Women have breasts because some prehistoric dudes decided they were good. It’s literally biological. No other animal (or not many) has massive tiddies like humans. They’re definitely the result of sexual selection.
Well, again, it is just a hypothesis. Also “happening for long enough” isn’t necessarily how it works, for all you know it could have happened during a brief period and remained vestigial, assuming it even happened.
Being attracted to body parts is a fetish. I’m using a neutral definition of fetish, there is not an intended negative connotation. Research shows that the only thing that’s like, universally a turn on for people regardless of cultural context is people having sex or masturbating.
This is totally incorrect. Do you have any sort of sources for this? I’d love to see one.
Many cultures even today don’t “fetishize” breasts. If what you’re saying is correct, that shouldn’t be a thing.
I don’t know the exact evolutionary advantage of human breasts, but surely due to the production of milk that is supportive of the best growth for babies. That’s how natural selection works.
Also if your idea of “sexual selection” was correct, wouldn’t every woman have massive tits? All giraffes have long necks, don’t they?
It’s true that it’s not proven. What is true is that human breasts are weird and no one is sure why. The theory I most support is sexual selection because it looks like it’d be good for feeding babies
Many cultures even today don’t “fetishize” breasts
I didn’t say fetishize. Sexual selection just means it ihas informed decisions to mate
surely due to the production of milk that is supportive of the best growth for babies
You’d think this but apparently it’s not true. This is why I think it’s a sexual selection thing. Some stone age dude probably thought the same thing
if your idea of “sexual selection” was correct, wouldn’t every woman have massive tits
Humans are the only animal that have big tiddies when they aren’t nursing.
Sorry, I only used fetishizing because others were saying that. You did not say that. I sort of see what you’re saying, but I’m still not on board. Is there any sort of references to support this?
The milk production thing isn’t a thing? Maybe not breast size, but nipple size? Apparently that is a limiting factor for proper breast feeding (at least from what I’ve seen).
While humans are the only species (that I know of) who have the “big tiddys” (and goth GFs at that), if it was really a selective pressure, wouldn’t the distribution of breast sizes be much smaller than it is?
I realize my first post was a bit aggressive (sorry, thought you hadn’t thought out your opinion as well as you have, my fault), I’m not attacking your opinion, just curious.
It’s more like, other animals don’t have breasts at all when they aren’t lactating. No specific sources to suggest it’s sexual selection, I heard it somewhere. I like watching videos about archaeology but it’s not my field. Breasts don’t really fossilize, so don’t think we’ll ever know for sure. Idk about nipple size, but yeah too small isn’t great.
To clarify, I’m not saying specifically large breasts were selected for but that the fact humans have breasts at all suggests it’s at least a secondary sex charactaristic (like beards) and I don’t think it benefits fitness in other ways
edit: Probably saying “big tiddies” was not the right way to put that
Women have breasts because some prehistoric dudes decided they were good. It’s literally biological. No other animal (or not many) has massive tiddies like humans. They’re definitely the result of sexual selection.
TIL sexual selection had nothing to do with social conditions, and cultures that do not fetishize breasts don’t exist. /s
Seriously think it through for like one second, christ. Also the sexual selection hypothesis isn’t proven lol
If the social conditions have existed for long enough to have an evolutionary effect, what’s the difference?
And as another commenter mentioned you don’t need to fetishize breasts to be attracted to them.
Well, again, it is just a hypothesis. Also “happening for long enough” isn’t necessarily how it works, for all you know it could have happened during a brief period and remained vestigial, assuming it even happened.
Being attracted to body parts is a fetish. I’m using a neutral definition of fetish, there is not an intended negative connotation. Research shows that the only thing that’s like, universally a turn on for people regardless of cultural context is people having sex or masturbating.
This is totally incorrect. Do you have any sort of sources for this? I’d love to see one.
Many cultures even today don’t “fetishize” breasts. If what you’re saying is correct, that shouldn’t be a thing.
I don’t know the exact evolutionary advantage of human breasts, but surely due to the production of milk that is supportive of the best growth for babies. That’s how natural selection works.
Also if your idea of “sexual selection” was correct, wouldn’t every woman have massive tits? All giraffes have long necks, don’t they?
It’s true that it’s not proven. What is true is that human breasts are weird and no one is sure why. The theory I most support is sexual selection because it looks like it’d be good for feeding babies
I didn’t say fetishize. Sexual selection just means it ihas informed decisions to mate
You’d think this but apparently it’s not true. This is why I think it’s a sexual selection thing. Some stone age dude probably thought the same thing
Humans are the only animal that have big tiddies when they aren’t nursing.
Sorry, I only used fetishizing because others were saying that. You did not say that. I sort of see what you’re saying, but I’m still not on board. Is there any sort of references to support this?
The milk production thing isn’t a thing? Maybe not breast size, but nipple size? Apparently that is a limiting factor for proper breast feeding (at least from what I’ve seen).
While humans are the only species (that I know of) who have the “big tiddys” (and goth GFs at that), if it was really a selective pressure, wouldn’t the distribution of breast sizes be much smaller than it is?
I realize my first post was a bit aggressive (sorry, thought you hadn’t thought out your opinion as well as you have, my fault), I’m not attacking your opinion, just curious.
It’s more like, other animals don’t have breasts at all when they aren’t lactating. No specific sources to suggest it’s sexual selection, I heard it somewhere. I like watching videos about archaeology but it’s not my field. Breasts don’t really fossilize, so don’t think we’ll ever know for sure. Idk about nipple size, but yeah too small isn’t great.
To clarify, I’m not saying specifically large breasts were selected for but that the fact humans have breasts at all suggests it’s at least a secondary sex charactaristic (like beards) and I don’t think it benefits fitness in other ways
edit: Probably saying “big tiddies” was not the right way to put that