Can someone please tell me why are men attracted by female butts?
I've heard people saying that it's an evolutionary instinct because a firm, round butt means health and fitness, but is there any science backing this up? I don't feel attracted by butt, and it seems to me to be a social construct rather than a natural instinct.
Aesthetically the butt serve to balance the breasts and from a morphological point one of the way you can tell the sex of a person is seeing the hip to chest ratio.
If someone have a tiny butt their body will look more andrygenos towards male. If you're a straight guy you don't want your sex partner to look male.
Besides we're attracted to every part of the body of females, it's just the amateurs that stick with something simple like the boobs or butts.
Real connoisseurs start at the feet, move up the spires, inspect the gap, marvel at the mond or the cheeks. look for the dimples if beholding posterior, trace the waist up to the tits pause at the neck, before taking in the face.
Arms are probably the least sexualized part of a woman's body. Artistically it's may even be better without them, like the incomplete Venus the Milo has informed generations.
>If you're a straight guy you don't want your sex partner to look male.
Citation needed? Because I'm a straight male who likes his women boyish-looking, and I don't think I'm the only one. Small butt and skinny hips? Uhuhuhhh.... oh, yeah...
>(in reference to arms) Artistically it may even be better without them, like the incomplete Venus the Milo has informed generations.
Hi! Um... About what you said about the Venus de Milo... Maybe take a look into the history of the Venus de Milo?
There's always deviants out there, if you like that look you may be a hebephiliac.
If you wanna generalize straight males as a group you gotta look at what that group on average will find attractive, not on the specific preferences of a isolated specimen.
Not extrapolating from oneself is often a good route in coming to understand others.
>If you wanna generalize straight males as a group you gotta look at what that group on average will find attractive, not on the specific preferences of a isolated specimen.
That approach presumes that everyone naturally desires the same thing unless they are mentally damaged somehow (a "deviant"). However, that's a baseless assumption, not backed up by either logic or evidence.
I am aware it used to have arms if that's what you're getting it. Point is that it looks more aesthetic without them than should it ever be completed.
Numerous artworks have copied the style of the incomplete version and intentionally omits the arms.
Just go to a place where everybody can have any woman they want and observe what they chose.
In other words do a survey of male fapping habits. Head over to /s/ and study what guys are into.
The average male prefer a young looking woman with clean complexion and a highly symmetrical face
a body that is thin, but not very thin, non muscular. They also prefer breasts larger than average and spectacularly firm asses.
But what groups on average find attractive varies tremendously by culture and era. Labels like hemophiliac have little meaning beyond the immediate scope of a single group and time period. I think under the purple prose, what >>6549805
really meant to say was,
>I'm a straight male and I want my sex partners to look female, and I'm uncomfortable both with sexual ambiguity and gender ambiguity.
To this fellow, I say, friend, it's no crime to feel uncomfortable. It *is* kind of rude (and foolish) to try to define your own preferences as "normal" and anything else as "deviant."
>Point is that it looks more aesthetic without them than should it ever be completed.
Respectfully, "more aesthetic," is a meaningless joining of words. I'm guessing you mean it is more aesthetically pleasing? If so, you say this as though it was objective information. Aesthetics are entirely subjective. Could you mean that it is more aesthetically pleasing to a certain group of people at a certain time? If so, which people, at which time? It certainly wasn't the sculptor Milo, nor those for whom he made the Venus.
I would ask that you loosen your grip on what you hold to be aesthetic certainties, and recognize them for what they are: cultural norms. You can know what you like, and you can know what you don't. Beyond that, certainties about beauty are few.
>I don't feel attracted by butt
maybe youre just looking at the wrong ones
What I meant to say was if you're attracted to women you usually want your sexpartner to look like a woman. I'm sorry if my sloppy formulation rustled any jimmies.
> I'm uncomfortable both with sexual ambiguity and gender ambiguity.
I resent that accusation, I'm completly fine with it. In fact, if a crew-cut crosseyed transexual lumberjack came up to me and said
it experienced itself as a post-sexchange wannabe lipstick lesbian inverse-transexual, I'd be absolutly fine with it.
