A Dumb Question

I have one explanation for this. It came from a TV special "The science of sex". I think that it was on HBO.

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...

Dumb answer: Because it feels good. Really, the only thing that's dumb about your question is the expectation that a simple procreative function must lie behind any human desire. The pleasure we feel from touching and being touched serves a variety of very complex functions that relate to child rearing, social cohesion, mating, and procreation, too.

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!

Actually, the tits-as-ass-substitute (and red-lips-as-pussy-substitute) are explained in 'The Naked Ape'.

I remember seeing Desmond Morris on a PBS series, I think it was perhaps "The Naked Ape". Great series, never read the book.

AN: I remember hearing about a TV series but I don't think I saw any of it. I thought it was based on a different Desmond Morris book. He's written a bunch. You should pick up 'The Naked Ape'. It's a quick read. Definitely pop science, and all the better for it.

I disagree with frontal-cleavage as a theory for why tits developed. Desmond Morris thought it up, but can't prove it, though his anecdotal and narrative evidence is mildly convincing.

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 disagree with the initial premise in the question posed. Not all men are driven by a desire for breasts. I'm not a breast man, and the thought of touching a girls breast isn't that much of a turn on. Admittedly, I like to touch them, especially if she enjoys me touching them, but they aren't the end-all. I also realize that I'm in the minority on this.

Doug: If you enjoy touching tits then there's no real disagreement. David didn't say they are everhybody's be-all end-all. If that's what it means to be a breat man, then I'm no breast man, either. Yet I consider myself one, even though I don't usually like them big, becuase I like to see a girls' tits and I get a thrill out of touching them. I think the premise is that practically everybody enjoys intimate touching, some bits more than other bits, and not simply becuase it has been instilled by our particular culture.

Doug, your point is well-taken, so consider this. If I am having a dance with a new girl, I often get asked if I am a "breast man" or an "ass man" or "what is my favorite part?" I usually say I am now an ass man. But when I was a teenager, all my time was consumed thinking about breasts. Has aged changed me? Is this typical of all guys that they change from being a breast man to an ass man as they get older? Unless the girl has spectacular, natural tits, I probably spend more time touching her ass than her breasts.

I think Doug's a hair man. (Excuse me, I should let him answer.)

I'd also add, after my harangue against evo-bio-psych, that I most definitely AM a tit-man. I don't necessarily like extra-large sized breasts (though, depending on firmness, I am not negative about them!) I do indeed have a viscerally hard-wired link between breast contact and arousal. If all else fails, before I pop a little blue Viagra pill to get a woodie, I can just lick and suckle on a firm nipple. That's roughly all it takes for me at this stage in my life.

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 ...

We all met the same dancer that said her doctor said her breasts need to be massaged. So the dancer trained us all. She must really get around. Sounds like a conspiracy to train us guys.

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.

its simple. because it is fun.

It's pleasurable because it's fun. smacks forehead Why couldn''t you have spoken up earlier and saved us that typing?

At a bookstore the today, I browsed through a copy of 'The Naked Ape' and the section about breasts. I had forgotten about the theory Morris covers after that, about why women have orgasms, unlike other female primates. With chimps, for example, women are unaffected by sex, and immediately afterwards just go on about their day. With humans walking upright, if women behaved like that, sperm would drip out of their vagina, preventing procreation. Female orgasm makes them want to lie around after sex long enough for sperm to fertilize the egg. So, next time you feel like complaining about some chick wanting to hang out and cuddle after you fuck, you can blame it on our species' need to walk upright.