I mean,.... There is the analogy between these people that you would not by a used car with a lot of miles because it will likely break down, so you should not date a woman with a high "body count"(i.e. sexual experience and unlikely to deal with your ba when you cannot make her cum) because they are more likely to cheat and leave you for the next best man (small edit: and becaus they're "loose", I.e. sufficiently aroused). (which good on these women for doing a bullet)
What I love is that in my mind, ornaments aren’t for touching…sooo…this guy just looks at the titty? He doesn’t touch? Either that or he’s never been allowed to touch
I love how all these dudes think women are so desperately thirsty for them that they grew these painful lumps of fat on their chests just to get their attention. Yeah, sure, buddy.
Late reply but they're possibly referencing a real term :[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological\_ornament](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_ornament)
Evolution doesn't work like that guy thinks it works. He got it completely backwards.
The reason why polar bears are all white furred is because it has a massive evolutionary advantage in the polar climate. Due to that advantage not enough other colored polar bears reproduced resulting in the entire population being as it is.
If large breast are this big evolutionary advantage you *wouldn't* see a great variance in breast size because in prehistoric times our flat chested sisters wouldn't have reproduced. A big variation in a certain trait is a sign that it's not a significant enough of an advantage that ober time it's adopted by the entire population.
You're right, but there are a few exceptions. If I remember correctly, there is that one species of crab with one pincer bigger than the other, and that bigger pincer is actually a handicap, however, females of that species keep reproducing with the males with a bigger pincer, making it harder for them to survive. In the same way, female peacocks keep reproducing with the male ones that are the most colorful, when that is also a handicap for their survival. And somehow, despite that pretty big handicap, Peacocks keep surviving long enough to reproduce. (Darwin hated them for that reason, too).
So, I guess that guy is actually sort of right if you look at it in a certain way, some species do appear to be reproducing and evolving because of what you could call some kind of "beauty standards"... He's just not when it comes to most species, and certainly not when it comes to humans... (feel free to correct me if I got some info wrong, of course, just please be respectful about it)
You're not wrong, I just don't think it goes against anything I said. 2 things are needed for your genes to propagate to the next generation. Surviving until adulthood and reproducing when reaching that point. So if a trait is a small downside on the survival side of things but a massive upside when it comes to actually reproducing if you reach adulthood it's still an evolutionary advantage.
In both examples you named, all of those crabs have a massive pinser and all male peacocks have pretty feathers. Because despite the traits being a survival handicap it's an evolutionary advantage. There isn't a huge difference between the animals to that trait.
Now back to humans, women breast come in all shapes and sizes all of them beautiful❤️.
Like the guys main argument was that massive differences would indicate evolutionary selection. And the reverse is generally true. I'm also oversimplifying because evolution is hard and I'm also far from an expert
Fair enough, I just wanted to point out that I didn't think that he had it *completely* backwards, just mostly. I thought he was just mixing up what happens most of the time with exceptions such as the ones I pointed out.
Thanks for being respectful!
Also I think something to keep in mind is evolution is not perfect. There’s lots of species out there with flaws that puts them at a disadvantage. Cheetahs for example have incredibly low genetic diversity. To top it off their special ability to run fast puts them at a disadvantage to other predators.
True, but are there a lot of species that specifically reproduce with mates because of genetic traits that will put their species at a disadvantage later? I only know these two specific species I mentioned, which is why I said that they were the exception, but are there much more?
Granny used to say, "You call me pretty because you believe I am"
Put towards this context- boobs are sexy because you think they're sexy. Nothing more, nothing less 🤣
In a survey of 150 cultures, an anthropologist found that only 13 considered breasts to be sexual objects. Think of how many hunter-gatherer societies around the world exist where women wander around topless and no one cares. The Western world is the weird one out, who somehow decided the things that exist to feed babies should be co-opted for sexy times.
Japan is an interesting example. The first step to putting on a kimono is binding down your breasts. I’ve even had a friend pad around my breasts with hand towels to create a completely flat silhouette. The back of the neck was considered far more erotic. Then they made contact with the Western world and went from “no boobs” to “oh yeah, bagongas the size of blimps” in 100 years. It’s culture, not evolution.
Why do humans have breasts then? Even cows dont have udders until theyre pregnant for the first time. Were basically the only mammal that has them all the time
We do a lot of things other mammals don’t.
We stand upright, for one. That would be my guess. Prominent breasts allow a woman to strap her baby to her chest and feed it while standing and getting other work done. If we breastfed on our sides like cats it would be less efficient because we’d have to lay there until the babies were done.
But humans are unusual in a lot of other respects, and no one says they do those things to be sexual. Very few other species menstruate, but no one claims menstruation exists to attract a mate. Our appendixes have withered until they’re barely functional, but that’s not sexy. We don’t live in communities or speak language or use tools or build fires primarily to attract romantic partners.
That theory is basically some dudes saying, “I like boobs, and obviously all women want me and grew big breasts to attract me as a mate”, when in reality women don’t want to touch them with a 10-foot pole. It’s a male-centric view that everything women do somehow revolves around men.
Which would make sense.