If that's what somebody gotta do to figure out what it is they see when thy look into the mirror, I'd just shrug you know.
I've seen fucked up shit that something like that doesn't even begin to move the needle on my rustle-O-meter.
>Nah, it's evolutionary instinct kid
Then why does it vary to such a wide degree across comparatively similar social groups and time periods? In various times and places, "sexy" means and has meant: being fat, being muscular, being skinny, having small feet, having a long neck, having a flat forehead, having a long nose, having pale skin, having tanned skin, having crooked teeth, and being able to jump high, among countless, countless others.
I'll agree that many (if not all) of these traits tie into the general concept of "health," and as it should, as a healthy mate is a reproductive mate. But the specific forms are far too numerous and too diverse to be explained though any factor but culture.
You are not at all wrong for liking what you do and finding it attractive. You simply are not *objectively justified* in liking what you do. Is this so troubling? It's easy to look at what cultures in other times and places find attractive and recognize these preferences as being culturally based. Is it not reasonable to acknowledge your own preferences as being equally based in culture, regardless of how *natural* it seems to you?
>I don't feel attracted by butt
I think then you're a virgin or haven't experienced a good ass (no offence)
>How do schoolboys survive these days
young and firm, but I see no real hips/ass there
I'm an artist myself for a living so I make a habit of deciding what other people thinks are aesthetically pleasing without them themselves understanding why this is.
Since I manufacturer art I get to impose my will on other peole so routinly that it has become fully natural for me to do so.
When somebody lash out and go 'can you do it any better!?' when one's critizing art I can just go "yes I can".
Therefore I'm untoucable and get to objectivly decide what's your subjective experience.
It's a privileage that comes with being a creator I suppose, you guys really don't have to understand it.
Absolutely. I've already figured out women, I don't even bother with them anymore, I leave the implementations to the engineers.
I've moved on to bigger thing, I just sit in solitude and contemplate the implications of advanced theory from my armchair.
Well let me put it this way, If I was fully literate and capable of writing all educated why would I have spent so much of my time learning to draw pictures?
If you don't know it's the hallmark of a good artist to be quasi beyond belief you don't know many artists.
Yes. I feel I was comparativly better a few years ago though because I used to be a lot more productive even if I wasn't as skilled
Nowdays I'm almost too narcisistic to feel really motivated in trying to impress humans.
>The average male prefer
It's like you didn't even read the post you're responding to.
If you averaged together everyone's favorite color, you get brown. Does that mean that everyone prefers brown unless they are a deviant? The average is not everyone. The most popular is not everyone.
>Head over to /s/ and study what guys are into.
/s/ displays a huge variety of different tastes. A lot of them I personally find gross, and I bet you do too. You're refuting yourself.
Well a generalization isn't everyone. A generalization is your best simplified model that you use to prejudice the group your interested in.
generalizations are effective because they're more true than untrue and because they allow you to put things into context.
A generalization about generalizations is that they fail to account for the rich complexity of reality, but that is of course also their strength.
Not getting bogged down in details you can advert your attention elsewhere while retaining a apporoximal awareness to what's going on.
But you or someone is claiming that an attraction to that generalisation is somehow something we evolved, rather the average of a whole bunch of cultural preferences, and deviation from it is deviation from some evolved natural state.
I'd like to see evidence.
>nt: being fat, being muscular, being skinny, having small feet, having a long neck, having a flat forehead, having a long nose, having pale skin, having tanned skin, having crooked teeth,
How do these all "tie in the general concept of 'health'"?
When it comes to members of our own species we're attracted to beauty, whatever we're attracted to we wanna copulate.
therefore beauty is that which ends up getting wanted to be fucked the most. A culture will self regulate what is considered attractive
by promoting ideals, if you wanna promote a deviant aesthetic you gotta compete for attention with already established standards.
>I'd like to see evidence.
look up deviation in a dictionary, it's a human made term that means going in another direction.
