In my very limited observation of animal sexuality, I have never noticed dogs, cats, cattle—any other mammals to be sexually excited by mammary glands. Are other mammals “really into” teats? If they had the technology would tomcats be surfing for the “perfect spread” where a lactating pussycat is on her back showing all eight of her alluring teats?
I saw a program on TLC some years back about human sexuality which opined that the roundness of the breasts (and to a lesser extent the shoulders and knees) imitated the roundness of the buttocks. Furthermore, this roundness was a consequence of humans standing up on two legs. Ape vaginas are more visible from the rear whereas human vaginas are more upfront. I don’t know how much of the discussion was conjecture and how much of it was accepted scientific consensus, however.
FWIW,
Rob
The sex= buttocks speculation was by Desmond Morris, and tells us much more about Morris than it does about anything scientific.
Essentially, there is no “roundness of breasts” to make them imitate buttocks unless the woman is wearing a bra or bodice. Any physical trait that relies on clothing to become apparent is not due to any evolutionary reason.
The main reason why breasts are sexualized is simply cultural conditioning. Other parts of women’s bodies have been sexualized by different cultures in different times (e.g., Chinese foot binding, legs, a woman’s hips, etc.). Breasts are probably the most common (at least, in Western cultures – societies where women were routines barebreasted didn’t seem to have it), but there’s no evidence it’s hard wired.
If Morris were living in China in the 19th Century, he’d come up with a theory as to why foot binding was evolutionary. He’s just projecting his own sexual conditioning and assuming it’s an evolutionary trend. He’d probably do the same for fishnet stockings, too.
As for the OP, animals are usually excited by signs that the female is in heat – either by scent or by the appearance of the genitals. Humans are different in that they can think and thus associate objects or body parts with sex.
It’s pretty clear that human breasts are far larger (proportionally) than those of any ape or primate species, and also far larger than they need to be to simply feed a baby. Biologists take this as evidence that there’s been sexual selection for larger breasts during human evolution. There are a couple other bits of evidence for this: large breasts correlate with high estrogen, and may be used as a marker for fertility.
That’s in the West. If you go to Japan or China, the average cup size is an A, not a C.
That’s still got a chimp’s cup size beat.
Could it be showing that the female has enough fat stored to sustain a pregnancy, even if times get a little lean?
Which is still a fair bit larger than in any other ape, and there are also still some Asian women with C or D cups, just not as many as in the West.
Check out this article which describes a simple neural net model for peacock vision that explains why peacock females might prefer longer tails. If there’s a similar mechanism that we humans use to identify women from behind, then anything that triggers that particular network would also be attractive.
But also makes their chest look nothing like a butt.
This article sez:
Yes. Female gelada baboons have their nipples almost together in the center of their chest instead of widely spaced, which seems to mimic the appearance of their genitals. A number of primates both male and female have “chest patches” or other features such as facial coloring that appear to mimic or reflect their genitals.
I would be very reluctant to assign an arrow of causation to this.
Ah yes, the “floozy effect.”
Thanks for the info. I suspected it might be a primate thing.
Yeah, that one poked me in the eye as well, such as it were.
Post ho, ergo propter ho.
Words cannot describe the awesomeness of this post. [Swoons.]
I’ve heard that theory before; it seems possible.
As I understand it, it’s a common phenomenon for a trait attractive in the opposite sex, to be even more attractive when exaggerated. When scientists experimented by attaching artificial tail extensions to birds where the females like long tails, the extended males got more females. I also recall reading of an experiment where a lizard species where the males are attracted to larger females; the scientists painted a picture of a female lizard the size of a car and the males gathered at it in preference to actual females.
With humans, culture gets involved. So, as I see it, culture does affect whether breasts are especially sexualized, but it’s generally working on pre-existing instincts. Breasts are something human females have that distinguishes them from males, therefore they are easy to sexualize. Or for what I consider another example, women are naturally less hairy than men; so it’s easy to make leg and armpit shaving emblematic of womanhood.
Aw, shucks.
This should be on a list of classics…