From an evolutionary perspective, why do women have bosoms?

[rootX]

Why the inserted words "with small boobs"??

I should have used "without boobs".

 

[WhoWee]

The men who do prefer completely flat chested are more likely just pedophiles.

Or perhaps they fell in love with the person - who is so equipped?

 

[tyroman]

From;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_figurines

"The female figures, as part of Upper Palaeolithic portable art, appear to have no practical use in the context of subsistence. They are mostly discovered in settlement contexts, both in open-air sites and caves; burial contexts are much more rare."

Yeah, let's bury him with his Playboy collection! LOL

 

[junglebeast]

Or perhaps they fell in love with the person - who is so equipped?

Sure, a man can fall in love with a flat chested girl...but my statement was only in regards to men who "prefer [women] completely flat chested." I suppose you could argue that some men develop a preference for flat chested women because it reminds them of a former lover who was flat chested, but that's a stretch...

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I think its sad to for somebody to think that attraction is a byproduct of society. You can't teach someone to be attracted to specific features.

I can't speak to the sadness issue, but the specific features that attract are different in different societies. The Japanese male is attracted by the nape of a woman's neck. How can you explain that except that the attraction is learned?

 

[Proton Soup]

Sure, a man can fall in love with a flat chested girl...but my statement was only in regards to men who "prefer [women] completely flat chested." I suppose you could argue that some men develop a preference for flat chested women because it reminds them of a former lover who was flat chested, but that's a stretch...

sexuality is complicated. don't forget that some men may prefer women with more masculine features and vice versa. some are bisexual. and some have fetishes, perhaps based on some early imprinting.

 

[Moonbear]

Further, it makes a distinction between fertile women and infertile women, because a girl with lactating breasts has already had a baby, showing that she is capable of giving birth. Thus, being attracted to women with swollen boobs as opposed to the flat chested girls who can't seem to give birth may increase the rate of successful reproduction.

Unless I have completely misunderstood your post, are you suggesting that larger breasts are a sign of promiscuity? Otherwise, if you've already been successful at reproduction with SOME OTHER man, how is it a helpful indicator to a man who has not fathered her children?

I'm not actually saying you're wrong, just that's what comes to mind from your comments. Who knows...promiscuity may have been much more common and more desirable than monogamy sometime in the past to make it evolutionarily relevant...or at least serial monogamy. It's not that entirely far-fetched, as I think about it.

 

[junglebeast]

Unless I have completely misunderstood your post, are you suggesting that larger breasts are a sign of promiscuity? Otherwise, if you've already been successful at reproduction with SOME OTHER man, how is it a helpful indicator to a man who has not fathered her children?

Not so much promiscuity...

If a woman is breastfeeding, then she has successfully birthed a child (assuming she's not caretaking), thus her enlarged breasts are a sign of fertility. If other women are dying in childbirth due to being too small, having egg issues, or other things, then it may be evolutionarily advantageous for men to be attracted to women who have proven themselves to be fertile in this way. This could apply to other men, or to the same partner that gave her the first child.

Secondly, a man is more likely to stay with the female, protect and care for her and the child, if he remains attracted to her. Thus, it makes sense for a man to be attracted to the enlarged breasts of his mate for this other reason as well.

 

[billiards]

Obviously men do find breasts attractive, but I don't think it's particularly good evolutionary science to say "women evolved breasts because men found them attractive". I could accept a sort of iterative progression, a kind of feedback loop that propagated protruberances of the female chest involving stepwise increases in attractiveness related to fertility -- but according to the evidence presented in this post magnitude of breast is not the issue so why would the breast continue to grow beyond the critical "fertility level"?? Furthermore, if breast size really is an indicator of fertility (in mammals), then why haven't other animals evolved breasts by the same reasoning??

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Sure, a man can fall in love with a flat chested girl...but my statement was only in regards to men who "prefer [women] completely flat chested." I suppose you could argue that some men develop a preference for flat chested women because it reminds them of a former lover who was flat chested, but that's a stretch...

A flat chested woman can have other feminine features. I've personally found myself rather attracted to a couple of women in my past that were flat chested but had very wide hips (I'm not a breast man to begin with). The advantage small breasted / flat chested women have is that they do not really wind up with 'withered' or otherwise unattractive breasts.