As for this 'evolved natural state' of yours seems to be attraction to whatever your peers find the most attractive so you can compete for it.
as a fallback you go for whatever happens to be available for you.
Given the supply and demand structure of our contemporary society working universal ideals for our species are bound to show up in marketing.
Once a new widespread attraction get's detected it will be used as a marketing agent.
>both small and big boobs can produce milk as well, so the preference on that is a lot more culture dependent than the waist hip ratio
If you're implying that wider hips = easier childbirth, you should know that that is a myth.
Sexual selection is poorly understood.
Lots of things you hear about why peacocks have big tails, or stags big antlers, are basically Just So stories, and actual science doesn't fully know.
When viewed by the culture and time in which they are or were a representation of beauty or attractiveness, the connection to health is obvious. To any other culture or time period, the connection is weak or obscure. If, in your particular time and place, health is all about having enough food, then being fat indicates health and so becomes an attractive trait. If health is about being physically active, muscles and tan skin are sexy. If health is about having a life of leisure instead one of physical toil, being skinny and pale is sexy. This is not idle speculation. These are actual manifestations of attractiveness for different people in different cultures, times, and places.
What is *perceived* as healthy is absolutely dependent on culture. In a time and place where starvation is a real threat, the heath risks of obesity hardly count. In a time and place where small noses are perceived as appearing childlike and nose size is tied to a perception of sexual maturity, a large nose is sexy indeed. When it comes to cultural sexual norms, there's just no accounting for taste. In Japan, pubic hair is an erotic signal of sexual maturity. In America, a lack of it simulates youth. In all cases, it is the culture and time that determine what is sexy.
>But what I like is what's *really* sexy.
Yes, that's what they all say.
>A retard speaks.
Many features considered attractive at various times have had nothing to do with either actual health, or perceived notions of health.
>But I want to simplify a really complex behaviour to muh health.
Because men who're attracted to butts will tend to have sex more than men who aren't attracted to butts you fucking idiot. Ergo, it is an anchor of natural selection; those who're the former will tend to reproduce more, and thus exist more.
>Lets repeat myths with no basis in fact.
Everyone in this thread is just repeating the pop-sci equivalent of old wives tales.
It makes me sad as this is meant to be a place for the scientifically literate.
The actual answer to the scientific basis for sexual attraction is there is no answer yet. It's just shit we haven't properly figured out, hence the massive amount of hypothesising in this field (and hence the massive about of people reading about some hypothesis and thinking it is theory).
Y'all should be ashamed.
>Because men who're attracted to butts will tend to have sex more than men who aren't attracted to butts you fucking idiot.
The same could be said for the opposite.
If a man is a butt connoisseur he will not settle for a sub par butt and therefore statistically have less sex.
You clearly have no concept of how evolution and naturally select works. I suggest you leave.
Mutations arise randomly, they are purposeless. All mutations find purpose in context of how they operate in a system of natural selection. Mutations that produce traits that make a lifeform more sexual, or more zealous for life, will see that lifeform tend to have more sex and tend to survive more. Thus, it will tend to exist more than lifeforms that lack this advantage.
This allows morons to post on an internet board wondering why x is the way it is, when the only answer is it is a trait that arose randomly that allowed a lifeform and its offspring to continue to exist more than other lifeforms that lacked the trait.
Is /sci/ filled with morons? Nothing of that sort was said whatsoever.
1. When you say butts do you mean big butts, or just the existence of buttocks.
2. Why do you think butts were selected for by sexual selection, and not any other kind of sexual selection?
>Everyone in this thread is just repeating the pop-sci equivalent of old wives tales.
To be fair the capacity of the birth canal, it is only a question of geometry of the hip bone.
Which is directly proportional to max size of ass.Unless we assume the big-butt lovers are into tubs of fat where everything just hangs.
Which is usually not the case although you get the occasional anon who misinterpreted, glitched out, and went 100% for dimension.
