@freemo I have thought about this. I think the attractiveness of breasts probably come as indication of nubileness or fertility. Perhaps if a little is good a lot can be better, or perhaps an increase in size shows additional health or nutrient based strength. So someone with developed breasts could be fertile and with additional size perhaps more likely to successfully bring a child to term. This works in nature, but in our current reality it is easy to provide an abundance to calories.

We have evolved to a point where we have overcome our instinctual pointers. The benefits of our instincts is broken. Perhaps those instincts need to be curbed (evolved to newer ones). How do we evolved new instincts?

@Absinthe Yet humans are the only speciesa that have engorged breasts prior to bearing a baby, not even chimps have that.

@freemo chimps can't swim either because they don't carry enough body fat to be boyant :)

Human women can also choose to mate outside of estrus, and refuse to do so during estrus. That suggests that women are more evolved.

We don't process pheromones so either our instincts are towards estrus recognition may be why monogamy comes into play. Or perhaps polyamory depending how you might look at it.

@Absinthe Video of a chimpanzee swimming: https://youtu.be/q2vekGuV8xA

@freemo wow he does better than I do, I stand corrected.

@Absinthe But the point here is simply that sometimes we dont evolve things that are to our advantage, sometimes it is simply for sexual selection. Or it could be for archaic reasons.

For example it is possible women evolved larger breasts in caveman days simply because women with bigger breasts had a harder time running and thus were raped more often, so it became more common. It may have signaled to a man an easier to rape woman and thus selected for.

In the modern age we would see it as negative of course even if to the mechanics of evolution it may seem to be selected for.

@freemo I am not feeling that idea.. indication of. Excess fat, once again, needing to be above 17% would be a visible indication of fertility and healthfully nutritionned mate

@Absinthe If that were all it was then why dont other animals have breasts to signal they are healthy in a similar way.

But animals dont walk upright, so larger breasts wouldnt significantly prevent their ability to escape rape (Since breasts are below their body along their center of gravity).

Moreover, we can easily see someones body fat regardless of breast size, so the breasts dont really help in that regard anyway.

@freemo each animal has its signals. Why couldn't they be unique for one species? Not all apes present color change in their buttocks. Why don't humans have working vomeronasal organs?

@Absinthe What is unique here is not that we have some arbitrary form to signal our sexual interest (breasts). bur rather that it has negative impact on the health of our women, something that is quite odd.

Most sexual signaling either has no harm or benefit in and of itself, or also serves to have some beneficial aspect (for example with apes enlarged buttox has a functional advantage).

Now why this is unique in humans is a matter of speculation but I offer its because in the past rape was common among humans and thus acted as a signaling pathway, which now as we are a more evolved species is no longer a positive thing but rather fairly negative. But it is simply that our minds evolved quicker than our sexual signaling.

@freemo I would be hard-pressed to believe this due to the nutritional requirement to maintain such breast size. In addition it gives the appearance of larger size giving a defensive purpose nor in similar to hackles on a dog. The presence of protrusive breasts and lack thereof do also indicate proper hormonal levels as evidenced by gynomastia in men, and precocious puberty in young girls. Perhaps the hormones we inject into our dairy and need may have more to do with large breasts sizes, not to mention general obesiry. Women do carry their fat deposits in different places than men so weight gain would certainly increase breast size.. not necessarily genetic other than the disposition of fat cells in such area likely to protect such glandular tissue as mammaries. Far itself being a storage of energy and nutrition can also aid in the production of milk even when lacking caloric intake.

@Absinthe There isnt any more nutritional requirement to maintain breasts size, almost none. Genes for breasts merely divert fat deposits that would otherwise go to other parts of the body to the breasts. Its just a redistribution.

@freemo but the fat itself has to be maintained at the rate of 3500 calories per pound.

@Absinthe So its the same fat they would have had in their belly, just moved to their breasts, So it is no high a cost than it was before

@freemo no higher cost than fat anywhere else but a high cost to maintain none the less. Again I thing the larger sizes such that back involvement is effected has more to do with diet and society

@Absinthe No it has zero cost to concentrate fat from the stomach to the breasts, persuming overall fat on the body is unchanged... 0.

You do realize when a woman with large breasts starves she looses the fat from her breasts just as a person with fat in their tummy would. The cost is the same, the process is the same, only the location is different.

@freemo I am saying maintaining any amount of fat regardless of where it is carried. In caveman times one would do well to carry fat at all. If women were carrying enough fat to have their breasts as an impediment, they would be is such a nutritional advantage that fighting off unwanted advances would be with the upper hand. They would be more likely to be weak due to iron deficiency than caloric issues but that is a whole different book

@Absinthe It feels like your really stretching to try to justify a specific line of thinking, perhaps because you have some aversion to the impications of rape being an inherent quality of cavemen humans.