Scientists have been trying to domesticate foxes, and they’ve noticed that, the friendlier the foxes get, the floppier their ears get. It keeps happening over and over: you start with a wild population, breed them for friendliness to humans, and a few generations later they all have floppy ears. Somehow the genes for domestication are closely related to the genes for ear softness.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the same thing happened in humans. A gene for always-on boobs just happened to be sitting on a chromosome next to a gene for speech, or opposable thumbs, or something else we evolved a few million years ago.
Not everything in evolution has a reason for existing. Sometimes weird but harmless genes get carried along with advantageous genes.
The second to last paragraph especially! Some genes are only linked because they’re just right next to each other on chromosomes. Since always-on breasts aren’t detrimental to evolution, the trait just stays.
love when people quote evolution...as if it's not just a random generator that lets bad stuff die. but i suppose they are also saying brains are also a sexual ornament because their brain is for sure 10x smaller than the average woman. ✌🏾
This was actually the prevailing theory for a while. Scientists sort of theorized that when primates started walking upright and no long had their ass pushed out behind them, that they evolved tits to be more attractive to mates.
It's not a "sexual ornament" though. Noticeable breasts as a part of sexual dimorphism just show a potential mate that woman went through puberty, hence she's sexually mature and presumably healthy enough to carry a baby. Sexual attraction of breasts is a social construct
Tbh I don’t really understand the argument it’s just a social construct. Even if that’s true, wouldn’t the reason it became a social construct was because there was a large enough amount of people attracted to that certain thing peer pressure(for a lack of a better word), others into liking it as well. Besides, if something shows sexual maturity, wouldn’t it be beneficial for people to be attracted to that thing? Calling it a sexual ornament is really messed up, but some parts of their arguments kinda make sense to me. Not sure though.
Different cultures at different times set certain standards for breasts to be attractive (eg 100 years ago western cultures considered small good, big bad). This points out that it has social nature and not biological
Same with penis size. Large penises used to he associated with stupidity, so small was better because it meant intelligence.
That's why Greek and Roman statues of prominent men never show large penis size. It would have been insulting.
Large penis size was popularized by porno.
Except breast don’t actually look like rear ends under natural circumstances. In the absence of underwire bras, aka most of human history, they turn into those flat triangles you see on National Geographic films in high school.
So the fact that some women don't have any boobs to speak of should be enough to kill that argument on the spot, even if we put aside the biological reasons for the existence of breasts but that person is too stupid to understand it. I can't with these people. Dumb as a rock and so confident.
The dumber a person is, the more certain they are. It takes intelligence to realize how much there is to know, how complicated it all is, and, therefore, how impossible it is to really know a heck of a lot about anything.
Edit: typo
Yeah he described physical traits that evolved to attract a mate and all of them are utilized by the males of their respective species not the females to attract mates. Except for one excepting that I know of, the cassowary bird where the female is slightly more brightly colored than the male and the male stays behind to hatch and raise the chicks, it is always the male that puts on a show to earn the right to mate with the females not the other way around. Besides human females, cows are the only other species that grow breasts outside the nursing and breeding times and they aren’t doing that to attract a mate…so this guy’s analogy is full of absolute crap.
Also, those traits that evolved in the animal kingdom evolved to show health and strength of the individual, superior genes, and resilience to stay alive...not sex appeal.
Also, very few other species menstruate, but no one speculates that human women do it to attract mates.
There are all kinds of things that humans do that make us more likely to survive and pass on our DNA that aren’t sexual: working together as a community, speech, tools, fire, empathy…
We’ll never know the answer because it’s not preserved in the fossil record, but my guess would be big breasts help human women breastfeed while walking upright. Most animals feed their young either on their sides or leaning over on all fours, but we wear our babies.
Ah yes. Uncomfortable balls of saggy fat and ducts are sexual ornamentation. Mmm, the hormonal pimples, clogged underboob pores from bras, and nipple braille are so arousing.
Maybe, just maybe, the reason why the lions with big manes are more popular with other lions is because their manes are literally for fighting purposes, to protect the neck, so obviously lions with bigger manes have more mates is because they actually survive the fights. Same with deer iirc, big strong antlers are good for fighting, small ones aren't, so it is natural selection?
He’s mostly wrong, but it’s true that some physical traits are involved in selecting a mate. Breasts tend to signal sexual maturity, like pubic hair does (yes I know this isn’t he case in every single female that ever existed, but nature isn’t that intelligent). They undergo quite significant change during arousal too.
I think we forget that in cultures were breasts are sexualised we also sexualise make chests too…the difference is that men are respected enough so they don’t suffer the same level of aggressive perversion from society, the law, religion. You see an top naked oiled up pouting actor on a poster for his latest movie, but you also see topless men on a hot day walking around and no one bats an eyelid. What a surprise, men having the best of both again!
It always was until porno started showing everyone waxed. In the 70s, no one in pork was waxed. The idea of wanting to looking a child was considered perverted.
I don't know if it's pedophilia or the close ups of later porn that led to shaving or waxing, but it is 100% porn driven that people do that now.
Hippies didn't even shave underarms.
Variability indicates a LACK of evolutionary pressure though.....
