What is the evolutionary purpose of attraction to large breasts?

[danny elfboy]

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

Not so different from why I love Grieg music but don't care for Bhrams music

[gilad]

Not so different from why I love Grieg music but don't care for Bhrams music

I like Grieg and Brahms. I really like Brahms waltzs and his symphony which is a variation on a theme by hadyn or something.

Does that mean anything with regard to evolutionary science? hmmm.

[danny elfboy]

I like Grieg and Brahms. I really like Brahms waltzs and his symphony which is a variation on a theme by hadyn or something.

Does that mean anything with regard to evolutionary science? hmmm.

No, it just means that we develop different tastes according to the things we're exposed in our life and how we choose to react to them. But tastes are not definite and different circumstances trigger different tastes so does different interaction with the world. Remember that a chinese child who has been adopted by an american family will resenble just nothing of his blood heritage and his thoughts, perceptions, beliefs, values, attitude, behaviors will resemble that of his adoptive parents. In fact even hormone levels, rate of growth, disease predisposition will resemble that of the father as these too are influenced by the world and that culture that surrounds you. Whatever person who moved to Japan (even if he is italian, german, american, canadian) will develop a predisposition to hypertension and stroke and whatever person who moved to America (even if italian, german, american, canadian) will develop a predisposition to cardiovascular diseases and colon cancer. Natives (let's say Kitavan) who are nor predisposed to certain diseases while living in their land and following a certain lifestyle who move to a western country will develop the risks or the diseases typical of western countries even if they were unknown to them before and no physioloical or organical mark was found in them. Often people claim that twins studies prove otherwise. In truth twin studies prove exactly that I have said. There have been plenty of twin studies which seemed to prove the opposite hypothesis and the best known are those of Cyril Burt. Only that Dr. Cyril Burt fabricated all of this studies, and not only he fabricated the data and the conclusions but even the subjects since most of them didn't even exist just like the research assistants whose names were printed in the peer reviewed papers.

[prometheus]

Woman need fat to be able to nurse a baby.

[danny elfboy]

Woman need fat to be able to nurse a baby.

Women need more fat than men, that's why men and kids can go as low body fat as 4-6% while women and girls should not go below 14-16%. Nevertheless bigger breasts doesn't mean higher amount of fat because while indeed going as low as 7-8% body fat would result in decreasing breast fullnesses it doesn't influence the amount of breast tissue and hence the overall circumference of the breast. Also while a good amount of fat is needed, since it is vital and we would diet if we could go as low as 0% fat, it doesn't mean that the fattier a woman is the better fed her baby will be. So still a woman with a size 1 breast doesn't have any sort of disadvantage (or difference whatsoever) in breast feeding compared to a size 5.

[counterpoint]

There doesn't exist a thing like "evolutionary purpose".

Evolution brought up an uncountable variety of living beings. They are totally different, but all fit very well in the environment where they live.

Evolution just happens, it has no purpose.

[danny elfboy]

There doesn't exist a thing like "evolutionary purpose".

Evolution brought up an uncountable variety of living beings. They are totally different, but all fit very well in the environment where they live.

Evolution just happens, it has no purpose.

That's why it's absolutely useless and stupid to trying to extrapolate from evolution.
What you have said is just pure tautology.
Why the being is fit? Because it survives. Why it survives? Because it is fit.
Evolution in other words is not an external drive but a mean we use.
Studies on Innuit show they have evolved a peculiar metabolism, oxidative rate and body fat distribution. That doesn't mean that a drive lead the Innuits to evolve these characteristics. It just means that what they chose to do, the environment they chose to live allowed them to adapt and evolution allowed a mean to make this adaptation standard so each child is already born well adapted.
The concept of natural selection (as people consider it) is just a tautological nonsense.
There's no natural selection, natural selection is nothing but the end result of the history of who adapted and who didn't.
Inferring aestethic, artistic, moral, economical, cultural, social, affective values from this is just a dangerous meaningless mistake.

[chopininov]

Can't we just combine evolution into one thread?

[gilad]

***. Now we're arguing over evolution instead of christian fundamentalism.

[ahinton]

Can't we just combine evolution into one thread?

