It seems like a common trend, particularly for outspoken feminists, is to claim breasts aren't inherently sexual. Usually this in response to some sort of discussion about modesty. I've also seen it here plenty of time. But this just doesn't make sense to me...obviously they're not reproductive organs in most contexts, but that doesn't mean they aren't sexual. And the fact that, long ago or in undeveloped countries, it was considered normal to be bare-breasted in public, doesn't change the fact that breasts invoke a strong sexual response in males (or anyone attracted to women).
So Flood, we all know this forum is the threshing floor of scientific controversy, so what's your opinion?
And in looking up sites for this discussion, I came across a golden Cosmo article:
[url=http://www.cosmopolitan.com/sex-love/hot-sex/hot-sex-tips-challenge-18]How to Have Boob Sex[/url]
Yep. Someone actually wrote that.
As well as the following astute Yahoo response:
[quote][Breasts are] not a reproductive organ, though you can titty fcuk a girl[/quote]
-
Are a man's muscles sexual? Many women are attracted to muscular guys, but all of us know that big muscles have absolutely nothing to do with sex. The only reason that men are attracted to boobs is because it is a sign of health, and the mother will be well equipped to nurse her child if she's got big hooters. Just because you can do sexual things with boobs does not mean that they are inherently sexual. They are only indicative of a mother's health, and men like healthy women.