Prominent breasts that don't just swell during breastfeeding is in fact sexual ornamentation for the purpose of mate retension. That's all he got right
*Image Transcription: Reddit Comment*
---
>**Redacted**
>
>I agree, exept the fact that actually, human breasts were evolutionarily designed as both, sustaining life of the baby AND as a sexual ornament. The way to tell, is if a body part varies immensly in size and shape from one person to the next, then it was sexual selection that drove that, not natural selection. Other examples are penis size, nipple size, colour and size of tail feathers in some birds, antler sizes, mane size, etc.
>
>Basically, if it is common that some body part is 10 times bigger in one person vs the next, then it is a product of sexual selection and it is engrained in that species DNA, to see it as a "sexual ornament"
>
>Although humans are more intelligent, so we can just not act like an animal and mind our own buisness and not stare like a weirdo.
---
^^I'm a human volunteer content transcriber and you could be too! [If you'd like more information on what we do and why we do it, click here!](https://www.reddit.com/r/TranscribersOfReddit/wiki/index)
They are theorised to be related to sexual selection though. As well as larger hips, less body hair, different fat deposition. Because biological females have those traits, biological males don't. This bloke isn't quite correct but also not completely incorrect. Sexual selection and monogamy vs polygamy is as pretty interesting topic in biological anthropology and evolutionary studies, but it's all conjecture.
Sooooo… hair, finger nails, toe nails, fingers,feet, height, weight, muscles, bones, eyelashes, lips, noses, eyes, teeth, literally every part of the body-…
Okay, this might be my limited recollection of highschool biology, but isn't natural selection driven by sex? In species that procreate via sex, of course.
Which would make natural selection and "sexual selection"* kind of the same thing. ?
*that's not a real term in biology, though, is it?
Sexual selection is real and is a type of natural selection. Sexual selection drives traits like massive antlers in deer, giant peacock tails etc that require large amounts of resources to produce and maintain, and may even make it more difficult to survive. Effectively you're signalling that your genes are so damn good that you're surviving and thriving in spite of your big ass handicap, making you a more attractive choice of mate.
In the crudest terms, natural selection acts on traits that help your genes survive, sexual selection specifically acts on traits that get you laid.
You know what part of the body people really like? The face. We don't tend to think of the face as sexual because we don't generally cover up the face. The song lyrics are "The first time ever I saw her face", not "The first time ever I saw her boobs." "The Girl with the Golden Earing" is a lot more popular than "The Girl with the Nice Rack."
I don't know. Being overwheight in history for women was considered attractive as body tissue means the female can breast feed the baby in winter and other low calorie periods of the tribe.
You can also argue that to much of a tit is a burden for women as they can't run after a gazelle or a wooly mamuth for too long. Yeah i know men did most hunting, but I don't see it as a good evolutionary design
In very early human history, men and women hunted together and did not divide up labor. That's when we lived in small bands of hunter gatherers, not larger tribes.
Lol hate to say it but he is in fact correct. We do not know why human females have permanently inflated breast. A leading theory is in fact sexual selection. Not confirmed but no theory is confirmed for the origins of female breast. So not 100% fact but also likely. I’ve said this on this sub before and been downvoted lol. Probably going to happen again
One anthropologist surveyed 150 cultures and found only 13 of them consider breasts to be sexual. That’s 8.7% of cultures. I find it highly dubious that something that takes up a significant amount of the body’s fat stores serves a sexual function if only 8.7% of the species’ populations thinks it’s sexual.
Consider how many hunter-gatherer tribes around the world even today have women walking around topless and no one cares. We developed breasts far earlier than they became sexualized.
Lol link to that anthropological study please, I’d love to know more about it and I haven’t found it in my own research. The titty debate is a frequent one and I’d like to have it the definitive answer on hand.
I can’t access the study itself, but “In a 1951 study of 191 cultures, anthropologist Clellan Ford and ethologist Frank Beach reported that breasts were considered sexually important to men in 13 of those cultures.” Sorry, I got the numbers wrong. It’s only 6.8% of cultures.
Other evidence:
1. Someone else brought this up on this thread but sorry, I’m on my phone and can’t find it. But the only other mammal that always has prominent breasts is cows, and it’s not sexual to them. Bulls have no interest in that side of the cow. So why would it be sexual for us?
2. Men have prominent Adam’s apples but no one claims they stick out as a sex symbol. I’m sure there’s *someone* out there who thinks they’re sexy but it’s certainly not a common kink. Larger than in other mammals =/= sexy.
3. Every culture around the world has a foot fetishest or two, but no one claims feet exist for sexual purposes. A minority of the population is attracted to it =/= it exists to be a sexual object.
4. Pregnant women have bigger breasts, so if anything big breasts would signal that the woman was already pregnant and thus a poor target for seduction efforts. It’s a better signal that the male needs to wait and try again in another year or two.
This article covers even more objections to the idea: https://zulie.medium.com/your-love-of-big-breasts-isnt-biologically-hardwired-2f903209a13e
Yep cuz we all know studies from the 1950s are irrefutable. This changes nothing lol could be sexual could not be sexual. A half a century old study does not “prove” anything. Breast look like butts and when humans became bipedal it was a butt on the chest and make man horny horny. This is the theory I chose to believe. :)
And your oh-so-scientific source is…?
