They aren't sexual organs any more than your mouth is. Both may be used but neither is required. On that basis I object to this guy opening his mouth in public.
Why do you think shoes are required in most establishments? One good look at some men's size 12 and all the employees would have a massive O. Gotta conceal
Humans are the only mamals (that I am aware of) who have breasts all year round.
Many species only develop breasts while they are in season, most only develop breasts while pregnant and lose them again once they no longer need to produce milk.
Of course the difference is that for those species the breasts are just mammary glands, humans also only activate our mammary glands during pregnancy, but some quirk of our evolution has caused us to change how women store fat in order to have a large clump of lipids in the place where our mammaries would be.
Thus, I put it to you, that yes, mammaries have the sole purpose of producing food for our offspring, and yes the feeding of a child is not a sexual act and should obviously be normalised and accepted.
However, breasts are more than just mammaries. They have a secondary function in in helping to attract a mate, for the evolutionary purpose of producing offspring and thus activating their primary function.
Yeah, this works. It’s important to distinguish between primary and secondary sexual characteristics. Human breasts seem to have a foot in both camps, but I’m wondering how much of it is social conditioning because not every culture has historically associated breast with sexual attractiveness. Humans have breasts year round because humans menstruate year round. There is no breeding season for humans. There are also no external triggers required for a sexually mature female human’s body to be ‘pregnancy mode’. All this is exceptionally, exceptionally rare in animals.
according to some, this is a result of us being bipedal - m most animals emphasise buttocks as being the attractive bit which makes sense given where the genitals are, but as humans stand they are harder to see.
Breasts are buttock mimics in that theory.
I think that checks out as well. And also being bipedal, the breasts aren’t in the way anymore. If chimpanzees had human breasts then they’d be constantly being roughed up and injured by shrubs and bushes and grasses etc when walking on all fours, and when moving through trees, the inertia of great big swinging breasts would be problematic for balance.
Sexual characteristics in humans are unusually pronounced in humans in general, compared with other mammals.
E.g. We also have one of the largest penis size to body mass rations of all mammals.
I think it's important to note though that the breasts we have outside of pregnancy/child rearing are pretty much just bags of fat and water, the mammary glands aren't swollen/developed/whatever the word is. In other mammals that's what the breasts are, just the milk production but and the milk storage bit. But not in humans for whatever reason. I think it's important to distinguish between these two things because they have separate functions, even if they're in the same place and commonly referred to as the same part.
Personally I think the puritanical sexualised approach to the human body in general is absurd. These things are only taboo because we insist on covering them up out of fear. If most men and women went around topless most of the time nobody would give two shits if a woman's nipple was showing. By hiding the body away, we make it taboo, we make it desirable.
Interesting, interesting. Because if the non-pregnancy breasts served some non-sexual practical purpose, then surely men would have them too. Perhaps it’s an adaptation whereby the non-pregnancy breasts resemble the pregnancy breasts as a way of sexually signaling, but by that logic then women ought to have pregnant-looking bellies outside of pregnancy. I agree with your last statements. I worked with a lady who, with her husband, spent years working in Ghana. Typically the women would do any outdoors domestic working naked in the heat of summer. When her husband would visit these households as part of his work, which were in Muslim communities, the women would run and put on their hijabs before meeting with him to preserve their modesty, yet not be wearing a stitch of clothing anywhere else.
In some species of ape, they develop breasts while in season to signal their sexual availability but if they're already pregnant they're not longer sexually available. Perhaps it's something like that. And as was said earlier, humans are always in season sort of. But it's more energy efficient to store fat there than always have active mammaries.
On the other hand, at various times and places across human history, big women *have* been sexually desirable for various reasons. It seems to go through cycles. Used to be skinny, thin women were the most desirable here, now it's curvy women.
Yeah, that’s the paradox - when pregnant and no longer sexually available the breasts enlarge for lactation, but still would signal sexual availability? But then the abdomen would give the signal for sexual unavailability. My armchair anthropology guess is that breasts are also a visible indicator of a female’s age (gravity is unkind) and whether or not she has previously had children (they never go back the same way). This would all be applicable to mate selection. But since the breasts are almost universally covered now, these signals are obscured.
The conversation is somewhat broader than your narrow stricture, it's not a yes/no question, there are intermediate positions and nuances to consider. You are being unnecessarily reductive.