Why don't we just combine all sorts of other threads? Here's a few possible suggestions, for starters:

"What is the purpose of insomnia?"
"Is Homosexuality something?"
"How much money to high score on cunning linguists?"
"What's the meaning of Piano Forum?"
"i am in denial that Pianistimo's large breasts have been gone for nineteen epoch(e)s"

etc., etc...

Best,

Alistair

[danny elfboy]

"What's the meaning of Piano Forum?"

A big prize to anyone who can answer this!

[danny elfboy]

***. Now we're arguing over evolution instead of christian fundamentalism.

You hit the nail of the head.
Fanatic fundamentalism and absolutism is always the same.
It doesn't matte where the fundamentalism is about evolution, about religion, about conservativism, about capitalism, about sport ... it's always the same thing in disguise.
We should really waste time with that. You can always tell a fundamentalist and when you do, you should just ignore it. There's no way to get any rational thinking from them, no matter how much you explain things, how moderate you try to be, how supportive of their position (only as long as they accept to see things less and black and white and accept more shades) you are ... no matter what, they will have those creepy eyes of someone who is just having hallucinations while talking to you and is just following an automatic-reply program. Even worse than a child who says "because I say so!"

[prometheus]

***. Now we're arguing over evolution instead of christian fundamentalism.

At least now there is a risk of someone actually learning something.

[danny elfboy]

At least now there is a risk of someone actually learning something.

From people who claim that bigger breast makes more milk?
From people who believe that what we know about micro-evolution is the end-all be-all key to explain everything in life including culture, society, feelings, artistry, aestethic?
You must be kidding! There's nothing to learn from absolutist fundamentalism, be it about religion, biology, sport, cinema or music. What gilad rightly meant is that we moved from one blind dogmatic fundamentalism to another blind dogmatic fundamentalist. Same sh*t in disguise.

[prometheus]

Just go back to school.

[danny elfboy]

Just go back to school.

You're ridicolous.
Are you that stupid not to have noticed that you have said a lot of nonsense (i.e the breast story) and that you're happy with being an ignorant who claims things that are just plain false and untrue? Or do you think that being an ignorant fundamentalist allow you to get away with whatever untrue nonsese as long as you claim them to be true and to back your "universal truth"?. So of course, as long as you pretent to know what you're talking about and use micro-evolution as the key for whatever there's to know in life just because you've read one book of one fanatical fundamentalist like you, you can also claim that grass is pink and trees are fuchsia. And yet you insult other ones, people who think of knowledge as a bit more global, including more fields and not just one big untrue premise and who think you still should avoid making and supporting untrue statements just because they support your skewed and insane position. You don't need to go to school. You need to go back in the wonb and start your life again, it has been a waste of potential so far. Ignorance isn't enough to describe the "lesson" you're giving us here. I just think that it's funny that you will keep telling others to go back to school even when you know you're dead wrong and have claimed moronic nonsense without an evidence of truth, but after all I don't expect sanity from idiots like you. To use your own premise: I don't expect a single healthy gene from people like you.

[ahinton]

There seems to have been little recognition for some while in this thread of the "attraction" part of the subject; if that is indeed to be brought back into the discussion, might anyone think to put forward the notion that shape is at least as important as size in that respect?

Best,

Alistair

[schubertiad]

Thanks to Alistair for bringing this thread back to the sensible realm of commenting on the usefulness of women's norks (sometimes I completely forget why this site is called 'pianostreet')... While I agree that shape undoubtedly plays a key role, I am also forced to think back to an old boxing adage "a good big'un will always beat a good little'un."

[ahinton]

Thanks to Alistair for bringing this thread back to the sensible realm of commenting on the usefulness of women's norks (sometimes I completely forget why this site is called 'pianostreet')... While I agree that shape undoubtedly plays a key role, I am also forced to think back to an old boxing adage "a good big'un will always beat a good little'un."

I rather hope, however, that you wouldn't consider making too much of an analogy between boxing and the thread topic...

Best,

Alistair

[prometheus]

Just because you failed to understand evolution and just because you downplay science does not mean you have a point.

You are just totally ignorant about the ideas proposed by those in the field that actually consider these questions:
https://www.uoregon.edu/~sugiyama/docs/LSsugiyama-buss_c09CEforrequests.pdf


Just because it seems strange to you does not mean it's wrong. Apparently breasts are very good indicators of fertility, Symons 1979 for example.


Ok, I will also notify a moderator on all the personal attacks.