...but according to the evidence presented in this post magnitude of breast is not the issue so why would the breast continue to grow beyond the critical "fertility level"?? Furthermore, if breast size really is an indicator of fertility (in mammals), then why haven't other animals evolved breasts by the same reasoning??

It was likely not so much an indicator of fertility but of health and fitness which have a positive correlation with fertility. A female's breasts increase in size if she gains weight which means she has a steady source of food and would make a good mate. A female's breasts can shrink/flatten if she is suffering from starvation, malnutrition, or even disease which all make the female a poor choice of mate.
Sooo.. males that found large breasted females attractive and mated with them were more likely to successfully reproduce passing on both the genes for females having larger breasts and the genes for males being attracted to larger breasts. So long as the size of the breasts remain good indicators of health, fitness, and fertility the genes will propagate more successfully. So long as the size of the female's breasts do not hinder her survivability and capacity to reproduce they will increase in size to be more successful at attracting a mate. The increased size need not have anything to do with functionality.
Other animals have utters and such but most species have their own sex characteristics for attracting mates such as long tail feathers, certain markings, a certain scent, ect ect. So they may not have developed breasts but they certainly developed something. Note also that most aesthetic sex characteristics have little to no survival value in and of themselves.

 

[Moonbear]

Not so much promiscuity...

If a woman is breastfeeding, then she has successfully birthed a child (assuming she's not caretaking), thus her enlarged breasts are a sign of fertility. If other women are dying in childbirth due to being too small, having egg issues, or other things, then it may be evolutionarily advantageous for men to be attracted to women who have proven themselves to be fertile in this way. This could apply to other men, or to the same partner that gave her the first child.

Secondly, a man is more likely to stay with the female, protect and care for her and the child, if he remains attracted to her. Thus, it makes sense for a man to be attracted to the enlarged breasts of his mate for this other reason as well.

I think there's a flaw in the reasoning here. In order for a woman to have become pregnant to develop the larger, more "attractive" breasts, she had to have attracted a man to get her pregnant the first time...when she still had small breasts.

And, actually, as women become more obese (and hence have much larger breasts), infertility increases.

Given the amount of variation there is in breast size, I don't think there really has been much selection for it at all beyond that there needs to be a minimum for feeding offspring (and even then, we've had several generations now where even that has not been necessary).

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

And, actually, as women become more obese (and hence have much larger breasts), infertility increases.

How many obese people do you think there were in prehistory?

Given the amount of variation there is in breast size, I don't think there really has been much selection for it at all beyond that there needs to be a minimum for feeding offspring (and even then, we've had several generations now where even that has not been necessary).

From what I understand greater variability of a characteristic among a species is a necessity for it to be successful and selected for. If just about any member of the species could be possessed of the characteristic to the same degree as any other it is no longer a useful indicator of anything and there is no reason to select for it.

 

[Hurkyl]

And, actually, as women become more obese (and hence have much larger breasts), infertility increases.

Hrm. If we're thinking along these lines, then shouldn't we note that obesity would correlate with surplus resources? This (along with the increase in infertility) would mean there is a need to increase how often humans mate.

 

[junglebeast]

I think there's a flaw in the reasoning here. In order for a woman to have become pregnant to develop the larger, more "attractive" breasts, she had to have attracted a man to get her pregnant the first time...when she still had small breasts.

Yes...but that's beside the point. The question was why women have breasts and why men are attracted to them. Nearly all women do have breasts which are larger than necessary for feeding offspring, and nearly all men (even those men who like small breasts) still find breasts to be attractive at some non-zero size.

And, actually, as women become more obese (and hence have much larger breasts), infertility increases.

But as has been already pointed out by someone else, men don't typically like such large breasts. And as I have pointed out twice, such large breasts would not have been selected for anyway, and are most likely a result of cultural changes rather than evolutionary selection.

Given the amount of variation there is in breast size, I don't think there really has been much selection for it at all beyond that there needs to be a minimum for feeding offspring (and even then, we've had several generations now where even that has not been necessary).

Not true, almost all women have a pronounced bosom, much more than the nearly flat chested girls which are perfectly capable of breast feeding.

Also, several generations of the option for store bought bottled cows milk is entirely insignificant to the evolution of breasts.

