I love girls bottoms.

[grimlock123 10]

I am not really a bum man , but isnt it strange that men are attracted to a bum that they really cant see, ie covered by trousers or skirts etc.

It all comes down to fantasy and imagination.

The bum underneath may not be as you think if you had chance to see it bear,but something inside your mind is saying"corr! thats a nice un!".

Maybe the girl has just walked out of a toilet in a curryhouse with no paper left in the lavs.

[Kthebean 10]

Originally posted by LordChaverly

Put more crudely and coloqiually, in his heart of hearts, the only time a man really wants to **** the same woman twice is just before he's ****** her once. What a cynical old cove I am.

 

Do you think that's true

[Guest rosie]

I get to work where there are loads of men and I have to say, i love to see what their bums look like. You can tell such a lot from the back, mostly matches the front when they turn round.

[water 10]

To be honest, I had had an attraction to big beautiful ladies and naturally love large heavy bottoms in a woman, hehe

[water 10]

So I do not see any inappropriateness in the author's personal preference. I am just wondering if there are some guys who are in favor of a large girl as much as I like. I am sorry for shifting the topic to another slightly different one but still very much looking forward to your opinions. cheers

[LordChaverly 10]

Originally posted by kathythebean

Do you think that's true

 

Well kathy, like many similar statements it is an exaggeration, but it probably contains more than a grain of truth. I think it is well documented that generally speaking men tend to be polygamous by nature, as indeed are the males of many other species. There could be a socio-biological explanation for it, in that if a fundamental instinct is to procreate in order to pass on our genes, then men have infinitely greater capability than women in this regard. For example, it would be biologically possible for a man to impregnate by natural means several women a day, every day, for the duration of his potency (probably at least 50 years). Conversely, women can only procreate one every nine months, and for a much shorter period. Ths is perhaps why women generally speaking are much fussier about who they mate with than men (not least also because the socio-biological costs of giving birth and child rearing are so much higher. I suppose the nearest manifestations of the sentiment contained in the statement are all powerful rulers with hundreds of wives. For most men, such opportunities do not present themselves and their are other contraints which prevent them from proving or disproving this statement.

[timo 10]

Not only are there sociobiological explanations for polygamy, there are also explanations [some feminists have called them excuses] for rape along the same lines. The general idea is that human males possess the instincts to procreate, and the urge towards genetic replication is so powerful as to outweigh any socially-constructed moral codes. Some theorists have extended the theory to mass rape in wartime. Not surprisingly, these theories are deeply unpopular with mainstream social scientists, who tend to dismiss the idea of biological causality and instincts. Feminists generally tend to dislike 'biological determinism' too, and have argued, as suggested before, that sociobioogical explication gives 'patriarchal agents' free licence to excuse rape as inevitable, 'natural' primate behaviour. Religious types tend to dislike such theories too, as they ultimately suggest that human beings are nothing more than evolved African apes, and our world consists of blind, physical forces and genetic replication.

 

Arguably, the sociobiological view neglects agency. Human males may inherit a predisposition towards procreation, and there is most definately something almost savage about male sexuality. Nevertheless, we have the agency, the ability to formulate and act upon decisions, and we can 'stop ourselves' from engaging in sexual assault and rape. That is, of course, unless our brains are subject to neuro-chemical imbalance, or we fall under the spectrum of sociopathy. The latter two cases tend to blur things a tad...

[LordChaverly 10]

Originally posted by timo

Not only are there sociobiological explanations for polygamy, there are also explanations [some feminists have called them excuses] for rape along the same lines. The general idea is that human males possess the instincts to procreate, and the urge towards genetic replication is so powerful as to outweigh any socially-constructed moral codes. Some theorists have extended the theory to mass rape in wartime. Not surprisingly, these theories are deeply unpopular with mainstream social scientists, who tend to dismiss the idea of biological causality and instincts. Feminists generally tend to dislike 'biological determinism' too, and have argued, as suggested before, that sociobioogical explication gives 'patriarchal agents' free licence to excuse rape as inevitable, 'natural' primate behaviour. Religious types tend to dislike such theories too, as they ultimately suggest that human beings are nothing more than evolved African apes, and our world consists of blind, physical forces and genetic replication.