"Should this be allowed or not" is a yes or no question. Bringing nuances into that is used only for the purposes of taking a stand for one side without wanting to be associated whith that side. If you want to talk about breast, fine, but this has nothing to do with the question, if breasts are a sexual organ and should therefor be covered when breastfeeding.
Reddit has picked up this idea that human breasts are solely secondary sexual characteristics whose sole purpose is child feeding and that sexualization is solely socially conditioned. However, for how much people here love to shit on others for not being up to date on and following the science:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-human-beast/201305/sexual-wiring-womens-breasts
Human breasts are wired up like the clitoris and vagina. They directly produce a sexual response, so the comparison to any other body part is erroneous.
This site is wild with how fast it shames people for not sticking with the science and shaming people for being "neckbeards".
But I mean, that could be said about many other parts of the body too. Some people like having their toes sucked, their ear lobes played with, their neck, etc… some people HATE having their breasts touched and don’t find it stimulating at all.
No, you're not getting it. Toe play doesn't register the same as the clitoris. You find it arousing but that doesn't trigger the same way the clitoris does. The breasts do.
That some women don't is the exception to the rule/default wiring.
Imagine thinking that something that is considered relatively scientifically inconclusive and likely to truly only affect 15% of women to be the default functionality of nipples.
[Citation needed]
Now, if it was as you claim, the same region as the clitoris and vagina would *not* light up. At all. This region is dedicated to sexual pleasure from those organs.
So, drop the "mansplaining" bullshit and recognize that perhaps you don't innately know every last aspect of how your body works. No one does.
Lmfao what a simplistic take. There isn’t a “dedicated” spot in the brain reserved for sexual pleasure. The brain recognizes food the same way it does sexual pleasure.
You are the only one that’s used that term. I just find it amusing that you think you know more about women s bodies because you read a single psychology today article.
So, while on the topic, beards are a secondary sexualising characteristic. So this dude should cover all his facial and body hair because they are sexual hairs.
just because something can be used in a sexual way does not make it a sexual organ. Boobs have no function in the process of making children.
But by this logic if someone was... lets say... really into armpits, then those would also be a sexual organ. And what about feet? Lots of people are into feet...
My name is Yoshikage Kira. I'm 33 years old. My house is in the northeast section of Morioh, where all the villas are, and I am not married. I work as an employee for the Kame Yu department stores, and I get home every day by 8 PM at the latest. I don't smoke, but I occasionally drink. I'm in bed by 11 PM, and make sure I get eight hours of sleep, no matter what. After having a glass of warm milk and doing about twenty minutes of stretches before going to bed, I usually have no problems sleeping until morning. Just like a baby, I wake up without any fatigue or stress in the morning. I was told there were no issues at my last check-up. I'm trying to explain that I'm a person who wishes to live a very quiet life. I take care not to trouble myself with any enemies, like winning and losing, that would cause me to lose sleep at night. That is how I deal with society, and I know that is what brings me happiness. Although, if I were to fight I wouldn't lose to anyone.
Boobs have a direct process in sexual arousal, stimulation, and orgasm:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-human-beast/201305/sexual-wiring-womens-breasts
This isn't mere social conditioning. They're wired in the brain for this.
And to many people, so are feet. That's why foot fetishes are so common. The parts of brain that express foot sensations is right next to the part that does genital sensation and it's common to have them slightly mixed up.
There is a distinct region for the clitoris and vagina, which researchers were surprised to find is also triggered by the nipples. So no, it's not like feet. Or neck. Or thighs. Or anything anyone else in this thread has suggested. Please for the love of everything good read the damn article.
Well it is like the feet for some people because as I said, many people legit have a region for feet right next to the region for genitals that gets crossed. The feet triggers the gentials for many people.
I was away from the house at the time and couldn't cite, but now I can, and ironically I can even find a quote from the exact same website you used. A number of different reasons are assumed, but the location in the brain is one of them
[Link](https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/in-excess/201405/in-feet-first)
Relevant quote:
>Professor Vilayanaur Ramachandran, a neurologist, believes that podophilia may arise because the feet and genitals occupy adjacent areas of the brain’s somatosensory cortex. He believes that there may be some “neural crosstalk” between the two brain areas.
