We are searching data for your request:
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.
I read some articles which say men's sexual attraction to breasts (during sex or casually) is because culture/society started it. One relevant article is this. Women were told to hide breasts and hence men got sexually attracted to them because everyone loves what's hidden (I read answers on Quora and Reddit which wrote all these things).
I read many discussions by some experience users on Reddit, who commented above things, especially "everyone loves what's hidden" (talking about breasts).
They gave basically 2 reasons for saying this:
- There are women in Africa who go topless and men don't care about it like everyone else in most other cultures (Read this kind of views on Reddit)
- In Victorian era, ankles were considered sexual, because they were hidden and because they were hidden men would get turned on (Read on Quora answers)
So, I'm just getting curious - Did this sexual attraction to breasts really started when culture/society started to hide breasts and eventually they became sexual attraction?
Is there any evidence in known history that sexual attraction to breasts (and importance of breasts during sex) was also common in past, especially before Victorian era?
Note: Most of the things I wrote above I mainly I read on Yahoo answers, Reddit, Quora and few users on StackExchange users in comments of past questions on various SE sites. And I could relate them because I have already read so many articles mentioning similar things about Victoria era and culture/society sexualized breasts.
One reference about breasts role in human sexual activity is mentioned in this article.
One answer here talks about "not a natural attraction".
"The very past" and "especially Victorian era" does not mix well, so it is unclear what era you are looking at.
"The very past" would, in my interpretation, be something like the Venus of Willendorf and other palaeolithic sculptures emphasizing breasts. Whether that is to indicate sexual attractiveness, or fertility, or if there is indeed a difference between the two for such early times, I leave open to interpretation.
Somewhat newer would be the Song of Solomon (e.g. 4:5 "Thy two breasts are like two young roes that are twins, which feed among the lilies.").
Breasts are part of the sexual dimorphism of humans. Among other traits they define what we perceive as "female", like we perceive a muscular, breast-less upper body as "male". As such, it would be quite unnatural for a heterosexual male of our species to not perceive breasts as "sexy". Whether the preference is for them to be large or small, hidden or displayed, that certainly changed over time and under cultural influence.
The 1001 Nights, collated from Middle Eastern folk tales quite a while before Victorian times (first English-language edition (c. 1706-1721)), is absolutely rife with descriptions such as her breasts were like ripe pomegranates.
Or look at Angkor Wat, Cambodia, 12th century, sculptures. Seems pretty clear to me that breasts are emphasized.
Looks like someone had a pet theory with some valid grounding that they tried to fit too much into.