Are You A Label Reader?

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

SD1

Guest
^^^^
This. I know it seems innate, but the eroticisation (and fetishisation) of breasts is quite culturally dependent. Amongst a neolithic community, they would have been seen for their primary function of feeding infants, and would have probably been mostly engaged for that purpose.
Replace they would with they might. Unless you can prove otherwise.
 

RichardB

Slightly retro
Location
West Wales
Replace they would with they might. Unless you can prove otherwise.
Evidence suggests that female breasts have been regarded as a primary sexual characteristic for the majority of the time our species has been around. The obvious over-development (compared to most other species) suggests a) they were a key element in attracting a mate and b) that sexual encounters were probably face-to-face. This may be total rubbish, of course, as it was from something I read a long time ago, but it makes a kind of sense. There is no other reason I am aware of as to why human breasts are much bigger and more prominent than is necessary for their primary function, compared to say chimpanzees or gorillas. Or perhaps I need to get out more.
 
OP
OP
classic33

classic33

Leg End Member
Evidence suggests that female breasts have been regarded as a primary sexual characteristic for the majority of the time our species has been around. The obvious over-development (compared to most other species) suggests a) they were a key element in attracting a mate and b) that sexual encounters were probably face-to-face. This may be total rubbish, of course, as it was from something I read a long time ago, but it makes a kind of sense. There is no other reason I am aware of as to why human breasts are much bigger and more prominent than is necessary for their primary function, compared to say chimpanzees or gorillas. Or perhaps I need to get out more.
And the cows udder, which gave rise to this?
 
Top Bottom