/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.14845663]

Why do men find large breasts sexually attractive?

[Anonymous No.14845677]

>>14845663
Nobody finds ugly cow udders like that attractive except for a minority of dysgenic fetishists. Nice tits look like picrel.

[Anonymous No.14845833]

>>14845663
>I am 12 and what do babies drink

[Anonymous No.14845861]

>>14845833
>i am 12 and i'm pround of knowing what babies drink

[Anonymous No.14845867]

>>14845663
That's a matter of personal taste. I prefer medium-sized ones. Really big ones are gross to me.

[Anonymous No.14845878]

>>14845833
How many babies is she feeding in one sitting for milk sacks that huge? Holstein cattle have huge udders that can pump out 60L a day that's sufficient to feed 10 calves, and the world record is actually over 120L in a day.
But how much does a growing human baby need by comparison?

[Anonymous No.14845900]

>>14845878
The guy is a retard. All mammals need feed their young with titty milk but most female mammals don't have big titty lumps on them, especially not all year round. It's clearly got little to do with baby-feeding capacity.

[Anonymous No.14845903]

>>14845663
>Another case of retard OP generalizing the preferences of one man for every man
Case. Closed.
>>14845677
He's cute. This femboy have a name?

[Anonymous No.14845937]

>>14845900
Human babies have flat faces while most other mammals have snouts. The placement of the nipple and curvature of the breast allows for suckling without blocking the baby's nose. Animals with snouts don't have this problem. What's interesting is that this works best for middle size breasts. Breasts that are too large won't be properly curved for an infant's face and ones that are too small and flat puts the nose against the mother's chest, potentially smothering them while feeding.

[Anonymous No.14845962]

>>14845937
>ones that are too small and flat puts the nose against the mother's chest, potentially smothering them while feeding.
What in the FUCK are you talking about? When have you ever heard of a woman with small tits smothering her baby?

[Anonymous No.14845985]

>>14845663
They imply superior milk production and health (fatty tissue = well-fed).

[Anonymous No.14846016]

>>14845985
>>14845878
>>14845867
You’re all fucking wrong. Having big breasts is actually bad if you want to have many children. Look it up

[Anonymous No.14846027]

>>14846016
It depends on breast tissue structure.
supply systems for alveolar ducts and milk sacs take up space so they can work as storage vessels. But large pendulous udders are a vulnerability to the milking cow that can affect structural soundeness so their distribution tends to get lengthened
however compared to the udder of a beef suckler cow that will produce about 12L a day they are huge

[Anonymous No.14846043]

>>14845663
because in the ancient savannah they functioned as airbags

a female with better airbags would survive more crashes

so we evolved

[Anonymous No.14846048]

[Anonymous No.14846051]

>>14845663
Only poor cucks with small pp.

>flat supremacy

[Anonymous No.14846052]

Because uhhh ape butts uhh bidpedal uhhh

[Anonymous No.14846090]

>>14845677
>Nobody finds ugly cow udders like that attractive except for a minority of dysgenic fetishists.

HEY!... calm down!!
These girls have a talent even they are unaware of!

[Anonymous No.14846113]

>>14845663
because wet nurses had large breasts and wet nurses were very valuable for most of human civilization

[Anonymous No.14846118]

>>14845677
This.
</thread>

[Anonymous No.14846119]

[Anonymous No.14846124]

>>14846119
wtf how is this possible

[Anonymous No.14846132]

>>14846090
so what is her talent

[Anonymous No.14846162]

>>14846124
Clearly the rabbit is trained to hop in sync with the covering

[Anonymous No.14846211]

>>14845663
Breast too large or ass too large start to become less and less undesirable at some point. If anything it seems humans like some sort of equilibrium or balance without even knowing it

[Anonymous No.14846301]

>>14845663
>>14846090
just no. small tits >>> big udders, but this is my opinion. Cannot generalize like that OP. Grow up. And no, I'm not a pedo.

[Anonymous No.14846519]

>>14846211
/thread

[Anonymous No.14846527]

>>14846124
there is a trap door that it escaped from
if you zoom i, you can see the outline

[Anonymous No.14846557]

>>14845663
because its a quick way to gender someone, see big boobs and then your brain can get horny faster with greater confidence you're not getting a boner over a guy that cannot carry your babies

[Anonymous No.14846571]

>>14845663
It comes to a primitive thing, big breasts implies the women have a higher capacity of feeding children in the first stages.

[Anonymous No.14846576]

>>14846301
You are not a man.

[Anonymous No.14846585]

>>14845663
I don't know, why do women find large hands and aggression sexually attractive? At least breasts are more associated with life than death.