The fact is, humans **do** need to carry fat, if we didnt then we wouldnt. We carry fat because despite the additional energy it costs we need an emergency store of energy we can call on during the winter or other times where food is scarce. So there is a biological need to maintain fat.

Since we are rtetaining fat anyway, and there is a need to do so, then causing that fat to be focused in one area over another has no additional caloric costs associated with it, especially considering that breast fat can be lost like tummy fat and serves much the same functional role

@freemo they have other things like colors and sizes and ability to do feats such as sound creating by pecking, or croaking and so forth.

@freemo I would argue that women have bulbous breasts, but not by engorgement unless they are lactating..

Perhaps, the appearance of pregnancy may be a visible proof of fertility, an as such appearances might take the place of estrus recognition.

@Absinthe well thats just a matter of semantics. Point is, chimps and no other animals have "bulbous" breasts prior to child bearing.

So whatever you want to call it, it is very unique to humans.

@freemo i have seen it argued that the shape mimics the buttocks, though most humans I've met don't present with inflamed red buttocks to signal estrus either. Too bad though, might have made high school dating less confusing.

@Absinthe Butts arent equivelant because they serve a functional need. Unlike breasts which do not have a function need prior to child birth.

@freemo and what purpose do they serve on males?

@freemo to have color change serves no other purpose than to signal receptiveness that I can tell

@Absinthe Yes, but again the color change has no negative impact, therefore it is not unusual nor comparable to women with large breasts to the point of back problems.

@freemo one might argue that large breasts to the result of back problem may have more to do with artificially supporting them, as gravity would change their shape more quickly over time otherwise. Look at some of the other non-braziered cultures' images 'cultural nudity'. Other aspect of the back problems do come from social shame of the early bloomer modifying posture in youth to minimize the appearance.

@Absinthe That would be a fair point, except women who have back problems have those problems with or without a bra. In fact a bra would raise the center of gravity and add more strain on the lower back

Ther eis a valid counter-point to the rape explanation, but it only goes so far.

We could argue that it plays a similar role to enlarging butts, that is, it is a secondary sex characteristic that signals to males a woman is ready for sex and the ability to bear children.

While this is likely true, and partly a pressure for breast growth it doesnt explain why it was able to evolve to the point of causing physical harm, which brings us back to the original problem (And thus why rape is still likely an element as far as I can see)

@freemo I disagree with you on the bra thing. I also don't feel the breast size is necessarily all genetic, but more likely due to what we have done to our food supply and eating practices. I would say that in most cases I have seen women with large breasts that are carrying fat other places as well. Or they are surgically augmented.

@freemo the argument is not that lifting the breasts with a bra helps cog but that the weight of the hanging breast would displace the fat cells or cause elongation of the surrounding tissue thus lowering the cog

@Absinthe I could see that argument, but when ive read research on bra usage in the past (granted this was years ago) they did not find that using a bra preventing sagging in any way. Sagging is apparently a natural process that comes wiht age and occurs independent of bra usage.

@freemo sagging would be obviated by looking at cultures that don't wear them. Look at the Peruvian and other 'cultural nudity' images. The nubile girls will have protruding breasts then as they age they lay flatter and hang. Bras are intended to make post nubile women look like nubile pubescent girls. We do and have done all sorts of unnatural things to female bodies, from foot binding, to corsetting, to fgm .. probably because there is no signaling of estrus and women can reduce congress even when they are in estrus. That itself probably due to the long gestation and increased size of the human brain leading to the likelihood of death during pregnancy.

@Absinthe Anexdotal evidence, I know plenty of old women in societies who wear bras that sag just as much.

I think you may have a misconception because in our societies breast implants are far more command (And rarely admitted to) as compared to tribal societies. Then there is also the question of genetic tendency between the two groups.

I think if you want to make that case and convince me youll have to show a peer reviewed study with some controls. While I dont remember where i got the info from I do know i originally read it in a peer reviewed study which im much more likely to believe than anecdotal evidence like you suggest.

@freemo this was fun. I am not sure we have any further to go on it. Civilization has taken us so far out of what natural progressions would have done it is hard to tell some things. Probably why the popularity of the distopian realities has the popularity that it does.

Anyway, I would like to get your opinion on a book if I can find an esbn. That would be indirectly related

@Absinthe sure, was a fun exploration of ideas

@freemo Leonard Shlain
Sex, Time, and Power: How Women's Sexuality Shaped Human Evolution