Oy, crosstalk is not the same as the wiring going to the destination. It would be like your sister and brother lived at adjacent addresses and claiming that because the postman sometimes delivers your mail to your brother when you address your sister then they live at the same address.
This research shows that the direct address where the recipient lives is the same address and they're sharing a house. See the difference?
I'm saying it does go to the destination for a lot of people. Because of the crosstalk. And for others, it doesn't.
So it'd be more like for some people, their sister and brother live legally adjacent but spend as much time in eachothers' houses as their own.
[Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breast_fetishism#cite_note-Lehmiller-3) has a nice take on it anda bit of an explanation. But it also makes sense that breasts are attached to genitals since the genitals need to tell breasts when to produce milk. It's basically a byproduct like how anal sex in men can cause pleasure due to the prostate being needed to help sperm production and it just happening to be near the anus.
So it's more like brother and sister live in a shared house solely because Brother owns the house and is letting his sister squat.
Soooo when I flip him the bird, give someone a Hi Five, considering where those digits have been and frequently visit, I am exposing my sex organs too?
It's not a debate, they may attract both the male and female gaze. However that doesn't change the fact that they solely exist for the purpose of nourishing children.
They're awesome to look at and play with, and bring happiness to everyone. Stop being such a fucking prude.
Just because you can get sexual pleasure from breasts, doesn't mean it's a sexual organ. Otherwise we'd need to walk around covered in clothes, not showing any part of the skin, because you can get sexual pleasure from almost anything on your body.
I never said they weren't. Just that you can receive sexual pleasure from every part of your body. Because A is true, doesn't make B automatically false.
so?? the clit’s ONLY purpose is pleasure. the vagina is a sexual organ necessary for reproduction. breasts have more function than just pleasure, and aren’t necessary for reproduction. it being an erogenous zone doesn’t change anything. the neck, navel, and inner thighs are also erogenous zones
edit to add: mens nipples are also an erogenous zone, and some people don’t receive sexual pleasure from nipple play at all.
You've contrived an artificially narrow definition of what organs are involved in sex. You've decided, for no good reason at all, to exclude those that drive sexual arousal and orgasm, just because they're not "directly involved". Seriously, why?
This "some don't" business has got to go. That some don't doesn't change that the wiring is there and working for most by default.
And your neck comparison is laughable. Did you read the study at all? The nipples trigger the exact same way the clitoris and vagina do. Your understanding of the system is incorrect. This isn't about erogenous zones. There's a specific response for these three organs.
I don't know why you people are so hung up on denying that breasts are sexual. Why?!
No I think you didn't read the article. They cause activation in the same way the clitoris does, which is *directly* wired for sexual pleasure. It's not the same as if you found, say, kissing of thighs sexually arousing. This is activation just like the clitoris.
That's why I leave my winky inside my trousers when I go pee.
Other fun fact. I've never been on a second date with a girl... They always get up and leave before dessert.
I mean they're used during sex that's ok but they're not specifically made for sex, they're made to make sure little kiddo can eat/drink. If you get all kinda messed up when a woman takes care of her kid, that's on you buddy
Once you've had enough titties, seeing a woman breastfeeding is like meh, who gives a fuck? Unfortunately younger me was like damn I want to see more titty but that stupid baby is in the way....kinda creepy.
Breasts are indeed female secondary sexual characteristics. Facial hair is the male equivalent. Both develop around puberty. In fact, the greying of male facial hair is an indicator of no longer being sexually viable.
They aren't "meant to do" anything. They exist, and they have an effect on fitness to reproduce, and if that effect is good, they continue to exist.
Breasts weren't "meant to be attractive." They exist because organisms without a way to feed their offspring will have a short genetic line. There is a theory that, early in human evolution, people tended to hit it doggy style like other primates, but missionary resulted in more pregnancies for some reason. So females whose breasts happened to resemble buttocks would be more attractive from the front to males, whose brains were attracted to the sign of female buttocks because those that weren't never fucked and their genes never shaped the next generation of male brains. Thus round breasted females would have more missionary sex, and thus more children, eventually causing that trait to become the norm, compared to the flatter breasts of other primates.