[Anonymous No.14846587]

>>14846576
I am, but I also have different taste than yours.

[Anonymous No.14846588]

>>14846585
It's hands in general. Hands and forearms, the veins, watching them write or make things. I want to ascribe something meaningful to it, but I probably have autism and/or it's because they have a lot of vascularity that is similar to the penis.

[Anonymous No.14846593]

>>14846588
>because they have a lot of vascularity that is similar to the penis.

Women are strange.

[Anonymous No.14846606]

>>14846593
There's obviously a lot of forethought that goes into picking partners (maybe not always, humans are stupid), but at the very base of our being, we just want to smash parts and breed. Chocolate bars just look like fancy poop. You would think somewhere in our minds we would be wired against wanting to eat something that looks similar to what we've flushed.

[Anonymous No.14846627]

>>14846606
>Chocolate bars just look like fancy poop.

Not to some women

[Anonymous No.14846683]

>>14846588
>similar to the penis
I'm kind of glad but kind of hate that you mentioned that, because it kind of goes into my other theories about sexuality, but I just didn't know how far.

Basically, I'm talking about association/familiarity.
Men, even boys nearing puberty, quickly learn about the center of their own sexual pleasure - their penis, particularly (the underside of) the head of it. From the first time a man gets a REAL erection and can almost hear nothing but his own heartbeat in his ears and roughly an imperial cup of blood has left his brain to help keep his penis erect (erectile tissue being two elongated side-by-side water balloons that pull in so much blood from the rest of the body {mostly the thinky parts of the brain that are unnecessary for reproduction} that they get filled stiff), the simplest things can cause uncontrollable sexual arousal in him: either thinking of any subjectively arousing part of a woman's (or man's {possibly in more ways than one}) body, or just brushing any part of their penis on, well, anything. Sexual arousal most often uncontrollably causes erections too, which can often be socially detrimental for obvious reasons. Even just an increase in heat can cause some penis swelling, and things snowball from there. Either way, when it come to full arousal and intent to orgasm, the male frontal lobe is operating at SIGNIFICANTLY reduced capacity; this is why most men are "bed" at "bedroom talk" in the moment of sex - they often can only think of what they are feeling and seeing when fully aroused, more so as they near orgasm. With the brain in a nearly "drunk" state, orgasms can literally feel as pleasurable as a hit of hard drugs. Then all the blood comes flowing back, and a man has to deal with whatever his horny-drunk mind had decided at the time.

[Anonymous No.14846686]

>>14846683
Anyways, several things then start to become instinctively associated with sexual arousal, and may even trigger an arousal response - the concept of things being/getting bigger, jiggling/waggling/shaking, swelling, throbbing, becoming firm/stiff, leaking fluids, squirting fluids, increasing tempo/pace/intensity towards an "explosive" peak, etc. All things that the penis/balls do and are.

Men understand the penis and balls on a personal level, and can't help but associate sex with it, because that's their sexual world. It takes environmental influences (like rote learning, trial-and-error) for men to understand sex and arousal beyond their own instinctive elements of it, just like it does for women to do the same for understanding men's sexual arousal. This is why men are like "why doesn't she get horny just by looking at my dick?" and women are like "why does he immediately just want to get to the sex instead of setting a sensual mood on a date night, then maybe having a bit of wine or dessert before gradually getting into more intimate discussion and ultimately getting physically closer until some light touching starts to occur, which gradually gets heavier along with the conversation until you both go to the bedroom to find that he had already set the mood in there, with cleanup stuff prepared and ready to go? You know, like, slow-burn build up instead of just jumping into the physical stuff? Is he just trying to rush through it all because he isn't into me?" and so forth, but I digress.

The point of the theory is that men find penis/balls-like parts of the female body attractive, because those are the parts that they are familiar with. Breasts are like balls or butt-cheeks of a sort, and nipples are the main feature - like small penis-heads, that even get erect. This is why men find the nipples so erotic, and assume them to be some pleasure center for women. It also explains lactation fetishes.

