You know, fat men have boobs. What's the difference?MostlyHarmless said:
Do you like man-boobs, too?
I don't understand what people find so attractive about women. What is it and why?
- Thread starter LilithSlave
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Do you like man-boobs, too?
In the human brain, even after assigning primary sensory, secondary sensory, primary motor & secondary motor areas to the neocortex, a considerable amount of bark, particularly in the frontal & temporal lobes, remains : the association areas.LilithSlave said:
*
association areas : process the recent, human development of the primate cortex, namely the ability to symbolize & interpret in terms of unobservable mental states. Conscious sensation computes here, for sensations are interpreted (reconstructed) perceptions.
In these association areas of the human neocortex, sophisticated processing mediates higher order functions & operators. These areas contain neurons able to "associate" or "gather together" neural states from various parts of the brain, not only the neocortex. Information from the sensory areas, memory systems and the diencephalon (emotional states) is put together and integrated in order to optimalize the possibilities of the nervous system and execute, process, compute, mediate & enhance a conscious sensation of the world. Some of these areas are interconnected with the amygdala, hippocampus, limbic system and the autonomous nervous system.
the functional areas of the human cerebrum
adapted from Bear, Connors & Paradiso, 2001, pp.208 & 642.
Four "association areas" have been discovered :
*
visual association area : inferior temporal cortex : highest integration of visual function & analysis - end station of a system of visual recognition of specific and particular shapes and objects of interest, both cognitively as well as emotionally - interconnected with the amygdala, hippocampus, limbic system (olfactory cortex) and the autonomous nervous system ;
*
spatial association area : posterior parietal cortex : highest integration of analysis and integration of higher-order visual, auditory and somaesthetic (touch & body position) information - three dimensional image of the body in space - distinction between what is at arm's length (bodily sense) and what is further away (the world) - some neurons motivate and guide hand movements, including the grasping of objects within grasping distance ;
*
verbal association area : angular gyrus, at the junction of the posterior-superior temporal and the occipital-parietal lobes : area of the highest integration of all sensory input, with rich interconnections with all other association areas - processes abstract thought and their relation to words (Wernicke & Broca in the left hemisphere) - conceptual comparisons, ordering of opposites, naming of objects, higher logical operations ;
*
volitional association area (also : attention association area) : prefrontal cortex, frontal lobes : receives fibers from all sensory systems (vision, hearing, touch, taste, smell), but has few connections with the primary sensory areas - very interconnected with the limbic system (emotional responses), verbal and spatial association area (conceptual thought and egocentric spatiality) - coordinates highly complex movements and is the "seat of the will" for all goal-oriented behaviors, actions and intentions - able to focus on important tasks through redundancy (screening out superfluous input) - planning, imagining, deciding and attention regulation throughout the cerebrum are computed here, but a complete functional picture is far from clear.
The association areas allow us to "experience" in a conscious way, and integrate all higher order functions, such as cognition, affection, volition and consciousness. In the formal & critical modes of thought (cf. Intelligent Wisdom, 2007), circular consciousness circumambulates a sense of personal identity. At best, this empirical ego is present & attentive of itself and its environment in every cogitation, affection and/or volition. This is the "subject of experience" confronted with an "objective" fact and its extra-mentality (resulting from causes seemingly outside the perimeter of the ego).
Although both subject and object of experience seem unconstructed, the neuronal processing enabling their manifestation betrays a modular sequencing. Insofar as the sensory system is concerned, the association areas bring in a wide range of inputs, from emotional coloration to verbal, spatial, volitional, imaginal regulations. This brings to the fore the constructed, fabricated, mediated, derived, conditioned, assembled, mapped nature of sensation. To express sensation, cognition, affection, volition & consciousness, a wide range of neuronal areas are addressed. Indeed, at the higher levels of the nervous system, neuronal activity is secured by neurons arranged in colonies or modules, making neuronal parsimony highly unlikely.
