What is the evolutionary purpose of attraction to large breasts?

[leonidas]

Most guys tend to like big boobies, there's no shame in it.

Now, of course they are functional, but with the current trend for surgery, and the general preference for naturalness, boobs are going to get bigger.

Look at the boobs on a monkey! (I dare you) or a dog, or something, they are invisible.

Women evolved to have substantial tittahs, and I wonder how much further it can go.

[chopininov]

I think it's because they feel good. Just like a big penis.
We, as humans, also tend to over-emphasize the features that separate each gender. Women tend to have bigger breasts, butts, and thighs than men. That might be the reason men are attracted to those body parts.

P.S. I didn't think you were seriously going to make this thread.

[wotgoplunk]

Bigger Breasts=More pleasure=More babies=More evolution. 

But the real question is, how big is too big?

[chopininov]

But the real question is, how big is too big?

This big:

[wotgoplunk]

This big:

Who needs an airbag?! 

[leonidas]

Just like a big penis.

u feelin meh, yea i lyk tha way u leik it babeh.

Yeah, I like the exaggeration factor, but isn't part of it the fear of seeming gay?

I happen to dig taller chicks, and that isn't exactly the height of femininity.

[pianolearner]

Most guys tend to like big boobies, there's no shame in it.

Now, of course they are functional, but with the current trend for surgery, and the general preference for naturalness, boobs are going to get bigger.

Look at the boobs on a monkey! (I dare you) or a dog, or something, they are invisible.

Women evolved to have substantial tittahs, and I wonder how much further it can go.

Your question makes absolutely no sense whatsoever other than exposing how little you understand evolution and survival of a species. Your question is no different to asking "what is the evolutionary purpose of a fish having gills" 

[wotgoplunk]

Your question makes absolutely no sense whatsoever other than exposing how little you understand evolution and survival of a species. Your question is no different to asking "what is the evolutionary purpose of a fish having gills" 

He just likes boobs. Don't be too harsh on him. 

[pianolearner]

He just likes boobs. Don't be too harsh on him. 

Yes, but that is almost like saying that fish like gills and that's why they have them. Of course he likes boobs. I like boobs, you like boobs and chances are that the greatest majority of men on earth like boobs. If boobs didn't serve a proper purpose then there would be boobless women everywhere. What is the purpose of boobs...Mainly? CLUE: It is not for entertaining men with Wet T-shirt competitions.

[prometheus]

Men with genes that make them go after woman with big breasts go after females that are more fertile.

Therefore, babies with genes that tell males to go after woman with big breasts are healthier and have better chances to pass on their genes.

[ahinton]

Men with genes that make them go after woman with big breasts go after females that are more fertile.

Therefore, babies with genes that tell males to go after woman with big breasts are healthier and have better chances to pass on their genes.

You have to hand the specific scientific research that proves these contentions, do you?...

Best,

Alistair

[gilad]

Why is attractiveness taking as a sign of good genes and fertility?

Is there a substantive foundation to such theories?

Why is attractivess even so important to people?

I like hot people, I cannot lie.( :

[chopininov]

Why is attractiveness taking as a sign of good genes and fertility?

Is there a substantive foundation to such theories?

Why is attractivess even so important to people?

I like hot people, I cannot lie.( :

You just answered your own question.

[pianochick93]

It probably stemmed from a myth or an old wives tale that women with bigger boobs and hips are more fertile. Men in 'old' times wanted sons, and they believed that higher fertility increased the chance of getting a male.

[gilad]

I still don't get it. for some reason attractiveness is a trait that offers a lot of benefits. People are often super sweet and nice to hot people.
Why?

What do good looks offer evolutionarywise?

Is it purely a social advantage?

If so I think that's incredible. Life is a social ball game, and good looks apparently make the athlete in that respect. Of course a sense of humour and personality are huge players themselves.

But yes, boobies. Very nice thought.

[zheer]

Most guys tend to like big boobies, there's no shame in it.