[Anonymous No.14846688]

>>14846686
There's something scientific there, though. Due to both male and female human foetuses having the same shape at the start of the life cycle, The female clitoris is anatomically just a shrunken penis, with the head mostly exposed, the shaft being internal, and a urethra opened so wide and made so short that the part where the urinary/reproductive tubes separate is almost on the outside (or alternatively, a penis is anatomically just an elongated clit, with the head hugely inflated, the shaft thickened and lengthened so dramatically that extra skin had to stretch around it, and an internal joining of the urinary and reproductive tubes, joining into one at the bottom of the shaft, with a single urethral tube ending at the middle of the clit). Clitorises even consistently get firm/erect during sexual arousal, unlike nipples. Thus, the clitoris itself, the real center of female physical(!) pleasure/sensitivity, truly is an analog to the male penis, and through fully understanding the clitoris, women can understand something of the penis. To top this off, clitorises often behave different from penises in how sensitive (good when wet, bad when dry) they are, but this also goes in hand with the alleged low sensitivity of particularly large penises. Some of the owners of the world's largest penises (and women who have interacted with them) often describe some pretty extreme things they need to do to actually ejaculate, and it -still- takes a while, while many men with micropenises often find themselve twice cursed, with oversensitivity. It would go to reason that the penis is more-or-less a static design that can get scaled in different ways, but with the same number of nerves, either densely-packed-together (high sensitivity) or sparsely-spaced-apart (low sensitivity). The clitoris would then stand to simply be a truly miniaturized penis itself.

Dear god why have I posted this. I am not sorry, but I am not proud.

[Anonymous No.14846727]

You can't have paizuri with small tits

[Anonymous No.14846739]

>>14845663
Women don't exist. Nice try though.

[Anonymous No.14846758]

>>14845663
It's just obesity. People who can't move are ill.

[Anonymous No.14846799]

>>14846688
I think that circumcision might play a role in sensitivity, probably stating the obvious there. Does the data you've observed indicate whether or not a penis was circumcised in the data about sensitivity and size? There's also bloodflow to consider. It takes more blood to engorge the tissues of a larger penis, so if there are underlying blood pressure issues that might affect full arousal/sensitivity?
Both are composed of erectile tissue, and the clitoral head can also be too sensitive.
Regarding the point about women not necessarily being immediately ready for sex, I think it just takes longer to relax enough for performance. There's a psychological let-down there that needs to happen first, which is easier to build onto if your mind is consistently on it with occasional touch and discussion building towards sex.
Don't be embarrassed, it's not like we're discussing tgis red-faced and in person.

[Anonymous No.14846881]

I appreciate this thread because from the female perspective it's stigmatized to learn about male sexuality. Any education is usually limited to "don't sleep around or you're a whore". Many women are clueless to how men really think of them, which is to say, not much

[Anonymous No.14846894]

If I remember right there's a correlation between stress and attraction to larger breasts.
I think the logic goes something like a high stress environment pushes for more blatant indicators of fitness and fertility

[Anonymous No.14846898]

Aren't the biggest breasts found in eastern europe and russia?

[Anonymous No.14846929]

>>14845677
Shut up, pedophile

[Anonymous No.14847623]

Wife has 30 triple d's.

I'm happy.

And no amount of well reasoned arguments can make me not enjoy slapping them against my face every morning.

[Anonymous No.14847793]

>>14846881
Translation: I'm a real girl, look at me!

[Anonymous No.14847914]

>>14845663
More curves equals increased reproductive success, which was useful when you could just club a girl then take her to your cave, now there are laws against that stuff and you have to settle with what you can get

[Anonymous No.14847926]

>>14847914
Almost right, but missing out on some subtleties. In a time of bare subsistence, more body fat in general meant a woman was more likely to be fertile. Women who don't get enough to eat have reduced, or even no, fertility, so schtupping one won't give you kids as reliably as rolling around with a fatty. Only in the late 20th century did skinny bitches become popular in the mass media, presumably because they're walking coathangers who can better show off haute couture. So that became the standard of beauty that still persists today.

[Anonymous No.14848062]

>>14847793
It's giving incel

[Anonymous No.14848111]

>>14847926
A number of those models were tranny abominations if we want to get /polx/ about it, really sets an unachievable body fat percentage for girls, probably caused a lot of problems.

But I digress.
Men are primarily attracted to a specific hip to waist ratio range since it best indicates fertility now I can sort of see how a big set of jugs could complement that and indicate sufficient food reserves

[Anonymous No.14848115]

>>14845677
>He likes women without tits

gay

[Anonymous No.14848321]

i've never found large breasts attractive at all

[Anonymous No.14848537]

>>14845663
Did anyone ITT give a proper answer? I personally like small breasts and find big breasts kind of repulsive, so I would like to know why seemingly everyone else loves big breasts so much.

[Anonymous No.14848605]

this is a low t faggot board.

BOOBA

[Anonymous No.14848621]

>>14845677
Huge tits that actually look good when the bra comes off are the goat. Huge tits that flop down to your knees not so much.

And huge fake tits are obviously nothing but a cry for help.

[Anonymous No.14848766]

>>14846132
OF

[Anonymous No.14848775]

it's a sex characteristic