sum.na

Courtlaurabreast by unrestful

From the “Too Much Discovery Channel” dept 

Introduction
A while back I had this argument with a girl as to why girls have prominent breasts while men don’t (except for, um, overweight guys). I believed that girls developped breasts because, guys, er, like them (i.e. it was a part of sexual selection  - that over centuries, men selected women based on the size of their breasts..), and she believed it was so as to be able to breastfeed children.

I decided to try to research and find more info on this fascinating topic. After all, any research that involves evaluating female breast size, can’t be boring. You have to admit, its better than studying fungus.

Besides, it’s an excellent excuse to get your hands on some knobs. But, I digress..

My Findings

Initial research proves that breast size does not reflect on one’s ability to produce milk

[Ed, to use Baywatch as a popular analogy, this means that Alexandra Paul, (famous for lacking cleavage), and Pamela Anderson, (famous for too much cleavage), are both equally capable of breastfeeding, should the need arise]

Complex answer: read the following articles:

Article 1: Neotony and two way sexual selection in human evolution [link]

Summary/excerpts from above article
In the following points, the text in italics represent excerpts from the authors site. The bold text and other text are my personal interpretations of what I understand….

1. In the human species, females have begun to display the trait of neoteny. (”neoteny — or the retention of childlike characteristics in mature members of a species…. ……Humans much more closely resemble chimp or gorilla infants than adults of either species..”
   
2. Neoteny has become a basis for sexual selection in humans “Rather than discussing the general neotenization of our species over the last few million years, I wish to concentrate on how neoteny may have become enmeshed as part of a powerful selective cycle, going far beyond its original causes.”
   
3. So, women, began to resemble children
   “human females certainly do appear more paedomorphic in outward physical appearance than males. Although they mature at an earlier age, women do not go on to acquire the toughened skin, coarse body hair, thyroid cartilage, bony eye ridges, or deepened voices which are the common inheritance of most adult hominoids and other primates” …More formally, William Calvin (1991) identifies paedomorphosis (”becoming child-shaped”) as juvenilization of the appearance of the end-product..
    
4. But, there is a small problem here..
   So if paedomorphism was women’s runaway trait, there’s every reason to picture men growing ever more attracted to paedomorphism in women, at a matching pace. Obvious enough, so far. But paedomorphism means resemblance to children!
   

So, women developped large breasts to help men differenciate (between them and children)
What was needed was an emergency adaptation to help sane human males tell children apart from adult, fecund women. It is at this point, I contend, that human females developed a secondary set of exaggerated physical traits, not to elicit sex from males but in order to help high-end males across this tragic trap. One of the most pronounced of these secondary traits was the ballooning of women’s breasts.

Note: Italic text above from original article, copyright original author!!

Article 2: Breasts: their evolutionary origin

Thus, males who were attracted to females with enlarged breasts would be more successful in forming pair-bonds with such females…..

It is possible that women’s intelligence and memory played a role. Women might very well observe which men abandoned their lactating and pregnant mates, and avoid forming pair-bonds with them even if courted. They would reason (correctly) that they would in turn be abandoned. Certainly, this would be a successful strategy for women, and the mental requirements would be within the probable abilities of early hominids.

….). Finally, the child of a man who was attracted by enlarged breasts would be better provisioned than children of one who was repealed by them, and hence abandoned his mate when lactation enlarged her breasts. [para 25] …….

Thus, breast fat, by mimicking pregnancy and lactation, deceived males, (or non-dominant males at least) into providing better provisioning. [para 54]

Males were selected to find breasts attractive because this led to greater female provisioning when it was most needed, and greater male success in forming durable pair-bonds.

[Ed: So women chose men who liked women with large breasts? i.e. we didn’t chose girls with large breasts, they chose us (who chose them)… and I’m cross-eyed with confusion now]

Article 3: The sex contract: the evolution of Human Behavior

……..But not female breasts.  These have no physiological
use whatsoever and biologists agree that their original function was sexual invitation.  These sensitive, fleshy, delicate areas expand by one third during intercourse.  The nipples harden at the slightest touch, and for most women fondling of their breasts stimulates their desire for intercourse…

[Ed: (gasping for air) If I wasn’t certain the above was scientifically relevant I wouldn’t paraphrase it here… er.. um.. at least I don’t think I would]

Article 4: Shaped by babies, not men?

Bentley says, “It could be a combo here. The pressure for the shape of the breast was initially from this need to feed the baby and then, secondarily, men may have evolved to find the breast of this shape and size more sexually interesting. The convergence of the two pressures could have evolved into more successfully reproducing females.”

[Ed: so it’s our fault eh?]

Semi related funny quote of the moment:

“We get absolutely no radio reception through our breasts; therefore, grabbing our nipples head and twisting them back and forth like knobs will yield no musical results.” [more]

Related trivia:

Smaller breasts by 2005?

Dr. Speron says people are getting tired of the overinflated “pornorific” boob sizes that have been standard issue from surgeons since “Baywatch” hit the pop culture scene in the 1990s.

(Warning/Disclaimer, my observations and interpretations are just, um, personal observations/interpretations. I’m probably not totally accurate, so it’s best you read the article yourself.)