# Has there been research into the shape of modern female breasts? & Are they contrary to nature **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [November 30, 2010, 10:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-there-been-research-into-the-shape-of-modern-female-breasts-are-they-contrary-to-nature/562397 "2010-11-30T10:24:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Koxinga](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/4af34b/32.png) [@Koxinga](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Koxinga)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2010, 10:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-there-been-research-into-the-shape-of-modern-female-breasts-are-they-contrary-to-nature/562397/1 "2010-11-30T10:24:04Z")
I’m [hardly complaining](http://tastefulcelebs.com/wp-content/photos/Playing_poker_with_Jennifer_Tilly_isn__t_fair3.jpg), but the sort of orb shape of your typical C or D cup among modern women would hardly seem practical on the Serengeti plain, and from what I’ve heard they can get uncomfortable without proper support. And though I’m not going to go Googling for images here at work, I have the impression that in societies where women typically go bare-breasted, their mammary accoutrements tend to be (sorry) rather more droopy or dangly and generally smaller. Would all women be like that if they didn’t sport bras? So is there an evolutionary effect here, where we can thank the modern brassiere for the gloriousness that is Jennifery Tilly? Has there been any real research into the question? ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2010, 11:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-there-been-research-into-the-shape-of-modern-female-breasts-are-they-contrary-to-nature/562397/2 "2010-11-30T11:00:13Z")
> [@Koxinga](#): > > the sort of orb shape of your typical C or D cup among modern women would hardly seem practical on the Serengeti plain Do you mean the way a 3 foot tail is practical on a peacock? > [@](#): > > and from what I’ve heard they can get uncomfortable without proper support. Simply being human is uncomfortable. We are highly prone to back pain because of our ludicrous evolutionary history. That doesn’t mean that we aren’t meant to naturally walk upright. > [@](#): > > And though I’m not going to go Googling for images here at work, I have the impression that in societies where women typically go bare-breasted, their mammary accoutrements tend to be (sorry) rather more droopy or dangly and generally smaller. Not that I’m aware of. In fact one of the “great” debates on the topic is whether bras make breast more or less droopy. The counter-argument to yours is that by using synthetic support, the muscles and tendons never develop properly leading to sagging. There has been research done on this, and the results I’ve seen all show that wearing a bra makes no difference at all. If they;re gonna droop they’re gonna droop. ---
**Author:** ![aruvqan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aruvqan/32/2891_2.png) [@aruvqan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aruvqan)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2010, 11:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-there-been-research-into-the-shape-of-modern-female-breasts-are-they-contrary-to-nature/562397/3 "2010-11-30T11:03:02Z")
Jennifer Tilly would be dangling to her bellybutton … Our perkiness is a result of being supported. Well, also surgery in some women’s cases =) ---
**Author:** ![njtt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ecd19e/32.png) [@njtt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/njtt)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2010, 11:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-there-been-research-into-the-shape-of-modern-female-breasts-are-they-contrary-to-nature/562397/4 "2010-11-30T11:18:44Z")
> [@Koxinga](#): > > **Has there been research into the shape of modern female breasts?** There are many widely read journals, and heavily trafficked internet sites, that are devoted to the presentation of empirical findings on this very topic. ---
**Author:** ![ColdPhoenix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6bbea6/32.png) [@ColdPhoenix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ColdPhoenix)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2010, 11:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-there-been-research-into-the-shape-of-modern-female-breasts-are-they-contrary-to-nature/562397/5 "2010-11-30T11:39:59Z")
> [@njtt](#): > > There are many widely read journals, and heavily trafficked internet sites, that are devoted to the presentation of empirical findings on this very topic. Indeed. In fact I consider myself quite the expert. ---
**Author:** ![Floater](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/dc4da7/32.png) [@Floater](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Floater)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2010, 12:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-there-been-research-into-the-shape-of-modern-female-breasts-are-they-contrary-to-nature/562397/6 "2010-11-30T12:04:19Z")
One theory is that female breasts are a selected for sexual characteristic meant to mimic the buttocks, triggered by mating face to face instead of from behind. ---
**Author:** ![Koxinga](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/4af34b/32.png) [@Koxinga](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Koxinga)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2010, 12:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-there-been-research-into-the-shape-of-modern-female-breasts-are-they-contrary-to-nature/562397/7 "2010-11-30T12:09:02Z")
> [@Floater](#): > > One theory is that female breasts are a selected for sexual characteristic meant to mimic the buttocks, triggered by mating face to face instead of from behind. I wonder if that theory might have originated from Russia . . . ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2010, 12:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-there-been-research-into-the-shape-of-modern-female-breasts-are-they-contrary-to-nature/562397/8 "2010-11-30T12:59:55Z")
