think about it.\nthey are mammery glands, that's all.\nwe sure as shi t don't find cows' udders erotic...there are pictures of cow udders all over dairy products, and no one (except for the peta idiots) thinks that it's indecent.\nso why can't women expose their breasts, which really aren't sex organs.  i can understand the religious/cultural taboos surrounding the covering of one's genitals, but, really, who decided breasts were indecent?  half of indiginous africa runs around with them out in the open, and don't even bat an eye...
199719
Breasts were declared sexual by nature. By nature a man is attracted to breasts. Even in African cultures, the men are indeed attracted to breasts. They just have no great urgency to view them, since they are constantly exposed.\n\nThough I hate to go into great details about sex, breasts are considered sexual by phenomina. Woman's breast are effected by sex. A woman's nipples often errect durring sexual arrousal. Also, (if I'm not mistaken) estrogen, the same hormone accounted for much of the physical, sexual, emotional, and reproductive stages and changes of women, also determines the size of a woman's breast. Thus, proving that breast are linked to a woman's sexuality. \n\nAllowing women to roam topless would only degrate women and girls. It would support the notion of treating and handling a woman's body as a man's. If women's breast are to be declared "nonsexual", than the groaping of a woman's breast can not, by definition, be considered a sexual offence. Touching a woman's breast would, legally, be no more offensive than touching a woman's shoulder. Though touching a woman's shoulder can be viewed as sexually offensive, it can only be considered so if with intent, (which can be difficult to prove).\n\nImagine a society where 12-17 years old girls are allowed to expose their breasts in public. Pedaphiles would be allowed to view topless yound girls without legal endangerment. Imagine a society where men can just ask a woman or girl to remove her top without legal offense. Imaging shcools, with sexually raging young boys/men, requiring girls to be on the "no shirt" team, durring 2-hand-touch.\n\nI do believe in treating woman with respect. However, there are, without a doubt, differences between men and women. Ignoring these diffences can prove to be degrading and underminding for both sexes. It could also prove to be dangerous for women. Though you may think otherwise, you would not want society to treat a woman's body as a man's.
412870
That doesn't sound right, if they're talking about critters that have sexual intercourse at all (as opposed to procreating other ways).\n\nI would think that most females have, as males aren't all that choosy about where they donate their sperm.\n\nToo bad you don't say where you got this. I mean, besides "the net" -- oh, THERE, that tiny place.\n\n;-)\n\nUnless it's more a comment on life expectancy, saying that most critters die before they have a chance to, well, you know.\n\nSo, where'd you come across this tidbit, what animals are included in the statistic, and why would this be?\n\n(I'll check back in hopes you respond.)\n\nEdit: You may (if you're interested enough) want to troll around newscientist.com and similar sites. New Scientist is the UK's version of Scientific American -- the site has science news, and search facility (though you have to pay to access everything, they do have a lot available for non-subscribers).\n\nI may give it a go next time I'm there.\n\nTrouble is, coming from a non-expert (that is, a psychologist), I wonder if this is one of those non-facts that gets picked up and repeated and is completely wrong.\n\nThough, if you include all animals, including insects, then maybe. Relatively few bees and ants, for example, have sex, and they'd account for a big proportion of "all animals."\n\nIn which case it's completely irrelevant to a discussion of human sexuality.
251048
Actually, ALL species of the animal kingdom engage in homosexual behavior...so yeah it IS nature intended. Christians have a problem with anything they can't control. They're also brainwashed and can't think for themselves.
