• BreadOven@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    5 months ago

    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.

    • billgamesh@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      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