From an evolutionary perspective, why do women have bosoms?

[Math Is Hard]

i doubt obesity was an issue for most prehistoric women. all the children to rear, starting sometime shortly after menarche, plus physical labor would keep the metabolic problems of sedentary obesity at bay. whatever extra fat she did gain would likely be seasonal.

Or maybe due to a prosperous family. The buxom chick has the food access.

I think someone mentioned this before, but Desmond Morris opined that the boobs took over some of the sexual signaling that was the job of the female buttocks once we began to walk upright, Sort of a butt-on-the-chest thing. :)

I also seem to remember that he mentioned (or someone talking about his work did) that sexuality and taboo assigned to body parts still varies by culture. A U.S. or European woman caught nude will quickly cover her front, while in some African cultures, a woman caught nude will throw herself on her back to cover her buttocks.

 

[Jobrag]

Loren Booda #3 Men have nipples because as the foetus develops nipples start to grow before the gender of the child is determined.

Anything more then a handful (mouthful) is a waste.
Jobrag

 

[Nan]

It is societal today, rather than any sort of evolutionary trend or utility. DNA plays a large role in determining body shape, fat distributions, breast size, etc. What is attractive now is affected by fads and fashion, whether a woman or man pays attention to them and are influenced by them is the reason for different 'tastes' in what is attractive to them as individuals.

One can see in facial structure a lineage, in skin color, in body shape. A European woman will appear vastly different than an Asian woman. The characteristics extend beyond appearances to include the prevalence of particular diseases as inherited traits.

As our world becomes smaller, transportation available/easy and cheap; the former taboos absent of inter-racial marriages and breeding becoming more common, I suspect in the future, man/woman will appear more homogeneous and that is an evolutionary trend.

 

[Loren Booda]

If breasts' appearance were primarily to attract babies (of both genders), wouldn't woman as well as men have an obsession about them?

 

[Borek]

Furthermore, if breast size really is an indicator of fertility (in mammals), then why haven't other animals evolved breasts by the same reasoning??

Perhaps because human are erect, which makes breasts more visible.

 

[physicsdude30]

Obviously men do find breasts attractive, but I don't think it's particularly good evolutionary science to say "women evolved breasts because men found them attractive". I could accept a sort of iterative progression, a kind of feedback loop that propagated protruberances of the female chest involving stepwise increases in attractiveness related to fertility -- but according to the evidence presented in this post magnitude of breast is not the issue so why would the breast continue to grow beyond the critical "fertility level"?? Furthermore, if breast size really is an indicator of fertility (in mammals), then why haven't other animals evolved breasts by the same reasoning??

BOSOM SIZE AND ATTRACTIVENESS

I actually found an article that larger bosoms don't mean better looking, but rather there's an optimum peak at the top of a bell shaped curve for what men generally find most attractive. Too small, not good. Too large, not good. Not every man is the same, but there is a pattern for an optimum range. It's similar to how you hear about those fat/skinny women drawing studies, where women always think men prefer a full body shape a couple sizes skinnier than what drawing of women men really prefer. However, even men would vary in their responses in these studies.

One theory for why other animals don't have them is non-humans mostly only mate during fertility periods, while human couples mate all month long to form social intimate bonds that the others don't have. Some say that if breast do have to do with attraction, then that may be related to the reason for permanent breasts. Other apes only have breasts when nursing, but not during the other times, so some point to that. Many look at the fact that size/shape isn't related to potential for producing milk, but shape is related to fertility peak in life (although correlation doesn't necessarily prove causation from an evolutionary perspective). That's why I'm trying to get feedback on proposals on hypothetical studies to test the various hypotheses, just for sense of wonder sake.

 

[Borek]

promiscuity may have been much more common and more desirable than monogamy sometime in the past to make it evolutionarily relevant...or at least serial monogamy. It's not that entirely far-fetched, as I think about it.

Serial monogamy - in the worst case scenario - means no progeny due to genetical defects. My bet is that some promiscuity is programmed into women just to make their reproductive chances better (statsistics say that something like every tenth child is not a child of its 'legal' father).

Men are programmed to be much more promiscuous, but the logic behind seems to be a little bit different.

 

[physicsdude30]

That statement may be roughly true in general but I haven't seen convincing proof that a girl that is completely flat chested (no boobs at all) can produce just as much milk as a busty girl. I find that to be a dubious claim, as breastmilk is produced in the breast.