 

[Proton Soup]

I think there's a flaw in the reasoning here. In order for a woman to have become pregnant to develop the larger, more "attractive" breasts, she had to have attracted a man to get her pregnant the first time...when she still had small breasts.

of course, a young woman has no problems getting pregnant. youth is one of the things men prefer in a mate, and is the one thing all women try to preserve.

And, actually, as women become more obese (and hence have much larger breasts), infertility increases.

i doubt obesity was an issue for most prehistoric women. all the children to rear, starting sometime shortly after menarche, plus physical labor would keep the metabolic problems of sedentary obesity at bay. whatever extra fat she did gain would likely be seasonal.

 

[Math Is Hard]

i doubt obesity was an issue for most prehistoric women. all the children to rear, starting sometime shortly after menarche, plus physical labor would keep the metabolic problems of sedentary obesity at bay. whatever extra fat she did gain would likely be seasonal.

Or maybe due to a prosperous family. The buxom chick has the food access.

I think someone mentioned this before, but Desmond Morris opined that the boobs took over some of the sexual signaling that was the job of the female buttocks once we began to walk upright, Sort of a butt-on-the-chest thing. :)

I also seem to remember that he mentioned (or someone talking about his work did) that sexuality and taboo assigned to body parts still varies by culture. A U.S. or European woman caught nude will quickly cover her front, while in some African cultures, a woman caught nude will throw herself on her back to cover her buttocks.

 

[Jobrag]

Loren Booda #3 Men have nipples because as the foetus develops nipples start to grow before the gender of the child is determined.

Anything more then a handful (mouthful) is a waste.
Jobrag

 

[Nan]

It is societal today, rather than any sort of evolutionary trend or utility. DNA plays a large role in determining body shape, fat distributions, breast size, etc. What is attractive now is affected by fads and fashion, whether a woman or man pays attention to them and are influenced by them is the reason for different 'tastes' in what is attractive to them as individuals.

One can see in facial structure a lineage, in skin color, in body shape. A European woman will appear vastly different than an Asian woman. The characteristics extend beyond appearances to include the prevalence of particular diseases as inherited traits.

As our world becomes smaller, transportation available/easy and cheap; the former taboos absent of inter-racial marriages and breeding becoming more common, I suspect in the future, man/woman will appear more homogeneous and that is an evolutionary trend.

 

[Loren Booda]

If breasts' appearance were primarily to attract babies (of both genders), wouldn't woman as well as men have an obsession about them?

 

[Borek]

Furthermore, if breast size really is an indicator of fertility (in mammals), then why haven't other animals evolved breasts by the same reasoning??

Perhaps because human are erect, which makes breasts more visible.

 

[physicsdude30]

Obviously men do find breasts attractive, but I don't think it's particularly good evolutionary science to say "women evolved breasts because men found them attractive". I could accept a sort of iterative progression, a kind of feedback loop that propagated protruberances of the female chest involving stepwise increases in attractiveness related to fertility -- but according to the evidence presented in this post magnitude of breast is not the issue so why would the breast continue to grow beyond the critical "fertility level"?? Furthermore, if breast size really is an indicator of fertility (in mammals), then why haven't other animals evolved breasts by the same reasoning??

BOSOM SIZE AND ATTRACTIVENESS

I actually found an article that larger bosoms don't mean better looking, but rather there's an optimum peak at the top of a bell shaped curve for what men generally find most attractive. Too small, not good. Too large, not good. Not every man is the same, but there is a pattern for an optimum range. It's similar to how you hear about those fat/skinny women drawing studies, where women always think men prefer a full body shape a couple sizes skinnier than what drawing of women men really prefer. However, even men would vary in their responses in these studies.

One theory for why other animals don't have them is non-humans mostly only mate during fertility periods, while human couples mate all month long to form social intimate bonds that the others don't have. Some say that if breast do have to do with attraction, then that may be related to the reason for permanent breasts. Other apes only have breasts when nursing, but not during the other times, so some point to that. Many look at the fact that size/shape isn't related to potential for producing milk, but shape is related to fertility peak in life (although correlation doesn't necessarily prove causation from an evolutionary perspective). That's why I'm trying to get feedback on proposals on hypothetical studies to test the various hypotheses, just for sense of wonder sake.

 

[Borek]

promiscuity may have been much more common and more desirable than monogamy sometime in the past to make it evolutionarily relevant...or at least serial monogamy. It's not that entirely far-fetched, as I think about it.