590302
Nature tells us that homosexuality exists.  Are humans animals?  Are there homosexual humans?  Ergo...?\n\nThe fact that you have not quoted sources is of no consequence to me -- I am willing to take at face value that perhaps the cattle and lizards were setting domination patterns. I am curious as to how the motives of the lizards were determined to be "to humilate"?\n\nty kinney, of course, makes terrfic sense about the differences beetween humans and other animals and would worth be re-reading.  \n\nOf course, without any applicable citation, which would seem to be fairly easy to find, your insistence on the behavior of cattle weakens the argument, particularly when you assert such detail as "the male/male behavior documented never culminates it penetration! therefore it is not sexual in nature."  From your reaction to other posts, I assume you're after some sort of penetration?\n\nI must point out that an insistence on male/male penetration omits other non-dominance behaviors practiced by other animal species, such as courtship. \n\nTREE SWALLOWS:  Full cloacal contact has been observed by Wilson and Bull in  male Tree Swallows (Tachycineta bicolor), complete with  the “ticking” vocalizations which are apparently reserved for  heterosexual copulations in Tree Swallows.  They also note that dominance behaior among Tree Swallows is very different.\n\nLIZARD: A. carolinensis engage in both homosexual courtship and copulation -- with one male exhibiting the male behavior in courting being the mounter and the male exhibiting the female courtship behavior being mounted. Previous studies (Noble and Bradley in 1937) dismissed this as hierarchical behavior, but more recent observations (Cooper, 1977, and Sigmund, 1987) show a more thorough understanding of A. carolinensis society, including polygamy and consistent homosexual behavior in the absence of dominant males.\n\nBISON: Courtship, mounting, and full anal penetration between bulls is common among American bison. My Lakota brothers and sisters call them pte winkte —pte =bison and winkte is the word for two-spirit, their description of the transgendered  in their Nation.\n\nFEMALE CATTLE:  Mounting of female cattle in heat by other cows is common among domesticated cattle.  (Obviously, since no marital aids have been documented, no actual penetration occured.)  The same has not been observed among wild cattle in a study by Queensland College in Australia.  Although stress was cited by the observers, they also admitted the possibility of domestication as a factor -- so perhaps civilization figures into it.\n\nBONOBOS: Barbara Fruth and Gottfried Hohmann observed same-sex genital contacts in wild female bonobos.  They have already been mentioned here, I just thought I would give the citation, even though no penetration happened.\n\nZOO ANIMALS: The penguins, koalas, rabbits and others that have been documented as exhibiting homosexual behaviors have most often come from zoos or domesticated situations.  This does not necessarily indicate a corrupted or aberrant social system, but (Occam's Razor) they can be more easily observed.\n\nHYENAS: Actually, Ploss and Bartels have seen hyenas licking each other's genitals.  Hyenas are of particular interest in this discussion because, according the Bestiary of Barnabus, hyenas were believed to have predominantly homosexual sex, and were associated with homosexuals.  This view was strongly held in the time of Augustine, who was a zealot advocate of conversion.
13912
No, it's another way to degrade women and to make us feel we need to get boob jobs and what not.  It's just way too accessible.  I'm all for free speech and all that sort of stuff (I'm a die hard Democrat), but I think it deserves SOME regulation.  It's gotten out of hand.
562916
Exactly. I am really dissapointed with these answers. Thet totally suck.\n\nYeah, so, lets suppose you have a fetish, and it's a Boob fetish. That means that you like boobs, and boobs turn you on. You like to hold, squeaze, fondle, and suck on boobs. So get married and do it to your wife's boobs. Otherwise, it would be forication.\n\n If you are into spanking, BSDM, latex, wax, needles, rape, roleplay, the same thing applies.\n\nI believe it is like this: you like ice cream. So you eat ice cream. But wait, I sorta also go in for, you know, other.....sweet foods. So you eat a piece of cake. Are you a perverted sinner who has, in your own damned sinfullness, twisted God's desire for you to enjoy ice cream, and gone off and turned to the sinfull pasions of cake.\n\nRight? Or no?\n\nIf all you do is bang sombody, in and out, in and out, in and out, in and out, in and out, in and out, in and out, in and out, in and out, in and out, in and out, in and out, in and out, in and out, in and out, in and out, in and out, in and out, in and out, in and out, in and out, in and out, it gets old. So spice it up. God wishes you to enjoy yourself.\n\nNow spank that monkey!
