View Single Post
Old 06-23-2016, 12:58 PM
md2000 md2000 is offline
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 13,458
Originally Posted by robby View Post
My WAG: women's breasts are a secondary sex chacteristic that, for many men, heavily influences their attractiveness. This in turn affects whether or not women with certain breast chacteristics are likely to reproduce and pass the relevant genes on to their progeny.

All men do not have the same preferences for a given breast size (which is also affected by social factors, I expect), so it is not surprising that a wide variation of breast sizes might arise.
There's this, but I'll argue the opposite. Beyond a certain basic point, men are not particularly choosey. Within a certain range, breast size has no impact on, say, ability to feed a child properly. So as long as breasts are not so big they cause medical issues, and not so small that the children starve, any size is acceptable in an evolutionary sense.

It appears to me from random observation, that while approximate breast size is hereditary, the variation in size is either easily mutated, or influenced by random genes, environment and nutrition, etc. so size could change a certain amount from one generation to the next. Perhaps size is very "adaptable".

There is decent variation in every culture, so I doubt that cultural influences have much result. I recall reading once about women in China with large breasts who complained it was perceived as a sign of promiscuity - but despite the negative (or positive, depending on gender viewpoint) connotations, there were still quite a few women so endowed.

Or, as I once mentioned when discussing this topic at the bar... "Anything over a mouthful is wasted, anyway."

One o the other guys replied (timing it so I was in the middle of taking a swig) "If that's the case, how come women never say the same about men?"