A Dumb Question
motorhead
Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life
Some recent threads have dealt with the question of what kind of women we find to be attractive, especially how evolution has hardwired into our brains certain physical characteristics of attractiveness. Usually, this can be explained by woman developing characteristics that maxmizes their child-bearing capabilities. But I digress...
My dumb question is why do all men find fondling, touching, and squeezing breasts and buttocks so pleasurable? There is no direct genital stimulation involved. So why has man evolved to this point when I see no benefit to procreation? This seems to be a universal desire among men -- from observations at clubs where dances are out in the open -- men of all nationalities seem to enjoy this. So, its not a cultural thing -- it must stem from our genes.
My dumb question is why do all men find fondling, touching, and squeezing breasts and buttocks so pleasurable? There is no direct genital stimulation involved. So why has man evolved to this point when I see no benefit to procreation? This seems to be a universal desire among men -- from observations at clubs where dances are out in the open -- men of all nationalities seem to enjoy this. So, its not a cultural thing -- it must stem from our genes.
Got something to say?
Start your own discussion
15 comments
When the "Geico" caveman first started having sex, it was doggie style. He gazed upon her ass and was undoubtely grabbing it while pumping her.
When the caveman startting doing it, facing each other, He had no ass to gaze upon. Therefore the tits took their place. He could however still fell that ass.
That is my explanation and I am sticking to it...
A fun book to read that's right up your alley is 'Intimate Behaviour' by Desmond Morris, the British zoologist who wrote 'The Naked Ape'. I see where Amazon actually has the whole book online, free to read. It's been decades since I read it, but I think it would still be worthwhile. The parts about transgressive touching and theft are what I remember best. Extremely on-topic for this board!
Here's what I'd say about all evo-bio-psych type studies. They aren't studies. There can be no experimentation, no scientific rigor, because we can have no control group and we can use no test subjects. It's all just speculation. Sure, some of it can be quite intelligent speculation, but I find much of it unconvincing. There are plenty of perfectly acceptable assertions that these people have made, but plenty more are utterly preposterous. In general, the weakness of "typical training in the sciences" at the hands of our traditional educational institutions -- that is to say, the need to master so many specific details of one discipline (say, bio-chemistry) outweighs the need to remain thoroughly grounded in a skeptically broad-based point of view (say, history). Nearly always, I find, the evo-bio-psych people aren't creating scientifically rigorous theories; rather, they're spouting acceptable group-think as presented to them (at their mothers' knees) as the "right" way that people behave, according to their own culture, time, and place. They don't tell us something new or true; rather, they quash the (supposed) evidence to fit the very very old and politically correct theory.
I don't want to go into too many specifics about which theories I disagree with and why. Here's a quick anecdote instead, just to make the point about acculturation. In the Victorian era, a bunch of "scientists" went about measuring skull dimensions among a variety of human groups ("races" they called them) and thusly "proved" that Negroids were less intelligent than Whites. We now know, their measurement data were doctored, their conclusions ridiculous, their methods based on false assumptions ("race" isn't a scientific concept, for example, and visible markers of skin-color phenotype may be misrepresentative of genetic ancestry). But at the time, they were thought of as "truthful" or "scientific" conclusions.
In other words, they had a cultural theory, and their science sought to prove it by messing with the experiment. How would any average Victorian citizen know better? The experts were telling him something they'd come up with expertly. Without a great degree of care in his own thinking, the loom worker in Birmingham would be quite likely to accept the prevailing opinion.
Likewise, I feel, much evo-bio-psych is equally spurious.
I suppose that might be evidence either in favor of, or contrary to, the "dual cleavage" hypothesis. I can't really be involved in observing "replacement buttock cleavage" if my face is so close to the orbs that I can't focus on them ...
Strange this is, now I've met two different dancers who seem to be trying to train me to do back massages. They both have made me take off my belt as well so it doesn't snag or poke them. weird coincidences there. I do enjoy breast massage training better than back massage training.