The impetus for breast fixation.

Tendrak · « **Reply #15 on:** July 13, 2003, 03:45:19 AM »

I have the thing for glasses to. I think that's geared more to imprinting than evolution. Additionally I have a thing for necklaces, usually thick diameter pearls. Why? The same lady with the glasses wore them shelved on her breasts. Early or late, (but more likely early.) the deeper impact events leave a resonance on us that makes us desire that intense pleasure again, often catalizing attempted recreations of the event in whatever level from hiring a model to simple photo scowering.

Davastav · « **Reply #16 on:** July 15, 2003, 12:16:40 PM »

I don't have a technical answer her as to why I've been attracted to breasts since puberty. But the simple answer is that as a heterosexual, the female breast, along with wide hips and curvy tush, etc are outwardly female physical characteristics as women go through puberty. So it was really was just a natural thing to be attracted to if you're a fan of the female form. The media of course helps out quite a bit in showcasing woman like Lynda Carter, Dolly Parton, Raquel Welch, the list is endless. So really if you are attracted to women, I think all men are deep down in awe of large breasted women. There are of course varying degrees on how large the breasts are and still considered attractive etc but that would be discretionary.

GizmoWidget · « **Reply #17 on:** July 16, 2003, 01:08:59 AM »

Quote:

Breasts are soft, rounded, and custom-designed by evolution for a person's mouth.

Evolution doesn't design anything... it works by random chance. Random variations in the phenotypic expression of various genetic traits are expressed in the physical morphology of the organism in the environment. The environment too, plays a role in phenotypic expression. Tay-sachs disease is an example. Provided it is diagnosed early and treated properly with only simple modifications to diet, it is completely harmless. If not, it results in death in an infant in less than a year to 18 mos. These phenotypic variations in physical morphology are directly causal in either successful or unsuccessful reproduction. Breasts are the way they are because their shape has been selected for by the interaction of the random expression of genes with the regularity of the laws of physics in the world and the competition for the resources necessary for an organism's survival in the world.

What this amounts to is that we are naturally drawn to large breasts because it is a signal to us males that the woman is fecund, and will be able to sustain offspring. Other things like narrow waists, wide hips, plump butts, and muscular thighs are other signals to males of a woman's ability to reproduce successfully. Also, women who are full of figure as opposed to skinny or thin signals that she is well nourished and healthy; that she is a mate who will be successful in bearing and raising children. It's just in our nature to find curvy women attractive, because it makes us want to fuck them and get them pregnant.

To say that breasts are "designed" implies that they were intentionally made a particular way with a plan, goal, or agenda in mind. To say this is the case with evolution is completely incorrect. Breasts are the way they are because of the random chance component in genetic recombination during conception and the influence of the environment upon the expression of these variations in our genes. There's no "design" to them at all. They are the way they are because they just happen, by random chance, to be the best solution to the problem.

But yes, because of this, it often seems to us they're designed, because they are in fact, custom made for the purpose, but randomly, not intentionally.

Nimrod · « **Reply #18 on:** July 16, 2003, 07:28:39 AM »

Well said Gizmo! Many people just don't grasp the evolutionary process...
and the human female breast is great subject matter!

(Also I don't often see the word "fecund" in print, good job)
We should get MunchWolf in here... he's on a verbosity tirade right now...

Tux · « **Reply #19 on:** July 16, 2003, 07:29:45 AM »

In addition, evolution is not a force but merely a word expressing change in—usually but not limited to—a living being. Evolution is not a shade of change, but the full spectrum—this change is either good or bad, a step forwards or a step backwards.

RemoWilliams · « **Reply #21 on:** July 16, 2003, 09:37:35 PM »

Actually, I was just using a bit of humor.

Created by God, by evolution, or by a really skilled surgeon in Beverly Hills? Who cares. It all good just as long as we get to play with them.

Remo Williams,
The Master of Sinanju.

maybeenuf4u · « **Reply #22 on:** July 17, 2003, 04:33:14 PM »

I'm with you Remo!

GizmoWidget · « **Reply #23 on:** July 19, 2003, 04:54:18 PM »

Sorry guys... but I'm a scientist by training and a vision researcher by trade. Specifically, I study the visual perception of three dimensional space, hand-eye coordination, and the function of attention as a mediator in visual search tasks and how three dimensional visual perception and attention coordinates motor behavior of both the eyes and the hands. What this all means is that my intellectual background is heavily influenced by the biological sciences, and I've been given a heavy indoctrination over the course of my career into evolutionary theory, not just in my own field, but in most of the related scientific areas/topics I have a knowledge of and/or experience in.