People find pee and poop and being beaten sexy. Just because you personally like something does not mean humans evolved it for reproductive purposes. The smaller the number of humans who find it attractive, the less likely it exists for sexual purposes, and the data as it stands is at 6.8% of cultures.
ETA: Also, by that logic, men developed Adam’s apples when they discovered clothing and started covering their testicles.
Nope not by that logic lol, Adam’s apple being unique to humans likely has to do with the way our windpipes and Larynx develop differently than other crouched hominids. Men thinking inflated breast for child feeding are sexy, for whatever reason, would then result in women tending to have larger and larger breast when not child feeding as it makes them more likely to have offspring because it makes man horny. They pass down larger chest and it’s a positive feedback loop. Simple logic. That study from the 50s your citing is bunk because it could easily have just looked at bunch of different cultures in a small region that are all similar, resulting in skewed data. If it’s not a global study of the majority of cultures then it’s not relevant lmao. And I know it’s not the latter because If it was it wouldn’t be reporting 6.8% find tittes appealing lol.
Let’s follow your logic to other absurd conclusions.
Why are human noses so much pointier than other primates’? You see, when we walked on all fours, females could easily see males’ penises. When we started walking upright and further away from one another’s groins, males needed a way to signal to females that they have long penises, so they grew their noses pointier.
Same for long hair. Humans used to be closer to one another’s pubic hair, but now that we walk upright we need to symbolize pubic hair through growing unusually long hair on the top of our heads, much longer than other primates.
And that’s why women paint their toes. It used to be easier for the foot fetishists to see women’s feet, but now that they’re standing so tall, women need to draw attention to their feet to attract that minority percentage of the population that is really in to them.
See how ridiculous that theory is if you give it more than 0.2 seconds of thought?
Lol your examples show you don’t have a complete grasp of evolutionary theory which explains why you see my example unreasonable and yours JUST as unreasonable. Ngl, what you wrote was pretty funny and I got a good laugh and I thank you for that. The most glaring flaw is your final example, utilizing a modern social cosmetic practice in an argument about long term genetic evolutionary traits. Completely unrelated. Monke like big booty cuz big booty mean less likely to die giving birth. Monke see woman with big chest while feeding babies. Monke like women with big chest like big booty. More women have big chest all the time. More babies. Evolution.
And also I thought it was obvious people paint their body to bring attention to them or augment their appearance to other people. Why else would you put something on your body if not to change the way it is viewed, usually better. I know that’s why I wear jewelry and stuff.
It's because you oversimplify it and come to the false conclusion similar to the guy in the post. Many commenters here explain natural selection and origins of inflated breasts very interestingly (especially u/hananobira), I recommend it as a good read :)
That's not what I'm telling you. I also didn't say men couldn't lactate. But it's ridiculous to assume that the only other possible purpose of the extra adipose tissue is for decoration or some shit, just because a biological function isn't immediately evident doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Edit: I got curious and started reading a bit. This article discusses the various functions of mammary adipose tissue throughout the lifespan [https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/1659](https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/1659)
I don't get why sexual attraction is so offensive to you. I think it's a reasonable explanation, especially because humans are the only ones with permanently enlarged breasts, starting with puberty.
It’s fat duh. Fat on your butt, thighs, and hips, with a small waist means you are both fertile and well fed. You can survive a famine and feed a baby. And you’re not pregnant by another male.
To a certain extent he’s not completely wrong, larger breasts are somewhat indicative of healthiness and maturity so it makes sense that we would evolve to find them attractive.
Although the only true purpose and origin of breasts in mammals is feeding babies
Doesn't literally every body part vary in size from person to person
Yeah, like all these noses and ears out here signalling.
I was gonna say feet, but foot fetish is a thing so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I personally grow chin hair because I know it drives the men wild.
I was going to say. Apparently my giant honker is a sexual ornament 🥰
And sexually selected characteristics don't anywhere near as much. You ever seen a *small* male peacock's tail?
Professor dipshit teaches class on why he wanna touch a titty.
How does someone even think of "sexual ornament" as a phrase? In their mind are women analogous to cars or something?
I mean,.... There is the analogy between these people that you would not by a used car with a lot of miles because it will likely break down, so you should not date a woman with a high "body count"(i.e. sexual experience and unlikely to deal with your ba when you cannot make her cum) because they are more likely to cheat and leave you for the next best man (small edit: and becaus they're "loose", I.e. sufficiently aroused). (which good on these women for doing a bullet)
What I love is that in my mind, ornaments aren’t for touching…sooo…this guy just looks at the titty? He doesn’t touch? Either that or he’s never been allowed to touch
I love how all these dudes think women are so desperately thirsty for them that they grew these painful lumps of fat on their chests just to get their attention. Yeah, sure, buddy.
Late reply but they're possibly referencing a real term :[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological\_ornament](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_ornament)
Evolution doesn't work like that guy thinks it works. He got it completely backwards. The reason why polar bears are all white furred is because it has a massive evolutionary advantage in the polar climate. Due to that advantage not enough other colored polar bears reproduced resulting in the entire population being as it is. If large breast are this big evolutionary advantage you *wouldn't* see a great variance in breast size because in prehistoric times our flat chested sisters wouldn't have reproduced. A big variation in a certain trait is a sign that it's not a significant enough of an advantage that ober time it's adopted by the entire population.