Regardless, the breasts will become enlarged during breast feeding, which is all that is required to make enlarged breasts a characteristic sign of femininity, especially when ancient women were talking around topless with suckling children all the time.

Further, it makes a distinction between fertile women and infertile women, because a girl with lactating breasts has already had a baby, showing that she is capable of giving birth. Thus, being attracted to women with swollen boobs as opposed to the flat chested girls who can't seem to give birth may increase the rate of successful reproduction.

Once men have evolved a desire for enlarged boobs, women may evolve larger boobs while not pregnant so as to attract those men that have developed the desire for large boobs.

And to recapitulate my stance on why modern men often do not seem to share this desire for "large boobs," I believe the reason is because ancient women had much more active lifestyles and did not eat so much, so a modern girl with the same genetic makeup as an ancient girl will have more breast fat (and overall) fat than the ancient girl, which we have developed an attraction for...because most men probably didn't evolve an attraction towards enormous boobs, but rather slightly enlarged boobs relative to other males.

You will find that even those men who typically say they prefer small boobs (such as myself) still do prefer there to be SOME boob...so they are not completely flat chested. The men who do prefer completely flat chested are more likely just pedophiles.

BREAST SIZE NOT RELATED TO MILK PRODUCTION POTENTIAL:

Something I found interesting, bosom size isn't related to amount of milk able to be produced. (http://ajol.info/index.php/nqjhm/article/view/12688 for one peer-review journal, plus there are many more peer-review journal articles that one can Google) How do we explain this? In addition, how do we explain why chimps and the other apes don't have permanent breasts, but only when they nurse their young? Regardless of what is true, if bosom size has a function other than the amount of milk a female can produce, then it would explain more empirical facts using less assumptions.

 

[Nan]

Men+women+logic does not equate. ;-)

 

[physicsdude30]

Or maybe due to a prosperous family. The buxom chick has the food access.

I think someone mentioned this before, but Desmond Morris opined that the boobs took over some of the sexual signaling that was the job of the female buttocks once we began to walk upright, Sort of a butt-on-the-chest thing. :)

I also seem to remember that he mentioned (or someone talking about his work did) that sexuality and taboo assigned to body parts still varies by culture. A U.S. or European woman caught nude will quickly cover her front, while in some African cultures, a woman caught nude will throw herself on her back to cover her buttocks.

I heard that too. I brainstormed an experiment to test the idea, such as below. I'm trying to think how to improve my experiment.

 

[physicsdude30]

I have heard of a more specific theory. When we were not standing yet, we were attracted by what we now could call "bottoms". The size of the female breasts developed (according to this theory) after we began to stand up. I unfortunately do not recall any reference, and I can not remember how credible this argument was. Maybe they did have bone quantitative indication to support this idea.

BREASTS RESEMBLING A BUTT HYPOTHESIS:

Yes, as Math Is Hard and some others have point out, Desmond Morris is responsible for that theory. In apes, males are attracted to the butt from behind, so some think the human bosom is meant to transfer over ancient attractions from an evolutionary standpoint. Although Wikipedia isn't a scholarly source, I found it interesting how it mentions this, and points out how many have discounted this theory because other apes have been spotted mating face to face even though they don't have prominent breasts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breast#Other_suggested_functions

I thought of an experiment to make the butt-breasts idea testable, or at least falsifiable even if not provable (like all Science is). Then in the end we can give credit to whatever bosom theory fits the evidence best. I'm curious what you think, or any improvements? :

My idea, we could have an experiment where male subjects look at a computer screen. The left side can have an actual word saying a woman's body part, and the right hand side can have a picture of another or same bare body part. At the bottom, the man has to click "Yes" or "No" and has to be as quick as possible in saying if they match each other. If the butt-breast hypothesis is true, we'd expect that when the word "breast" and the picture of the butt appear (or vice versa), their reaction time should on average take longer than when discriminating the other body parts from each other. This could make it possible to be falsified whether bosoms remind men too much about butts. Then researchers could do it in other societies to rule out possible bias created by the cleavage created by bras in western societies. Do you think something like this could be used to at least make it at the very least falsifiable, even if you can't prove?