Also, it's a pretty common myth amongst the layman that evolutionary processes do in fact "design" things. This myth is so dominant in our common sense understanding of how the world works that the basis of the whole field of bioengineering (the application of engineering principles to the study of biological systems) presupposes it. I once had a gf in college that was a bioengineering major. She wrote this paper on why a frog's vestibular system was so poorly designed by evolution. We got into this big argument about the idea of "design" in natural selection... many biological systems are highly inefficient when you look at them in terms of their efficiency of function and the amount of resources they consume. But, I told her, that natural selection doesn't "design" based on efficiency, but just on whatever random genetic variation produces that happens to solve the problem. In fact, from an evolutionary standpoint, while big breasts will be advantageous in attracting a mate and supporting offspring, having breasts that are too big will be a disadvantage in that they take resources away from other important biological functions and become a physical hindrance because they interfere with avoidance/escape behavior in crisis situations in the environment...

Needless to say, she didn't stay my gf that long... she didn't even have big tits, lol...

Boobophiliac · « **Reply #24 on:** July 19, 2003, 05:06:17 PM »

My wife told that a breast fettish and things similar to that are usually the result of having mommy issues. We all just want someone to play that mothering and nurturing role. It's comforting and satisfying.

GizmoWidget · « **Reply #25 on:** July 19, 2003, 06:16:15 PM »

Well, Freud said that what every man wants in a wife is a woman who will be his mother in the kitchen and his whore in the bedroom... Depends on what you like I guess. However, decades of scientific research in psychology have shown that Freud's ideas are a bunch of bull... they don't stand up to scientific testing at all. They're a circular system where any objections to their assumptions are dismissed by the assumptions themselves... I suppose that in the long run it doesn't matter, as long as you find what makes you happy. For me, I'm quite happy with my wife's 38dd/32/42 figure.

RemoWilliams · « **Reply #26 on:** July 20, 2003, 02:14:15 AM »

As Dennis Miller once said, "Quite frankly, I think when you get a guy alone he'll readily confess not only that he has a Madonna/whore complex, he's got a Mother, Au Pair, Catholic Nun, Hullabaloo Dancer, Julie Newmar-Cat Woman, Asian Cigarette Girl, Pamela Anderson in a Plexiglass House, Miss Hathaway with a riding crop-complex."

Remo Williams
The Master of Sinanju

P.S. Freud was full of shit. Without straying too far from the original topic, basically Freud let his own morals and attitudes profoundly color his theories, especially the ones concerning sexuality.

Tux · « **Reply #27 on:** July 21, 2003, 06:33:24 AM »

How about an asian cigarette-girl (I'm guessing since it's Dennis Miller and he has wide references he means the girls who used to sell such back in the early part of the 20th end of 19th century) who's a catgirl complex? ^_-

So what does Freud say about a guy who likes anime cutesy (not motherly) in the living room and willing hentai temptress in the bedroom? ^_^

Kanodin · « **Reply #28 on:** July 21, 2003, 10:24:41 AM »

I think we can agree that when people refer to evolution 'designing' anything we can point to the test of reproducability. You can take evolution into the abstract and apply it just about any pragmatic behavior. It's like Robin Williams quipping, "Whatever works baby, whatever works."

The Red Queen effect, so fondly named for the red queen chasing Alice in Through the Looking Glass, refers to the relative speed which evolution proceeds, absolutely zero. Earth is no better off biologically than it was a million years ago. The only designing that went on over that short amount of time was to eliminate the life that doesn't reproduce very well relatively. So, in a sense, the layperson can use the word 'design,' but that word would not jive well with the 'design' from an engineering context.

Kanodin · « **Reply #29 on:** July 21, 2003, 10:38:17 AM »

And on the thread-topic, I think if we figure out what makes someone obsessed with breasts, we can do away with insurance of all forms. I like to bask in the mystery of our obsession. I think there's certainly some communication at some point, but that 'impetus' can be just about anything. It can be the overdeveloping girl from our childhood, it could be our parents, it could be our genes, it could be an instance of Aurora Borealis shaped into a subliminal message. Who knows? The very most we can do is identify when we first started manifesting the symptoms. But who cares, it's just fun to talk fondly about memories. I'd really hate to alienate the poor person that stays shut away from our community because he/she awoke through a genuinely unique method. Let's not set a standard for how the obsession starts...

I started obsessing over breasts when I ate raw broccoli for the first time with ranch dressing while listening to neo-classical music. (No that's not how, but you get my point)

(this is about a 9.5 on my weird-post-scale)

Re: The impetus for breast fixation.