From an evolutionary perspective, why do women have bosoms?

[TheStatutoryApe]

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?

I hear that women have actually removed a breast to be able to do this. ;-p

 

[Loren Booda]

I hear that women have actually removed a breast to be able to do this. ;-p

The Amazons - but certainly not Wonder Woman!

 

[physicsdude30]

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.

Although you're right that there was shift from on all fours to standing up, something to keep in mind is that the other primates still have their mammary glands in the chest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammary_gland#Other_mammals

So it would seem like it would need more explanation than just shift of location on body.

I'm not sure I misundertood or took what you were saying correctly?

 

[physicsdude30]

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.

I'd be interested in finding that Discovery Channel episode. I do know that some critics say other primates mate from the front side and not only the back, so they believe there's more to it than resembling a butt from the front side.

However, just for the fun of brainstorming with the Scientific Method, I'm thinking of experiments to test our ideas, since empirical evidence sometimes overrides what sounds rational. I'd be curious if you have any input on the experiment I propose in post 61, or any improvements/weaknesses?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I'd be interested in finding that Discovery Channel episode. I do know that some critics say other primates mate from the front side and not only the back, so they believe there's more to it than resembling a butt from the front side.

It also seems rather odd that if the point is to draw the same interest as the butt that there would be such a strong divide between 'breast men' and 'butt men'.

 

[Math Is Hard]

And there is still no explanation for men who have butts on their chins.


http://www.thetech.org/genetics/images/ask/cleft.jpg

 

[physicsdude30]

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? ;-)

Hmmm, I wonder if there's a way to make it falsifiable how much of it is due to culture, and how much to evolution? Like with the facial expressions analogy I used, the basic expressions are quite universal, even those blind at birth show some expressiveness, however culture does modify it to determine how intense and where it's socially appropriate.

Something that I always think about is Occam's Razor doesn't mean the least assumptions, but rather the least assumptions to explain all the facts. If we were to conduct that experiment I suggested and it did happen to pass, then it would seem to me the results would have to be included under the Occam's Razor for if any evolution is involved. However, if the experiment did falsify the evolution part, that would also be an interesting finding.

 

[physicsdude30]

And there is still no explanation for men who have butts on their chins.


http://www.thetech.org/genetics/images/ask/cleft.jpg

[/URL]

Maybe it reminds women of the same. Just Kidding!

 

[physicsdude30]

It also seems rather odd that is the point is to draw the same interest as the butt that there would be such a strong divide between 'breast men' and 'butt men'.

Or what I meant was there are critics who say they don't believe so because of the front mating in some primates, and they ask why they don't have the permanent bosoms. I guess I was a little vague there.

So that's why I think it would be interesting to try that Yes/No reaction time matching experiment I suggested earlier. Although it wouldn't prove it's that way, I think it could be used to make it falsifiable (I love that word). If it passes, then it's consistant and could possibly be true. If it doesn't, then I'd be skeptical because I'd think passing something like that experiment would be a minimum requirement for logical consequences. What's your input?

 

[lisab]

And there is still no explanation for men who have butts on their chins.


http://www.thetech.org/genetics/images/ask/cleft.jpg

[/URL]

I can't believe it...I have never noticed it's mostly men who have them !

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Or what I meant was there are critics who say they don't believe so because of the front mating in some primates, and they ask why they don't have the permanent bosoms. I guess I was a little vague there.

I was only throwing out something I thought was curious that could perhaps be contrary to what you would expect.
This particular criticism doesn't seem to make much sense though (maybe mine doesn't either, ha!) because species are not necessarily going to develop the same sex traits just because they have similar practices. For instance there are plenty of birds out there and they all have tail feathers but only a few have tail feather characteristics for the purpose of attracting a mate.

So that's why I think it would be interesting to try that Yes/No reaction time matching experiment I suggested earlier. Although it wouldn't prove it's that way, I think it could be used to make it falsifiable (I love that word). If it passes, then it's consistant and could possibly be true. If it doesn't, then I'd be skeptical because I'd think passing something like that experiment would be a minimum requirement for logical consequences. What's your input?

I took a similar test before, or tried, and it was supposed to show whether or not you have a subconscious preference between white people and black people. I'm dyslexic myself so I wound up confused too much and my results came back inconclusive because of it. My personal experience leads me to believe it does not seem a very accurate experimental method. At least it seems like it would be difficult to determine just what the data gathered really indicates.

