Breasts, Buttocks and Valentines
The evolution of human sexuality is complex and mysterious. In fact, the general pervasiveness of binary sex in both the animal as well as the plant world is poorly understood.
The best explanation is that exchanged mixing of genetic material between two members of the same species produced a higher probability of progressive evolution. It also gave better odds at survival than would have been possible by parthenogenetic reproduction, in which there would be no variation in the gene pool.
Prototypical examples occur even at the level of bacteria that exchange genetic material, or bacterial cells that become invaded by other species of bacteria or virus particles that sometimes become incorporated into the host cell’s DNA. This may then allow the host to evolve into an organism that is uniquely different than its parent and is one of the mechanisms bacteria utilize to acquire antibiotic resistance.
There are however a few examples of beneficial direct linear reproduction.
Yeast can reproduce by fission which allows them to be maintained at a brewery in a pure DNA status if any strain is not exposed to another one. This accounts for why certain premium beers, rums and whiskeys always taste the same and why the liquor companies that own them keep these strains under tight security.
It’s a chicken and the egg argument however, because whatever the original reason, binary sex is simply the way that life on earth has evolved; so like it or not, we are stuck with it. Perhaps one day when the perfect human evolves we can halt sexual reproduction, launch a worldwide eugenics program, and simply keep cloning the bastard-bitch.
Hopefully that perfection will not be defined by whatever Cloning Project Director decides it should be a lazy rum-head, or as Hitler attempted in World War II, as a Teutonic aggressive blond-haired- blue- eyed Aryan.
At least on one level, the evolution of binary sexuality in the great apes included the proclivity to have intercourse on a very frequent basis; thus making one interesting feature of many great apes the fact that they can be notoriously promiscuous as well as very active sexually.
Certain species of monkeys have sexual intercourse multiple times daily. Because of this, human mothers always should be circumspect when they bring their small children to the zoo; because in the monkey house male masturbation and random coitus is a significant part of the denizen’s ordinary daily routines.
In fact, in the entire world of mammals the great apes are probably the only group in which the female of the species is in theory, continuously sexually receptive to the male. This means there are essentially no specified rutting seasons in which copulation only occurs once or twice a year; as it does with almost every other mammalian species.
There might even be little reasonable argument to promote the institution of marriage if humans only had sex once a year, although for some poor souls it can sometimes boil down to that.
There should be no surprise then that many Homo sapiens, the “greatest ape of all,” exhibit similar sexual behavioral characteristics as those observed in their close furry cousins.
Female apes uniformly mate with the male entering from behind, the so-called “doggie style” and do not mate on a face-to-face basis; except for Bonobos.
One of the reasons for this is that when female apes are ovulating there are changes in the color and size of their genitalia that then becomes the triggering mechanism for the male. He always has a rear view of the female whose usual posture is by perambulation on all fours.
Male monkeys then are basically attracted to the visual cues imbued by looking at the rump; which usually turns bright red.
For human beings as a rule of thumb, the face-to-face missionary position has replaced the rear entry position; or at least is probably alternated on a relatively frequent basis with the rear entry position.
However, the missionary sexual position only co-evolved as an extension of the fact that humans themselves evolved to be bi-pedal, to stand upright and then to essentially conduct all its business as a species by face to face social interaction instead of doggy style nose to nose or nose to rump. (Excluding social climbing ass-kissers.)
As for the human male, then, his visual cues can and certainly still do originate by the stimulation of looking at a female’s derriere. But many scientists who study human evolution have also come to believe that because of face-to-face socialization, the female breast has developed as a frontal visual cue that replaces the cue engendered by the butt.
This may explain in part why large breasts are so appealing to many men, why breast augmentation has become a commonplace plastic surgical procedure and why over time the mammalian tendency to have multiple teats has been selected out of the human species. This phenomenon is suggested by the fact that humans do retain a rudimentary mammilla line that runs down each side of the anterior chest wall and why occasionally a person will be born with an extra nipple or two or even one or more extra supernumerary breasts.
