We've all heard people from time to time in their conversations ask about this riddle. Many say that they're all fat and don't know why men care about them, etc. This is what some think evolution says, plus some alternative views. I like to test ideas. What's everyone's take on this? : There is no relationship with bosom size/shape and the amount of baby milk one can produce, and the other primates don't have permanent bosoms like humans do. However, there's a relationship between sexual maturity and size/form (too old and they're not shaped as well and too young, you get the point). Because of this, many zoologists and evolutionary psychologists think they evolved out of sexual selection, just like a male peacock's feathers get in his way but say to the females, "Come here good looking!" On the other side of the coin, some opponents to sexual selection point out there's no relationship between bosom size and how likely a woman is to get married. They say that if it's sexual selection, then you'd expect it would give a woman an advantage in obtaining a mate. They say most of the time sexual selection is actually in the males in the animal kingdom, since most females who live long enough will mate, while quite a few of the males never get to score (mammals and birds). They also point out how the majority of human females who live long enough find some kind of partner. So what's your opinion so far? Any insights? Since bosoms are just fat and many social conversations are curious about the answer to this riddle, why do men like them, and why do women have them? Keep in mind there's no relationship between size/milk potential, and also getting married, and the other primates only have them when nursing rather than permanently. So, what if we were to go at this question from a different angle? I have an idea of my own and a way to make it scientifically falsifiable. I need some feedback here. Here goes .... Women tend to look for men with nice cars and lots of diamonds! Just kidding! I meant there's some interest in resources there. What if it's possible that there was a population bottleneck in the course of human history, some think there was? What if during times of famine having a male partner who had lots of resources had an evolutionary advantage for the woman and her kids? Maybe we could say "Women have permanent bosoms unlike other primates because they gave a distinct sexual selection advantage during times of severe famine because they could get the men with the better resources" rather than just sexual selection, since most who make it to the right age find a mate anyway? Just like someone tests their car/sink after fixing it, maybe we could test our theory? Any ideas? I think probably the easiest way to make it possible to be falsified would be to see if there's a relationship between bosom shape/size and how much money a woman's husband earns? Yes, I know you couldn't go around doing that. However, just like scientists say there's no relationship between size and milk, maybe those in the "medical field" who handle that could be bribed with research money into testing our idea by doing an extensive survey where they find out how much their patients' husbands make? Although correlation doesn't prove causation, we could control for as many third variables that seem reasonable, and see if there's still the relationship. Although we can't prove, do you think that would make it falsifiable and count as a logical consequence? I was also brainstorming the possibility of looking at genes responsible for permanent bosoms and seeing if the estimation for these certain genes evolving coincide with certain bottleneck/widespread famine dates scientists may be aware of. Enough about my thoughts, what does everyone else here think about our hypothesis? Any other ideas on why men are attracted to them and why women have them?