Serial monogamy - in the worst case scenario - means no progeny due to genetical defects. My bet is that some promiscuity is programmed into women just to make their reproductive chances better (statsistics say that something like every tenth child is not a child of its 'legal' father).

Men are programmed to be much more promiscuous, but the logic behind seems to be a little bit different.

 

[physicsdude30]

That statement may be roughly true in general but I haven't seen convincing proof that a girl that is completely flat chested (no boobs at all) can produce just as much milk as a busty girl. I find that to be a dubious claim, as breastmilk is produced in the breast.

Regardless, the breasts will become enlarged during breast feeding, which is all that is required to make enlarged breasts a characteristic sign of femininity, especially when ancient women were talking around topless with suckling children all the time.

Further, it makes a distinction between fertile women and infertile women, because a girl with lactating breasts has already had a baby, showing that she is capable of giving birth. Thus, being attracted to women with swollen boobs as opposed to the flat chested girls who can't seem to give birth may increase the rate of successful reproduction.

Once men have evolved a desire for enlarged boobs, women may evolve larger boobs while not pregnant so as to attract those men that have developed the desire for large boobs.

And to recapitulate my stance on why modern men often do not seem to share this desire for "large boobs," I believe the reason is because ancient women had much more active lifestyles and did not eat so much, so a modern girl with the same genetic makeup as an ancient girl will have more breast fat (and overall) fat than the ancient girl, which we have developed an attraction for...because most men probably didn't evolve an attraction towards enormous boobs, but rather slightly enlarged boobs relative to other males.

You will find that even those men who typically say they prefer small boobs (such as myself) still do prefer there to be SOME boob...so they are not completely flat chested. The men who do prefer completely flat chested are more likely just pedophiles.

BREAST SIZE NOT RELATED TO MILK PRODUCTION POTENTIAL:

Something I found interesting, bosom size isn't related to amount of milk able to be produced. (http://ajol.info/index.php/nqjhm/article/view/12688 for one peer-review journal, plus there are many more peer-review journal articles that one can Google) How do we explain this? In addition, how do we explain why chimps and the other apes don't have permanent breasts, but only when they nurse their young? Regardless of what is true, if bosom size has a function other than the amount of milk a female can produce, then it would explain more empirical facts using less assumptions.

 

[Nan]

Men+women+logic does not equate. ;-)

 

[physicsdude30]

Or maybe due to a prosperous family. The buxom chick has the food access.

I think someone mentioned this before, but Desmond Morris opined that the boobs took over some of the sexual signaling that was the job of the female buttocks once we began to walk upright, Sort of a butt-on-the-chest thing. :)

I also seem to remember that he mentioned (or someone talking about his work did) that sexuality and taboo assigned to body parts still varies by culture. A U.S. or European woman caught nude will quickly cover her front, while in some African cultures, a woman caught nude will throw herself on her back to cover her buttocks.

I heard that too. I brainstormed an experiment to test the idea, such as below. I'm trying to think how to improve my experiment.

 

[physicsdude30]

I have heard of a more specific theory. When we were not standing yet, we were attracted by what we now could call "bottoms". The size of the female breasts developed (according to this theory) after we began to stand up. I unfortunately do not recall any reference, and I can not remember how credible this argument was. Maybe they did have bone quantitative indication to support this idea.

BREASTS RESEMBLING A BUTT HYPOTHESIS:

Yes, as Math Is Hard and some others have point out, Desmond Morris is responsible for that theory. In apes, males are attracted to the butt from behind, so some think the human bosom is meant to transfer over ancient attractions from an evolutionary standpoint. Although Wikipedia isn't a scholarly source, I found it interesting how it mentions this, and points out how many have discounted this theory because other apes have been spotted mating face to face even though they don't have prominent breasts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breast#Other_suggested_functions

I thought of an experiment to make the butt-breasts idea testable, or at least falsifiable even if not provable (like all Science is). Then in the end we can give credit to whatever bosom theory fits the evidence best. I'm curious what you think, or any improvements? :

My idea, we could have an experiment where male subjects look at a computer screen. The left side can have an actual word saying a woman's body part, and the right hand side can have a picture of another or same bare body part. At the bottom, the man has to click "Yes" or "No" and has to be as quick as possible in saying if they match each other. If the butt-breast hypothesis is true, we'd expect that when the word "breast" and the picture of the butt appear (or vice versa), their reaction time should on average take longer than when discriminating the other body parts from each other. This could make it possible to be falsified whether bosoms remind men too much about butts. Then researchers could do it in other societies to rule out possible bias created by the cleavage created by bras in western societies. Do you think something like this could be used to at least make it at the very least falsifiable, even if you can't prove?

