You're viewing part of a thread.
Do you have the time or desire to learn about social reproduction theory?
I have a feeling it has nothing to do with regulating expressions of long lasting attraction between partners, but feel free to make your case
It does actually!
Can you cite even a single sentence in that article that is relevant to this post
Reproduction is understood as the maintenance and continuation of existing social relations.
. In that application, it is used to explain the role of women in wider social and class structures, and their (often unrecognized) contribution to the capitalist economy via their (traditional) role within the household as both child-bearers and family caretakers, and by extension women's role as providers of free labor that is necessary to produce and maintain current and future workers.
Men wouldn't obsess over women's breasts if they weren't taught to by society, simple as. Plenty of cultures didn't have this phenomenon, and think that it is weird that people do that.
Pretty sure both men and women like boobs. Cause they are awesome. It has nothing to do with social reproduction.
Pretty sure men and women are often attracted to boobs in cultures that fetishize boobs. There are some that don't. When you look at things from far enough back you start to notice that what you consider natural is not necessarily universal.
Definitely don't agree with your other posts here, but I actually agree with this statement. Many cultures don't have the same feelings about breasts that most of western society does.
I'm gonna start this with a statement. I don't agree with most everything the other individual is saying (the one claiming it's political and is getting downvoted, rightfully so).
I also totally agree boobs are awesome and both men and women (and everyone else in-between) like them. But why do we think they're so awesome? Most likely because they've been sexualized in our society.
I still don't think the op comic strip is political.
Edit: Ourtoothbrush or whatever, is the one I don't agree with, as per my initial statement.
If we were raised in a society where everyone was covered head to toe in figure-obscuring clothes, we'd probably be equally blown away by midriff or tight/short pants. And if we were raised in a nudist society, none of it would phase us.
From where I'm standing, it seems like a question of how much we want to desensitize ourselves to. There's certainly such a thing as too much and too little, so surely most people could agree that the line shouldn't be drawn at a nudist society, right? For me, boobs elicit the same level of response from my body as butts and genitals so the idea of boobs not being behind that line feels disconcerting.
I pretty much 100 % agree with what you're saying.
Breasts do seem to be an intimate enough part of the body to elicit such a response (and do for me as well), although only in women if we're going by "the norm" currently. I find them as such, but don't necessarily like the gender divide for a similar body part.
But anyways, I agree with what you're saying, feel the same way. But just can't really comprehend a different scenario due to being raised this way. It's even legal where I am for women to be topless, but it's rarely done.
I suppose I just wanted to comment on society as a whole.
How do you figure people feeling and expressing attraction for their spouse has anything to do with gender roles...?
And why do you care so much that it's her chest specifically being admired? The comic's message would still stand if it were her butt or hips. And it'd still have nothing to do with politics.
Women have breasts because some prehistoric dudes decided they were good. It's literally biological. No other animal (or not many) has massive tiddies like humans. They're definitely the result of sexual selection.
This is totally incorrect. Do you have any sort of sources for this? I'd love to see one.
Many cultures even today don't "fetishize" breasts. If what you're saying is correct, that shouldn't be a thing.
I don't know the exact evolutionary advantage of human breasts, but surely due to the production of milk that is supportive of the best growth for babies. That's how natural selection works.
Also if your idea of "sexual selection" was correct, wouldn't every woman have massive tits? All giraffes have long necks, don't they?
It's true that it's not proven. What is true is that human breasts are weird and no one is sure why. The theory I most support is sexual selection because it looks like it'd be good for feeding babies
Many cultures even today don’t “fetishize” breasts
I didn't say fetishize. Sexual selection just means it ihas informed decisions to mate
surely due to the production of milk that is supportive of the best growth for babies
You'd think this but apparently it's not true. This is why I think it's a sexual selection thing. Some stone age dude probably thought the same thing
if your idea of “sexual selection” was correct, wouldn’t every woman have massive tits
Humans are the only animal that have big tiddies when they aren't nursing.
Sorry, I only used fetishizing because others were saying that. You did not say that. I sort of see what you're saying, but I'm still not on board. Is there any sort of references to support this?
The milk production thing isn't a thing? Maybe not breast size, but nipple size? Apparently that is a limiting factor for proper breast feeding (at least from what I've seen).
While humans are the only species (that I know of) who have the "big tiddys" (and goth GFs at that), if it was really a selective pressure, wouldn't the distribution of breast sizes be much smaller than it is?
I realize my first post was a bit aggressive (sorry, thought you hadn't thought out your opinion as well as you have, my fault), I'm not attacking your opinion, just curious.
It's more like, other animals don't have breasts at all when they aren't lactating. No specific sources to suggest it's sexual selection, I heard it somewhere. I like watching videos about archaeology but it's not my field. Breasts don't really fossilize, so don't think we'll ever know for sure. Idk about nipple size, but yeah too small isn't great.
To clarify, I'm not saying specifically large breasts were selected for but that the fact humans have breasts at all suggests it's at least a secondary sex charactaristic (like beards) and I don't think it benefits fitness in other ways
edit: Probably saying "big tiddies" was not the right way to put that
TIL sexual selection had nothing to do with social conditions, and cultures that do not fetishize breasts don't exist. /s
Seriously think it through for like one second, christ. Also the sexual selection hypothesis isn't proven lol
If the social conditions have existed for long enough to have an evolutionary effect, what's the difference?
And as another commenter mentioned you don't need to fetishize breasts to be attracted to them.
Well, again, it is just a hypothesis. Also "happening for long enough" isn't necessarily how it works, for all you know it could have happened during a brief period and remained vestigial, assuming it even happened.
Being attracted to body parts is a fetish. I'm using a neutral definition of fetish, there is not an intended negative connotation. Research shows that the only thing that's like, universally a turn on for people regardless of cultural context is people having sex or masturbating.