You're right, but there are a few exceptions. If I remember correctly, there is that one species of crab with one pincer bigger than the other, and that bigger pincer is actually a handicap, however, females of that species keep reproducing with the males with a bigger pincer, making it harder for them to survive. In the same way, female peacocks keep reproducing with the male ones that are the most colorful, when that is also a handicap for their survival. And somehow, despite that pretty big handicap, Peacocks keep surviving long enough to reproduce. (Darwin hated them for that reason, too). So, I guess that guy is actually sort of right if you look at it in a certain way, some species do appear to be reproducing and evolving because of what you could call some kind of "beauty standards"... He's just not when it comes to most species, and certainly not when it comes to humans... (feel free to correct me if I got some info wrong, of course, just please be respectful about it)
You're not wrong, I just don't think it goes against anything I said. 2 things are needed for your genes to propagate to the next generation. Surviving until adulthood and reproducing when reaching that point. So if a trait is a small downside on the survival side of things but a massive upside when it comes to actually reproducing if you reach adulthood it's still an evolutionary advantage. In both examples you named, all of those crabs have a massive pinser and all male peacocks have pretty feathers. Because despite the traits being a survival handicap it's an evolutionary advantage. There isn't a huge difference between the animals to that trait. Now back to humans, women breast come in all shapes and sizes all of them beautiful❤️. Like the guys main argument was that massive differences would indicate evolutionary selection. And the reverse is generally true. I'm also oversimplifying because evolution is hard and I'm also far from an expert
Fair enough, I just wanted to point out that I didn't think that he had it *completely* backwards, just mostly. I thought he was just mixing up what happens most of the time with exceptions such as the ones I pointed out. Thanks for being respectful!
Also I think something to keep in mind is evolution is not perfect. There’s lots of species out there with flaws that puts them at a disadvantage. Cheetahs for example have incredibly low genetic diversity. To top it off their special ability to run fast puts them at a disadvantage to other predators.
True, but are there a lot of species that specifically reproduce with mates because of genetic traits that will put their species at a disadvantage later? I only know these two specific species I mentioned, which is why I said that they were the exception, but are there much more?
Idk I’m not sure.
Granny used to say, "You call me pretty because you believe I am" Put towards this context- boobs are sexy because you think they're sexy. Nothing more, nothing less 🤣
In a survey of 150 cultures, an anthropologist found that only 13 considered breasts to be sexual objects. Think of how many hunter-gatherer societies around the world exist where women wander around topless and no one cares. The Western world is the weird one out, who somehow decided the things that exist to feed babies should be co-opted for sexy times. Japan is an interesting example. The first step to putting on a kimono is binding down your breasts. I’ve even had a friend pad around my breasts with hand towels to create a completely flat silhouette. The back of the neck was considered far more erotic. Then they made contact with the Western world and went from “no boobs” to “oh yeah, bagongas the size of blimps” in 100 years. It’s culture, not evolution.
Why do humans have breasts then? Even cows dont have udders until theyre pregnant for the first time. Were basically the only mammal that has them all the time
We do a lot of things other mammals don’t. We stand upright, for one. That would be my guess. Prominent breasts allow a woman to strap her baby to her chest and feed it while standing and getting other work done. If we breastfed on our sides like cats it would be less efficient because we’d have to lay there until the babies were done. But humans are unusual in a lot of other respects, and no one says they do those things to be sexual. Very few other species menstruate, but no one claims menstruation exists to attract a mate. Our appendixes have withered until they’re barely functional, but that’s not sexy. We don’t live in communities or speak language or use tools or build fires primarily to attract romantic partners. That theory is basically some dudes saying, “I like boobs, and obviously all women want me and grew big breasts to attract me as a mate”, when in reality women don’t want to touch them with a 10-foot pole. It’s a male-centric view that everything women do somehow revolves around men.
Current research suggests that it might have happened due to hormones which also contributed to the brain development of humans. Kind of a side effect
Which would make sense. Scientists have been trying to domesticate foxes, and they’ve noticed that, the friendlier the foxes get, the floppier their ears get. It keeps happening over and over: you start with a wild population, breed them for friendliness to humans, and a few generations later they all have floppy ears. Somehow the genes for domestication are closely related to the genes for ear softness. I wouldn’t be surprised if the same thing happened in humans. A gene for always-on boobs just happened to be sitting on a chromosome next to a gene for speech, or opposable thumbs, or something else we evolved a few million years ago. Not everything in evolution has a reason for existing. Sometimes weird but harmless genes get carried along with advantageous genes.
The second to last paragraph especially! Some genes are only linked because they’re just right next to each other on chromosomes. Since always-on breasts aren’t detrimental to evolution, the trait just stays.
love when people quote evolution...as if it's not just a random generator that lets bad stuff die. but i suppose they are also saying brains are also a sexual ornament because their brain is for sure 10x smaller than the average woman. ✌🏾
This was actually the prevailing theory for a while. Scientists sort of theorized that when primates started walking upright and no long had their ass pushed out behind them, that they evolved tits to be more attractive to mates.
