i’m a woman who’s attracted to tits.
and yes, its cuz women hav them. that’s cuz women r far more sexier than men.
Or to phrase slightly differently, why does the human species have females with enlarged breasts when nonpregnant and nonlactating? Which clearly function as a marker of reproductive availablity and thus are sexually attractive to males?
We’d need to look back to early hominoids and where presumably several features coevolved. Upright posture (as noted) with less visibility of the vulva as a sexual marker of fecundity. And with less reliance on chemical attractants (smell and pheromones which are not consciously percieved but are still detected by the vomeronasal organ and directly influence drives)and instead greater reliance on visual processing. Increased reliance on brain structures to deal with complex social structures and consequent social games playing. I can’t quite fit them all together, but the first two seem to fit well.
im sorry i have to chuckle… the word vulva is just so vile! :lol:
This paper mentions the differing roles of hormones in other apes and man, including the differing effects of those hormones on female sexual display. Because human females don’t produce labial displays as do other apes, breast size has largely taken over as the primary signal for sexual maturity:
I find the study what attracts us to each other extremely interesting… there is a wealth of information online and many programs devoted to this topic. Discovery or TLC just ran a series on this although the title of the show eludes me at the moment.
A quick search found this interesting information:
http://jrscience.wcp.muohio.edu/nsfall01/FinalArticles/TheNatureOfHumanAttractio.html
(A quick summary)
In Jan Norman’s article (Norman 1998), “The Evolutionary Theory of Attraction” she sampled 10,000 individuals from 37 cultures and 6 continents and discovered that men consitently valued physical attractiveness above all other traits and typically chose women who were younger than themselves. Women preferred men older then themselves and put more value on the man’s earning potential. These results were consistent through all the groups surveyed. These global results would rule out learned behaviours and suggest these traits provided an evolutionary advantage to our primitive ancestors.
And then off the top of my head…
This study (and many others) would indicate that men base their selection more on physical attributes while women are attracted to mature individuals who appear that they would be good providers. It makes sense, the man looks for the mate he sees as being best equipped to carry on his lineage while the woman will seek the one who appears most able to provide for her and her offspring.
Now… breasts… mmmm… must… stay… focussed…
Breasts appear when a woman begins puberty and are a highly visible indicator of sexual maturity. Perhaps we men are hard wired to recognize this since we are such visual creatures. Breasts are definately obvious indicators that most men are not going to miss and women seem to recognize this fact as well, even though it may sometimes be unconcious. When women are ovulating (more Discovery/TLC) they have a tendency to wear less clothing and expose more of their bodies with cleavage being more prominently displayed. Millions of dollars are spent each year by women in order to enhance the appearance of their breasts as they appear to recognize that if you are going fishing, you need the right bait.
Other factors come into play here as well, both sexes look for partners who are symmetrical which is a strong indication of good health and will avoid those with obvious deformities or signs of illness. Have you ever wondered why many professional athletes are so good looking? They tend to be more symmetrical and in better health than the general population, traits we all find attractive.
Other studies would indicate that men are attracted to women with “hourglass” figures, with an overwhelming preference for women who possess certain proportions relating to a .7 ratio between waist and hips. The size of the woman is fairly irrelevant as long as this ratio is present. From an evolutionary standpoint this would suggest that we (men) recognize that women who possess this shape are best suited to be mates and bear our children. Women who are over or underweight will not possess these attributes and will thereby appear less attractive. Pregnant women also devate from this ideal shape and most men, in looking at a pregnant woman will recognize that she is already taken and beyond reach. In many non-western cultures and even in our not too distant past, the most desireable women were well beyond a size 6 as more substantial women would be seen as better suited for harsh conditions such as famine. When I worked in the Bahamas I noted that men there had a tendency to view women with proportional breasts and wide hips as being the most attractive while many actually made derogatory comments about women they considered too skinny. It was a different standard of beauty being practiced although the .7 ratio still seemed important.
http://www.mercola.com/1998/aug/23/body_mass.htm
More recent studies could show that a person’s body mass index greatly determines the attractiveness of a mate. Your BMI is calculated by comparing your height to your weight with a BMI of 20 being the most desirable. (I score a 19.9 and really think I’d be better looking at a 24). This means I could stand to gain a few pounds. Anyways… BMI scores that deviate greatly from the norm can be indicators of illness or poor health and could affect the suitablity of that individual as a mate.
So, I would conclude that we find breasts attractive because they are the most prominent indicator of a woman’s sexual maturity and indicate that we have found a potential mate who may be sexually receptive (if we’re lucky). In looking past that the breasts we look at other features such as symmetry, lack of deformity, a pleasing waist hip ratio, and a standard BMI. After this, rational thought should take over and we should consider other factors…
I don’t think we intend to be rude when we cannot help but stare at what we consider to be a fine pair of breasts, it’s just the way we are wired.