As for the diameter of the hips I know quite a bit about it. I had a friend who claimed 'tower of power' described in the song 'Bobby Brown'
refer to a sexual maneuver in which one person has his head up another persons ass. I downloaded various medical models and conducted
personal research to conclude if this is possible at all for adults. (It's not, a woman with max hips can take like 12 y old with a tiny head.)
Oh god, more retardation. Some pointers
Butt is muscle and fat.
The birth canal is adequate in the most snake hipped of woman.
Quit reading what evolutionary psychologists pretend is science.
>Butt is muscle and fat.
Sure, but it is suspended on hard points that is bone.
The diameter of the whole as viewed from a top determine the absolute maximum size of what object you may fit.
There is no way in hell an adult skull of a grown man is gonna fit in there even if your soft parts could somehow stretch enough.
How is this in any way relevant to evolutionary selection?
Once the size is good enough for a newborn's head there is no more selection pressure to enlarge it.
Oh, wait, my bad, you're trolling.
There's some correlation, but not much. You can have massive variation of size on the same pelvis depending on diet and on the genetics of fat storage, all will have same birth canal.
>i'm big boned
yes, sure you are
When I think of asses... a woman's ass... something comes out of me.
I don't normally reply to this kinda thing, but as well as an evolutionary basis you should also consider societal determination of "Attractive Characteristics". In some societies stretched necks are attractive etc.
It's important to consider that the western view of beauty, while incredibly wide spread, may provide a narrow perspective of what defines attractive characteristics in a mate. It's similar to Nature or Nurture for criminal behaviour. How much of our desire for "Big Butts" is as a result of brain chemistry and how much has been influenced by your own upbringing.
I'd normally try explain this by what the OP mentioned, from an evolutionary standpoint, but it is always important not to be ignorant of other possible factors.
I think you mean the Venus of Willendorf, not the Venus de Milo.
Note the lack of arms.
We affectionately call this thing "Venus," but it's probably one of the oldest sculptures made by man.
It's also commonly used to demonstrate what dudes valued as important in a woman aesthetically.
Namely, big tits big ass and wide birthing hips.
Feet, face and arms are optional at best.
Back then had a "society" too, the Venus of Willendorf, may only reflect the culture it came from. It may just reflect the tastes of the person that carved it, they could have been the Rubens of their day.
The prevalence of Venus figures with the same features spread all across the world makes this unlikely.
Fun fact: if you inscribe a proportional circle around the belly button of all the major Venuses it encloses all the most important features for mating.
I think they are actually referring to Venus of Milo, but in both cases they were re-discovered pretty late. Milo around 1820 and Willendorf around 1910.
A. Most of the models back in the day were men. It was considered too lewd for dudes to paint actual naked chicks.
B. Reubens was the most influential chubby chaser of his time. People thought it was weird back in the day too.
It probably deals with fertility.
In some cultures today, women use similar dolls as fertility charms.
They spread menstrual blood on them.
This is an age old tradition, actually.
The Venus of Willendorf has a coating of Red Ochre on it, which indicates that it might have been used for similar purposes.
Which of course might actually rule out its use as an ideal image of a sexy woman, and probably shows that it was made by a woman in the first place.
Although that doesn't mean there isn't some overlap. Even ancient women knew what men liked, and probably understood what was important to keep their families alive.
Christy Mack is evolution perfected.
>Sexologist Alfred Kind suggested that the buttocks is the primary sexual presentation site in primates. Some anthropologists and sociobiologists believe that breast fetishism derives from the breasts' similarity to buttocks, but instead provide sexual attraction from the front of the body.
In humans, females generally have more round and voluptuous buttocks, caused by estrogen that encourages the body to store fat in the buttocks, hips, and thighs. Testosterone discourages fat storage in these areas. The buttocks in human females thus contain more adipose tissue than in males, especially after puberty. Evolutionary psychologists suggest that rounded buttocks may have evolved to be desirable trait because they provide a visual indication of the woman's youth and fertility. They signal the presence of estrogen and the presence of sufficient fat stores for pregnancy and lactation. Additionally, the buttocks give an indication of the shape and size of the pelvis, which impacts reproductive capability. Since development and pronunciation of the buttocks begins at menarche and declines with age, full buttocks are also a symbol of youth.