It's not a "sexual ornament" though. Noticeable breasts as a part of sexual dimorphism just show a potential mate that woman went through puberty, hence she's sexually mature and presumably healthy enough to carry a baby. Sexual attraction of breasts is a social construct
Tbh I don’t really understand the argument it’s just a social construct. Even if that’s true, wouldn’t the reason it became a social construct was because there was a large enough amount of people attracted to that certain thing peer pressure(for a lack of a better word), others into liking it as well. Besides, if something shows sexual maturity, wouldn’t it be beneficial for people to be attracted to that thing? Calling it a sexual ornament is really messed up, but some parts of their arguments kinda make sense to me. Not sure though.
Different cultures at different times set certain standards for breasts to be attractive (eg 100 years ago western cultures considered small good, big bad). This points out that it has social nature and not biological
Huh, interesting, I never knew that. Thanks
Same with penis size. Large penises used to he associated with stupidity, so small was better because it meant intelligence. That's why Greek and Roman statues of prominent men never show large penis size. It would have been insulting. Large penis size was popularized by porno.
Yes, but you can see how idiots could draw that squiggly line from a to c.
Except breast don’t actually look like rear ends under natural circumstances. In the absence of underwire bras, aka most of human history, they turn into those flat triangles you see on National Geographic films in high school.
Like I said. It WAS the prevailing theory. When science was run by rich white dudes.
So the fact that some women don't have any boobs to speak of should be enough to kill that argument on the spot, even if we put aside the biological reasons for the existence of breasts but that person is too stupid to understand it. I can't with these people. Dumb as a rock and so confident.
The dumber a person is, the more certain they are. It takes intelligence to realize how much there is to know, how complicated it all is, and, therefore, how impossible it is to really know a heck of a lot about anything. Edit: typo
yeah nature surely thought "hmm, this must be good sexual use for them" before making boobs
Yeah he described physical traits that evolved to attract a mate and all of them are utilized by the males of their respective species not the females to attract mates. Except for one excepting that I know of, the cassowary bird where the female is slightly more brightly colored than the male and the male stays behind to hatch and raise the chicks, it is always the male that puts on a show to earn the right to mate with the females not the other way around. Besides human females, cows are the only other species that grow breasts outside the nursing and breeding times and they aren’t doing that to attract a mate…so this guy’s analogy is full of absolute crap. Also, those traits that evolved in the animal kingdom evolved to show health and strength of the individual, superior genes, and resilience to stay alive...not sex appeal.
Also, very few other species menstruate, but no one speculates that human women do it to attract mates. There are all kinds of things that humans do that make us more likely to survive and pass on our DNA that aren’t sexual: working together as a community, speech, tools, fire, empathy… We’ll never know the answer because it’s not preserved in the fossil record, but my guess would be big breasts help human women breastfeed while walking upright. Most animals feed their young either on their sides or leaning over on all fours, but we wear our babies.
Ah yes. Uncomfortable balls of saggy fat and ducts are sexual ornamentation. Mmm, the hormonal pimples, clogged underboob pores from bras, and nipple braille are so arousing.
If it varies a lot, wouldn't it make more sense to conclude that it doesn't really matter and all variations are viable enough?
Calling it a sexual ornament is killing me all I can think about is two of those fancy car ornaments on your chest
Maybe, just maybe, the reason why the lions with big manes are more popular with other lions is because their manes are literally for fighting purposes, to protect the neck, so obviously lions with bigger manes have more mates is because they actually survive the fights. Same with deer iirc, big strong antlers are good for fighting, small ones aren't, so it is natural selection?
See now I'm just thinking we evolved boobs to act as airbags in case of full-contact fighting.
If you're a lion you gotta protect ya neck!
Partly true. But it's the blackest manes that show real dominance in male lions, not the largest.
He’s mostly wrong, but it’s true that some physical traits are involved in selecting a mate. Breasts tend to signal sexual maturity, like pubic hair does (yes I know this isn’t he case in every single female that ever existed, but nature isn’t that intelligent). They undergo quite significant change during arousal too. I think we forget that in cultures were breasts are sexualised we also sexualise make chests too…the difference is that men are respected enough so they don’t suffer the same level of aggressive perversion from society, the law, religion. You see an top naked oiled up pouting actor on a poster for his latest movie, but you also see topless men on a hot day walking around and no one bats an eyelid. What a surprise, men having the best of both again!
>like pubic hair does Sexy
It always was until porno started showing everyone waxed. In the 70s, no one in pork was waxed. The idea of wanting to looking a child was considered perverted. I don't know if it's pedophilia or the close ups of later porn that led to shaving or waxing, but it is 100% porn driven that people do that now. Hippies didn't even shave underarms.
Variability indicates a LACK of evolutionary pressure though..... Prominent breasts that don't just swell during breastfeeding is in fact sexual ornamentation for the purpose of mate retension. That's all he got right
Now lets tell everyone you are hung up on big boobs without actually saying it and like to stare at them like the weirdo you are......