Eccles (1981, p.361) speaks of "neuronal prodigality", linking the processing of consciousness not with psychoneural identity, but with "reading out from the multitude of active centres at the highest level of brain activity, namely the liaison areas of the dominant cerebral hemisphere. The self-conscious mind selects from these centres according to attention, and from moment to moment integrates its selection to give unity even to the most transient experiences. Furthermore the self-conscious mind acts upon these neural centres modifying the dynamic spatiotemporal patterns of the neural events. Thus we propose that the self-conscious mind exercises a superior interpretative and controlling role upon the neuronal events. A key component of the hypothesis is that the unity of conscious experience is provided by the self-conscious mind and not by the neuronal machinery of the liaison areas of the cerebral hemisphere." (p.362).
Sensation, the final integration of perception, involves interpretation and construction. Sensation is the result of an active modulation of the perceived inputs. Hence, conscious sensation can not do away or eliminate these interpretations, for consciousness has no direct experience of perceptions, but only of sensations.
An interesting neuronal pathology called "blindsight" makes this very clear. Normally, primary & secondary visual areas are so integrated we are unable to isolate the particular role played by each in our day-to-day visual processing. But when the primary visual cortex is lost, the secondary cortex reveals itself as blindsight.
When patients lack the function of the primary visual cortex on one side of the cerebrum, then their consciousness (mediated by the prefrontal cortex) seems "blind" to events taking place in their visual field on the opposite side. So far nothing special. But this is not the same kind of absolute visual loss as when an eye is gone or the optic nerve is severed. This blindness is relative. For if a moving stimulus is offered to their blind field, then patients point at the target even though unable to consciously see it. In other words, forced to guess about whether a stimulus is present in their blind field, some observers do better than chance. Their secondary visual enables the ability to respond appropriately to visual inputs while lacking the consciousness of having seen them.
The hierarchy at work in the sensory system makes the distinction between perception & sensation pertinent.
TL;DR You see a healthy looking girl, your brain goes "ooo girl" and releases happy chemicals into your amygdala and hippocampus, you perceive that as "I'm attracted to that healthy looking girl".
Sorry, but there really isn't a rational answer to how breasts, hips, etc are attractive. Men are attracted to those today because their ancestors who had the most offspring were as well, but other than for reproductive purposes there isn't any particular reason men find them attractive. They just do because if they didn't the human race would've died out by now. No one can tell you why such attraction arose in the first place, all we can tell you is why it became prevalent among most men.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. we don't chosen which features are attractive and which aren't based on any objective criteria.
Therefore, the question is pointless.
Therefore, the question is pointless.
A lot of the difference you're making just comes from wearing bras which shape breasts as they grow.SonicKoala said:
If you can't see the difference, that's your problem.
There are plenty of women with breasts shaped much like that.
And that picture of a woman's breasts, is certainly not the default female breast shape.
... or size for that matter..
Obviously not, but my point still stands; it's a matter of aesthetics. Breasts on women are far more appealing than breasts on men. Why? They just are. Stop asking for a rational explanation to an irrational reaction. If you insist on one, the only explanation you're going to get is one grounded in genetics.LilithSlave said:A lot of the difference you're making just comes from wearing bras which shape breasts as they grow.SonicKoala said:
If you can't see the difference, that's your problem.
There are plenty of women with breasts shaped much like that.
And that picture of a woman's breasts, is certainly not the default female breast shape.
... or size for that matter..
OP is right, females are vastly overrated. Yet I still enjoy them. This is similar to the concept of Durian fruit. It is disgusting, slimy, and smells like rotten onions, yet some people still enjoy eating it. Why do they? Because nature intended it that way. There is no other reason.
I think I may have the answer you're looking for.LilithSlave said:
Like many have said, men are biologically wired to be attracted to women. But they are wired that way for a reason. Large breast (while I think are overrated, I prefer small and perky) are a biological signal that an individual has plenty to provide to any offspring. The curvature of hips (waist/hip ratio) is one of the main driving biological factors. The idea is that a woman with wide hips can go through child birth easier, while the small waist shows that a woman is fit, which means she is likely to produce fit offspring. During times like the Dark Ages, large women were preferred because food was scarce, so a large woman would produce large children, which would survive longer.