Biological anthropologist Helen B. Fisher said that "perhaps, the fleshy, rounded buttocks attracted males during rear-entry intercourse". Bobbi S. Low et al. said that the female buttocks "evolved in the context of females competing for the attention and parental commitment of powerful resource-controlling males" as an "honest display of fat reserves" that could not be confused with another type of tissue, although T. M. Caro rejected that as being a necessary conclusion, stating that female fatty deposits on the hips improve individual fitness of the female, regardless of sexual selection.
>But muh spot reduction!
I mean, it's like they don't know the only two ways to get back are to have great genetics and do lots of squats+deadlifts.
That, or inject yourself with cement.
My concern is most of you fucks read shit like this and ignore the above words. Taking some guys suggestions as scientific fact, which you repeat as established science to your friends and to the internet.
God I hate you fucks.
Can the same attraction be found in other primates? It may just be an exaggeration of why most men find wide hips attractive. Evolutionary it makes sense.
Big ass=Wide hips=more fertile
That's just an observation though.
Why are women attracted to men's butts?
The gluteus maximus is the largest muscle in the body. It's key to athletic performance, especially running.
Furthermore, smooth, firm fatty tissue is a sign of youth. It gets lumpy and saggy as people get older.
One thing that I think is often overlooked because it's too gross to mention is that a lot of animals will have disgusting things happen to their ass when they're sick. I think most mammals tend to look around the anus for signs of disease.
One good look at someone's (bare) ass gives you a fairly good idea of their sex, age, and fitness.
It's the most common fetish if one discount boob and butt fetishism as to vanilla to mention.
In many parts of the world feet are usually covered so if they're exposed it's a form of nudity.
Also it's a focal point located on the leg, if you marvel over a woman's nice legs it's impossible not to notice
the feet at the same time, seeing how it is common for women to don elaborate nail care our shoes on their feet
developing a taste of the aesthetics of the area is not difficult .
The bottom of the sole is very sensitive to tickling making it a excellent target for sexual teasing.
One should also not underestimate the excellent vantage point of the footjob, the standoff distance provided
excellent perspective to behold the full glory of your woman while at the same time having your cock fondled.
that... is actually the most straight forward and elegant observation in this whole thread.
The answer was hiding in plain sight. Now I know how Newton must've felt in that BS story with the apple.
>I don't feel attracted by butt
Why do you even continue living?
How so? It didn't have arms because they got lost before it was found. It's not that different than a typical female today (besides short hair I guess?)
Her ass was not a small one either
We aren't talking about the Venus de Milo for the most part.
Venus is the Roman goddess of love and beauty, adopted largely from the Greek Aphrodite.
When we discovered statues like these en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_figurines we called them Venus because we were making an allusion to the goddess, not because they're really her.
>It *is* kind of rude (and foolish) to try to define your own preferences
Well excuse me reddit, I can't consider the concepts/objects around me as normal based on my anecdotal familiarity, privilege checked
>Can someone please tell me why are men attracted by female butts?
It's actual classical conditioning.
You were raised in a pr0n society and everybody tells you that butts are sexy, so eventually you are attracted by the "symbol" of a butt.
In different societies differnet parts of the body are more impotant. A healty body is always a sign of "fittness", but for us humans the psychological aspects are also important ("psychological fitness").
If you could be conditionized to be sexually attracted to something so easily advertisement would be ALOT easier and we all would get boners at the newest consumer products.
Also at the time sexual attraction forms boys are usually not watching much porn(especially not pre 2000), there is not much indoctrination going.
Its the feminist variant of those conservatives claiming that there is a gay agenda that converts young boys into homosexuality.