 

[physicsdude30]

I can't speak to the sadness issue, but the specific features that attract are different in different societies. The Japanese male is attracted by the nape of a woman's neck. How can you explain that except that the attraction is learned?

jimmysnyder, I've heard that too. I have an idea for an experiment to test evolution versus culture below. I'm curious if you have any advice on how to make it a better study?

 

[physicsdude30]

It is societal today, rather than any sort of evolutionary trend or utility. DNA plays a large role in determining body shape, fat distributions, breast size, etc. What is attractive now is affected by fads and fashion, whether a woman or man pays attention to them and are influenced by them is the reason for different 'tastes' in what is attractive to them as individuals.

One can see in facial structure a lineage, in skin color, in body shape. A European woman will appear vastly different than an Asian woman. The characteristics extend beyond appearances to include the prevalence of particular diseases as inherited traits.

As our world becomes smaller, transportation available/easy and cheap; the former taboos absent of inter-racial marriages and breeding becoming more common, I suspect in the future, man/woman will appear more homogeneous and that is an evolutionary trend.

IS BOSOM ATTRACTIVENESS RELATED TO CULTURE, OR EVOLUTION, OR BOTH?

I've heard some point out that in some cultures thighs are considered immodest when exposed, but breasts normally are exposed (that's a big argument I heard in the debate). I thought of a way to test this. First, one thought to keep in mind is in some Islamic cultures, it's considered immodest for a woman's face to be exposed. However, in Western cultures they're not considered taboo, but regardless men here are still very attracted to woman faces. Bikinis at the beach are considered immodest in Islamic cultures, but not in many Western cultures. That doesn't mean men aren't attracted to bikinis in Western cultures, even if Western men avoid staring like perverts at the beach when the woman is looking just like men in those topless African cultures. It doesn't mean they're not attracted. Men in the U.S. still find thighs when woman wear shorts quite attractive, even if some cultures say legs are immodest but allow female toplessness (parts of Africa and other places). Many fertility goddesses of ancient societies were bare breasted. So how do we find out if there's any evolutionary relationship to bosom attractiveness, versus it being all cultural?

I have an idea. I wonder what your input is? As a quick analogy, to test the universality of recognizing many facial expressions, besides people blind from birth having some of these facial expressions, researchers went to the boonies and found much universality in many of the facial expressions, even if the intensity/social appropriateness varies greatly (China vs. Latin America for example). Similarily, what if we went to the boonies where everyone walks around in loin clothes? Instead of asking what's considered "immodest", what if researchers found male subjects and said, "I'm going to show you pictures of woman body parts, and you rate whether picture 1 or 2 is more attractive, and we'll go through a bunch of them"? Then researchers could show a picture of a woman's bosom versus back, then most of the other body parts, and mix it up. Although culture programs people what they may say in being socially acceptable, I know that there are also eye tracking devices researchers have to see where one's eyes move to. This could make it at the very least falsifiable to see if there's any evolutionary relationship outside of culture. Of course culture has some impact, but our question is there bosom fertility attraction outside of culture? Then what if we were to do the study I mentioned earlier about seeing if there's a correlation between bosom size/shape and the amount of money a man makes, while controlling for other variables, that could make it even more falsifiable?

Although you can't prove in Science, scientists typically say you can make the various theories falsifiable, then in the end go with the one that fits the evidence the best.

 

[Pythagorean]

Any more than a handful is a waste anyway.

 

[Nan]

IS BOSOM ATTRACTIVENESS RELATED TO CULTURE, OR EVOLUTION, OR BOTH?

I've heard some point out that in some cultures thighs are considered immodest when exposed, but breasts normally are exposed (that's a big argument I heard in the debate). I thought of a way to test this. First, one thought to keep in mind is in some Islamic cultures, it's considered immodest for a woman's face to be exposed. However, in Western cultures they're not considered taboo, but regardless men here are still very attracted to woman faces. Bikinis at the beach are considered immodest in Islamic cultures, but not in many Western cultures. That doesn't mean men aren't attracted to bikinis in Western cultures, even if Western men avoid staring like perverts at the beach when the woman is looking just like men in those topless African cultures. It doesn't mean they're not attracted. Men in the U.S. still find thighs when woman wear shorts quite attractive, even if some cultures say legs are immodest but allow female toplessness (parts of Africa and other places). Many fertility goddesses of ancient societies were bare breasted. So how do we find out if there's any evolutionary relationship to bosom attractiveness, versus it being all cultural?

