🇳🇱
Pugs with breathing problems due to the results of breeding, and woman with large breasts unable to run pain-free without a bra are the result of effectively the same process.
So why is one immoral and not the other? Why do people vocally discourage people from breeding pugs or other dogs with breeding issues but you'd never hear anyone claim women with large breasts shouldn't have children?
I'm not suggesting anything here myself either way. I'm simply posing the question and would like to hear the reasoning each of you might apply to rationalizing this discongruity.
@freemo breeding incolves 2 sets of genetics. Tour argument might be better to say that large breasted women should be discouraged from procreation with men with big breasts, or more correctly men from families where the women are larger breasted.
Of course, some large breasted women, are not genetically so but done so by surgery, no?
@Absinthe If a particular gene is harmful then you are better off eliminating it entierly (make sure you dont have even one set) so as to ensure the harmful expression of the gene doesnt crop up later.
@freemo true enough, but if large breasts were harmful, wouldn't such fall out of attractiveness? If men didn't find them attractive they wouldn't breed with them in the same way they don't breed with nonsymetric faced and those wirh other features that perhaps signal genetic or social weakness?
Are we better at marketing and changing the internal instincts? Perhaps in the way we can tap into the instinctual desire of sweet energy rich and nutrient dense fruit with less nutrient dense candies and processed products etc?
Certainly we are not actively breeding persons? Not match making those from the breast rich families with those of other breast rich families to create superbreasted offspring?
@Absinthe Just because something is harmful doesnt garuntee it would be unattractive, no.
But you are right that the breeding isnt forced, it happens naturally, but it can still be harmful despite this.
@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.
@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 I don't thing I am stretching much. I do believe rape as a means of procreation may happen. Afterall rape is a human concept. Other animals just call it procreation. If you are going back to solitary times it might even make sense with inter mixing of Neanderthal s. But humans have been culturally social out of necessity. Both marriarchially and patriarchially. However, with no estrus signal, rape is a highly inefficient method of procreation. Woman is only receptive to impregnation 3 days out of the cycle.
I just don't actually see genetically disadvantaged large breasted women. What I do see are high BMI and poorly nutritionned large breasted disadvantaged women.
If genetics predispose a woman to carry fat I her breast, that is for the advantage of maintaining mammary health and function. If she is maintaining so much fat that she cannot evade a male of her own species then she could no longer evade a predictor such as a cat or wolf. If she is carrying that much fat it is diet rather than genetics.
@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.