>implying the conditioning is "on purpose" or it was suggested that it was manipulated by some sort of corporate cabal or some shit
you just revealed your complete lack of experience in the real world (so, underageb&) or you're just not very educated
Liking ass is not the same thing as liking anus. If trolling, 13/10. If not, you are extremely retarded. Please tell me, when you see an attractive woman on the street, which do you notice more: her ass or her vagina? There are many more reasons why your statement is absolutely retarded, but I consider them too obvious to list here. Please, think before you post.
You just haven't found the right butts. It may be because a toned and flexible pelvic region is evidence that her biological development was focused on child birth and maybe other aspects of her makeup followed suit. In less words.
But I think it's literally the physical feeling of the femininity and curviness that sticks in men's minds.
excellent use of the rubber-glue defense, champ
are you from /degeneracy/? why does there seem to be some kind of mass migration from there to here goin on
shit nigga you peaked early
Whoa there, who said 5/10 is average?
If you're Amurrkan, the average is 3/10 at best.
Everywhere else the average varies too, but it's usually bordering on 6/10 as long as you're not in some African country or the Middle East.
This is empirically backed science, just ask /pol/.
>So you want your sex partners to look like 1 borderline obese 5/10? As that's what the average woman looks like.
That's not what a woman look like, nor is it what a man looks like. It's what's a human looks like when covered in grease.
The shape of the sphere is entirely unisex so your statistical observation breaks down.
As people becomes saggy they move away from their sexual characteristics towards bland unattractiveness.
the shape of the female butt is determined by quantum mechanical calculations originally derived by jacob barnett
male p-zombies (because they don't collapse the butt wave function) therefore do not see the attraction
something I was just thinking about is why are women attracted to male butts? With guys, it is where they stick their dick, but what are women going to do with an attractive butt?
Are there women into butt stuff?
I cant stop laughing.
Those skinny black guys who have really fatwhite gf's are prime examples of the anons you referenced.
how is head up an ass = birth canal?
when is anybody giving birth to 12 year old sized heads?
how do you measure this?
tower of power
i dont know, i've always thought its weird but i was going own on my girl and her feet made their way onto my dick and then she just sort of started rubbing it around and progressed to pretty full on foot job and holy fuck its actually really good!
smooth, soft less controlled i cant pin point it but would do again/10
It doesn't seem like its an easy topic to find a scientific consensus on.
All I can offer is my personal experience:
I think around puberty I started really noticing girls develop, just changing shape in general, bigger boobs, bigger hips / ass.
So I started to really focus on these sexualised body parts on any girl I would see. I guess just, oh man, look at her ass its so nice and what i think sexually ideal is i want that, her pussy is right in between that!
I think to a degree it's just personal preference though.
Some people like blondes, some people like brunettes..
Someone went to prison for injecting cement into "her" ass and the asses of others.
Yes, I know.
But this is the best I could do on such short notice.
I cant comprehend how something like this happens.
I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall during consultation, hardware shopping, surgery prep, surgery, recovery, patients feedback, just the general life of the people involved.
How can they possibly be functioning members of society?
There's an episode of My Strange Addiction with someone else who does it.
I hate how this video cuts around, but it's insane even if it isn't "real."
I guess I can understand the situation a bit more.
With this person it's an addiction and she is looking to get her fix the only way she can afford.
I still find the whole scenario completely bizarre.
>there are people ITT who prefer small boyish butts to big womanly butts
Well least sexualized doesn't mean 'not sexualized at all'. They do paint their nails and so forth, but still, finding a guy that goes "oh my gawd bro, look at the front paws of that one!"
You just never hear stuff like that. But you frequently hear guys mumble things like "her ass, her ass, just stare at her ass... you better stare!1" underneath their breath.
Or take this specific event that happend to me just the other week in a supermarket, a perfect stranger comes up to me after some girl walked by. Guy has both his fists cleanched, I'm all like "He wanna fight me?_? Here??"
But then he just goes "did you see the tits man?? DAMN!" in an excited voice and start jumping up and down at the place smiling like crazy, like he actually had to ensure himself what he just witnessed was real or something.
Arms just never gather that kind of attention, ever.