 

[physicsdude30]

I can't speak to the sadness issue, but the specific features that attract are different in different societies. The Japanese male is attracted by the nape of a woman's neck. How can you explain that except that the attraction is learned?

jimmysnyder, I've heard that too. I have an idea for an experiment to test evolution versus culture below. I'm curious if you have any advice on how to make it a better study?

 

[physicsdude30]

It is societal today, rather than any sort of evolutionary trend or utility. DNA plays a large role in determining body shape, fat distributions, breast size, etc. What is attractive now is affected by fads and fashion, whether a woman or man pays attention to them and are influenced by them is the reason for different 'tastes' in what is attractive to them as individuals.

One can see in facial structure a lineage, in skin color, in body shape. A European woman will appear vastly different than an Asian woman. The characteristics extend beyond appearances to include the prevalence of particular diseases as inherited traits.

As our world becomes smaller, transportation available/easy and cheap; the former taboos absent of inter-racial marriages and breeding becoming more common, I suspect in the future, man/woman will appear more homogeneous and that is an evolutionary trend.

IS BOSOM ATTRACTIVENESS RELATED TO CULTURE, OR EVOLUTION, OR BOTH?

I've heard some point out that in some cultures thighs are considered immodest when exposed, but breasts normally are exposed (that's a big argument I heard in the debate). I thought of a way to test this. First, one thought to keep in mind is in some Islamic cultures, it's considered immodest for a woman's face to be exposed. However, in Western cultures they're not considered taboo, but regardless men here are still very attracted to woman faces. Bikinis at the beach are considered immodest in Islamic cultures, but not in many Western cultures. That doesn't mean men aren't attracted to bikinis in Western cultures, even if Western men avoid staring like perverts at the beach when the woman is looking just like men in those topless African cultures. It doesn't mean they're not attracted. Men in the U.S. still find thighs when woman wear shorts quite attractive, even if some cultures say legs are immodest but allow female toplessness (parts of Africa and other places). Many fertility goddesses of ancient societies were bare breasted. So how do we find out if there's any evolutionary relationship to bosom attractiveness, versus it being all cultural?

I have an idea. I wonder what your input is? As a quick analogy, to test the universality of recognizing many facial expressions, besides people blind from birth having some of these facial expressions, researchers went to the boonies and found much universality in many of the facial expressions, even if the intensity/social appropriateness varies greatly (China vs. Latin America for example). Similarily, what if we went to the boonies where everyone walks around in loin clothes? Instead of asking what's considered "immodest", what if researchers found male subjects and said, "I'm going to show you pictures of woman body parts, and you rate whether picture 1 or 2 is more attractive, and we'll go through a bunch of them"? Then researchers could show a picture of a woman's bosom versus back, then most of the other body parts, and mix it up. Although culture programs people what they may say in being socially acceptable, I know that there are also eye tracking devices researchers have to see where one's eyes move to. This could make it at the very least falsifiable to see if there's any evolutionary relationship outside of culture. Of course culture has some impact, but our question is there bosom fertility attraction outside of culture? Then what if we were to do the study I mentioned earlier about seeing if there's a correlation between bosom size/shape and the amount of money a man makes, while controlling for other variables, that could make it even more falsifiable?

Although you can't prove in Science, scientists typically say you can make the various theories falsifiable, then in the end go with the one that fits the evidence the best.

 

[Pythagorean]

Any more than a handful is a waste anyway.

 

[Nan]

IS BOSOM ATTRACTIVENESS RELATED TO CULTURE, OR EVOLUTION, OR BOTH?