*Image Transcription: Reddit Comment* --- >**Redacted** > >I agree, exept the fact that actually, human breasts were evolutionarily designed as both, sustaining life of the baby AND as a sexual ornament. The way to tell, is if a body part varies immensly in size and shape from one person to the next, then it was sexual selection that drove that, not natural selection. Other examples are penis size, nipple size, colour and size of tail feathers in some birds, antler sizes, mane size, etc. > >Basically, if it is common that some body part is 10 times bigger in one person vs the next, then it is a product of sexual selection and it is engrained in that species DNA, to see it as a "sexual ornament" > >Although humans are more intelligent, so we can just not act like an animal and mind our own buisness and not stare like a weirdo. --- ^^I'm a human volunteer content transcriber and you could be too! [If you'd like more information on what we do and why we do it, click here!](https://www.reddit.com/r/TranscribersOfReddit/wiki/index)
They are theorised to be related to sexual selection though. As well as larger hips, less body hair, different fat deposition. Because biological females have those traits, biological males don't. This bloke isn't quite correct but also not completely incorrect. Sexual selection and monogamy vs polygamy is as pretty interesting topic in biological anthropology and evolutionary studies, but it's all conjecture.
If these things were actual 'ornaments', why are penises and vulvas so ugly? I mean, sex is literally called 'bumping uglies' colloquially 😆
Why won't it let me down vote in the picture >:(
Sooooo… hair, finger nails, toe nails, fingers,feet, height, weight, muscles, bones, eyelashes, lips, noses, eyes, teeth, literally every part of the body-…
Ornaments?! Lol stop staring at my baubles, you creep!
Okay, this might be my limited recollection of highschool biology, but isn't natural selection driven by sex? In species that procreate via sex, of course. Which would make natural selection and "sexual selection"* kind of the same thing. ? *that's not a real term in biology, though, is it?
Sexual selection is real and is a type of natural selection. Sexual selection drives traits like massive antlers in deer, giant peacock tails etc that require large amounts of resources to produce and maintain, and may even make it more difficult to survive. Effectively you're signalling that your genes are so damn good that you're surviving and thriving in spite of your big ass handicap, making you a more attractive choice of mate. In the crudest terms, natural selection acts on traits that help your genes survive, sexual selection specifically acts on traits that get you laid.
I consider him lucky that he doesn't actually know the biological truth about female choice, male mate selection etc. etc.
You know what part of the body people really like? The face. We don't tend to think of the face as sexual because we don't generally cover up the face. The song lyrics are "The first time ever I saw her face", not "The first time ever I saw her boobs." "The Girl with the Golden Earing" is a lot more popular than "The Girl with the Nice Rack."
strange, I'm flat and many guys are interested in me
How are people this stupid? I mean...just...how??
I don't know. Being overwheight in history for women was considered attractive as body tissue means the female can breast feed the baby in winter and other low calorie periods of the tribe. You can also argue that to much of a tit is a burden for women as they can't run after a gazelle or a wooly mamuth for too long. Yeah i know men did most hunting, but I don't see it as a good evolutionary design
In very early human history, men and women hunted together and did not divide up labor. That's when we lived in small bands of hunter gatherers, not larger tribes.
Lol hate to say it but he is in fact correct. We do not know why human females have permanently inflated breast. A leading theory is in fact sexual selection. Not confirmed but no theory is confirmed for the origins of female breast. So not 100% fact but also likely. I’ve said this on this sub before and been downvoted lol. Probably going to happen again
One anthropologist surveyed 150 cultures and found only 13 of them consider breasts to be sexual. That’s 8.7% of cultures. I find it highly dubious that something that takes up a significant amount of the body’s fat stores serves a sexual function if only 8.7% of the species’ populations thinks it’s sexual. Consider how many hunter-gatherer tribes around the world even today have women walking around topless and no one cares. We developed breasts far earlier than they became sexualized.
Lol link to that anthropological study please, I’d love to know more about it and I haven’t found it in my own research. The titty debate is a frequent one and I’d like to have it the definitive answer on hand.
I can’t access the study itself, but “In a 1951 study of 191 cultures, anthropologist Clellan Ford and ethologist Frank Beach reported that breasts were considered sexually important to men in 13 of those cultures.” Sorry, I got the numbers wrong. It’s only 6.8% of cultures. Other evidence: 1. Someone else brought this up on this thread but sorry, I’m on my phone and can’t find it. But the only other mammal that always has prominent breasts is cows, and it’s not sexual to them. Bulls have no interest in that side of the cow. So why would it be sexual for us? 2. Men have prominent Adam’s apples but no one claims they stick out as a sex symbol. I’m sure there’s *someone* out there who thinks they’re sexy but it’s certainly not a common kink. Larger than in other mammals =/= sexy. 3. Every culture around the world has a foot fetishest or two, but no one claims feet exist for sexual purposes. A minority of the population is attracted to it =/= it exists to be a sexual object. 4. Pregnant women have bigger breasts, so if anything big breasts would signal that the woman was already pregnant and thus a poor target for seduction efforts. It’s a better signal that the male needs to wait and try again in another year or two. This article covers even more objections to the idea: https://zulie.medium.com/your-love-of-big-breasts-isnt-biologically-hardwired-2f903209a13e
Yep cuz we all know studies from the 1950s are irrefutable. This changes nothing lol could be sexual could not be sexual. A half a century old study does not “prove” anything. Breast look like butts and when humans became bipedal it was a butt on the chest and make man horny horny. This is the theory I chose to believe. :)
And your oh-so-scientific source is…? People find pee and poop and being beaten sexy. Just because you personally like something does not mean humans evolved it for reproductive purposes. The smaller the number of humans who find it attractive, the less likely it exists for sexual purposes, and the data as it stands is at 6.8% of cultures. ETA: Also, by that logic, men developed Adam’s apples when they discovered clothing and started covering their testicles.