I can't believe it...I have never noticed it's mostly men who have them !

A lot of women have them too they just tend to be less severe on women than on men. Its like a small indent instead of a full cleft. I actually find it attractive on women. Maybe my animal brain is seeing a butt on their face...

 

[Math Is Hard]

I think many men are wired to like things they can grab. A slim body with jutting breasts and buttocks and a head of long, thick hair = lots of handles. A young lady of this description walked into my friend's store, and all the men were drooling. He said, "My God, she's like a carnival ride. I wouldn't know what to grab first."

 

[Proton Soup]

I think many men are wired to like things they can grab. A slim body with jutting breasts and buttocks and a head of long, thick hair = lots of handles. A young lady of this description walked into my friend's store, and all the men were drooling. He said, "My God, she's like a carnival ride. I wouldn't know what to grab first."

you may be onto something

 

[Borek]

A slim body with jutting breasts and buttocks and a head of long, thick hair = lots of handles.

What about protruding nose? Warts? Do they count as handles as well?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I think many men are wired to like things they can grab.

Woman must be as well.

 

[physicsdude30]

I think many men are wired to like things they can grab. A slim body with jutting breasts and buttocks and a head of long, thick hair = lots of handles. A young lady of this description walked into my friend's store, and all the men were drooling. He said, "My God, she's like a carnival ride. I wouldn't know what to grab first."

That would be one interesting idea if you saw that in a peer-review journal.

 

[physicsdude30]

I took a similar test before, or tried, and it was supposed to show whether or not you have a subconscious preference between white people and black people. I'm dyslexic myself so I wound up confused too much and my results came back inconclusive because of it. My personal experience leads me to believe it does not seem a very accurate experimental method. At least it seems like it would be difficult to determine just what the data gathered really indicates.

Dyslexic? Something to think about, although the preference for black versus white test you took may be less accurate for dyslexic people, does that necessarily mean it would be that way for non-dyslexic?

Basically what gave me the idea to make the butt-breast idea falsifiable is I know they've done tests where they have on one side the word "bird" and on the right hand side a picture of a robin. When they had pictures of birds that more represented what people normally had come to mind when they thought of birds, their response times were faster than if they saw a picture of a penguin or ostrich or some other out of the ordinary example for the word. They tried it with other animals.

Although human bosoms are a different type of animal, what I'm curious about is if we could do the "reverse", slower response times when various body parts that aren't the same but remind men of the other one. This is getting me thinking now if it would work, however I'm still curious if there could be a different way to make the breast-butt hypothesis falsifiable.

 

[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?

lol, maybe bigger = slower = easier to catch = genes propagated. but as fun as retroreflective headlights sound, i can't really find anything to answer my question. i don't get it, plenty of modelling of t-rex gait on discovery channel et al, but nothing about human females?

Ergonomics. 2009 Apr;52(4):492-8.Click here to read Links
The effect of breast support on kinetics during overground running performance.
White JL, Scurr JC, Smith NA.

Department of Sport and Exercise Science, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, UK. jenny.white@port.ac.uk

Changes in ground reaction forces that result from different breast support conditions may have implications for sports performance and transmission of forces through the skeleton. The aim of this investigation was to compare kinetic variables and breast motion in a no-bra, everyday-bra and two sports-bra conditions. Following ethical approval, eight female participants with D-cup breasts had retro-reflective markers placed on the left and right nipples, anterior superior iliac spines and clavicles. Five calibrated ProReflex infrared cameras (100 Hz; Qualisys) measured 3-D displacement of markers and synchronised kinetic data were collected using a force platform (500 Hz, Kistler 9281CA). A repeated measures one-way ANOVA revealed a significantly higher medial impact force in the no-bra condition (0.15 times body weight) compared with the compression sports-bra condition (0.12 times body weight) (F = 3.64 (3,21), p = 0.03). Findings suggest that inadequate breast support affects a female's running kinetics, which may have negative physiological consequences on sports performance.

