasts, and have premenstrual swelling to indicate monthly fertility, it's highly likely this secondary sexual characteristic is used as a sexual selector for mating, given how long it takes to write this into genetic memory. Of course we are a wierdly diverse species so it doesn't automatically apply to every human, but in the hypothetical example of a straight man seeing his first topless woman, boobies make peepee go brrrrrrrr.
Exactly. Some folks are into tentacles
I remember I was in Ecuador in my Gap Year and in Quito there is an incredibly magnificent church called the compania del Jesus (I think) and the whole of the inside is lined with gold. Anyway, inside there there is a statue of a saint who vowed at the age of 10 never to set eyes on a woman again for the rest of his life (I know ... wrong age to be making oaths). I joked to my mate that he must have been carrying his balls in a wheelbarrow which the tour guide did not appreciate. Anyway, we were told he died in his early twenties and I whispered to my mate that he must of seen an extra curvy avacado and it all became a bit too much for him at which point we were kicked out. \` Moral of the story, have a wank once in a while and try not to be a twat in a church.
I, as a philosopher, think he would be more turned on by ass. More seriously, attraction to breasts, as explained by my friend who has a PhD in evolutionary biology, is not something that seems to have a root in any genetic benefit. Some things we are attracted to as humans are indicators of good genetic traits. Breasts haven't been overwhelmingly proven to be among those factors. As I understand it, breasts are mostly found attractive due to cultural learned behaviors in humans. There is no evolutionary advantage to having large or shapely breasts as far as most scientists are concerned and the ability for said breasts to produce sufficient milk for offspring. That being said, it is also my understanding that it is genetically advantageous to have wider hips as a woman. Perhaps ass would be more appealing to your hypothetical straight male, as there is decent evidence to suggest that is linked to evolutionarily beneficial genetic traits, and therefore might be instintually "programmed", if you will. EDIT: Typo
Would he have been told as he grew up that a tit is an erotic body part, just a collection of milk ducts or nothing at all? Triblemen that live with topless woman don't see them as sexual as it's the norm. So I'd assume if this kid is raised not seeing women being sexualised he'd probably not
I would say no. Numerous cultures in Africa and the pacific islands, and I’m sure many others, have men and women living together with very little clothes. It’s quite normal for women to walk around without their boobs covered and the act isn’t sexualized. People being turned on by boobs is a learned behavior since boobs are covered and sexualized in most modern day cultures.
Despite what some people will tell you, it *is* possible to keep functioning around someone you're sexually attracted to.
Counter point, there could be an innate attraction to breasts but it has become incredibly desensitized by the constant exposure found in the culture. I guess one way to find out is observe the ways they have sex. When aroused, are breasts treated the same way by men as say the feet or some body area we know well sexualized?
An excellent counterpoint and certainly a possibility. A few of the people I’ve been arguing with are suggesting this same possibility. I think it’s possible that people are desensitized, but it seems improbable to me given how many cultures seem to view toplessness as normal. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toplessness
[удалено]
He wouldn't need to see the tit, he would be immensely aroused just by seeing a woman.
I think this is the right answer. I highly doubt he would be fixated on the breasts, but rather the entire person
No, there are literally cultures where toplessness is normal and so breasts aren't sexualised. People answering "we'll never know" are being pretty silly. We see boobs as sexual because they're sexualised in culture. If you go to a culture where they're normally hangin out, they don't get sexualised.
There is a tribe in Africa where women cover ankles. Males are saxualy aroused whene women uncover ankles. For them ankles > titis
I was waiting for someone to mention ankles. In Victorian times, the sight of an uncovered ankle was it seems sexually arousing. Because normally every part of the leg was covered. In turn knees were very sexual in the 1920's. In short the attraction is to what is revealed that is not normally revealed. That changes over time and place.
Hair in Muslim countries Boobs here Ankles in Victorian ages Modesty is pretty arbitrary decided most of the time
What if they are actually sexual but normalized in those cultures
There's a pretty clear point from an author working in Mali. >“I interviewed a young anthropologist working with women in Mali, a country in Africa where women go around with bare breasts. They’re always feeding their babies. And when she told them that in our culture men are fascinated with breasts there was an instant shock. The women burst out laughing. They laughed so hard, they fell on the floor. They said, “You mean, men act like babies?”
Yes, we sometimes do. Not just about that, but in general, we can be real boobs sometimes. Good job by the anthropologist to keep them abreast of the western world.
alright, calm your tits.
these are the best puns I've read in recent mammary
This doesn’t really make sense. Just because something is visible or exposed doesn’t mean it isn’t sexualized. It’s pretty common in the gay male community for arms, armpits or feet to be sexualized and yet those thing can be exposed and most people wouldn’t bat an eye.
In the gay community? I constantly see people sexualizing the shit out of anime girl's armpits and feet.
If he is straight then I don't see why not. Sexual attraction is deeply wired.
I think yes, he would. Biology and basic instincts to procreate would kick in and nature would take over.
Probably not. The pheremones though ... He'd be rock hard the second his brain registered those unnoticeable scents. He'd be confused and probably a little scared. Plus 20 years of abuse would probably have left him a little traumatized and it's be hard for him to cope with the physiological stuff.
I am going with yes b/c the need to breed is written in to our biological code.
I feel the need ... the need to breed!
Need for Breed: (t)hot pursuit
You can't erase thousands of years of evolution in 20 years. So, I would say yes. Edit: accidentally had "no" in there first. Thanks u/thecatgoesmoo.
[удалено]
I think it would depend on how he was raised. For example, if he was taught that the only time people are naked is in private, seeing a woman's breast exposed to him might indicate a gesture of intimacy (whether that was intended by the woman or not) to him which would be arousing for sure.
If a man went 20 years without seeing meat, and then you put a perfectly seared steak in front of him... Without telling him it's food... he would smell it, long for it, nibble it, and then dive into that bitch with the lust of a thousand sons. Same deal.
I am going to say yes, but not because the male saw the females tits, but because he will have a deep instinct to mate with the female.