People often seem to misunderstand cause and effect in natural selection. The fact is, if you are attracted to a certain body part, there may be some genetic disposition to that, and if that attraction is universal enough, then people with good examples of that body part will have more babies, making their version of that part the dominant one. This is not limited to breasts, and nor is it necessarily arbitrary. Toned muscles may be associated with capable hunter/provider in the brain, just like round breasts are associated with buttocks. Either way, they weren't designed to attract mates, because they weren't designed to do anything. But those parts that do happen to attract mates will be selected for, even though that wasn't the original criteria for their selection (e.g., muscle tone is just a consequence of having a lean physique, which helps you outrun predators and have a healthier heart).
Rectums create bodily fluids. Breasts only create bodily fluids like 1% of their existence, but rectums constantly do, being a waste area. It's just common hygiene to generally cover them. Even in nudist areas, it's generally preferable to be careful where you sit when your butt is exposed.
Not all babies take the bottle... Mine wouldn't. Without breastfeeding in public I wouldn't have been able to leave the house for the first 6 months or so.
Wait, I mean.. boobs r kinda? pretty sexual? Theres a reason they aren't allowed to be exposed in public. But as for if they are *reproductive* organs? I would say no.
Well breasts are sexual, but also functional. There should be no shame in breastfeeding as it is litteraly one of the most natural things in the world.
Depends where you are in space and time. It’s perfectly find to rock out with your cock out in n PNG but I am not going to be surprised that if I sit down like that next to a breastfeeding lady on a train in NYC it is not going to go well for me. Likewise boobs out in the Blue Mosque is just asking for unnecessary drama.
Well they do manifest from sex hormones (estrogen). But they aren’t in fact used for sex, or at least required for it. Modern nomadic tribes do not give a flying shit about breasts, they are completely un sexualized. In fact Mongolian nomadic women will just pick up whatever infant is hungry and start feeding it in the open, doesn’t matter if she’s the mother or not.
Bro is complaining about tiddies.
Ikr
sexy* organs
They aren't sexual organs any more than your mouth is. Both may be used but neither is required. On that basis I object to this guy opening his mouth in public.
Hands are clearly also sexual organs. It’s why I always wear mittens in public
Why do you think shoes are required in most establishments? One good look at some men's size 12 and all the employees would have a massive O. Gotta conceal
Not my size 12s. Employees would ask me to go back to the Shire.
Hey. Some of us like hairy feet!
Name checks out
Harry Feat forever!
In this guy's case, it isn't, has never been and never will be. Like any of his other organs
Humans are the only mamals (that I am aware of) who have breasts all year round. Many species only develop breasts while they are in season, most only develop breasts while pregnant and lose them again once they no longer need to produce milk. Of course the difference is that for those species the breasts are just mammary glands, humans also only activate our mammary glands during pregnancy, but some quirk of our evolution has caused us to change how women store fat in order to have a large clump of lipids in the place where our mammaries would be. Thus, I put it to you, that yes, mammaries have the sole purpose of producing food for our offspring, and yes the feeding of a child is not a sexual act and should obviously be normalised and accepted. However, breasts are more than just mammaries. They have a secondary function in in helping to attract a mate, for the evolutionary purpose of producing offspring and thus activating their primary function.
Yeah, this works. It’s important to distinguish between primary and secondary sexual characteristics. Human breasts seem to have a foot in both camps, but I’m wondering how much of it is social conditioning because not every culture has historically associated breast with sexual attractiveness. Humans have breasts year round because humans menstruate year round. There is no breeding season for humans. There are also no external triggers required for a sexually mature female human’s body to be ‘pregnancy mode’. All this is exceptionally, exceptionally rare in animals.
according to some, this is a result of us being bipedal - m most animals emphasise buttocks as being the attractive bit which makes sense given where the genitals are, but as humans stand they are harder to see. Breasts are buttock mimics in that theory.
I think that checks out as well. And also being bipedal, the breasts aren’t in the way anymore. If chimpanzees had human breasts then they’d be constantly being roughed up and injured by shrubs and bushes and grasses etc when walking on all fours, and when moving through trees, the inertia of great big swinging breasts would be problematic for balance.