According to a recent study conducted at the prestigious Chourfan Institute of Analogy the main reason seems to be that your face isn't the only thing with two cheeks and that due to the widespread abuse of neurotoxic prescription drugs and the subsequent mental desintegration people are no longer able to recognize which side is up. A supporting psychological hypothesis claims that said persons may want to find their lost self by identifying with the anatomical feature in question along with the related digestive end products.
The muscle mass under consideration, namely its proportions to other muscle groups, limb length, stance, and overall body mass, gives humans greater endurance in covering larger distances. Among other things, this is useful in searching for food and fleeing predators, important factors in bringing offspring to adulthood. It's related to the leg question, but the endurance/distance factor is highlighted more.
>Can someone please tell me why are men attracted by female butts?
For the same reason females are attracted to dangerous situations and have rape fantasies. For thousands of years women were acquired by force, if men weren't attracted to their butts they would have never chased them down (or managed to fuck them without sustaining injuries that could get infected in spite of being clawed at).
>citation seriously fucking needed
For the facts women have rape fantasies, vote democrat because they like being oppressed, think illogically, got passed around as the literal trophies of war for thousands of years, got the shit kicked out of them for disobeying so much that it impacted their evolutionary development toward submissiveness, etc? Sorry, if you aren't capable of drawing blatant facts from the world around you I'm not going to waste my time digging up evidence for you, you have the same internet as me but real life would still be a better source of education for you.
You realize that there are clear differences between the sexes that extend to deeply psychological-based aspects, right? There is literally no way to answer OP's question without delving into psychology and specifically the reasons the sexes are different and how they are different.
>Can someone please tell me why are men attracted by female butts?
Because the females can be made to cry when you put things in them.
>Well could we also consider why men are attracted to breasts as well?
Because they jiggle.
>Well could we and consider the question of: why are men's attracted to vajinas aswell?
Because they squish.
Erm, sure, let's go with that. Except that the term "rape fantasy" is hardly appropriate, since rape is involuntary/non-consensual by definition (being overpowered =/= being raped). That's closer to having a BDSM fetish if anything.
>vote democrat because they like being oppressed
Relevance? The GOP is no better. Though both the major parties are absolute trash.
As does... everyone. Welcome to humanity, where a large portion of human behavior is illogical.
As for the rest, no. At least as far as sexual submissiveness goes, women that implicitly associate sex with submission are more likely to be submissive.
>if you aren't capable of drawing blatant facts from the world around you I'm not going to waste my time digging up evidence for you
>I'm not going to provide evidence because I'm so obviously right that you're wrong for even questioning me
>on a board about *science*
Impressive. For the record, I was not the one who suggested you go to >>>/pol/, though you really should.
I get that you have an emotional investment in being a twit, but the sociobiological fantasies you're going on about hardly constitute "reality". Shit, you're not even doing sociobiology properly.
She's not black dumb ass.
Why can't people tell the difference between people of African descent and Latinas... Even darker skin Latinas I can tell based usually on their skin tone and especially on their facial structure.
>tfw maths exam tomorrow
>tfw browsing butt thread "because it's science"
>It's also commonly used to demonstrate what dudes valued as important in a woman aesthetically.
This is basically the wrong reasoning that social majors then adopt. We supposedly loved obese women. But for all we know the sculptor might have had a fat wife looking over his shoulder.
>We affectionately call this thing "Venus," but it's probably one of the oldest sculptures made by man.
An intriguing theory is that it was actually sculpted by a woman looking at her own body downwards, hence the heavily distorted body-shape.
Yeah, I like skinnier girls more too. There is simple no match for early developed 16 year old. There is no 30 year old who can that soft skin, that soft and thick hair, that look in their eyes. What I mean is example like this.... There is simply no older women who can match this. I am taller guy, with broad shoulders and 8x6 inch so there is no overcompensation for small dick or any other genetic defect. If I ever get a chance to fuck girl like this. I would do it without any moral regrets.