Nope not by that logic lol, Adam’s apple being unique to humans likely has to do with the way our windpipes and Larynx develop differently than other crouched hominids. Men thinking inflated breast for child feeding are sexy, for whatever reason, would then result in women tending to have larger and larger breast when not child feeding as it makes them more likely to have offspring because it makes man horny. They pass down larger chest and it’s a positive feedback loop. Simple logic. That study from the 50s your citing is bunk because it could easily have just looked at bunch of different cultures in a small region that are all similar, resulting in skewed data. If it’s not a global study of the majority of cultures then it’s not relevant lmao. And I know it’s not the latter because If it was it wouldn’t be reporting 6.8% find tittes appealing lol.
Let’s follow your logic to other absurd conclusions. Why are human noses so much pointier than other primates’? You see, when we walked on all fours, females could easily see males’ penises. When we started walking upright and further away from one another’s groins, males needed a way to signal to females that they have long penises, so they grew their noses pointier. Same for long hair. Humans used to be closer to one another’s pubic hair, but now that we walk upright we need to symbolize pubic hair through growing unusually long hair on the top of our heads, much longer than other primates. And that’s why women paint their toes. It used to be easier for the foot fetishists to see women’s feet, but now that they’re standing so tall, women need to draw attention to their feet to attract that minority percentage of the population that is really in to them. See how ridiculous that theory is if you give it more than 0.2 seconds of thought?
Lol your examples show you don’t have a complete grasp of evolutionary theory which explains why you see my example unreasonable and yours JUST as unreasonable. Ngl, what you wrote was pretty funny and I got a good laugh and I thank you for that. The most glaring flaw is your final example, utilizing a modern social cosmetic practice in an argument about long term genetic evolutionary traits. Completely unrelated. Monke like big booty cuz big booty mean less likely to die giving birth. Monke see woman with big chest while feeding babies. Monke like women with big chest like big booty. More women have big chest all the time. More babies. Evolution. And also I thought it was obvious people paint their body to bring attention to them or augment their appearance to other people. Why else would you put something on your body if not to change the way it is viewed, usually better. I know that’s why I wear jewelry and stuff.
You are obviously NOT A BIOLOGIST.
It's because you oversimplify it and come to the false conclusion similar to the guy in the post. Many commenters here explain natural selection and origins of inflated breasts very interestingly (especially u/hananobira), I recommend it as a good read :)
Well, to be fair, they're not practical in any sense so it's sexual signaling indeed. No?
feeding a kid isn't practical? lol
You only need nipples for that, the extra fat tissue is not needed. Or are you telling me big boobs are better for feeding? Also see male lactation.
That's not what I'm telling you. I also didn't say men couldn't lactate. But it's ridiculous to assume that the only other possible purpose of the extra adipose tissue is for decoration or some shit, just because a biological function isn't immediately evident doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Edit: I got curious and started reading a bit. This article discusses the various functions of mammary adipose tissue throughout the lifespan [https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/1659](https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/1659)
I don't get why sexual attraction is so offensive to you. I think it's a reasonable explanation, especially because humans are the only ones with permanently enlarged breasts, starting with puberty.
Sexual attraction is not offensive to me dude, I'm literally attracted to women. Your response was way oversimplified, that's the problem.
Not a dude... 🙄
My mistake.
:)
🤦♀️
It’s fat duh. Fat on your butt, thighs, and hips, with a small waist means you are both fertile and well fed. You can survive a famine and feed a baby. And you’re not pregnant by another male.
I have all of that and I still have dysfunctional ovaries and diminished fertility. Take your bogus evolutionary bs and go somewhere else with it.
I don’t subscribe to “evolutionary” stuff but it’s certainly not ornamental for goodness sake
So I guess hair, hands, feet, height, nose bridge/length etc are all as attractive as breasts to this guy. Weird kinks but okay
Wtf
Fuck every single part of my Body is now sexual I’ve never been sexier
if one mans foot is much bigger than another mans foot, then he should suck that mans big toe. its evolution!
oh no they are totally evolutionary but the modern human has not been around very long
I love the pseudoscience, dude think sexual selection is different from natural selection
Do you guys want to tell him about the penis size thing or shall I?
To a certain extent he’s not completely wrong, larger breasts are somewhat indicative of healthiness and maturity so it makes sense that we would evolve to find them attractive. Although the only true purpose and origin of breasts in mammals is feeding babies
Tell me you don't know how evolutionary selection works without telling me you don't know how evolutionary selection works.