  I think it is less to do with size and more to do with shape,infact big boobies are a total turn-off,so is flat chest.We are also very much programed as to who we are attracted to, though these days what is considerd attractive is changing a lot.Though generally speaking people are more attracted to healthy looking and young people,women start to lose attractiveness once they reach the end of their fertile perioud (50-60),however some men continue to look attractive to women in their 60eezz.
   We have to understand that the evolutionary process and civilization are working against each, for instance women are attracted to men that could potentially be a good provider for her children,in the past that man would have had large hand,a strong tall body, very agressive ,possibly with a big belly and massive beard,a lot of hunting weapon and an outdoors person.Today the complete opposite, glasses,accademic,sensative,thoughtful,sensative,gentle ect ect you get the picture.The same applies to women, lighter skin,fater,today darker slimer.
  Basically the purpose of attraction is to find a mate and multiply,and most men who in the past would have been the equivalent of Brad pitt, are today very much out of luck,bla bla bla sorry going on too much............
    *kicks the table in frustration*

[prometheus]

Why is attractiveness taking as a sign of good genes and fertility?

Because it pays off to be attracted to fertility and good genes.

Imagine if one had genes that made you attracted to people with bad genes and low fertility. How would those genes compete against genes that find the opposite attractive?

Why is attractivess even so important to people?

I like hot people, I cannot lie.( :

See. You have no choice.

[prometheus]

What do good looks offer evolutionarywise?

You think certain looks are good looks because you think they are good evolution-wise. You really don't get it do it?

[gilad]

Prometheus. I do get. Or I don't. No one really does. There are theories but no balck and white on this gray area in my opinion.

Good looks don't indicate fertility, I know many people that are ugly and fertile, and probably genes as good as any good looking person.

Now is a good looking person thats really stupid an example of good genes and fertility?

No thanks. Ill take my chances with the ugly girl that reads lots of science fiction books.

Or would I?

These are social factors, they have no bearing on fertility.

So says me.

[gilad]

In the same same vain that good looks or big boobs are signals of fertiltiy, so would s happy temperment and good sense of humor.

[prometheus]

You still seem to think that 'good looks' are something objective and that they are physically related to fertility or health.

[pianolearner]

You still seem to think that 'good looks' are something objective and that they are physically related to fertility or health.

Actually I have just realised something! The evolutionary purpose of eyes is because men like looking at women’s breasts.

[bob3.1415926]

I must warn you that I'm a science geek, and even though it isn't, I'm gonna take this thread seriously.
Women with larger breasts can produce more milk, and hence their offspring HAD (many moons ago) a better chance of surviving. Because of this the men who were attracted to women with larger breasts had children who were more likely to survive and pass on the genetic material, somewhere in this being something which (if male) increased their chances of being attracted to larger breasts. Evolution!
As for being good looking, there are various theories, the one I like is, you know how inbreds tend to be deformed? Well we're all inbred to some extent (go back a mere forty generations, and you'd need 2^40 or 1 099 511 627 776 distinct grandparents for this not to be the case - impossible - that's over 150 times the no. of people in the world today, and that's only 40 generations ago) The human view of what is attractive is believed to be a effort to minimise inbreeding. Inbreeding leads to getting multiple copies of faulty genes, and decreases chances of survival. These faulty genes are sometimes expressed partially in appearance. People attracted to people without faulty genes increase their offspring's chance of survival and hence pass on this attraction.
It's a beautiful theory!

[ahinton]

Actually I have just realised something! The evolutionary purpose of eyes is because men like looking at women’s breasts.

So women don't have eyes, or do you regard their eyes merely as having no "evolutionary purpose"?

Best,

Alistair

[gilad]

Nevermind Prom. I have been arguing with you over a point you never made.

But i have heard many people say that, and have read it in psychology texts.

Nicely put bob!

Have a nice day all( ;

[leonidas]

The whole looks vs. personality thing brought up here is interesting, and perhaps was an inevitable diversion.

Personally, I can seperate the two, I want to have great platonic relationships with great people. But I would still like to have sex with sexy @$$ biotches.
It's difficult getting sexually excited about someone you don't find physically attractive, and it's pointless trying to.
So do we end up with a compromise, we choose our life-partner based on the combination of the above. I say compromise, because what are the odds of the most amazing person having the most amazing body and face?

Would you guys rather mate/have sex with a totally sexy looking girl you have nothing in common with, or a really great girl friend who you don't find particularly attractive?