I have an idea. I wonder what your input is? As a quick analogy, to test the universality of recognizing many facial expressions, besides people blind from birth having some of these facial expressions, researchers went to the boonies and found much universality in many of the facial expressions, even if the intensity/social appropriateness varies greatly (China vs. Latin America for example). Similarily, what if we went to the boonies where everyone walks around in loin clothes? Instead of asking what's considered "immodest", what if researchers found male subjects and said, "I'm going to show you pictures of woman body parts, and you rate whether picture 1 or 2 is more attractive, and we'll go through a bunch of them"? Then researchers could show a picture of a woman's bosom versus back, then most of the other body parts, and mix it up. Although culture programs people what they may say in being socially acceptable, I know that there are also eye tracking devices researchers have to see where one's eyes move to. This could make it at the very least falsifiable to see if there's any evolutionary relationship outside of culture. Of course culture has some impact, but our question is there bosom fertility attraction outside of culture? Then what if we were to do the study I mentioned earlier about seeing if there's a correlation between bosom size/shape and the amount of money a man makes, while controlling for other variables, that could make it even more falsifiable?

Although you can't prove in Science, scientists typically say you can make the various theories falsifiable, then in the end go with the one that fits the evidence the best.

Because it is complex culturally, because we are evolving socially, your idea is likely the solution to the question. Occam's razor should be applied. I strongly suspect it is likely both social/cultural and evolutionary with evolution as the weaker of the influence today. I think looking at primitive and tribal cultures today, one can observe how a woman's body shape and in the case of this discussion, specifically breasts, can be of greater or lessor importance depending upon the culture. Case in point, the artificial lengthening of a woman's neck in an African tribe is considered a virtue vs her breast size/shape which could be of no importance at all to the males of that culture.

Overall, it is an interesting topic. One might also look at the characteristics of males and what is 'desirable' for females. Females aren't as visually stimulated as males, which is a natural part of our evolution. That is also an interesting question in why it is. Humans are sort of funny, it is the female who primps to attract a male while other species in nature, it is the male that seeks a mate through appearance and displays. Its also sort of amusing that males will alter their appearance to attract a female today but what they 'think' is attractive in fact, often is off base. Males seem to have a disconnection in that respect probably because from an evolutionary standpoint, their appearance wasn't as important as their ability to provide food, shelter, protection to a female and offspring.

Hey guys-how many holes does that favorite T-shirt have? ;-)

 

[Jasongreat]

According to the discovery channel(taken with a grain of salt), breasts were an evolutionary response to our ancestors standing up. They stated that while we were walking around on all fours the buttocks were the prime mover, however once we stood up that mover was sidelined. So to make up for that deficiancy breasts developed, which they claimed have pretty much the same shape as buttocks, and therefore started to attract males. This might explain why men are split into butt camps, and breast camps.

 

[Astronuc]

Umm - mammary glands are standard equipment.

The real test - can she string a 60-lb Mongolian bow and draw it full length of the arrow shaft to the arrow head?

 

[Moonbear]

I think Jasongreat might be referring to the shift in location of the mammary glands, from located on the abdominal wall to located on the thoracic wall. Of course, given our upright position, it might be difficult to dangle our infants upside down to feed them if our mammary glands were positioned low on the abdomen, nearly as low as the pelvic region, as they are in some species.

 

[GeorginaS]

And, too, I think that the evolutionary argument as presentation/mimicking of buttocks refers to the size of human female breasts that are attractive/are more conducive to drawing in a mate. Human female breasts are, on average, much larger than need be for their intended function of milk production. Hence the buttock mimicking argument.

 

[Proton Soup]

the mimicry stuff sounds appealing, but what about other factors like walking mechanics? too much is obviously a problem for some women, but it some better than none?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Umm - mammary glands are standard equipment.

The real test - can she string a 60-lb Mongolian bow and draw it full length of the arrow shaft to the arrow head?

I hear that women have actually removed a breast to be able to do this. ;-p

 

[Loren Booda]

I hear that women have actually removed a breast to be able to do this. ;-p

The Amazons - but certainly not Wonder Woman!

 

[physicsdude30]

I think Jasongreat might be referring to the shift in location of the mammary glands, from located on the abdominal wall to located on the thoracic wall. Of course, given our upright position, it might be difficult to dangle our infants upside down to feed them if our mammary glands were positioned low on the abdomen, nearly as low as the pelvic region, as they are in some species.

