The problem with science II

quote:

---

But large breasts are an example of a trait that has been considered sexually attractive by most major cultures...

---

Well, if you want to discount many African cultures as "minor", then I guess this could be generally true.However, in Africa, breasts have long been quite disregarded as sexual parts at all. They are "mommy parts".

quote:

---

I believe the explanation is not that large breasts = more milk but rather that the development, and therefore size, of secondary sexual characteristics is linked to the levels of hormones in the body and that the levels of those same hormones, things like oestradiol, influence fertility.
So rather than a direct indication of milk yielding potential breast size is seen as an indirect indicator of fertility.

---

The buttocks is the sexual region of most interest to all of our primate relatives, and this makes sense to creatures who are on all fours.It is possible that the preference for larger breasts (cleavage) came about after we humans started to walk more upright and also started to have sex facing each other much of the time.Breasts that are large and bulbous enough to resemble a buttocks, in other words.

Gee, Schraf, last time I saw you the subject was breasts! I've heard the above theory, and it makes some sense in terms of sexual display. But if that were the case, then why would Africans generally regard breasts as "mommy parts"?--bipedalism long predates any African diaspora, so any cleavage-as-butt-crack response would have evolved there first.I think it's more likely--or at least partly--cultural. Ancient cultures by and large were more nonchalant about bare breasted women. I suspect the repressive mores and fashions of pre-modern centuries helped to sexualize the breast.Besides, in my manly heart, I know that boobies are not booties, and a shapely bootie is more important to female attractiveness than an ample bosom.

quote:

---

I've heard the above theory, and it makes some sense in terms of sexual display. But if that were the case, then why would Africans generally regard breasts as "mommy parts"?--bipedalism long predates any African diaspora, so any cleavage-as-butt-crack response would have evolved there first.

---

Clothes?

quote:

---

I think it's more likely--or at least partly--cultural.

---

Oh, sure, me too. Since we've had language and art, I think it has been very influenced by culture.

quote:

---

Ancient cultures by and large were more nonchalant about bare breasted women. I suspect the repressive mores and fashions of pre-modern centuries helped to sexualize the breast.

​

Besides, in my manly heart, I know that boobies are not booties, and a shapely bootie is more important to female attractiveness than an ample bosom.

---

Well, that's good.

?
You lost me there, Schraf.

Clothes, as well as interacting mainly face to face, covered up the bootie, so boobie cleavage became a substitute?This is looking more and more cultural, though, you're right.

I don't know if Desmond Morris originated the idea of breasts being a substitute sexual signal for buttocks but he did a lot to popularize it in his writings on "The Naked Ape".I personally love the aquatic ape theory. Unfortunately the only evidence is extremely circumstantial so it's probably not the case. Still the idea that female human hair and breasts developed to nurse children while swimming or sitting up to their necks in water has a certain charm for me.The Japanese have eroticized the nape of a woman neck as well as her back. I think breasts are mommy parts that have been culturaly sexualized. I enjoy Morris's speculation but don't always agree with his notions.lfen

And rightly so.