Since sex is what perpetuates the species, sadly(?) our legacy will be that of incredible hotness over gr8 personality.

I want my kids to look up to me one day and thank me for boning their hot mom and giving them the genes to be attractive to a wide selection of hot chicks.

[pianolearner]

So women don't have eyes, or do you regard their eyes merely as having no "evolutionary purpose"?

Best,

Alistair

They need eyes to find their way around the kitchen and laundry.

[thalbergmad]

Large boobies = more milk = bigger babies = larger boobies.

Prof Thal

[leonidas]

I love milk, but oddly am not attracted to cows.

Scratch that..(last gf).

[thalberg]

Leonidas, you are so obviously stevie, aka Opus10no2, aka Comme_le_vent, aka a million other accounts that all got banned.  If you're going to start threads like these, why not confine them to the SDC?  This is a family forum.  Not a family-making forum. 

You know, on second thought, maybe we should start a competition for who can get banned the most times.  Stevie/Opus/comme/leonidas/?? would have a head start, but I bet we could catch up.

[leonidas]

You are so obviously just jealous.

Get banned, 5 times, then get back to me on how much on an internet forum Bad@$$ you are. Maybe Samuel L. Jackson will keep a photo of you in his wallet, good luck..

[retrouvailles]

You know, on second thought, maybe we should start a competition for who can get banned the most times.  Stevie/Opus/comme/leonidas/?? would have a head start, but I bet we could catch up.

Watch what you wish for. That competition might have a winner that you wouldn't expect (not comme).

[pianochick93]

They need eyes to find their way around the kitchen and laundry.

Watch it...

Women need eyes to look at all of the hot guys out there....and to see what they are doing on a day-to-day basis.

[leonidas]

I'm practicing in my room, and I'd appreciate it if you stopped staring.

[pianochick93]

That must be some long range remote control helicopter and camera that I have then, because I doubt that you live anywhere near me...

[leonidas]

You're too young for me, sorry to turn you down.

[pianochick93]

I never said anywhere that my original comment was directed at you. Tell your ego to stop overriding your brain, if you happen to use it at all.

[ahinton]

Tell your ego to stop overriding your brain, if you happen to use it at all.

Judging by experience to date, I am inclined to conclude that, if anyone ever told that particular ego to stop overriding that particular brain, the former would almost certainly not listen; again, on past and present form, "and I lose" ought to be that person's mantra as well as a mere anagram.

I wouldn't waste another moment concerning yourself about it if I were you...

Best,

Alistair

[pianochick93]

I'm not concerning myself that much. I'm enjoying watching him get told...by lots of people...

[leonidas]

I'm enjoying watching him

Flattered, but stop, really, I've had enough stalkers.

[pianochick93]

I've had enough of you misquoting me.

[gilad]

Banned a sixth time soon perhaps?

[leonidas]

[danny elfboy]

I still don't get it. for some reason attractiveness is a trait that offers a lot of benefits. People are often super sweet and nice to hot people.
Why?

What do good looks offer evolutionarywise?

Is it purely a social advantage?

The answer to the whole thread is there's no evolutionary advantage and claiming so just smells of evolutonary psychology aka sociobiology aka eugenetics, the most nonsense, idiotic and unscientific field ever ... that answers to whatever just-so-story with as much just-so-answers. When you deal with this field there nothing you can't say and every hypothesis becomes a fact even if there's no evidence and even if many other fairy tales would work as well.

Actually a lot of men don't like big boobs.
The french used to say that the perfect breast should fit a champagne glass.
And lot of other cultures, especially scandinavians had an appreciation for small breasts.

As for beauty, there's no beauty outside of the social constraction of it ... social construction that is man made and clearly not universal.

Just think of how what we consider beautiful hasn't only changed through time but changes a lot from culture to culture. From the buttery Baccacian beauties to the Greek model to the anoxeric look of modern times. Any serious attempt to find universal traits for beauty have been counterbalanced by as many counterevidences and contradiction.

The survival of the species is nothing but a mean, a mean to surviving to be able to offer the gift of life to other individuals. It is clearly not the end. To claim that the survival of the speces can justify every action, choice, cultural peculiary is just like claiming that the reason I own a piano is to have it tuned every 6 months, rather than correctly noticing that I have it tuned every 6 months so I can play it.