The basis is that you're biologically wired to be attracted to individuals with which you will produce strong offspring. The thing is that sexual attraction is rooted much much deeper in our minds then, say, favorite color. It's much more instinctive, so people don't try to explain it.
However-
In today's world, the standard of living (overall) is much better than it was in the past. People usually don't need to worry about having "strong" offspring in hopes they will survive and produce their own offspring because in today's world (mainly speaking for USA/Europe/China and such) even the weakest child will live because of things such as modern hospitals and such. This means that the biological reasons for choosing mates are slowly (very slowly, mind you, as they are rooted deep in the brain) being trumped by things like personality and such. This may also be why there seem to be a lot more gay/lesbian/bisexual people than in the far past.
Lastly, you also mentioned the shear number of ads for beauty products for women, or more broadly the idea that women, as a whole in society, are supposed to be beautiful. This is simply because of the fact that, as has been said before, sex sells. Men like looking at women they find attractive, due to the culture, women feel the need to fit that image, so the market opens up for hundreds of ways for them to do so. And sex sells because, as I've said, it's still rooted deep in the human mind.
I hope this helps.
EDIT: I can explain in more detail if you want me to, but I figured this response was long enough for a thread. If you would like me to go further in my explanations, I'll gladly message you, just let me know.
That's never a logical explanation to anything. And doesn't lead to any scientific progress. That sounds like the religious response to wonder. "Why does x do y? Because it just is/God, of course!". Instead of, "there must be some sort of detailed explanation behind everything", which is a more skeptical and positively curious thought.SonicKoala said:
All "irrational" human reactions have some ration way of explaining and understanding. Even if wholly instinctual with no conscious component to them.
I do agree that sexuality isn't a choice. But it's also a complicated thing that should be understood on every level. Not that my reasoning is so lofty as it is just finding some social tendencies uncanny(such as men saying "yuck" to fat women, but equally lauding breast fat). What about foot fetishes? And men who don't like large breasts? What about men who prefer fat women? What about men reacting negatively towards fat women?
Funny how we act like nothing has any explanation other than the most simply biology when asking what's so attractive about breasts. But if someone finds feet attractive, it's seen as a fetish that must have some deep seeded psychological root that should be understood.
Sure, it's a simply, off-hand, irreverent question from a woman. But the "it's just biology" answer won't do. It's one part of the explanation, but it's not anywhere close to the whole thing.
I'm sorry, but the conscious mind and sexuality are not things that are disconnected and not intertwined at all. Else we would be able to control our sexual urges. Biologically caused or not, not a choice or so, human beings are sapient creatures, and we are aware of and can describe our sexuality. So a purely biological explanation is not sufficient.
It might be simply how you see them. For example, generally men mentally have fairly similar opinions on what makes someone 'attractive', where as women generally have highly varied opinions on what makes someone 'attractive'; I think this normally applies to how they view the opposite sex, but i think it also applies to how someone views the same sex as well. so, its likely that simply what your mind views as attractive is significantly different from what the majority of men's minds generally find attractive.
I agree. This thread is ridiculous and pointless.Mr. Google said:Daystar Clarion said:This is a thread...?
Seriously?
Someone needed to ask this question?
Short answer: We're programmed to find members of the opposite sex attractive (well, unless you're wired differently, but hey, I don't judge).
Long answer: No, you don't get a long answer. This thread is bad and you should feel bad
It's okay the music was inside of you the whole time! Whoop Nevermind YOURE BAD AND YOU SHOULD FEEL BAD!
it,s evolutionary men are supposed to feel attracted to women with the right genes (read beautiful woman).
I,m not saying homosexuality (or bi-sexuality) is bad since people aren't eaten by tigers/bears on a daily basis this instinct has become somewhat unnecessary.
I,m not saying homosexuality (or bi-sexuality) is bad since people aren't eaten by tigers/bears on a daily basis this instinct has become somewhat unnecessary.