I never cared for the Loni Anderson look.
I prefer them ( o Y o )
Not necessarily. I think you would agree that there is an evolutionary advantage to being able to see clearly and not make a lot of noise, especially if you have to hunt for your dinner, and yet near-sightedness and hay fever were evidently not bred out long ago.
Another thread speculating on why evolution does what it does…
Humans are also the only animals without breeding seasons or obvious fertility signals - a woman’s fertility is not obvious. The theory is that this was because during the descent-to-the-plains phase of evolution, men brought “offerings” to women they wanted to reproduce with. (How romantic) Having a non-obvious fertility period meant they got this food even when they would otherwise not be attractive to men.
there are a whole slew of other cues that say “this woman is ripe and ready” without giving away the important news. Obvious signs of puberty are cues that a man’s reproductive efforts are likely not being wasted. The hanging flat things are also a cue that reproduction time of life is almost over. (Or, as Henry VIII said about Anne of Cleves after the initial wedding night fail, “her breasts were not those of a maiden”. )
Another explanation is that pregnancy is a much more demanding burden and riskier step for humans than for many other mammals. Once started, a human must guarantee sufficient nutrition for 9 months, a fairly long time. As a result, we see a greater tendency to fat storage, both in the breasts and in the curves, smooth and luscious and… (Focus! focus!) to help survival in that time. The dependent child is also breastfeeding for up to a year or more afterwards, demanding more of the mother’s resources. It’s good to have some fat in reserve.
Plus there’s the “so baby can breathe” and the “playground in the front yard” explanations. I suspect like most effects of the evolutionary process, there are multiple benefits and reasons why certain characteristics emerge.
The Candlestick Park chilly weather version:
( • )( • )
Sometimes I miss those SF Giants games on a chilly Saturday afternoon.
Anecdotally, I’ve heard that suffocation of babies by very large breasts is not unheard of- generally when the mother falls asleep, so that could be a potential counter pressure if it was true that large-breated women had an advantage breast feeding.
Also, very large breasts can cause major back problems, and can be bleedin’ awkward to get around with (hard to run, hard to climb, though they do act as a buoyancy aid in swimming which could be a survival plus I suppose)- especially without a bra.
I was breast-fed (in the 1960s), but otherwise you and I have the same tastes in this regard. I’m an ass-man all the way, and really find anything much bigger than a B-cup unappealing. Though I’ll qualify that: big boobs aren’t going to disqualify a woman from being “relationship material”. I fall in love with the woman, not her breasts. (Though this is really a moot point, since I’m voluntarily celibate.) But if I’m simply viewing “adult entertainment”, then I’m going to watch the smaller-breasted models/actresses, since the visual is the important thing there.
I’ve been informally taking a poll all my life to test the correlation between breast-feeding and attraction to boobs. I’ve found about a 75% correlation: men who were NOT breast fed as infants have much more attraction to women’s breasts than those who WERE breast fed. Sorry, no cite, this is just my personal unscientific anecdotal collection of casual data.
To me, it means there is a tendency (but only a tendency, not a rule) to want what you were denied when you were young. Like Charles Foster Kane and Rosebud!
So large breasts tend to be a positive fatcor for reproduction - better able to feed the child, better able to attract a mate and less able to escape an unwanted one…
Also, since humans are willing to reproduce all year long, and around the clock, unlike other primates - the difference would be that primates with mating seasons or mating readiness indicators do not need to keep characteristics that attract mates when they are not looking for action.
Do most guys even know if they were breastfed? I’m assuming I was, but I’m not actually sure.
eta: I am quite sure that I like boobs, however.
I agree with the idea of measuring men’s focus on various pictures, some of which are breasts, and add that some should be other sexually appealing things (nice silhouette female figure, callipygian butt, etc.).
I’m not sure ‘breast fixation’ really exists as much more than a stereotype.
Anyhow, bottle-fed (pretty sure), and I do not consider myself breast-fixated. I like them fine in most sizes, but butts put the wind in my sails more.
Fixation? Nine hours, only thousand views. Nah, I don’t see it…
Well, I’ll add to your data and confirm. I was breast fed. I’m neither here nor there about breasts. I don’t see the fascination with large breasts, personally. “More than a handful is a wasteful,” I used to say.
I’ve come across one evolutionary theory that they make it easier to keep a male interested full time by making it harder to tell when a woman is pregnant/lactating and when she is fertile, for much the same reasons that we developed full-time mating “seasons”.
Personally, my spouse is big-breasted, but I’m not into them that much. I’m attracted to her, not her breasts.
Seconded. Boobs are one of the greatest things about the human race.
I’m Elendil’s Heir and I approved this message.
if they had bones in them, then it would be different.
I wonder if the key variable might not be whether a man was himself breastfed, but whether he encountered others being breastfed. In my case, for example, I was breastfed, but I don’t particularly remember it. I do, however, remember that when I was 5 or 6 the stay-at-home mom who babysat us would breastfeed her baby. I saw that plenty of times before I had any interest in sex, and so, to me, “feeding infants” is still strongly mentally associated with breasts (I mean, I still like them, but no more than any other female secondary sexual trait, and less than some).