By the way I'm healthier than the millions of couch potatoes, junk food eaters guys who live their breasts as big as they get. I had recently a complete check up including hormonal profile and everything was way more than perfect. My cardio-resistance test was that (according to my doctor) that of a professional athlete. I guess my offsprings would be definitely healthier than many and yet I like small breasts and am turned off by big breast. Speculate as much as you want (seems like the new fad of turning complex genetic and micro-evolutionary concepts into simplistic gossips) but there will always be a plethora of counterevidence contradicting the hypothesis, and as any one aware with aristostelian logic: there are no exception, just one exception is enough to disprove the general rule.

[pianolearner]

The answer to the whole thread is there's no evolutionary advantage and claiming so just smells of evolutonary psychology aka sociobiology aka eugenetics, the most nonsense, idiotic and unscientific field ever ... that answers to whatever just-so-story with as much just-so-answers. When you deal with this field there nothing you can't say and every hypothesis becomes a fact even if there's no evidence and even if many other fairy tales would work as well.

Actually a lot of men don't like big boobs.
The french used to say that the perfect breast should fit a champagne glass.
And lot of other cultures, especially scandinavians had an appreciation for small breasts.

As for beauty, there's no beauty outside of the social constraction of it ... social construction that is man made and clearly not universal.

Just think of how what we consider beautiful hasn't only changed through time but changes a lot from culture to culture. From the buttery Baccacian beauties to the Greek model to the anoxeric look of modern times. Any serious attempt to find universal traits for beauty have been counterbalanced by as many counterevidences and contradiction.

The survival of the species is nothing but a mean, a mean to surviving to be able to offer the gift of life to other individuals. It is clearly not the end. To claim that the survival of the speces can justify every action, choice, cultural peculiary is just like claiming that the reason I own a piano is to have it tuned every 6 months, rather than correctly noticing that I have it tuned every 6 months so I can play it.

By the way I'm healthier than the millions of couch potatoes, junk food eaters guys who live their breasts as big as they get. I had recently a complete check up including hormonal profile and everything was way more than perfect. My cardio-resistance test was that (according to my doctor) that of a professional athlete. I guess my offsprings would be definitely healthier than many and yet I like small breasts and am turned off by big breast. Speculate as much as you want (seems like the new fad of turning complex genetic and micro-evolutionary concepts into simplistic gossips) but there will always be a plethora of counterevidence contradicting the hypothesis, and as any one aware with aristostelian logic: there are no exception, just one exception is enough to disprove the general rule.

You misunderstand evolution, completely. Nobody, (well at least not I) said that nature made man attracted to breasts because it gives our species an evolutionary advantage. OK? THAT is putting the cart before the horse. Everything that happens in evolution is a mistake. These "mistakes" or mutations either results in an advantage OR disadvantage in the ability of a species to survive.  An important feature of these mistakes is that they must be hereditary. There is no point in an offspring being slightly better than its parents if it cannot pass on the new characteristic to its own future offspring. Now, what you see in all the plants and animals on this planet today are the results of all the mistakes that proved beneficial and most importantly, hereditary. (Think of evolution a bit like technology, where only the best ideas survive and are improved). Many women have large breasts because this is an evolutionary mistake which proved to be beneficial and advantageous. Women with bigger breast produce more milk for their offspring to suckle thereby giving the offspring a better chance of surviving and passing on the big breasts gene. There are gay people on this planet and speaking in strict evolutionary terms, this is a disadvantage to a species. If you put all the gay men on one planet and all the gay women on another planet they will all become extinct, I’m sure I don’t need to explain why. You like small breasts and that is fine in today’s modern society with an abundance of food and medicine. But if you had a baby and were stranded on a deserted island, your baby would have a lower chance of surviving than if its mother had large breasts. This is a FACT OF NATURE and has absolutely nothing to do with your taste in women, so please don’t take offence.

[prometheus]

I agree.


Sexual selection is actually the most tricky part of evolution. Often, that what is favoured by sexual selection is actually disfavoured by natural selection. Examples are tails of birds or horns of some Ruminantia, etc.