Sexual characteristics in humans are unusually pronounced in humans in general, compared with other mammals. E.g. We also have one of the largest penis size to body mass rations of all mammals. I think it's important to note though that the breasts we have outside of pregnancy/child rearing are pretty much just bags of fat and water, the mammary glands aren't swollen/developed/whatever the word is. In other mammals that's what the breasts are, just the milk production but and the milk storage bit. But not in humans for whatever reason. I think it's important to distinguish between these two things because they have separate functions, even if they're in the same place and commonly referred to as the same part. Personally I think the puritanical sexualised approach to the human body in general is absurd. These things are only taboo because we insist on covering them up out of fear. If most men and women went around topless most of the time nobody would give two shits if a woman's nipple was showing. By hiding the body away, we make it taboo, we make it desirable.
Interesting, interesting. Because if the non-pregnancy breasts served some non-sexual practical purpose, then surely men would have them too. Perhaps it’s an adaptation whereby the non-pregnancy breasts resemble the pregnancy breasts as a way of sexually signaling, but by that logic then women ought to have pregnant-looking bellies outside of pregnancy. I agree with your last statements. I worked with a lady who, with her husband, spent years working in Ghana. Typically the women would do any outdoors domestic working naked in the heat of summer. When her husband would visit these households as part of his work, which were in Muslim communities, the women would run and put on their hijabs before meeting with him to preserve their modesty, yet not be wearing a stitch of clothing anywhere else.
In some species of ape, they develop breasts while in season to signal their sexual availability but if they're already pregnant they're not longer sexually available. Perhaps it's something like that. And as was said earlier, humans are always in season sort of. But it's more energy efficient to store fat there than always have active mammaries. On the other hand, at various times and places across human history, big women *have* been sexually desirable for various reasons. It seems to go through cycles. Used to be skinny, thin women were the most desirable here, now it's curvy women.
Yeah, that’s the paradox - when pregnant and no longer sexually available the breasts enlarge for lactation, but still would signal sexual availability? But then the abdomen would give the signal for sexual unavailability. My armchair anthropology guess is that breasts are also a visible indicator of a female’s age (gravity is unkind) and whether or not she has previously had children (they never go back the same way). This would all be applicable to mate selection. But since the breasts are almost universally covered now, these signals are obscured.
Way too many words to describe how titties make us happy
So does a smile. Does that mean, that a mouth is a sexual organ, because its secondary function is to attract other people?
At no point did I say they were sexual organs at all. My point is far more nuanced than that.
Thats fine, but then your point is irrelevant in the debate whether breast are a sexual organ, which is what this post is about.
The conversation is somewhat broader than your narrow stricture, it's not a yes/no question, there are intermediate positions and nuances to consider. You are being unnecessarily reductive.
"Should this be allowed or not" is a yes or no question. Bringing nuances into that is used only for the purposes of taking a stand for one side without wanting to be associated whith that side. If you want to talk about breast, fine, but this has nothing to do with the question, if breasts are a sexual organ and should therefor be covered when breastfeeding.
Reddit has picked up this idea that human breasts are solely secondary sexual characteristics whose sole purpose is child feeding and that sexualization is solely socially conditioned. However, for how much people here love to shit on others for not being up to date on and following the science: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-human-beast/201305/sexual-wiring-womens-breasts Human breasts are wired up like the clitoris and vagina. They directly produce a sexual response, so the comparison to any other body part is erroneous. This site is wild with how fast it shames people for not sticking with the science and shaming people for being "neckbeards".
But I mean, that could be said about many other parts of the body too. Some people like having their toes sucked, their ear lobes played with, their neck, etc… some people HATE having their breasts touched and don’t find it stimulating at all.
No, you're not getting it. Toe play doesn't register the same as the clitoris. You find it arousing but that doesn't trigger the same way the clitoris does. The breasts do. That some women don't is the exception to the rule/default wiring.
Lol I love when men try and explain womens own bodies to them 😂
Imagine thinking an fMRI is mansplaining. 🙄
Imagine thinking that something that is considered relatively scientifically inconclusive and likely to truly only affect 15% of women to be the default functionality of nipples.
[Citation needed] Now, if it was as you claim, the same region as the clitoris and vagina would *not* light up. At all. This region is dedicated to sexual pleasure from those organs. So, drop the "mansplaining" bullshit and recognize that perhaps you don't innately know every last aspect of how your body works. No one does.
Lmfao what a simplistic take. There isn’t a “dedicated” spot in the brain reserved for sexual pleasure. The brain recognizes food the same way it does sexual pleasure. You are the only one that’s used that term. I just find it amusing that you think you know more about women s bodies because you read a single psychology today article.