Although you're right that there was shift from on all fours to standing up, something to keep in mind is that the other primates still have their mammary glands in the chest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammary_gland#Other_mammals

So it would seem like it would need more explanation than just shift of location on body.

I'm not sure I misundertood or took what you were saying correctly?

 

[physicsdude30]

According to the discovery channel(taken with a grain of salt), breasts were an evolutionary response to our ancestors standing up. They stated that while we were walking around on all fours the buttocks were the prime mover, however once we stood up that mover was sidelined. So to make up for that deficiancy breasts developed, which they claimed have pretty much the same shape as buttocks, and therefore started to attract males. This might explain why men are split into butt camps, and breast camps.

I'd be interested in finding that Discovery Channel episode. I do know that some critics say other primates mate from the front side and not only the back, so they believe there's more to it than resembling a butt from the front side.

However, just for the fun of brainstorming with the Scientific Method, I'm thinking of experiments to test our ideas, since empirical evidence sometimes overrides what sounds rational. I'd be curious if you have any input on the experiment I propose in post 61, or any improvements/weaknesses?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I'd be interested in finding that Discovery Channel episode. I do know that some critics say other primates mate from the front side and not only the back, so they believe there's more to it than resembling a butt from the front side.

It also seems rather odd that if the point is to draw the same interest as the butt that there would be such a strong divide between 'breast men' and 'butt men'.

 

[Math Is Hard]

And there is still no explanation for men who have butts on their chins.


http://www.thetech.org/genetics/images/ask/cleft.jpg

 

[physicsdude30]

Because it is complex culturally, because we are evolving socially, your idea is likely the solution to the question. Occam's razor should be applied. I strongly suspect it is likely both social/cultural and evolutionary with evolution as the weaker of the influence today. I think looking at primitive and tribal cultures today, one can observe how a woman's body shape and in the case of this discussion, specifically breasts, can be of greater or lessor importance depending upon the culture. Case in point, the artificial lengthening of a woman's neck in an African tribe is considered a virtue vs her breast size/shape which could be of no importance at all to the males of that culture.

Overall, it is an interesting topic. One might also look at the characteristics of males and what is 'desirable' for females. Females aren't as visually stimulated as males, which is a natural part of our evolution. That is also an interesting question in why it is. Humans are sort of funny, it is the female who primps to attract a male while other species in nature, it is the male that seeks a mate through appearance and displays. Its also sort of amusing that males will alter their appearance to attract a female today but what they 'think' is attractive in fact, often is off base. Males seem to have a disconnection in that respect probably because from an evolutionary standpoint, their appearance wasn't as important as their ability to provide food, shelter, protection to a female and offspring.

Hey guys-how many holes does that favorite T-shirt have? ;-)

Hmmm, I wonder if there's a way to make it falsifiable how much of it is due to culture, and how much to evolution? Like with the facial expressions analogy I used, the basic expressions are quite universal, even those blind at birth show some expressiveness, however culture does modify it to determine how intense and where it's socially appropriate.

Something that I always think about is Occam's Razor doesn't mean the least assumptions, but rather the least assumptions to explain all the facts. If we were to conduct that experiment I suggested and it did happen to pass, then it would seem to me the results would have to be included under the Occam's Razor for if any evolution is involved. However, if the experiment did falsify the evolution part, that would also be an interesting finding.

 

[physicsdude30]

And there is still no explanation for men who have butts on their chins.


http://www.thetech.org/genetics/images/ask/cleft.jpg

[/URL]

Maybe it reminds women of the same. Just Kidding!

 

[physicsdude30]

It also seems rather odd that is the point is to draw the same interest as the butt that there would be such a strong divide between 'breast men' and 'butt men'.

Or what I meant was there are critics who say they don't believe so because of the front mating in some primates, and they ask why they don't have the permanent bosoms. I guess I was a little vague there.

So that's why I think it would be interesting to try that Yes/No reaction time matching experiment I suggested earlier. Although it wouldn't prove it's that way, I think it could be used to make it falsifiable (I love that word). If it passes, then it's consistant and could possibly be true. If it doesn't, then I'd be skeptical because I'd think passing something like that experiment would be a minimum requirement for logical consequences. What's your input?