Also, sexual attraction is pure eugenics. It's about genes. Looks represent certain genes. If someone smells nice it's because of genes. Ever heard of chemistry as related to romance? It's actually real. Pheromones help you fall in love and they basically give information about the genes for the immune system the potential partner has. The better the genes correspondent to each other, the bigger the chance you will fall in love with that person..

Actually, kissing works the game way.



And what is wrong with eugenics anyway? It can be carried out in such a way it harms no one while at the same time it greatly benefits many many children that are not born with disabilities and other bad genes, active or recessive.

[danny elfboy]

But if you had a baby and were stranded on a deserted island, your baby would have a lower chance of surviving than if its mother had large breasts. This is a FACT OF NATURE and has absolutely nothing to do with your taste in women, so please don’t take offence.

Still opinionable but even if it really worked that way it just doesn't make any sense any way because bigger breasts have nothing to do with more milk. The size of the mammary gland is just not linked in any way to the size of the breast. And the amount of breast tissue has absolutely nothing even remotely to do with how much milk a baby drinks. In fact breasts are not containers that empty and refill. Milk is continuously uninterruptedly secreted so that whatever child would get the right amount of milk at whatever time and from whatever woman (except if they have milk depletion conditions, that have nothing to do with the size of their breast)
Women with bigger breasts are in no way an advantage for the child, they're exactly the same as women with small breasts. The child gets the same exact amount of milk from the 10-15 minutes of suction. So much for the fact of life. Almost every fact of life we believe to understand is a myth, a just so-story even professionals love to use for their own biased and dogmatic reasons and which are impossible to prove.
I repeat it, evolutionary psychology and sociobiology are unscientific nonsense for people who love to be always right (cause if they use the premises of sociobiology they will always be right according to those premises, no matter what they say or even if they contradict each other) and there are billions of things (especially in relationships and sexuality) that have absolutely nothing to do with genes or with evolutionary advantages but just with our free-will.
Micro-evolution is just a silent mean and it can't be used to prove everything that exists in our life and why we make certain choices. In fact genetic studies have always failed against environmental studies in proving that genes are more determinant than evironment and culture (and about this topic I suggest the books from the genetist Lewontin "Not in your genes" and "The Triple Helix") It's especially ridicolous to believe our behavior are controlled by genes since not only it has never been proven (just speculated) that there might be genes for each of our behaviors but also the genome project have disappointed all the researchers who believed we must have been made of millions of genes while we have as many genes as corn and not enough to account for not even 1/16 of our human characteristics. There's no genetic programmation in our actions, what we do depends on how we freely choose to interact with the environment.
Love is way more than procreation and in fact even as far as sex is concerned in many other animals who are not humans, often sex serves no procreative function, just sharing pleasure, having fun and intimacy. It's ridiculous to believe that sexual attraction is just governed by genes (not even genetists believe this nonsense, except the idiots writing on science pop-science magazines) and is just a cute fairy tale impossible to prove but easy to bomb with counterevidences (a favorite of schools, as it makes the task of preventing "thinking for yourself" and "analyzing and balancing the evidences" so much easier)
Evolution and genes are just means; like the piano is a mean not the one producing the musical ideas, just allowing them to be expressed. Bigger boobs have nothing to do with evolution and if nothing they are the product of a modernized nutrition that spikes the levels of IGF-1. The faster growth correlated with bigger breasts, powerful growth spurts and high IGF-1 level is also strictly linked to cancer, especially breast cancer and osteoporosis and diabetes.
And there's no gay gene, we're all perverted polyforms and a plethora of societies were,  discriminating between pleasure and relationships with same or opposite sex and procreation with a mate. It's just our cultural heritage that disciplines us according to the social construction of sexuality and morality accepted by that culture (each culture has a different constructed idea of sexuality having nothing in common with the other cultures , and that's because sexuality and so-called "sexual identities" are cultural epistemes not facts of life)

[thalberg]

When someone responds with such a long answer, we call them "typeractive." 

[danny elfboy]

When someone responds with such a long answer, we call them "typeractive." 

Sound nice  
I'm just very fast (as I proved with the screen-captures results of a typing test we did ... some time ago)

[gilad]

Why do some women like man boobs? What with that?