Thank you guys, for doing my reasearch. 
Now, I just wanted to say to b]istara**.
- I never claimed that big breast and va-va-voom entered the equation. Just that breasts signal sexuality.
- I did, however, say that a well rounded (well fed) woman would surely be a more interesting chioce for motherhood, for grandfather Ogg, than skinny ms Igg, over there.
- You still haven’t come up with an alternativ theory to why women have breasts.
If it is as I claim and the two posts before this explains, then it would follow that there is no mystery as to why men are attracted to breasts. We’re hard wired by evolution to be so.
This of course gives me a perfect excuse to stare at a woman’s chest, and maybe that’s why you don’t accept these theories. You don’t like what they imply. But even though you don’t like a scientific (?) fact, it will not go away.
“Thank you guys, for doing my research”
Just wait until you get my bill… 
And just because I like talking about breasts…
Although breasts are a secondary sexual characteristic in women they are the most visible signal that a woman has hit reproductive age. They often attract the attention of men before any other aspect.
When a woman first develops breasts they are generally smaller and firmer than those of women who have had children or are past their child bearing years. Youth is attractive and this would explain why so much money is spent on brassieres to maintain this youthful look.
I believe Istara asked about large breasted women with ugly faces vs small breasted women with pretty faces.
From a visual perspective only…
We’re going to notice the breasts no matter what size they are. From there other factors come into play such as symmetry and a perception of good health.
If we perceive someone as being ugly we are going to be less likely to attempt any mating ritual with them no matter what the rest of them looks like. We generally identify people as being ugly if there is a noticeable lack of symmetry, deformity, or disease condition present that mars the face. This is why acne is so traumatic to both sexes.
If a small breasted woman has a pretty face she is likely to draw a greater number of suitors because she radiates good health, possesses symmetry, and is pleasing to the eye. Men will still notice her breasts.
Larger breasts are simply going to draw more attention due to their higher visibility and would give the bearer increased opportunities for procreation (and recreation).
Some more questions… Do smaller breasted women feel inferior or intimidated by women with more developed breasts? Is there an ideal size or proportion of breast size to the rest of the body? 36-24-36 (3-2-3) perhaps?
All of this seems to be an evolutionary adaptation and a method of judging our potential mates by their physical appearance. There is so much more to consider when it comes time to consider a mate than by looks alone.
In looking over at Lola I can see a woman who is very buxom with very nice proportions, her shape is very pleasing to the eye. She has a beautiful face with features I find very attractive. That was what initially attracted me to her… excellent bait.
From there I got to know her and fell in love with the person she is, the bait in itself would have been totally ineffective had she not possessed a personality to match her looks. Pretty alone just wouldn’t cut it with me but one should consider I was an older man when I met her and looking for more than just a pretty face.
Other men might have had a different agenda.
I just saw that A&E will be showing a special entitled “Cleavage”.
Gonna have to set the VCR for thqat one, solely for research purposes of course…
I think many people just can’t resist formulating a Freudian theory on this kinda thing, heh. It must be related to breastfeeding! All desires are fomented during this period!
Ah well, I’m a Nature guy, not a Nurture guy. Carry on.
From this page
Evidently it’s not an evolutionary trait. Did Desmond Morris actually do any research? Isn’t he the guy who said that high heels are to make women look like they’re in danger in order to trigger a protective/rescue response in men, whereas fashion designers like them simply because they lift the butt? He seems like the kind of guy who would say that nudity is bad for the libido, yet never bother to explain the massive popularity of porn. No offense.
There’s every possibility that the vomeronasal organ is merely vestigial in humans. I mean, compared with the size of the organs in other speies, humans’ V.N.O. is microscopic!
Natalie Angier, in Woman: An Intimate Geography, cites a study done in some kind of small bird (sorry, I read it a few years back and don’t have it with me now), in which researchers found that white leggings made males incredibly attractive to females. This species of birds never has white leg markings naturally, so a preference for them had never ‘evolved’ per se, yet leggingless males would be ignored if there were males around with the leggings. They theorized that somehow white leggings hijacks some other brain circuit, making them attractive beyond all reason. Angier in turn hypothesizes that maybe breasts evolved for the same reason - they provide no advantage in of themselves, but people like to look at rounded things (calves, chest muscles, butts, etc.) for some reason. They certainly don’t provide an obvious source of energy to support a pregnancy, a theory nobody here has advanced but that I’ve seen elsewhere - womens’ bodies will hold on to breast fat pretty tenaciously even under relatively malnourished conditions, which means that whatever the advantage is, it must be pretty big to prevent the body from using them for energy in such a situation.
occ - The nursing thing that people mentioned earlier is the exact opposite of a Freudian attraction type thing. What people are saying is that in cultures where one sees lots of breastfeeding all over the place, and might remember nursing oneself, men are much *less *attracted to breasts. A Freudian thing would probably postulate that if people identify breasts = nursing = Mom, they’d be more likely to sexualize breasts.