 

[lisab]

And there is still no explanation for men who have butts on their chins.


http://www.thetech.org/genetics/images/ask/cleft.jpg

[/URL]

I can't believe it...I have never noticed it's mostly men who have them !

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Or what I meant was there are critics who say they don't believe so because of the front mating in some primates, and they ask why they don't have the permanent bosoms. I guess I was a little vague there.

I was only throwing out something I thought was curious that could perhaps be contrary to what you would expect.
This particular criticism doesn't seem to make much sense though (maybe mine doesn't either, ha!) because species are not necessarily going to develop the same sex traits just because they have similar practices. For instance there are plenty of birds out there and they all have tail feathers but only a few have tail feather characteristics for the purpose of attracting a mate.

So that's why I think it would be interesting to try that Yes/No reaction time matching experiment I suggested earlier. Although it wouldn't prove it's that way, I think it could be used to make it falsifiable (I love that word). If it passes, then it's consistant and could possibly be true. If it doesn't, then I'd be skeptical because I'd think passing something like that experiment would be a minimum requirement for logical consequences. What's your input?

I took a similar test before, or tried, and it was supposed to show whether or not you have a subconscious preference between white people and black people. I'm dyslexic myself so I wound up confused too much and my results came back inconclusive because of it. My personal experience leads me to believe it does not seem a very accurate experimental method. At least it seems like it would be difficult to determine just what the data gathered really indicates.

I can't believe it...I have never noticed it's mostly men who have them !

A lot of women have them too they just tend to be less severe on women than on men. Its like a small indent instead of a full cleft. I actually find it attractive on women. Maybe my animal brain is seeing a butt on their face...

 

[Math Is Hard]

I think many men are wired to like things they can grab. A slim body with jutting breasts and buttocks and a head of long, thick hair = lots of handles. A young lady of this description walked into my friend's store, and all the men were drooling. He said, "My God, she's like a carnival ride. I wouldn't know what to grab first."

 

[Proton Soup]

I think many men are wired to like things they can grab. A slim body with jutting breasts and buttocks and a head of long, thick hair = lots of handles. A young lady of this description walked into my friend's store, and all the men were drooling. He said, "My God, she's like a carnival ride. I wouldn't know what to grab first."

you may be onto something

 

[Borek]

A slim body with jutting breasts and buttocks and a head of long, thick hair = lots of handles.

What about protruding nose? Warts? Do they count as handles as well?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I think many men are wired to like things they can grab.

Woman must be as well.

 

[physicsdude30]

I think many men are wired to like things they can grab. A slim body with jutting breasts and buttocks and a head of long, thick hair = lots of handles. A young lady of this description walked into my friend's store, and all the men were drooling. He said, "My God, she's like a carnival ride. I wouldn't know what to grab first."

That would be one interesting idea if you saw that in a peer-review journal.

 

[physicsdude30]

I took a similar test before, or tried, and it was supposed to show whether or not you have a subconscious preference between white people and black people. I'm dyslexic myself so I wound up confused too much and my results came back inconclusive because of it. My personal experience leads me to believe it does not seem a very accurate experimental method. At least it seems like it would be difficult to determine just what the data gathered really indicates.

Dyslexic? Something to think about, although the preference for black versus white test you took may be less accurate for dyslexic people, does that necessarily mean it would be that way for non-dyslexic?

Basically what gave me the idea to make the butt-breast idea falsifiable is I know they've done tests where they have on one side the word "bird" and on the right hand side a picture of a robin. When they had pictures of birds that more represented what people normally had come to mind when they thought of birds, their response times were faster than if they saw a picture of a penguin or ostrich or some other out of the ordinary example for the word. They tried it with other animals.

Although human bosoms are a different type of animal, what I'm curious about is if we could do the "reverse", slower response times when various body parts that aren't the same but remind men of the other one. This is getting me thinking now if it would work, however I'm still curious if there could be a different way to make the breast-butt hypothesis falsifiable.

 

[Proton Soup]

the mimicry stuff sounds appealing, but what about other factors like walking mechanics? too much is obviously a problem for some women, but it some better than none?

lol, maybe bigger = slower = easier to catch = genes propagated. but as fun as retroreflective headlights sound, i can't really find anything to answer my question. i don't get it, plenty of modelling of t-rex gait on discovery channel et al, but nothing about human females?

