Have you ever heard of a guy who didn’t like boobs? I mean, not like he didn’t like big boobs, but I mean he didn’t like boobs at all. Yeah, I haven’t either. But why? I mean, taken by themselves, boobs are like sour cream: great when they’re the topping on something else, but who would eat just sour cream? That would be nasty. Similarly, boobs, taken alone, look kind of weird and don’t seem to possess any special kind of feature that makes them so great, other than just being boobs. As a man questioning the nature of men, I can’t just look at this and say, “Hell yeah, bro, I fuckin’ love tits.”
To begin, let’s accept the hypothesis that breasts are indeed intrinsically attractive. That still poses the problem: then why are larger breasts almost universally accepted as being superior to smaller breasts? From an instinctual angle, it could be argued that larger breasts represent greater fertility, so men are naturally inclined by evolutionary principles to seek out larger breasted women in order to propagate their genes. This argument simply does not stand up to empirical evidence, as there is no correlation between breast size and fertility, and smaller breasts are equally as capable as large breasts at feeding newborn children. Small breasts do not mean no children and no food for the children. It may also be argued that larger breasts are more aesthetically pleasing. Why? Puppies are pretty god damn cute. Bigger puppies are not cuter for any reason—in fact, they would probably look kind of weird. The same thing could be argued for breasts: normal size retains normal proportions and appearance, there is nothing about a significantly larger breast that somehow makes its more attractive other than some kind of average drawn from population opinion. Quite simply, there can be no objective reasoning behind the bigtits>smalltits theory, ergo, it cannot be accepted as true.
Leaving aside now the hypothesis that all breasts are attractive, let’s turn now the deeper question: could breasts be considered as inherently attractive? I will list numerous justifications for the inherent beauty of the female rack, and shoot them down in rigorous philosophical form.
i. Boobs=sex. Now this one is all wrong. I’ll grant the fact that the breasts an erogenous zone. BFD. So are the male nipples, but guess what, we aren’t socially required to wear shirts in public. You know what else is an erogenous zone? Anus. You know how many people get turned on when they see an anus? Only the weird ones.
ii. Boobs=soft, cuddly, touchable. Again, BFD. So are puppies. You know what puppies aren’t attached to? A woman with a vagina. Come to think of it, I’d be more excited if women had two puppies attached to their chest. Nice as boobs may feel, that doesn’t explain why men may get aroused just looking at them and not touching them, even in scenarios where there is no chance for actually touching any, i.e. all of softcore porn ever. The real source of the arousal here must deal with the vah-jay-jay, which actually deals with sex.
iii. Boobs=special and hot because society says so. Socially, women are supposed to hide their boobs and men are supposed to resist looking at them; after all, her eyes are up there. This explanation probably possesses the most validity. In all reality, the breasts are always presented in some attractive or sexy manner, and, almost from birth, men are taught Argument (i), that boobs=sex and as a result must be attractive. This argument, however, avoids the ultimate question as to why the dirty pillows must be considered as inherently attractive, and everyone saying so is not a valid claim to truth.
Thus we are faced with a condition in which there seems to be no solid answer as to why the breasts should be considered inherently attractive. To further support my point, I shall list some reasons as to why tits are not that great, and may in fact be, dare I say it, unattractive.
i. Look at a boob. I don’t mean look at some naked chick. I mean find a picture of just a boob. No one gets off looking at just a boob. Why? Because boobs look kind of funny. Taken by themselves, they have a bizarre shape and form, not unlike the way that penises are ugly when not attached to some tall, dark man with a well-defined abdominal section. What is so alluring about something that resembles a bag of sand with nipples hanging on a wall? Nothing, I say.
ii. Think about the medical textbooks or anatomical pictures you saw in middle school when boobs were still special. You might have giggled about the fact that the drawing of the woman had nipples, but only because the concept of a woman without a shirt on was still all foreign and mysterious before you got to high school and discovered porn. But the boobs there weren’t all attractive or arousing in any special way. Why? Because the boobs in the medical textbooks are taken out of the range of sexual activity, which further illustrates my argument against the boobs=sex claim.
iii. Boobs don’t actually feel all that great. I mean this from the angle of the person doing the touching. Given that I do not have breasts, I can make no legitimate comment on just how erogenous of a zone they are. But, let’s be honest here, boobs just feel like fat. When was the last time you got all excited by touching a love handle? Boobs do have thinner skin than, per se, the thighs or stomach, so I suppose that the comparison between the two is unfair. In spite of this, boobs are pretty much just lumps of fat that hang from the chest. That sounds pretty nasty doesn’t it?
iv. Boobs are nothing but a big distraction. I’ll grant that they may be a good place to stimulate during sex, but that’s for the sake of the female and not the male. Other than that the breasts are just some things that are bouncing around or hanging all funny and take away from male focus on the really important part: the vagina. When I’m doing the nasty and really want to be doing a good job of it, some bouncy knockers aren’t going to help anything, and more than likely they’ll detract from the process.
I want to conclude this by making an explicit statement: I am not anti-boobs. So for any of you haters out there who are going to read this and say, “Man, Alex is such a fagwad, he doesn’t even like tits.” I’m all about breasts, I simply want to point out that I can’t say why I feel positively about them or why men should have such an overwhelmingly favorable opinion for this particular section of the female anatomy. Let me be the first to say that boobs are awesome because they fed all of us at a very important time in our lives. No boobs means no healthy babies, are you really gonna feed them nothing but that formula shit during their formative years? Hell no. As for me, my thought-process is not “TITS OR GTFO” but rather, “TITS? Hey, if you’ve got them, then that’s great. If you don’t, I’m going to assume that you’ve used all that time not getting dates to develop a good personality, and that’s also great.” Ultimately, I can find no overbearing reason behind why men find boobs so fantastic, and it will likely continue to be one of the more grandiose mysteries of the male psyche for years to come.