Gila - when I first read your post, I missed the bit “in some kind of small bird” bit. And I was wracking myself with horror at the thought of (human) men wandering around in white lycra in a bid to be sexy. And even more horror at the women finding them sexy.
I am SO glad it was birds!!
Sorry - I had taken it a step further! My hypothesis from what you said was that if breasts signalled sexuality - and were more likely to attract a suitor - then smaller-breasted women would be mated less, and more babies would be born with “big-breast” genes(?!)
Therefore as evolution went on, we would see breasts getting bigger over time, as the smaller/less-apparent or noticeable breasts got deselected from the mating choice. But there are women today with all shapes and sizes.
Again though, if this were true, we would all have large, wide “childbearing” hips as slim-hipped women would have been deselected by cavemen-types as it can be much harder for them to give birth (I know not in every case, but I do know of a couple of women who had to have c-sections because their pelvic girdles weren’t even big enough for a baby’s head).
So my hypothesis was that facial beauty/dimension is still the primary determinent for mate selection over body beauty or body dimension.
I have do disagree with that hypothesis. Since human are a pretty closly related species, it makes sense that a feature that short-circuits the evolutionary wiring for one group will do it for all. But that’s not the case, evidently, since attraction to breasts is not universal. Since Mali men don’t sexualize breasts and American men do, it would seem to follow that evolutionary hard wiring is not the culprit. I would suspect it’s a social factor instead. As to what or why, I couldn’t hazard a guess.
Not all cultures regard breasts as sexy. For many, many years in japan, the back of the neck was considered the most sexual part on a woman. In a lot of cultures, hips and buttocks are more emphasized. I am thinking of all the hispanic/mexican woman here who pad their buttocks. If you look at pictures of women in greek and roman decorations, the women aren’t particularly large chested.
So, I am in favor of social factor. Does anyone know how this evolved? I have not studied american culture and it’s view of sexuality enough to get an idea of evolution. I have some theories though.
God I wish western men went for buttocks. I wouldn’t even have to pad mine.
Ive always prefered legs to breasts but thats only because the meat is easier to bite off and generally tastes better.
Seriously though, I personally think legs are much hotter than breasts and that large breasts are disgusting. Plus I’ve found very few women with good legs and very many with large breasts.
tracer, my point was exactly that the the role of the vomeronasal organ and pheromones are at least diminished in humans compared to other primates and mammals. Read Jacobson’s Organ for an argument that it is not entirely vestigial in humans, though.
But we digress.
Mali men don’t sexualize breasts? I am no expert on Malian culture but I’d need to be convinced of that. Uncovered breasts can still be a component of what men find sexually attractive. Would a Malian man be more attracted to a woman with average sized breasts for a young woman of his culture or one who was totally flat chested - all else being equal? And having other features that are considered sexually attractive as well in no way diminishes that breasts are still attractive as well.
Now do we Americans have some particular overattention to breasts compared to some other cultures? Well we have a preoccupation and discomfort withall things sexual, but no more so than we have those who giggle over the word vulva.
What else is attractive? The less masculine a woman looks, the more attractive she is. Small chin, small nose, small forehead. A waist to hip ratio of less than .70 (empirical data across cultures, and eras) Everything about a female that identifies her as a young fertile female makes her attractive to males as part of evolutionary sense. Which of course does not mean that it cannot be overcome by learned preferences … and a great personality.
Lastly, bigger breasts don’t signal more fertility, so are unlikely to be selected for. I don’t think that even American men really find huge breasts morre attractive than average sized ones, pin-ups notwithstanding. Pert well rounded average for the culture is sufficient sign of young fertile status.
You’ll have to take that up with anthropologist Katherine Dettwyler. In this article she says that “In other cultures, breasts are not considered sex objects at all. Women don’t have hang-ups about their breasts like we do here. In other cultures, breasts are for feeding babies.” And that “In Mali thighs are the hot spot – covered up all the time, sexy. Breasts are like elbows, unnoticed.” Of course, I’ve already linked to the anecdote of her telling Mali women about American men’s attraction to breasts.
I don’t know, would you be attracted to a woman with bigger elbows, all else being equal? That’s the analogy she makes. If you want to be skeptical about an anthropologist’s findings, that’s good, but it doesn’t mean that the evidence is prima facie. Do you have evidence suggesting that she is wrong?