[leonidas]

Indeed, Alistair, I admire shapely breasts, but also somewhat echo the boxing analogy.

The attraction to larger breasts also intrigues me for the physical impracticality of it.

Slows them down, gets in their way, but who cares!

[thalbergmad]

There seems to have been little recognition for some while in this thread of the "attraction" part of the subject

Indeed, and anyone who bought today's Daily Star and saw the picture of the lovely Lucy Pinder, surely could not fail to be attracted.

Old Sorabji's glasses would have cracked if he had seen those.

Perhaps it was something similar that inspired his 72 hour long piano piece called Opusmammorosigigantica?

Thal

[zheer]

  I think this thread is getting a little accademic,when the issue anything but accademic.
   

[Bob]

(Bob doesn't contribute much to the thread, but thinks -- keeping the title of the thread in mind "What is the evolunionary purpose of attraction to large breasts" -- that very few find large man chests attractive.)

[ahinton]

Indeed, and anyone who bought today's Daily Star and saw the picture of the lovely Lucy Pinder, surely could not fail to be attracted.

Well, I didn't buy that newspaper so I did not see the picture to which you refer.

Old Sorabji's glasses would have cracked if he had seen those.

I rather think not.

Perhaps it was something similar that inspired his 72 hour long piano piece called Opusmammorosigigantica?

Er - see above answer.

Anyway, to change the subject momentarily - why weren't you there at Jonathan Powell's recent recital with those two works by that great favourite of yours, Michael Finnissy?

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Anyway, to change the subject momentarily - why weren't you there at Jonathan Powell's recent recital with those two works by that great favourite of yours, Michael Finnissy?

Regretfully i was invited to a piss up at the Nags Head, so i missed that undoubted hour or so of artistry at its highest level.

When i eventually made it home, i tripped over the dustbin. The resulting noise must have been similar to the music of which i sadly missed.

Thal

Thal

[ahinton]

Regretfully i was invited to a piss up at the Nags Head, so i missed that undoubted hour or so of artistry at its highest level.

You don't appear to make out an especially convincing case for having regretted receiving this invitation, I must say; the two Finnissy concertos played for around 40 minutes, I'd guess and I am pleased to note your wholly appropriate appreciation of Jonathan Powell's artistry.

When i eventually made it home, i tripped over the dustbin. The resulting noise must have been similar to the music of which i sadly missed.

Whilst not seeking to impugn your aural perceptive prowess for the sake of so doing, I must nevertheless ask you why you think that there might have been any such sonic similarity if (a) you have never previously heard the music concerned and (b) you were presumably so inebriated at the time of your trip that you could hardly have been expected even to assess the sound of the disturbed dustbin with reasonable accuracy, let alone compare it to any other sound experience.

Thal

Thal

Did you trip over that dustbin twice, then?...

Best,

Alistair

[danny elfboy]

Sociobiology and evolutonary psychology is the most ridicolous pseudo-scientific field ever.
All the people dealing with it are ignorant of everything except their basic premise and make a lot of factual errors that even elementary school kids would debunk without problems. They just need to destroy truth, honesty, rigour, balance in order to worship the flawed premise which they ignorantly believe to be the key to the truth. They act like psychotic fundamentalists and there's no difference between that kind of fundamentalism and religious fundamentalism. Anytime someone believes to have found the only key to uncover the universal truth of everything you know you're dealing with a creepy fundamentalist and the less you trigger his dogmatic paranoia the better.
Also you don't know how studies work if you believe that one study can prove anything.
Cherry picking studies you can prove just everything about anything. It's only the larger picture coming from analyzing varioue studies that come to same conclusions, those that come to different conclusion and the various factor that have been taken or not into account that you can remotely attempt to propose an hypothesis. That study means nothing and breast size has nothing to do with fertility. Or better yet circumference of the breast has nothing to do with fertility but fullness of the breast, meaning that a starving girl lacking fat and hence having lost fat tissue in the breast is less likely to be fartile because of the low body fat levels. This has nothing to do with your concept of breast size as in "1 size" vs "5 size".

[thalbergmad]

Thank you for enlightening us oh great Oracle.

Thal

[retrouvailles]

This reminds me of an article in my newspaper:

https://www.dailytrojan.com/home/index.cfm?event=displayArticle&ustory_id=2956a6ab-9c30-4575-8e12-9f27d5652fc6

[dnephi]

Hahaha SoCal, supposedly the laziest school in America...  ?

