Humans are one of the rare primates / mammals where their fertility is concealed from males, aren't we? Could permanent breasts just be part of that strategy--to keep fertility status concealed? I think that's not quite the same as your point but similar.
So hold on, do primate males protect females when they are breastfeeding or don’t they? Because if they do, then not only is attraction to breasts an attraction to infertility, it is attraction to females that are claimed by another male.
If primate males already protect their breastfeeding mates, then there isn’t an evolutionary advantage to permanent breasts and attraction to them. The supposed advantage granted by breasts is already granted by the normal mate-guarding that occurs.
Unless we are talking about a group-selected advantage, where if a female’s mate dips out, a male “stepfather” will still be attracted to her and protect her and her children.
<I>The most obvious fact about breasts is that they are sexually appealing to males - they are ‘secondary sexual characteristics’. Women develop them during puberty as they are preparing for sexual relations. </I>
Obvious because there is *no* focus in pop culture at the moment on the actual, primary function of breasts, which is lactation and breastfeeding. This has not always been the case: depictions of breastfeeding were once much more prevalent.
I understand the point of this post is to focus on the sexual aspect, but you'd think more than a mere passing mention of a hugely important function of breasts would be important.
The author presents his wild-ass guess based on the assumption that evolution is a fact (it's a theory). Perhaps it's time to throw junk science out the window: evolution is not a workable. Think of all the hare-brained explanations, theories, guesses, etc. that have to be accepted to keep evolution afloat. Humans were created as-is. "Breast paradox" solved.
amusing use of statistical math demonstrates Mark Twain was right. as for why ? how about God created man and woman this way ? truth might injure pride of egotistical atheists but it could set them free too
LMAO
Best evo psych article of all time!
Here is the "cutting-edge" Research for the advancement of SCIENCE that we all needed.
And for that, I thank you, good sir.
have you looked into why wealthier men prefer smaller breasts
Humans are one of the rare primates / mammals where their fertility is concealed from males, aren't we? Could permanent breasts just be part of that strategy--to keep fertility status concealed? I think that's not quite the same as your point but similar.
Thank you for your in-depth analytics on the Prioritization of the eternal, metaphysical, and deeply philosophical question: Big ASS or Big BOOB.
Nothing could be more thoughtful, more sacred.
For too long, men of Culture have wandered in a shrouded, opaque Desert of Ignorance, seeking the clarity of Empirical answers that remained elusive.
I recommend "hands-on" Research for this urgent debate.
So hold on, do primate males protect females when they are breastfeeding or don’t they? Because if they do, then not only is attraction to breasts an attraction to infertility, it is attraction to females that are claimed by another male.
If primate males already protect their breastfeeding mates, then there isn’t an evolutionary advantage to permanent breasts and attraction to them. The supposed advantage granted by breasts is already granted by the normal mate-guarding that occurs.
Unless we are talking about a group-selected advantage, where if a female’s mate dips out, a male “stepfather” will still be attracted to her and protect her and her children.
Booba males rise up
you should be checked into an asylum for writing this jesus christ
"One biologist has noted that breasts mimic butt cheeks on the front of the body."
Yeah I saw that on Benny Hill too!
<I>The most obvious fact about breasts is that they are sexually appealing to males - they are ‘secondary sexual characteristics’. Women develop them during puberty as they are preparing for sexual relations. </I>
Obvious because there is *no* focus in pop culture at the moment on the actual, primary function of breasts, which is lactation and breastfeeding. This has not always been the case: depictions of breastfeeding were once much more prevalent.
I understand the point of this post is to focus on the sexual aspect, but you'd think more than a mere passing mention of a hugely important function of breasts would be important.
Do a comparative analysis of intellectuals who liberally employ run-on sentences versus those who do not, arguing in favor of your camp, the former.
I need more of this science for... research purposes.
The author presents his wild-ass guess based on the assumption that evolution is a fact (it's a theory). Perhaps it's time to throw junk science out the window: evolution is not a workable. Think of all the hare-brained explanations, theories, guesses, etc. that have to be accepted to keep evolution afloat. Humans were created as-is. "Breast paradox" solved.
Ok, I need to do more research...
amusing use of statistical math demonstrates Mark Twain was right. as for why ? how about God created man and woman this way ? truth might injure pride of egotistical atheists but it could set them free too
Breasts and mammaries are different organs. https://paulawright.substack.com/p/sexy-isnt-sexist-or-the-allegory