Are boobies meant for babies?

Hey Sam!

I like to look at this question (which I think is quite valid) from an evolutionary point of view. As we became a bipedal organism, the rump was no longer the place where all the action occurred. We were able to look at each other full-on.

The breasts have always had a functional purpose for feeding infants, and there is probably a psychological association between the nurturing bond between the mother and child, and the breasts as functional objects.

They in turn become symbols of fertility (regardless of size, though we can see often time what is preferred-or what the media thinks we should prefer). This association of women and fertility is also a symbol of feminism, not the ideology, but the traits of being feminine. I agree with the other reader that the effects of losing a breat bc of cancer, or something can really change (or at least challenge) her self image. Breasts are part of being women.

Some people also think (though this is more controversial) that there was a connection of the breasts looking similar to the buttocks visually, which was hard-driven (he-he) into men to look at in women when searching for the right mate. Butts are still very popular, if I am not mistaken.

These are ideas that have been thrown around. And historically, the idea of breasts has changed significantly back and forth. Look up a French Bustier dress, a Puritan woman's clothing, an ad of the perfect pointy breasts in the 50's, a !Kung San woman, Pamela Anderson and a flatter Emo chick. All them were or are "hotties" to their respective times and cultures. Oh how the pendulum swings! And so do boobs! that brings me to another point of discussion:

Breasts can signify (unfortunately, or conversely, in a good way) how many children a woman has has had, (they can droop a bit when the woman has stopped b-feeding) so in some cultures rather deflated breasts indicate the woman is a good fertile procreator, while in others it indicates older age (more kids) and is seen as less attractive and younger women tend to have (more perky boobs) successful pregnancies (in 2009 this is obviously much different in the western world).

Phew....I can't believe I just wrote taht much about breasts!

I think they have both purposes. Think about it, a baby only uses them for a year at most (except for the freaks that continue till the kid is in kindergarten), so what is she doing with them the rest of the time? I personally love mine, they have been good to me. Ask the women who think they should not be sexual how they would feel if they got breast cancer and had to have a mastectomy? I believe that the vast majority of women going through that mourn the loss of their femininity. If they are not sexual, and they are no longer nursing babies, what is there to mourn? It doesn't make sense.

Humans breasts are swollen as a sexual display to show that the female is sexually mature.

I guess that woman is mistaken. Not only are they there to feed babies but to display fertility. A flat chested woman could feed a baby just as good as a large busted woman.

They have a dual purpose, but many parts of the body can have the dual aspect of functional and sexual. This can apply for men as well with functional and sexual, I mean a man's chest is functional with lifting and strength, but a man can enjoy his chest touched sexually with his woman and her enjoy doing it, so like I said before breasts are dual with functional and sexual, but so are other parts of men and women's bodies or could be.

Their purpose is to feed babies, but that doesn't stop men finding them attractive, and since having them touched can produce highly pleasurable sensations, I can only assume that it is normal for them to have a sexual aspect as well.

Their primary function is to produce milk to feed to our children. But if that was the only function, I wouldn't think we'd derrive sexual pleasure from having them played with.

thats what feminists would say.

they hate the stigma associated with breasts.

they hate the fact that they are sexualized but women are ok with it....they dont want their breasts to lose their sexual value and the power that only a glimpse of them can turn a dozen male heads.

i mean honestly...would women prefer a world where a topless woman attracted the same attention a regular shirtless guy does?

Yeah, boobies are for babies. It's okay though, you can still like boobies. Boobies are nice and not only to babies.

Boobies are for promotions.

think they are both. mostly to feed babies, but they are indeed sensual.