Deadsea7777
2nd Level Red Feather
- Joined
- May 3, 2006
- Messages
- 1,369
- Points
- 0
Once a saw a couple of pictures. The pictures in question, showed a deep cleavage. No face, or shoulders or arms, neither nipples just a deep cleavage. They were just normal pretty cleavages beautiful breast, twin apples of temptation.
Later in the article they showed both pictures, amplified, so it becomes evident that one was a real breast cleavage, meanwhile the other was a bottom. But they were identical.
Then they advanced the theory that the cleavage was for the women like a “second bottom”
, to drive the male libido run berserk mad, so to speak and make a long story short.
I always found this theory intriguing because, which male has not felt the “Wonderful sensation of well being that comes out of contemplate a female breast” as Darwin put it.
What do you think?
Later in the article they showed both pictures, amplified, so it becomes evident that one was a real breast cleavage, meanwhile the other was a bottom. But they were identical.
Then they advanced the theory that the cleavage was for the women like a “second bottom”
, to drive the male libido run berserk mad, so to speak and make a long story short. I always found this theory intriguing because, which male has not felt the “Wonderful sensation of well being that comes out of contemplate a female breast” as Darwin put it.
What do you think?

, I mean; I expressed a “scientific” interest in the effect of female cleavage on men brain and reported some “findings” and a “theory”
.
.

) As man physically evolved and missionary position became more comfortable and the norm, the focus went from the round, soft globes on the female's back side to those on her front-her breasts. That definitely explains why breasts look so nice in a cleavage forming bra, and why boobs and bottoms look so similar on so many women. Again it's just a theory, but I see some truth to it 