PMID: 19401901 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE

 

[Proton Soup]

OK, someone out there is thinking about the mechanics of it

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/322548

http://www.antro.pan.wroc.pl/pracownicy/boguslaw_pawlowski/

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Dyslexic? Something to think about, although the preference for black versus white test you took may be less accurate for dyslexic people, does that necessarily mean it would be that way for non-dyslexic?

Basically what gave me the idea to make the butt-breast idea falsifiable is I know they've done tests where they have on one side the word "bird" and on the right hand side a picture of a robin. When they had pictures of birds that more represented what people normally had come to mind when they thought of birds, their response times were faster than if they saw a picture of a penguin or ostrich or some other out of the ordinary example for the word. They tried it with other animals.

Although human bosoms are a different type of animal, what I'm curious about is if we could do the "reverse", slower response times when various body parts that aren't the same but remind men of the other one. This is getting me thinking now if it would work, however I'm still curious if there could be a different way to make the breast-butt hypothesis falsifiable.

Ah, I misunderstood perhaps. The test I tried seemed to be based on the idea of confusing the person taking the test from what I remember. It just doesn't seem to me like a very good indicator of anything (or an indicator with multiple possible causes) that you were able to confuse someone while flashing images and words at them.

In your test scenario I think you may wind up with a bit of a false data trend if you wind up with men intentionally lingering before clicking so that they can take a better look at the image. ;-)

 

[Galteeth]

Different men have different sexual preferences, and often ratios are more important then size of individual parts. Perhaps different men like different things for underlying genetic reasons? There's interesting stuff about pheromone signaling on subconscious levels.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKCOL56690320080815

 

[Proton Soup]

Different men have different sexual preferences, and often ratios are more important then size of individual parts. Perhaps different men like different things for underlying genetic reasons? There's interesting stuff about pheromone signaling on subconscious levels.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKCOL56690320080815

so are birth control pills racist, or just incestuous?

i don't know what to think about that, to be honest. not sure if 3 months is long enough, but birth control pills have an effect of raising SHBG, which can persist long after you stop taking them. this affects libido by binding with the little free T that women need for sexual arousal. for a woman with low sex drive, 'sexy' may simply mean 'not smelly' or inoffensive.

 

[Galteeth]

so are birth control pills racist, or just incestuous?

i don't know what to think about that, to be honest. not sure if 3 months is long enough, but birth control pills have an effect of raising SHBG, which can persist long after you stop taking them. this affects libido by binding with the little free T that women need for sexual arousal. for a woman with low sex drive, 'sexy' may simply mean 'not smelly' or inoffensive.

There are a lot of different studies regarding pheromone signalling which I could probably dig up if people are interested.

 

[Proton Soup]

There are a lot of different studies regarding pheromone signalling which I could probably dig up if people are interested.

yeah, i remember that there was another sweaty t-shirt smelling study that didn't involve birth control.

 

[WhoWee]

This discussion has certainly evolved since page 1.

 

[physicsdude30]

Ah, I misunderstood perhaps. The test I tried seemed to be based on the idea of confusing the person taking the test from what I remember. It just doesn't seem to me like a very good indicator of anything (or an indicator with multiple possible causes) that you were able to confuse someone while flashing images and words at them.

In your test scenario I think you may wind up with a bit of a false data trend if you wind up with men intentionally lingering before clicking so that they can take a better look at the image. ;-)

So what I'm trying to figure out, if it's been objectively tested with animals and has been found to be very reliable, although it was a different variation, I'm not understanding how it wouldn't at the very least be a way to make those peoples' ideas on the butt-breast idea falsifiable? Although it can't prove because there could always be alternative explanations, since it would seem like a logical consequence couldn't it be used as a way to possibly rule out various theories like they use falsification in Science for?

I was actually initially thinking about what you're saying with the bias of perhaps wanting to stare longer, and again it only would be a way to make it falsifiable. I'm wondering if there's a way to control for that effect by comparing it with other female photos that men find exciting and seeing how the reaction time is? Also remember that only one side would be a photo, while the other side a word, so when we configure that mentally how that'd work, maybe we could easily configure it in a way to rule out that effect and compare the statistical significance?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

So what I'm trying to figure out, if it's been objectively tested with animals and has been found to be very reliable, although it was a different variation, I'm not understanding how it wouldn't at the very least be a way to make those peoples' ideas on the butt-breast idea falsifiable? Although it can't prove because there could always be alternative explanations, since it would seem like a logical consequence couldn't it be used as a way to possibly rule out various theories like they use falsification in Science for?