[gyzzzmo]

The whole thread is pretty nonsense actually.
Theres no evolutionary system behind attraction to large breasts. Actually, guys dont even prefer large breasts lol. Attraction doesnt play a role at all here:
In human evolution the woman chooses the man. Maybe genes for bigger boobs are likely to get more 'offspring', but theres no thing as 'evolutionary purpose of attraction to large breasts'.

gyzzzmo

[retrouvailles]

Hahaha SoCal, supposedly the laziest school in America...  ?

Who told you that?

[steve_m]

n

[Bob]

Curvy women are cleverer.

Sure they are.  That's what the male scientists say.

Now is that really hard science?

"Pardon me ma'am.  I'm doing a research study.  We need to test your intelligence.  Step into my office for a moment and we'll take some measurements..."

[pianochick93]

I dunno about this, I know some pretty stupid, curvy women...

[momopi]

What is the evolutionary purpose of attraction to large breasts?

Hasty generalization.

Most guys tend to like big boobies

Fallacy of composition.

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

False analogy.

Women evolved to have substantial tittahs

Unqualified source.




Bad topic right from the start.
Why don't you just log on to FHM or Maxim?
You don't care what young women and children might read in here?

It's funny how this supposedly mature and cultured forum can tolerate idiotic threads and trolls.

[debussy symbolism]

Hasty generalization.

Fallacy of composition.

False analogy.

Unqualified source.




Bad topic right from the start.
Why don't you just log on to FHM or Maxim?
You don't care what young women and children might read in here?

It's funny how this supposedly mature and cultured forum can tolerate idiotic threads and trolls.

Interesting, the only idiot around here is you.

Breasts have increased in size over the years, not because of evolution, but because of diet. Fat diet makes the onset of puberty earlier. It is no surprise that teens as young as 10 start devoloping large tits. Look at the american penis. Its huge. If you don't believe me just look at pornography. Interesting topic.

[thalbergmad]

Breasts have increased in size over the years, not because of evolution, but because of diet.

And because of silicone implants and other operations undertaken by women who think it is important to have a larger bosom.

My ex-girlfriend had a chest like an ironing board, but i told her she was nuts when she wanted to do under the knife.

Thal

[mytrumanshow]

I've really enjoyed this discussion.  I've been trying to figure out why the attraction to boobs and big penis as well.  One show said the fat in big boobs means more fat - better survival.  That would then mean being 30 lbs overweight would be more attractive, and that is not the case in reality.  I'm fairly sure after reading this discussion that big boobs are play toys.  That sex used to be solely for survival, has intelligently designed (my belief) into the banging mostly for pleasure and survival side-effect (common).  Big penis that women employ might be the sperm getting closer to the egg.  But everybody's getting pregnant.  So I'm pretty sure sex is there for our pleasure.  I'm just waiting for the evolutionary point in which women stop being choosy and having choice (because they are constantly turning me down), because my purpose it longer about making offspring.  I foresee the world being somewhat of an orgy (with women on the pill), except the diseases are stopping that (use rubber), and social pressure (give the prudes a vibrator).

[lelle]

Because this thread was that important to necro.

[m1469]

What is the evolutionary purpose of attraction to large breasts?

Perhaps rather than a perfectly logical purpose, it's just a matter of those who are attracted to them and who have conversations like this about them, just have not quite evolved?  

I'm not judging, just funnin' .

[jesc]

I think it's an understatement. I mean, when I'm "physically" attracted to a woman it's the whole breast, hips, waist proportion plus the face I'm considering all at once. I think every guy does so, it's just simplified to .... breasts... or whatever is the current obsession.

wow... is this my first non-piano post in this site?

[countrymath]

I LOVE BIG BREASTS !

 \O/
@@
 ).(
/   \

Breats > ass

\m/

[Bob]

The big ones defeat the small ones.  Over time all you have left are big ones.  Survival of the fitest, assuming they're not killed off by meteorites or famine or anything like that.  The big ones just tend to have an advantage. 

*Bob missed the "r."*

*Bob didn't know snails could position themselves like that.  He will have to have a word with them now.*

[countrymath]

booooobs, man!

BOOOOOOOOOOOBS