Indeed.But they can be a bit of a nuisance - then I suppose men's dangly appendages can be inconvenient too
Indeed.But they can be a bit of a nuisance - then I suppose men's dangly appendages can be inconvenient too
Also breasts became sexually attractive when Homo Erectus started to walk upright.One of the scientists, I think Desmond Morris, wrote that in the course of the evolution of the human species, large breasts in women, not characteristic of primates in general, appeared as a device for the sexual attraction of males. It was argued that initially the buttocks were the most attractive part of the female body for men, and the breasts developed as if by analogy, i.e. there was a selection in this direction.
About the hanging appendages of men.Well they seem to have some gravitational effect on the eyes of males!
Seriously, the peculiar shape and size of human female breasts seem to puzzle scientists. Apart from feeding weans, they can also hang on to them, useful when we're swinging through trees I suppose. When they aren't full of milk, they are reserve stores of fatty stuff that may have been vital when food was short. And they (along with shapely butts etc.) evidently are attractive to males - maybe as evidence of fecundity and so good prospects for passing on their genes. But they can be a bit of a nuisance - then I suppose men's dangly appendages can be inconvenient too
One of the scientists, I think Desmond Morris, wrote that in the course of the evolution of the human species, large breasts in women, not characteristic of primates in general, appeared as a device for the sexual attraction of males. It was argued that initially the buttocks were the most attractive part of the female body for men, and the breasts developed as if by analogy, i.e. there was a selection in this direction.
But why? There seem to me to be a few possible explanations - maybe they're seen instinctively by men as evidence that we're ready and able to nourish babies (likewise broad hips, not so sure about the shapely bums though), or they trigger infant memories of their own mothers, or they show up pretty prominently even in low light, or they simply confirm that we're females!Also breasts became sexually attractive when Homo Erectus started to walk upright.
I think the "ready to have babies" thing is a rather stodgy biological hypothesis in evolutionary theory. Almost certainly, primitive humanoids and other animals knew they needed babies to survive. But how far does that go? I think having breasts might signal that here is a female who is "ready", but a lot of men these days are not looking for babies (at least, not right off the mark). And much of what constitutes a beautiful breast is determined by fashion trends and media, as well as a person's own sense of aesthetics and interpretation of beauty. And some of us, as has been seen, look at a pretty bottom as well (shows muscle tone and fitness - ability to escape predators perhaps? Or is it just nice to stroke or spank?). So, our perverse and diverse interests are probably not all down to biology.or they show up pretty prominently even in low light, or they simply confirm that we're females!
But why? There seem to me to be a few possible explanations - maybe they're seen instinctively by men as evidence that we're ready and able to nourish babies (likewise broad hips, not so sure about the shapely bums though), or they trigger infant memories of their own mothers, or they show up pretty prominently even in low light, or they simply confirm that we're females!
@elephas if it was Desmond Morris, I think in his day, large breasts were, well, the 'big thing' - but men's tastes in these matters seem to vary!
and all out of one spare rib!
The last one has quite the head of hair!