You see, the only biologic purpose of the breast is to provide milk for a baby; but the human female is the only species that has over developed breasts in the absence of lactation.
Putting it another way, the female breast is a substitute for visual cues innately triggered by a woman’s ass. Thus, when a man goes crazy over a lovely pair of breasts he is literally going ape-shit over an evolutionary transposed set of butt cheeks that now reside neatly pasted on the anterior chest wall.
Logically then, when some chauvinistic oaf rudely states that he is a tit man and not an ass man he could be politely corrected by having his mistake pointed out to him; if you really care to waste the time or worse, have him then just look at you like you are completely crazy.
This point of view also makes logical sense because nearly all-quadruped female mammals only develop breasts when they are pregnant; as they then must deliver milk to their offspring.
An exception to this rule would be the case of animals that are milked for sale and profit like cows; or then again, the human equivalent of the continuously milking wet-nurse. Even a dairy cow must calve first before it can be milked.
Double breasted human female evolution also makes sense when thinking about the fact that not too many men would be thrilled by a set of three breasts sitting side by side or going out with a woman only to discover later that she had a six-sling bra hiding a double line of breasts reaching all the way down to her groin. Or perhaps it is only as simple as the fact that as opposed to a dog, for example, most human litters only involve having one or two puppies at a time and not six or eight.
In any event, except as having evolved purely as a sexual attracting cue to the male, there is no practical reason that the human female requires a large set of mammary glands.
Also generally speaking in most animal domains, the females of any given species are smaller than the males, very much less colorful or less outfitted with accoutrements like giant antlers, tusks or colorful feathering, which in these cases allow the males to battle it out on the rutting fields for supremacy. In this venue, mating rights, au contraire to the human species, causes the female to be mostly attracted to male visual cues.
It must be nice to be a demure, nondescript doe-like creature peacefully ruminating cud while the entire cadre of young bucks tough it out by smashing their heads together; after which she just sidles up to the brainless concussed victor and lets him ride her sexually receptive rutting rump.
The antediluvian human equivalent example of the breeding winner would be the large buffed brutish male who reigns victorious in the bar-room “brawl over the broad” or perhaps would be the guy who has the biggest penis; whereas in the modern era although these rules still tend to apply; now the male with the smartest brain that makes the most money, often comes out on top.
This is why nebbishes like Woody Allen or nerds like Bill Gates can get all the pussy they want just by snapping their fingers, whereas in a cave man hierarchy the only snapping sound would have been that of their necks being broken by the alpha male of the pod.
Then even though it is a fact that a human males’ attraction to a female is definitively more visually cued than related to most other animal’s atmospheric nasally inhaled pheromones; for some reason the cosmetic, perfume and deodorant industries have convinced the human female that these enhancements are both sufficient as well as necessary to help the cause. The Trap: hair and nail salons, drawers full of cosmetics, high heeled shoes, plastic surgeons, fashion icons, racks of clothes, hair extensions and shopping malls.
I beg to differ. Biology alone dictates that all women would at some point or other eventually get laid despite the perfume, the coif, the nail job, the lipstick, the eyeliner, the lingerie and the hairspray.
Even the fat, the plain, the ugly and the stupid women somehow find a way to attract a male and, worse to reproduce; as witnessed by the everyday proof of seeing them wadding down the street with a child or two in tow. Not that what they reproduced with wasn’t fat, plain, ugly, or stupid himself.
Speaking for myself, I happen to believe that the human female form is divinely beautiful and that there is nothing on earth better than the wide-ranging litany of nicely shaped breasts or derrieres. This relegates me to the category of being purely neither a tit nor an ass man, but being totally unbiased in favor of both Tits and Ass. This is also why at aerobics classes, men tend to gravitate to the back row where at least half the view is better than none. Mathematically this is stipulated: T+A/2 > 0
Taking it one step further, I was always curious about the heart shaped messages that seem to go along with Valentines Day, along with every one else who was brainwashed from childhood into believing that the whole idea of love, came from the heart, resides in the heart and lives in the heart; then subscribe to the idea that this day was specially made to celebrate the ideal of romantic love.