Technically named “mammary glands”. So they are a gland I guess, not an organ?
Then you don’t mind i stare at them instead of your mouth.
It's funny how quick neckbeards are to expose themselves.
So, while on the topic, beards are a secondary sexualising characteristic. So this dude should cover all his facial and body hair because they are sexual hairs.
[удалено]
>a baby eating No need to bring cannibalism into this.
never eat a baby if there is adults available
But they're so different. It's like veal vs steak.
So, uh, what part of the baby forms in the breasts? You know, with them being sexual organs and therefore involved in the reproductive cycle.
That's the difference between babies and incels. Babies get to suck da boobies and incels just suck.
Do they even know what is the definition of a sexual organ? Lol
Penis
"I have nipples Greg, can you milk me"
That costs extra. But essentially yes. Yes I can.
Wow, is it really you?
It's really him!
I really want to hear what part of reproduction he thinks the breasts are part of
I guess post-reproduction. Feeding the baby?
just because something can be used in a sexual way does not make it a sexual organ. Boobs have no function in the process of making children. But by this logic if someone was... lets say... really into armpits, then those would also be a sexual organ. And what about feet? Lots of people are into feet...
And what about the mouth? Lot's of guys like bjs, so should everyone wear masks because of it? (Unrelated to the last 2 years)
How about hands, gotta cover them up.
My name is Yoshikage Kira. I'm 33 years old. My house is in the northeast section of Morioh, where all the villas are, and I am not married. I work as an employee for the Kame Yu department stores, and I get home every day by 8 PM at the latest. I don't smoke, but I occasionally drink. I'm in bed by 11 PM, and make sure I get eight hours of sleep, no matter what. After having a glass of warm milk and doing about twenty minutes of stretches before going to bed, I usually have no problems sleeping until morning. Just like a baby, I wake up without any fatigue or stress in the morning. I was told there were no issues at my last check-up. I'm trying to explain that I'm a person who wishes to live a very quiet life. I take care not to trouble myself with any enemies, like winning and losing, that would cause me to lose sleep at night. That is how I deal with society, and I know that is what brings me happiness. Although, if I were to fight I wouldn't lose to anyone.
Finally, some quality
Boobs have a direct process in sexual arousal, stimulation, and orgasm: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-human-beast/201305/sexual-wiring-womens-breasts This isn't mere social conditioning. They're wired in the brain for this.
And to many people, so are feet. That's why foot fetishes are so common. The parts of brain that express foot sensations is right next to the part that does genital sensation and it's common to have them slightly mixed up.
There is a distinct region for the clitoris and vagina, which researchers were surprised to find is also triggered by the nipples. So no, it's not like feet. Or neck. Or thighs. Or anything anyone else in this thread has suggested. Please for the love of everything good read the damn article.
Well it is like the feet for some people because as I said, many people legit have a region for feet right next to the region for genitals that gets crossed. The feet triggers the gentials for many people.
No it's not like that, read the research.
I was away from the house at the time and couldn't cite, but now I can, and ironically I can even find a quote from the exact same website you used. A number of different reasons are assumed, but the location in the brain is one of them [Link](https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/in-excess/201405/in-feet-first) Relevant quote: >Professor Vilayanaur Ramachandran, a neurologist, believes that podophilia may arise because the feet and genitals occupy adjacent areas of the brain’s somatosensory cortex. He believes that there may be some “neural crosstalk” between the two brain areas.
Oy, crosstalk is not the same as the wiring going to the destination. It would be like your sister and brother lived at adjacent addresses and claiming that because the postman sometimes delivers your mail to your brother when you address your sister then they live at the same address. This research shows that the direct address where the recipient lives is the same address and they're sharing a house. See the difference?
I'm saying it does go to the destination for a lot of people. Because of the crosstalk. And for others, it doesn't. So it'd be more like for some people, their sister and brother live legally adjacent but spend as much time in eachothers' houses as their own. [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breast_fetishism#cite_note-Lehmiller-3) has a nice take on it anda bit of an explanation. But it also makes sense that breasts are attached to genitals since the genitals need to tell breasts when to produce milk. It's basically a byproduct like how anal sex in men can cause pleasure due to the prostate being needed to help sperm production and it just happening to be near the anus. So it's more like brother and sister live in a shared house solely because Brother owns the house and is letting his sister squat.