 

Arguably, the sociobiological view neglects agency. Human males may inherit a predisposition towards procreation, and there is most definately something almost savage about male sexuality. Nevertheless, we have the agency, the ability to formulate and act upon decisions, and we can 'stop ourselves' from engaging in sexual assault and rape. That is, of course, unless our brains are subject to neuro-chemical imbalance, or we fall under the spectrum of sociopathy. The latter two cases tend to blur things a tad...

 

Excellent post Timo. I agree with you about the importance of agency in human affairs. In its crudest forms, biological determinism is no more convincing as a complete explanation of human behaviour than economic determinism. Socio-biology though does in my view provide us with many useful insights, not least into the mainsprings of male and female sexuality.

[tulip 10]

Originally posted by kathythebean

Do you think that's true

I know I can't answer for men but I personally don't think that lordc's generalization is true. I used to have a low opinion of men but I was told off by a bloke once for saying they were all the same and would go after women as conquests just to prove they could. He told me when blokes were in a group they thought they had to act in a certain way otherwise they'd be ridiculed by the rest of the group. He said it was a really bad position to be in because he would like to stand up and say 'we don't have to chase everything in a skirt' but couldn't bring himself to do it. I suppose it comes across as acting like sheep but if leering is expected by their mates then they go along with it. I'm not saying groups of women leer after men but personally I wouldn't feel I had to join in for fear of being told by my mates I was a lesbian.

 

I wonder if any other men on here would agree with this and say 'I love my partner and wouldn't do anything to jeopardize our relationship'?????

 

The days of 'having to get married' are long gone. It is usually the man who wants marriage. In most cases they would have slept together before the wedding so if what the loverly Lord.C says is true - why do they get hitched/live with a woman?

 

Also the woman is just as likely to cheat on their partner as the man. So I can't agree with this statement at all

 

Sorry M'Lord, beggin ya pardin:P

[Bedhead 10]

Originally posted by rosie

I get to work where there are loads of men and I have to say, i love to see what their bums look like. You can tell such a lot from the back, mostly matches the front when they turn round.

 

what job have you got ?! a job looking at bums or did i mis-intepret that!

[DragonofAna 10]

I find it really interesting how we still stereotype people to such a great degree. Not sure where the other posters acquired their information esp Lord C. It was my wife who wanted to get married, though I did suggest the engagement before that. I have nothing against marriage as long as it is done for the right reasons, and that when a couple get married they realise they are man and wife - two parts of a whole set to help each other and to work together through good times and bad.

 

The idea that men act in a pack mentality concerning women seems pretty lfar fetched though I can only comment from a personal perpective from what I see of those people around me. Yes - when there are a group of males they may utter comments that they would otherwise only think, but that does not imply they would act out those comments so - "I wouldn't mind spending a hour with her" does not equate to actually being willing to do so. It is more a weird way of commenting on the females attractiveness - albeit there are better ways to say it. Just another of those weird measuring stciks men use.

 

No single part of the anatomy can have preference over the others - realistically speaking. You may begin by loving someone cos they have a lovely bum, but after a short while you notice the major faults you did not previously pay attention to and this causes those breaks in relationships.

 

I have never ever 'dumped' a partner as I am a believer that if you are going to get involved, then you work at any problems that arise thereafter and pay the consequences without simply running away. Maybe I am just a weirdo?

 

The question was originally viewed by me as being tongue-in-cheek rather than a serious question, but it seems to have veered into more murky waters. We have to stop generalising and stop taking words that are spoken at their face value regardless of the circumstances in which they were uttered.

 

Be that as it may - I have no preference for any part of another persons anatomy, but view the person as a whole - both physically and, given the opportunity, the type of person they are inside. A job looking at bums would be pretty boring after a very short time, and I am not sure how a persons bum can match their front???

 

Dragon

[Guest]

Originally posted by kathythebean

Do you think that's true

 

not strictly no.

 

I think its probably closer to the truth to say that no matter how happy a man is in a relationship they will always look at other women and become turned on by them and fantasise about them.

 

Remember men also tend to lean towards the tendancy to be jealous and possesive.