I've heard some point out that in some cultures thighs are considered immodest when exposed, but breasts normally are exposed (that's a big argument I heard in the debate). I thought of a way to test this. First, one thought to keep in mind is in some Islamic cultures, it's considered immodest for a woman's face to be exposed. However, in Western cultures they're not considered taboo, but regardless men here are still very attracted to woman faces. Bikinis at the beach are considered immodest in Islamic cultures, but not in many Western cultures. That doesn't mean men aren't attracted to bikinis in Western cultures, even if Western men avoid staring like perverts at the beach when the woman is looking just like men in those topless African cultures. It doesn't mean they're not attracted. Men in the U.S. still find thighs when woman wear shorts quite attractive, even if some cultures say legs are immodest but allow female toplessness (parts of Africa and other places). Many fertility goddesses of ancient societies were bare breasted. So how do we find out if there's any evolutionary relationship to bosom attractiveness, versus it being all cultural?

I have an idea. I wonder what your input is? As a quick analogy, to test the universality of recognizing many facial expressions, besides people blind from birth having some of these facial expressions, researchers went to the boonies and found much universality in many of the facial expressions, even if the intensity/social appropriateness varies greatly (China vs. Latin America for example). Similarily, what if we went to the boonies where everyone walks around in loin clothes? Instead of asking what's considered "immodest", what if researchers found male subjects and said, "I'm going to show you pictures of woman body parts, and you rate whether picture 1 or 2 is more attractive, and we'll go through a bunch of them"? Then researchers could show a picture of a woman's bosom versus back, then most of the other body parts, and mix it up. Although culture programs people what they may say in being socially acceptable, I know that there are also eye tracking devices researchers have to see where one's eyes move to. This could make it at the very least falsifiable to see if there's any evolutionary relationship outside of culture. Of course culture has some impact, but our question is there bosom fertility attraction outside of culture? Then what if we were to do the study I mentioned earlier about seeing if there's a correlation between bosom size/shape and the amount of money a man makes, while controlling for other variables, that could make it even more falsifiable?

Although you can't prove in Science, scientists typically say you can make the various theories falsifiable, then in the end go with the one that fits the evidence the best.

Because it is complex culturally, because we are evolving socially, your idea is likely the solution to the question. Occam's razor should be applied. I strongly suspect it is likely both social/cultural and evolutionary with evolution as the weaker of the influence today. I think looking at primitive and tribal cultures today, one can observe how a woman's body shape and in the case of this discussion, specifically breasts, can be of greater or lessor importance depending upon the culture. Case in point, the artificial lengthening of a woman's neck in an African tribe is considered a virtue vs her breast size/shape which could be of no importance at all to the males of that culture.

Overall, it is an interesting topic. One might also look at the characteristics of males and what is 'desirable' for females. Females aren't as visually stimulated as males, which is a natural part of our evolution. That is also an interesting question in why it is. Humans are sort of funny, it is the female who primps to attract a male while other species in nature, it is the male that seeks a mate through appearance and displays. Its also sort of amusing that males will alter their appearance to attract a female today but what they 'think' is attractive in fact, often is off base. Males seem to have a disconnection in that respect probably because from an evolutionary standpoint, their appearance wasn't as important as their ability to provide food, shelter, protection to a female and offspring.

Hey guys-how many holes does that favorite T-shirt have? ;-)

 

[Jasongreat]

According to the discovery channel(taken with a grain of salt), breasts were an evolutionary response to our ancestors standing up. They stated that while we were walking around on all fours the buttocks were the prime mover, however once we stood up that mover was sidelined. So to make up for that deficiancy breasts developed, which they claimed have pretty much the same shape as buttocks, and therefore started to attract males. This might explain why men are split into butt camps, and breast camps.

 

[Astronuc]

Umm - mammary glands are standard equipment.

The real test - can she string a 60-lb Mongolian bow and draw it full length of the arrow shaft to the arrow head?

 

[Moonbear]

I think Jasongreat might be referring to the shift in location of the mammary glands, from located on the abdominal wall to located on the thoracic wall. Of course, given our upright position, it might be difficult to dangle our infants upside down to feed them if our mammary glands were positioned low on the abdomen, nearly as low as the pelvic region, as they are in some species.

 

[GeorginaS]

And, too, I think that the evolutionary argument as presentation/mimicking of buttocks refers to the size of human female breasts that are attractive/are more conducive to drawing in a mate. Human female breasts are, on average, much larger than need be for their intended function of milk production. Hence the buttock mimicking argument.

 

[Proton Soup]

the mimicry stuff sounds appealing, but what about other factors like walking mechanics? too much is obviously a problem for some women, but it some better than none?