"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
"Vito" wrote in message
...
snip
Female breasts are a good example. Breasts had nothing to do with sex
per se
until prudes demanded they be covered. Thus the only time US men see
them is
before sex so most are conditioned to associate them with sex that they
are
a fetish in America. Prudes have declared the organs God provided for
children to suckle dangerous to children ... and we're idiotic enough to
believe it. Want to protect children? Lynch a prude!!


While I agree with some of what you say, I think on this point you're
quite
wrong. In most (perhaps all?) advanced species sexual attractiveness is
very
dependent on features not related directly to reproduction. Are peahens
attracted to peacocks with certain feathers because sometime in the past a
prudish pea society forced them to be covered? I think not!

Current scientific thot is that peacocks (et cetera) evolved these otherwise
useless feathers because hens liked them but that hardly applies to breasts,
which evolved to provide nutrition to infants, not to attract mates. Unlike
bald peacocks, small-breasted women have no trouble getting laid. What puts
the blame for our national insanity squarely on prudes is the fact that
breasts are not a fetish in cultures where women commonly go topless.