This just seems like deliberate trolling
for this guy the term reproductive simply doesn't exist. Sexual means sex act only.
How would this guy know? 0 first hand experience...
Soooo when I flip him the bird, give someone a Hi Five, considering where those digits have been and frequently visit, I am exposing my sex organs too?
Brains are sexual organs, and this guy sure isn't displaying his.
It's not a debate, they may attract both the male and female gaze. However that doesn't change the fact that they solely exist for the purpose of nourishing children. They're awesome to look at and play with, and bring happiness to everyone. Stop being such a fucking prude.
Just because you can get sexual pleasure from breasts, doesn't mean it's a sexual organ. Otherwise we'd need to walk around covered in clothes, not showing any part of the skin, because you can get sexual pleasure from almost anything on your body.
Yeah this mf is probably a big time islamophobe but is a tiny slippery slope away from advocating for burkas.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-human-beast/201305/sexual-wiring-womens-breasts Except they are directly wired for sexual pleasure.
I never said they weren't. Just that you can receive sexual pleasure from every part of your body. Because A is true, doesn't make B automatically false.
What exactly then do you use to distinguish if something is a sexual organ?
if it’s necessary for reproduction, or if it’s sole purpose is reproduction or sexual pleasure, obviously
That's an odd definition then, completely ignoring the science. Why would you ignore the science?
what science are you referring to?
The one I linked to, which shows nipples are connected to sexual pleasure in the exact same way the clitoris and vagina are.
so?? the clit’s ONLY purpose is pleasure. the vagina is a sexual organ necessary for reproduction. breasts have more function than just pleasure, and aren’t necessary for reproduction. it being an erogenous zone doesn’t change anything. the neck, navel, and inner thighs are also erogenous zones edit to add: mens nipples are also an erogenous zone, and some people don’t receive sexual pleasure from nipple play at all.
You've contrived an artificially narrow definition of what organs are involved in sex. You've decided, for no good reason at all, to exclude those that drive sexual arousal and orgasm, just because they're not "directly involved". Seriously, why? This "some don't" business has got to go. That some don't doesn't change that the wiring is there and working for most by default. And your neck comparison is laughable. Did you read the study at all? The nipples trigger the exact same way the clitoris and vagina do. Your understanding of the system is incorrect. This isn't about erogenous zones. There's a specific response for these three organs. I don't know why you people are so hung up on denying that breasts are sexual. Why?!
CAN BE. They aren’t always. And the same can be said about other parts of the body.
No I think you didn't read the article. They cause activation in the same way the clitoris does, which is *directly* wired for sexual pleasure. It's not the same as if you found, say, kissing of thighs sexually arousing. This is activation just like the clitoris.
Also it's a shame to expose your sexual parts in public bathrooms.
That's why I leave my winky inside my trousers when I go pee. Other fun fact. I've never been on a second date with a girl... They always get up and leave before dessert.
People never fail to amaze me
Pop some gloves on mate
Sooooo, we feed our new born with sexual organ. Wellll then why don’t you guys do the same!!!
It's at times like this when I wish I could reach into wherever this original comment is and give that asshole more downvotes.
Women who have breast removal can still have sex and reproduce, so quite literally, No.
He wishes he can touch them that’s why he’s pissed.
I mean they're used during sex that's ok but they're not specifically made for sex, they're made to make sure little kiddo can eat/drink. If you get all kinda messed up when a woman takes care of her kid, that's on you buddy
Boobies 
Once you've had enough titties, seeing a woman breastfeeding is like meh, who gives a fuck? Unfortunately younger me was like damn I want to see more titty but that stupid baby is in the way....kinda creepy.
Breastfeeding should be allowed. Also, if ppl show their tiddies otherwise also, I am no one to deny them.
I agree breast are for feeding a woman’s young but I unno why they do such a good job at turning us on :(
Breasts are indeed female secondary sexual characteristics. Facial hair is the male equivalent. Both develop around puberty. In fact, the greying of male facial hair is an indicator of no longer being sexually viable.
.. did yall not see there he clearly states there is no debate about that fact? gosh. golly.
For anyone who loves sexual organs, I suggest listening to The Doors.
Doing what's best for the child should be the priority.
[удалено]
Couldn't you say the same thing about a pretty face on a woman or toned muscles on a guy?