I was actually initially thinking about what you're saying with the bias of perhaps wanting to stare longer, and again it only would be a way to make it falsifiable. I'm wondering if there's a way to control for that effect by comparing it with other female photos that men find exciting and seeing how the reaction time is? Also remember that only one side would be a photo, while the other side a word, so when we configure that mentally how that'd work, maybe we could easily configure it in a way to rule out that effect and compare the statistical significance?

Sorry, I seem to keep not actually giving an answer to what you are considering.
The problem I see is that it would seem easily explainable why the perceptual connection is no longer present. Perhaps at the time the similarity was consciously or unconsciously perceptible but now that our particular species of primate have evolved much greater intellectual/perceptual capacity there is a definite distinction and the breast preference has evolved to become its own distinct trait. So I am thinking that the test would not be able to elevate the hypothesis to a falsifiable theory but a positive correlation maybe be considered interesting evidence.

Am I making sense? I am not a scientist by the way, I just like science. ;-)

 

[physicsdude30]

Sorry, I seem to keep not actually giving an answer to what you are considering.
The problem I see is that it would seem easily explainable why the perceptual connection is no longer present. Perhaps at the time the similarity was consciously or unconsciously perceptible but now that our particular species of primate have evolved much greater intellectual/perceptual capacity there is a definite distinction and the breast preference has evolved to become its own distinct trait. So I am thinking that the test would not be able to elevate the hypothesis to a falsifiable theory but a positive correlation maybe be considered interesting evidence.

Am I making sense? I am not a scientist by the way, I just like science. ;-)

Hmmm, how about a way to control for that? What if we were to control for that by seeing how very small/close to flat bosoms (what they were originally when first evolving) compared to regular size bosoms when comparing to the butts? If at first it reminded men of butts, but not anymore, if I'm understanding what you're suggesting exactly?

Also, if anything in Science we can't prove or disprove anything for sure, but we can say given the evidence it gives us more or less confidence in something. If this proposed experiment were to show no association with breasts and butts compared to the other parts, we know there's less confidence in it. If on the other hand it does, it would give us more confidence?

Then of course, there was another experiment I suggested in post 63, which I don't know what the results would be. If the breast-butt hypothesis does happen to be real (I have no opinion in the matter other than wanting to test it), it would seem like bosom attraction being more than cultural but having some evolution in it would be vital. Although that wouldn't mean it's true or even probably, that assumption would be something to make the hypothesis falsifiable since that would be required.

 

[Math Is Hard]

What about protruding nose? Warts? Do they count as handles as well?

My thoughts on this are that handles should come in pairs, and be grabbable in the sense of being large enough to get a good handful or grip, and also not cause significant pain or damage (or in the case of the nose, airway blockage) to the object of one's affection.

I think the fact that women do not have enormous ears is where my argument fails spectacularly.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I think the fact that women do not have enormous ears is where my argument fails spectacularly.

http://media.comicvine.com/uploads/1/17882/360354-136400-ferengi_large.jpg

 

[Proton Soup]

My thoughts on this are that handles should come in pairs, and be grabbable in the sense of being large enough to get a good handful or grip, and also not cause significant pain or damage (or in the case of the nose, airway blockage) to the object of one's affection.

I think the fact that women do not have enormous ears is where my argument fails spectacularly.

*ahem* pigtails

 

[Borek]

My thoughts on this are that handles should come in pairs

Ivan comment (post #85) strongly suggest that single handle works as well.

 

[Borek]

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.

Yesterday I have spent 10 minutes looking at the clerk at local post office working on my packages (I am selling via mail orders). She is definitely well developed in the upper parts and she had a shirt that showed the cleavage between her breasts. It occurred to me - that's not a thing you see every day these times, yet we are far from losing interest in sex and becoming an endangered specie. This at least undermines the theory humanino have mentioned

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

'crack' between her breats.

"Cleavage" is generally what we call it. Perhaps you meant to use the word for the comparison, but just in case. "Crack" is sort of rude sounding generally.

 

[Borek]

Blame my English, I just didn't know what word to use and I have seen 'crack' in similar context

Perhaps I should pay more attention to what and where I learn.

Post edited.