But as per the usual case, and like the Catholic Church taking the Roman pagan festival of Saturnalia, then turning it into the Feast of Christmas, so has the original concept of Valentines day undergone its own specially perverted, commercialized permutation.
The day was originally intended to honor the memory of a semi-mythical and apocryphal early Christian martyr, Saint Valentine. It simply replaced a Roman festival known as Lupercalia that was celebrated between the dates of February 13th to the 15th. This original pagan festival was intended to be a period dedicated to urban purification and the renewal of health and fertility.
As a sidebar, even the concept of the holy figures of Jesus, Mary and all the saints walking around with halos on their heads was something hijacked by the early Catholic Church from the ancient Egyptians whose important or royal figures always had this symbol of the sun adorning their graphic representations.
This usurpation was carefully and subliminally designed to eliminate the emotional trauma associated with forcing people to entirely abandon their old beliefs when they subscribed to the new one. As such it made the transitions somewhat more palatable.
Saint Valentine himself had nothing at all to do with the concept of romantic love. The idea became attached to this Saint’s commemoration only as a contrivance in the Middle Ages when people began to use the day as a vernacular point in time to express affection and love towards one another by the exchange of cards and tokens.
It seems that Geoffrey Chaucer was the inspiration when while writing his “Parlement of Foules” added a line that in referring to avian behavior in the springtime, failed to even mention human beings at all.
For this was sent on Valentines Day
When every bird cometh there to choose his mate
Even now, the day has become mundanely generic because almost nobody refers to the “Saint” portion anymore and simply calls it “Valentines Day,” without an apostrophe “s”, making the fact completely forgotten that it commemorates a person who was an ersatz fictional concoction sublimating several personas into a single entity. No one knows what this hybrid character really did to deserve all this attention in the first place.
Some people I know go even further in its corruption and refer to it with the complete misnomer Valen-times Day, meaning that it must be time for a few good old fashioned Valens. Sic and good riddance: the Catholics have enough Saints on their calendar anyway.
However, as a child growing up one thing I could never reconcile in my mind was why the heart received so much attention as a symbol of romantic love.
The anatomical heart itself looks nothing at all like the shape we have come to accept as its representation on our Valentine’s Day cards. In fact, a real heart is relatively amorphous in shape, globularly ugly, has a fat pad partially covering the coronary vessels that wrap around its outside and is capped off by a bevy of large flailing vascular pipes that stick out of its top.
Then one day a girlfriend sent me a Valentine’s Day note in which she had placed a small cartoon figure of a woman lying on her back with her legs spread open. In the area where her genitals would ordinarily have appeared she had inked it over with the small red figurine of a heart; replete with a piercing Cupid’s arrow.
That was when it dawned on me that perhaps there is something a little more subliminal in the heart shaped messages we see on this holiday. When I then objectively analyzed it more scientifically, I concluded that there is physical evidence to support yet another more logical idea.
I realized that if you look at a woman from the rear; in certain conditions or positions, her buttocks can form the shape of a heart. Logically extending this argument, the same thing becomes applicable to both female external genitalia as well as to breasts.
If one looks at female genitalia from a certain perspective and if one also looks at the breasts upside down, both organs can often resemble the silhouette of a conventionally shaped heart.
Also, to remain gender neutral, if one looks upside down at the glans of the male penis; this too is an anatomical structure that is formed in the shape of a typically rendered Valentine’s Day heart. Women can furtively validate this, without making it clinical, by a doing a quick check in the 69 sex position.
The real meaning then of the heart shaped messages we send out by the tons on Valentine’s Day may then in fact be nothing more than a subliminal reference to sex and sexual attraction at the anatomical level as opposed to the emotional one.
Happy Valentine’s Day. My heart is in your glands.
Or if you like: Make this one into a Venn diagram: And call it LOVE
©Valentine Card :Mark Hampton: The Art of Friendship; Cliff Street Books: !st Edition 2001
Cartoon Unknown Source/ May violate copyrights