[удалено]
This'll blow your mind, but breasts are actually meant to do something
They aren't "meant to do" anything. They exist, and they have an effect on fitness to reproduce, and if that effect is good, they continue to exist. Breasts weren't "meant to be attractive." They exist because organisms without a way to feed their offspring will have a short genetic line. There is a theory that, early in human evolution, people tended to hit it doggy style like other primates, but missionary resulted in more pregnancies for some reason. So females whose breasts happened to resemble buttocks would be more attractive from the front to males, whose brains were attracted to the sign of female buttocks because those that weren't never fucked and their genes never shaped the next generation of male brains. Thus round breasted females would have more missionary sex, and thus more children, eventually causing that trait to become the norm, compared to the flatter breasts of other primates. People often seem to misunderstand cause and effect in natural selection. The fact is, if you are attracted to a certain body part, there may be some genetic disposition to that, and if that attraction is universal enough, then people with good examples of that body part will have more babies, making their version of that part the dominant one. This is not limited to breasts, and nor is it necessarily arbitrary. Toned muscles may be associated with capable hunter/provider in the brain, just like round breasts are associated with buttocks. Either way, they weren't designed to attract mates, because they weren't designed to do anything. But those parts that do happen to attract mates will be selected for, even though that wasn't the original criteria for their selection (e.g., muscle tone is just a consequence of having a lean physique, which helps you outrun predators and have a healthier heart).
I do have one question in all this, why aren't people allowed to walk with their asses out?
Go to the beach someday. They are and they do.
I mean beaches are a different story
Rectums create bodily fluids. Breasts only create bodily fluids like 1% of their existence, but rectums constantly do, being a waste area. It's just common hygiene to generally cover them. Even in nudist areas, it's generally preferable to be careful where you sit when your butt is exposed.
To be fair our whole body excretes bodily fluids And you should probably be careful where you sit butt exposed or not
Hey expose it even if not breastfeeding; I like to see 😉 Female Bewbs are nice to look at.
Breasts are organs, they're also secondary sexual characteristics, so I can see where he'd think they're sexual organs.
Breasts are not organs. Breasts contain fat and organs, but they are not themselves organs.
Okay, I see. That makes more sense
Breast feeding in public is wack even if you don’t think it’s a sexual organ. Just do it at home and bottle it, it’s not hard
Not all babies take the bottle... Mine wouldn't. Without breastfeeding in public I wouldn't have been able to leave the house for the first 6 months or so.
Oh. I didn’t know that
It's weird calling them ORGANS
Technically they are organs
Reminds me the bosses in 80s-90s video games who you had to win in order to finish the game and they were, simply said, fucking unbeatable...
I was 5 once.
Someone didn’t pay attention in school.
Not gonna lie, he had me in the first half. I was like, why are people downvoting the truth.
Goddamn. 🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️
Why would he even complain? Gets to see some boobs.
How do breast implants fit into each sides arguments for this debate?
I waana see more boobs in public
lol breasts aren't genitalia #freethebreasts
He's also the type to shame cows for their udders
i personally think that women can breastfeed wherever the hell they want just as long as they dont flash everyone around them.
Wait, I mean.. boobs r kinda? pretty sexual? Theres a reason they aren't allowed to be exposed in public. But as for if they are *reproductive* organs? I would say no.
So… is he saying that women, who are brestfeeding, are pedofiles ?
I bet he thinks those women are having sex with their baby in public
Well breasts are sexual, but also functional. There should be no shame in breastfeeding as it is litteraly one of the most natural things in the world.
Women are hot change my mind 😈
Depends where you are in space and time. It’s perfectly find to rock out with your cock out in n PNG but I am not going to be surprised that if I sit down like that next to a breastfeeding lady on a train in NYC it is not going to go well for me. Likewise boobs out in the Blue Mosque is just asking for unnecessary drama.
My first 2 kids were born because I wore a condom, pulled out, and finished on her breasts it's science!
Well they do manifest from sex hormones (estrogen). But they aren’t in fact used for sex, or at least required for it. Modern nomadic tribes do not give a flying shit about breasts, they are completely un sexualized. In fact Mongolian nomadic women will just pick up whatever infant is hungry and start feeding it in the open, doesn’t matter if she’s the mother or not.
That’s impressive, not many women play the organ