It’s like how other birds have tails…but the peacock’s tail is really something!
Viva sexual selection; in theory, we are all a lot better looking than we were many tens of thousands of years ago, because our ancestors selected (in part) for looks.
(Ernest Borgnine notwithstanding…)
Udders aren’t the same as breasts. Udders are almost all milk producing organ; breasts are mostly cosmetic fat.
Mmmm… Cosmetic fat…
Mmmm… Udders…
Male
Exclusively breast-fed until aged six months
Not big on the chee-chees. Flatter women in eyeglasses are my ruin.
I was a formula baby (you know, in the 70’s people understood that you didn’t HAVE to breast feed. So primitive).
I’m an ass man. Belly button down, not big on the breasts.
Yes, they can be too big, and I mean they can be too big long before they hit E cup.
You’ve looked?
Since entire cultures exist in which women wander about bare chested with boobage ranging from pre-adolescent and perky through stretched out and chewed on utilitarian, isn’t sexual attraction to breasts more of a cultural artifact rather than innate? There is a pretty big difference between National Geographic and Baywatch, right?
Stop ruining this thread with crackpot ideas. If you want your theories to be accepted, post some pictures.
Why do we have them when other primates don’t?
According to cracked.com (#4 on the page), breasts evolved because humans don’t have a protruding mouth, which would prevent babies from nursing if a woman’s chest was flat:
Now, I don’t know is this is a leading theory or not but it makes some sense. Of course, it could also (or in addition to) be for the same reason other animals often have seemingly extravagant body parts; you know, because the opposite sex finds it attractive; natural selection does the rest, towards bigger and more showy. Other primates don’t have such prominent breasts for the same reason not all birds have tails like peacocks. Also, a lack of hair likely contributes, since hair would cover up breasts on other primates.
Man here. Breastfed. Don’t care for boobs… or women in general.
But sadly, human breasts are often not the same after breast feeding is finished.
I’m not sure I understand the point. A sexual trait is most attractive during a woman’s peak child-bearing years, and you think this means it’s NOT a trait linked to sexual selection?
What more do you want - maybe neon signs that say “F— me now!” that only light up between the ages of 18 and 30? 
Well, I’m a nursing mom who could certainly provide documentation that proves rounded, fatty tissue makes nursing easier on a tiny, flat faced baby as well evidence that my formula fed mate selected me based on aforementioned attributes, but nah. Anecdotes aren’t satisfactory cites.
[QUOTE=Michael63129]
According to cracked.com (#4 on the page), breasts evolved because humans don’t have a protruding mouth, which would prevent babies from nursing if a woman’s chest was flat:
[/QUOTE]
But the question still remains…why do we have breasts when we don’t have babies? Or before we have babies? Or between babies? Or long after we’re incapable of having babies?
As has already been said, many species of mammals (even those with snouted offspring, like dogs and, well, chimps) have rounded mammaries when they are lactating. What makes humans so darn weird (and a sexual component very likely) is that we have rounded mammaries when we’re NOT lactating.
'Sides, it’s not like there’s only *one *possible use for an organ. What’s your liver for - for breaking down toxins or for releasing glucose from body stores into the bloodstream or for making bile or producing blood proteins or for breaking down bilirubin for excretion? The answer is all of the above and nearly 500 other functions. I don’t see why breasts can’t be for BOTH more effectively feeding flat faced infants and attracting sexual partners.
Not really; various human instincts appear to work by “triggers”. Like a fear of snakes; fear of them isn’t a human universal, but it appears that it only takes a tiny childhood stimulus (like Mom being startled by a snake and exclaiming) to switch it into the “on” position. Not all cultures consider breasts sexual; but in those that do it’s pretty much universal. We may not be outright hardwired to find breasts sexual, but we pretty clearly are built with a strong and easily triggered tendency in that direction.
We need a poll here. Man, breast fed, loves boobs but not huge or fake ones.
Seems highly unlikely to me. Flat chested women can breast feed. And if there was any standout evolutionary advantage to being breastfed by a large breasted rather than flat chested mother the genes for the latter women would have been weeded out long ago.
Also, human babies are more like chimp babies than human adults are like chimp adults. S J Gould goes into great detail to explain how and (probably) why, induing all kinds of protruding-mouth and flat-nose data, in his obsessive but surprisingly readable book Ontogeny and Phylogeny.
Let me just observe that only on upright mammals could breasts even be visible. I knew someone who really preferred small-breasted (actually flat-chested) women. When I met his wife, I realized that he had scored exactly that. A tiny (5’), skinny, flat-chested woman.
That’s not for me, though. My wife is, shall I say, well-endowed and I like it that way.
FWIW, one thing that has always struck me is the contrast between generally small-breasted East Asian women and generally large-breasted South Asians. To me this speaks of some sort of sexual selection, different in different societies. My WAG.