Ergonomics. 2009 Apr;52(4):492-8.Click here to read Links
The effect of breast support on kinetics during overground running performance.
White JL, Scurr JC, Smith NA.

Department of Sport and Exercise Science, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, UK. jenny.white@port.ac.uk

Changes in ground reaction forces that result from different breast support conditions may have implications for sports performance and transmission of forces through the skeleton. The aim of this investigation was to compare kinetic variables and breast motion in a no-bra, everyday-bra and two sports-bra conditions. Following ethical approval, eight female participants with D-cup breasts had retro-reflective markers placed on the left and right nipples, anterior superior iliac spines and clavicles. Five calibrated ProReflex infrared cameras (100 Hz; Qualisys) measured 3-D displacement of markers and synchronised kinetic data were collected using a force platform (500 Hz, Kistler 9281CA). A repeated measures one-way ANOVA revealed a significantly higher medial impact force in the no-bra condition (0.15 times body weight) compared with the compression sports-bra condition (0.12 times body weight) (F = 3.64 (3,21), p = 0.03). Findings suggest that inadequate breast support affects a female's running kinetics, which may have negative physiological consequences on sports performance.

PMID: 19401901 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE

 

[Proton Soup]

OK, someone out there is thinking about the mechanics of it

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/322548

http://www.antro.pan.wroc.pl/pracownicy/boguslaw_pawlowski/

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Dyslexic? Something to think about, although the preference for black versus white test you took may be less accurate for dyslexic people, does that necessarily mean it would be that way for non-dyslexic?

Basically what gave me the idea to make the butt-breast idea falsifiable is I know they've done tests where they have on one side the word "bird" and on the right hand side a picture of a robin. When they had pictures of birds that more represented what people normally had come to mind when they thought of birds, their response times were faster than if they saw a picture of a penguin or ostrich or some other out of the ordinary example for the word. They tried it with other animals.

Although human bosoms are a different type of animal, what I'm curious about is if we could do the "reverse", slower response times when various body parts that aren't the same but remind men of the other one. This is getting me thinking now if it would work, however I'm still curious if there could be a different way to make the breast-butt hypothesis falsifiable.

Ah, I misunderstood perhaps. The test I tried seemed to be based on the idea of confusing the person taking the test from what I remember. It just doesn't seem to me like a very good indicator of anything (or an indicator with multiple possible causes) that you were able to confuse someone while flashing images and words at them.

In your test scenario I think you may wind up with a bit of a false data trend if you wind up with men intentionally lingering before clicking so that they can take a better look at the image. ;-)

 

[Galteeth]

Different men have different sexual preferences, and often ratios are more important then size of individual parts. Perhaps different men like different things for underlying genetic reasons? There's interesting stuff about pheromone signaling on subconscious levels.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKCOL56690320080815

 

[Proton Soup]

Different men have different sexual preferences, and often ratios are more important then size of individual parts. Perhaps different men like different things for underlying genetic reasons? There's interesting stuff about pheromone signaling on subconscious levels.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKCOL56690320080815

so are birth control pills racist, or just incestuous?

i don't know what to think about that, to be honest. not sure if 3 months is long enough, but birth control pills have an effect of raising SHBG, which can persist long after you stop taking them. this affects libido by binding with the little free T that women need for sexual arousal. for a woman with low sex drive, 'sexy' may simply mean 'not smelly' or inoffensive.

 

[Galteeth]

so are birth control pills racist, or just incestuous?

i don't know what to think about that, to be honest. not sure if 3 months is long enough, but birth control pills have an effect of raising SHBG, which can persist long after you stop taking them. this affects libido by binding with the little free T that women need for sexual arousal. for a woman with low sex drive, 'sexy' may simply mean 'not smelly' or inoffensive.

There are a lot of different studies regarding pheromone signalling which I could probably dig up if people are interested.

 

[Proton Soup]

There are a lot of different studies regarding pheromone signalling which I could probably dig up if people are interested.

yeah, i remember that there was another sweaty t-shirt smelling study that didn't involve birth control.

 

[WhoWee]

This discussion has certainly evolved since page 1.

 

[physicsdude30]

Ah, I misunderstood perhaps. The test I tried seemed to be based on the idea of confusing the person taking the test from what I remember. It just doesn't seem to me like a very good indicator of anything (or an indicator with multiple possible causes) that you were able to confuse someone while flashing images and words at them.

