View Single Post
  #35  
Old 06-24-2016, 08:15 AM
Gedd Gedd is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Posts: 1,706
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carl Pham View Post
[Snip]

But it's also possible this occurs accidentally, e.g. that the same kinds of mechanisms control breast symmetry as control, for example, leg symmetry, which is clearly required for survivability. Hence the breasts are symmetric as an accidental side-effect of more essential symmetry, e.g. in limb size. But on the other hand, the human body has nontrivial asymmetry, e.g. in its internal organs, so why would symmetry of the breasts be a natural consequence of essential symmetry, when for example the lungs aren't bound by it? If development mechanisms allow the lungs and neural circuitry to be asymmetrical, why do they not allow for significant asymmetry in boobs? It may indeed come back to the possible preference we have for breeding partners that look very symmetrical on the outside (we can see whether her nipples are on a perfect horizontal, but we can't tell her liver is tremendously lopsided, so the liver is free to vary and seek some more optimal shape and location, while the nipples cannot).
Studies have shown people that are more symmetrical are rated as more attractive, possibly because more symmetrical people tend to have greater masculine or feminine characteristics. (And they make better dancers)