…that’s not what secondary sex characteristic means. As the article you linked says, that just means physical characteristics unrelated to the reproductive system that differ between the sexes. Some of the other examples given include the Adam’s apple in men and longer arms relative to height in women. While some of these things can be sexually attractive or related to sexual attractiveness in some way, certainly we don’t societally put them in the same sexual category as women’s breasts.
Breasts are larger than they need to be, and they’re that size all the time. One hypothesis is that they’re used to signal sexual maturity and attract mates.
But aside from that, breasts and nipples are definitely a bigger erogenous zone than most parts of the body, probably second only to genitals. And they’re directly involved in reproduction as you need them to feed babies.
And most importantly, most societies view them as sexual even if some don’t. So what makes something sexual anyway? That’s a subjective thing, it works by consensus.
Right. Breasts serve a function related to reproduction - feeding children. But breast size is largely decoupled from a given breast’s ability to feed children. So why do some women have needlessly big breasts? Because breasts are an example of human sexual dimorphism, and so emphasizing them increases sexual fitness since potential mates’ brains will think “boobs = female = horny. More boobs = more female = more horny.”
It means they exist (see trans rights). Though yes, it doesn’t really speak to what a society must accept as sexualized that something simply exists in counter to the norm.
To think such silly things is equivalent to religious people trying to protect their kids from “catching the gay” or becoming a lesbian simply because they met one. Just because it exists doesn’t mean it has to become a norm for everyone, and just because it exists doesn’t suddenly redefine the norm. Such braindead thoughts show up in far too many places. (like the previous comment)
I get a lil triggered when we start talking about people and then start gesturing to this average/normal platonic homunculus as if they represent humanity, especially in the context of using biological “truths” to justify/explain social phenomena.
It’s not even that unusual. But I was talking about actual people, not most people.
Just pointing out for the young people in the audience – some people will get nothing out of nipple play, but sadly put on a show anyway. Best to check.
…that’s not what secondary sex characteristic means. As the article you linked says, that just means physical characteristics unrelated to the reproductive system that differ between the sexes. Some of the other examples given include the Adam’s apple in men and longer arms relative to height in women. While some of these things can be sexually attractive or related to sexual attractiveness in some way, certainly we don’t societally put them in the same sexual category as women’s breasts.
Breasts are larger than they need to be, and they’re that size all the time. One hypothesis is that they’re used to signal sexual maturity and attract mates.
But aside from that, breasts and nipples are definitely a bigger erogenous zone than most parts of the body, probably second only to genitals. And they’re directly involved in reproduction as you need them to feed babies.
And most importantly, most societies view them as sexual even if some don’t. So what makes something sexual anyway? That’s a subjective thing, it works by consensus.
Right. Breasts serve a function related to reproduction - feeding children. But breast size is largely decoupled from a given breast’s ability to feed children. So why do some women have needlessly big breasts? Because breasts are an example of human sexual dimorphism, and so emphasizing them increases sexual fitness since potential mates’ brains will think “boobs = female = horny. More boobs = more female = more horny.”
For me, more boobs = udders = cow ≠ sexy
I’m more of a B - C type of guy.
Not everyone’s nipples are sensitive FYI.
yeah that’s how being an organic being works, some people will always differ from the norm, that doesn’t really… mean anything?
It means they exist (see trans rights). Though yes, it doesn’t really speak to what a society must accept as sexualized that something simply exists in counter to the norm.
To think such silly things is equivalent to religious people trying to protect their kids from “catching the gay” or becoming a lesbian simply because they met one. Just because it exists doesn’t mean it has to become a norm for everyone, and just because it exists doesn’t suddenly redefine the norm. Such braindead thoughts show up in far too many places. (like the previous comment)
It’s not abnormal. It’s just a type of person.
I get a lil triggered when we start talking about people and then start gesturing to this average/normal platonic homunculus as if they represent humanity, especially in the context of using biological “truths” to justify/explain social phenomena.
And some people are asexual, doesn’t mean that most people aren’t.
It’s not even that unusual. But I was talking about actual people, not most people.
Just pointing out for the young people in the audience – some people will get nothing out of nipple play, but sadly put on a show anyway. Best to check.
Ooo baby look at that apple BOB–yeah drain that cup, waterboy