In your test scenario I think you may wind up with a bit of a false data trend if you wind up with men intentionally lingering before clicking so that they can take a better look at the image. ;-)

So what I'm trying to figure out, if it's been objectively tested with animals and has been found to be very reliable, although it was a different variation, I'm not understanding how it wouldn't at the very least be a way to make those peoples' ideas on the butt-breast idea falsifiable? Although it can't prove because there could always be alternative explanations, since it would seem like a logical consequence couldn't it be used as a way to possibly rule out various theories like they use falsification in Science for?

I was actually initially thinking about what you're saying with the bias of perhaps wanting to stare longer, and again it only would be a way to make it falsifiable. I'm wondering if there's a way to control for that effect by comparing it with other female photos that men find exciting and seeing how the reaction time is? Also remember that only one side would be a photo, while the other side a word, so when we configure that mentally how that'd work, maybe we could easily configure it in a way to rule out that effect and compare the statistical significance?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

So what I'm trying to figure out, if it's been objectively tested with animals and has been found to be very reliable, although it was a different variation, I'm not understanding how it wouldn't at the very least be a way to make those peoples' ideas on the butt-breast idea falsifiable? Although it can't prove because there could always be alternative explanations, since it would seem like a logical consequence couldn't it be used as a way to possibly rule out various theories like they use falsification in Science for?

I was actually initially thinking about what you're saying with the bias of perhaps wanting to stare longer, and again it only would be a way to make it falsifiable. I'm wondering if there's a way to control for that effect by comparing it with other female photos that men find exciting and seeing how the reaction time is? Also remember that only one side would be a photo, while the other side a word, so when we configure that mentally how that'd work, maybe we could easily configure it in a way to rule out that effect and compare the statistical significance?

Sorry, I seem to keep not actually giving an answer to what you are considering.
The problem I see is that it would seem easily explainable why the perceptual connection is no longer present. Perhaps at the time the similarity was consciously or unconsciously perceptible but now that our particular species of primate have evolved much greater intellectual/perceptual capacity there is a definite distinction and the breast preference has evolved to become its own distinct trait. So I am thinking that the test would not be able to elevate the hypothesis to a falsifiable theory but a positive correlation maybe be considered interesting evidence.

Am I making sense? I am not a scientist by the way, I just like science. ;-)

 

[physicsdude30]

Sorry, I seem to keep not actually giving an answer to what you are considering.
The problem I see is that it would seem easily explainable why the perceptual connection is no longer present. Perhaps at the time the similarity was consciously or unconsciously perceptible but now that our particular species of primate have evolved much greater intellectual/perceptual capacity there is a definite distinction and the breast preference has evolved to become its own distinct trait. So I am thinking that the test would not be able to elevate the hypothesis to a falsifiable theory but a positive correlation maybe be considered interesting evidence.

Am I making sense? I am not a scientist by the way, I just like science. ;-)

Hmmm, how about a way to control for that? What if we were to control for that by seeing how very small/close to flat bosoms (what they were originally when first evolving) compared to regular size bosoms when comparing to the butts? If at first it reminded men of butts, but not anymore, if I'm understanding what you're suggesting exactly?

Also, if anything in Science we can't prove or disprove anything for sure, but we can say given the evidence it gives us more or less confidence in something. If this proposed experiment were to show no association with breasts and butts compared to the other parts, we know there's less confidence in it. If on the other hand it does, it would give us more confidence?

Then of course, there was another experiment I suggested in post 63, which I don't know what the results would be. If the breast-butt hypothesis does happen to be real (I have no opinion in the matter other than wanting to test it), it would seem like bosom attraction being more than cultural but having some evolution in it would be vital. Although that wouldn't mean it's true or even probably, that assumption would be something to make the hypothesis falsifiable since that would be required.

 

[Math Is Hard]

What about protruding nose? Warts? Do they count as handles as well?

My thoughts on this are that handles should come in pairs, and be grabbable in the sense of being large enough to get a good handful or grip, and also not cause significant pain or damage (or in the case of the nose, airway blockage) to the object of one's affection.

I think the fact that women do not have enormous ears is where my argument fails spectacularly.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I think the fact that women do not have enormous ears is where my argument fails spectacularly.

http://media.comicvine.com/uploads/1/17882/360354-136400-ferengi_large.jpg