They don't, that is why they are shooting up schools.
if school had nothing but hypersexualized teenage girls surrounding me all day, and I was not plowing pussy like crazy. I would also probably have went bonkers and shot up a place
>be a boy in a school with a 5:1 girl to boy ratio
Man highschool was great.
Or it would have been if I wasn't gay.
They'd get so mad at me for taking the few available guys away from them.
Considering how many times I got solicited by chicks even though they knew I was gay, I can't imagine how much pussy a straight kid would've gotten.
paleolithic cave paintings of hairless pussies. bodies pretty close to what we find sexy today
God I remember those horny high school days.
Sometimes I still feel like I'm the only man who finds it frustrating instead of satisfying to see girls in scanty clothes. I mean what's the point if I can't even touch them?
It's weird for me. I was pretty much asexual in high school. The only sexual thought in HS I recall having was slapping some short latina girl's ass. I was really close to doing it but thank god I didn't. lol. I did get hints from her though that she liked me. Now, I'm old and horny all the time. Not Louis CK old but Louis CK horny. lol
I disagree, as a hebephile/ephebophile I am firmly attracted to female bodies with a nice round buttox and perky b to d breasts (stressing the round shape and perkiness) with no flab or jiggle anywhere except the breasts. However, I believe this is an American problem more than anything else. Here in the U.S. our women are very unhealthy, and even a 20 year old female considered healthy by our medical standards would be considered sickly in other parts of the world, and can't compare to the natural "healthy" state women that have hit puberty, but haven't been consuming whatever we consume in america that gives us poor health long enough for it to effect the state of their bodies. I think in other parts of the world where they've managed to "figure out" healthy eating the women there maintain a "tightness" to their bodies well into their 20's and even 30's.
Shit... I think I just convinced myself I have a normal sexual appetite.
Also, I believe that the person you're responding to has been emasculated by the feminist agenda, and has been brainwashed into finding more androgynous bodies attractive. I know it sounds ridiculous and I didn't buy into it at first but after quite a bit of research I am a firm believer that the emasculation of men and defeminization of women in the U.S. is a real and present agenda.
The truth is if I had access to these types of women I wouldn't bother looking at anyone that wasn't at least as developed. I'm guessing she's mid-20's. Maybe it's just where I live and everyone after 19 has a drug wreckes/stress wrecked/fat wrecked body.
>Maybe it's just where I live and everyone after 19 has a drug wreckes/stress wrecked/fat wrecked body.
If you live in the U.S. but not in the Northeast or the West Coast, that's probably true. Flyover Clapistanis simply do not take care of themselves.
The butt and thighs of a woman are the main depositories of the nutrients needed to make a healthy baby. The bigger and firmer the booty, the more nutrients her body has available to construct brainmeats and such. Since pickles and ice cream can't be stored there due to body heat, you have to supply those during the course of the pregnancy.
Also, this: >>6549798
South east here, in a port city no less. Drugs and STD's are rampant.
I know right, but to be honest I've only seen one attractive 12 year old in my life. She had large b, small c breasts and an ass that would put 99% of grown women to shame. Very few 13 year olds with those qualities and so on. So at least (it seems) I'm attracted to females that have hit puberty and are already somewhat developed. Also I could just move somewhere that the age of consent is 14 and be done with it, like all of South America.
If you like girls that can get pregnant, you're normal. Ignore the newspapers. Move on with your life. Eventually you'll meet a petite girl, and you can feel that naughty lust again but it's totally ok socially. This is where you and I laugh together.
I'm already on it, as a 29 year old with a 20 year old gf that can put pigtails in her hair and look pretty young. However I still would like one with a tighter body, like I said this area has poor pickings and most women have an entitlement complex that would nearly boggle the mind. Something about living in a city with a ratio of eligible men to women of 5 to 1. If you can imagine all the implications of that.
Since pre-civilization, women have been domestic slaves, doing the majority of the hard labor: the institution of marriage is the successor to this, with the ring being a symbol of shackles, reduced through time to a vestige.
Strong posterior chain is indicative of a large work capacity. I squat 350, you should see what my ass can do.