324832
No.  Only femals cows exist.  No one knows where they come from since a community of all females, even if they resort to bovine lesbianism, still can't produce young.  It's a mystery all right...
294199
No, this is not true. The holes in the nipples were probably magnified and are where the milk comes through when a infant nurses.\nThink about it this way - how many filthy people have you seen with nasty clothes on? Do you honestly think that the only clean thing that they have on is their bra? Not likely. They still have their breasts. \nIf this worries you this much though, make sure that you wash your bra often.\nBy the way, have you ever thought of how many people have tried that bra on before you? I'd be more concerned over that than worrying about the possibility of worms in your bra.
95430
I LOVE this question!  I have been asking it for 40 years!\n\nIn summary, antiquated religious belief systems say women's breasts are sexual but men's are not.  This, of course, is ridiculous.  I say, "YES!  By all means, make men wear tops at the beach or let women remove theirs.  What's good for the goose is good for the gander, as the old saying goes."\n\nSadly, they won't learn a thing from it.  Too many people are still too Victorian in their thinking to accept the naked woman's upper body as wholesome and natural.
170835
it's boilogical.\n\nno one teaches a dog, a cat, a frog, an elephant, an ape...etc to have sex.\n\nget my point?
202370
first of all let me tell you that this principle is not a must nor is it a custom.\ni myself being a Hindu have not come across this custom in any of the religious books.\nactually we people consider the cow to be the home of many god and goddesses. it is a notion that the goddess of the money(LAKSHMI) resides in the urinary parts of the cow. so the people thinking of becoming rich or those who want to fulfil there desire for anything follow this custom. also u may be knowing that urine helps in killing the microbes in ones body, so it has science involved in it too.
328842
The breasts are primarily fat, but also mammary galnds...which will eventually likely make milk.  The milk glands do hurt when they are multiplying, just ask any newly pregnant woman.  These milk makers are not like storage sacks, like most people assume, they are glands just like the adrenal or pituitary gland...they excrete a substance.  Best wishes
202158
most men, gay or straight, were breast-fed.  i think there's just something biologically comforting about breasts, as the original source of food and affection.  as women, we have our own, but men must be drawn to them on a subconscious level, even if they're not sexually interested in the woman.
526720
As a woman, I cannot have casual sex.  I'm just not wired that way.  I've finally learned that men really are different than women and it's easier for them to have a sexual encounter with no strings attached.  Unfortunately, when men get the milk for free, sometimes they don't want to buy the cow.
221532
Maybe canids lost the majority of their sweat glands because they weren't helping much under all that fur.  Sweat is only an efficient way of cooling if it can evaporate.  So for animals covered in fur or humans in humid environments, sweat glands aren't very useful.  The sweat glands that dogs do have aren't enough to cool them off so they pant in addition to sweat.  Humans and chimps have the most sweat glands of any mammal. All over body and highest density on palms of hands and soles of feet.   Mammary glands being derived sweat glands puts a whole new spin on that glass of milk doesn't it?\nSpeaking of mammary glands and nipples... did you know that men can lactate?  One of the major stimuli to produce milk is the suckling of a child.  So women who adopt can, with lots of patience and effort, begin to produce milk.  Their are situations in tribal groups where men who are not able to hunt are left behind to care for the children.  In order to soothe a baby they will offer a nipple.  Enough times and they will begin to produce milk.  There is also a bat where it is normal for the male to produce milk and help feed the offspring.
142941
The boob fascination is because it is always hidden (behind layers). If a guy walks shirtless it is a dont care situation (unless hes a hunk), the same dosent apply to a girl. Guess that explains why guyz are always fascinated by boobs.
405979
WOW I am so sorry....never heard of a woman not liking her breasts touched...Did something happen to her when she was younger???_