> [@](#): > > One theory is that female breasts are a selected for sexual characteristic meant to mimic the buttocks, triggered by mating face to face instead of from behind. I’ve argued in favor of this theory many times on this Board, citing the parallel case of the chest decoration of the female gelada baboon. But it’s not really the question here – breasts can be effective buttock-mimics without being as large and protruding as many modern female breasts are. The question is whether such large breasts, which arguably are a hyper-symbol of female attractiveness, would have been practical in a more primitive, bra-less world. My take is that excessive droop is more a function of age, and that, given that many of our ancestors had shorter lives, what was more important was a breast that would be maximally effective in garnering mates at a young age while not getting too much in the way. Our modern society allows a lot of physical types that would have trouble surviving out in the Plains continue long and useful lives – the obese, the ones unable to run, those without great endurance or ability to go long periods on little food and water. It wouldn’t surprise me if it allowed breasts not of "optimal shape (in whatever way) to thrive as well. I don’t know if anyone has performed serious research on this in any scientific journal. I don’t even know what “contrary to nature” means. Anything that survives and persists isn’t contrary to nature. Do you mean “outside of the support of human society”? Why isn’t that part of “nature”, too? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2010, 1:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-there-been-research-into-the-shape-of-modern-female-breasts-are-they-contrary-to-nature/562397/9 "2010-11-30T13:10:35Z")
> [@Floater](#): > > One theory is that female breasts are a selected for sexual characteristic meant to mimic the buttocks, triggered by mating face to face instead of from behind. Let’s not elevate this to the level of a “theory”. It’s a hypothesis, and one that has become, basically, a part of folk science thanks to Desmond Morris. ---
**Author:** ![Floater](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/dc4da7/32.png) [@Floater](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Floater)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2010, 1:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-there-been-research-into-the-shape-of-modern-female-breasts-are-they-contrary-to-nature/562397/10 "2010-11-30T13:18:37Z")
I meant to write hypothesis but slipped on the keyboard. ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2010, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-there-been-research-into-the-shape-of-modern-female-breasts-are-they-contrary-to-nature/562397/11 "2010-11-30T14:14:15Z")
> [@](#): > > Let’s not elevate this to the level of a “theory”. Lets. Anthropologist Marvin Harris supported it in his works. And Desmond Morris isn’t an untrained popularizer. He’s a zoologist who edited a book on primate behavior before he wrote _The Naked Ape_ and its many sequels. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2010, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-there-been-research-into-the-shape-of-modern-female-breasts-are-they-contrary-to-nature/562397/12 "2010-11-30T14:26:26Z")
> [@njtt](#): > > There are many widely read journals, and heavily trafficked internet sites, that are devoted to the presentation of empirical findings on this very topic. Cite? 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2010, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-there-been-research-into-the-shape-of-modern-female-breasts-are-they-contrary-to-nature/562397/13 "2010-11-30T18:24:01Z")
In any event, I don’t think that there’s any dispute that the female breast is a sex signal which increases attractiveness in humans; all that’s in question is how that state of affairs came to be. One point regarding the droopiness of bare-breasted natives is that, once the breasts have started sagging due to old age, a bra can hold them up and make it less obvious that they’re droopy. And of course, we don’t often see bare-chested old women from first-world societies. But if you did see a bunch of old Western women topless for some reason, you’d probably get about the same number of droopers as in a similar number of native old women. > [@](#): > > Lets. Anthropologist Marvin Harris supported it in his works. And Desmond Morris isn’t an untrained popularizer. He’s a zoologist who edited a book on primate behavior before he wrote The Naked Ape and its many sequels. Both of those are just arguments from authority, though. What’s the evidence? I’m not sure there’s even evidence that humans “typically” mate face-to-face. ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2010, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-there-been-research-into-the-shape-of-modern-female-breasts-are-they-contrary-to-nature/562397/14 "2010-11-30T18:30:10Z")
> [@](#): > > Both of those are just arguments from authority, though. You miss the point – I’m not arguing from authority. I’m arguing that Morris’ ideas have the stature of a theory – he’s a qualified expert in his field (Phil. D. from Oxford University) who has done work in the subject and provides arguments to support\* his thesis. **John Mace** suggests that his ideas aren’t worth the dignity. \*your joke here. ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2010, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-there-been-research-into-the-shape-of-modern-female-breasts-are-they-contrary-to-nature/562397/15 "2010-11-30T18:40:56Z")
> [@](#): > > Both of those are just arguments from authority, though. What’s the evidence See some of my past posts on this. I mention one bit of evidence (which is my own, by the way – I’ve never seen it in any of Morris’ books. Although I haven’t read them all.) in the Gelada Babboon. > [@](#): > > I’m not sure there’s even evidence that humans “typically” mate face-to-face. I’d love to attend some of the cocktail parties you go to, in that case.\* Taking “mate” in the sense of meeting people., Which is what Morris and others mean when they refer to this use of buttock mimicry. And which is relevant to the case of the Gelada, which meets face-to-face but copulates from behind. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2010, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-there-been-research-into-the-shape-of-modern-female-breasts-are-they-contrary-to-nature/562397/16 "2010-11-30T18:50:46Z")
OK, but by that standard, don’t _most_ animals meet face-to-face? I mean, even when dogs sniff each others’ butts, they start off head-to-head. ---
**Author:** ![RealityChuck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/realitychuck/32/195_2.png) [@RealityChuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RealityChuck)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2010, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-there-been-research-into-the-shape-of-modern-female-breasts-are-they-contrary-to-nature/562397/17 "2010-11-30T19:11:29Z")
> [@CalMeacham](#): > > Lets. Anthropologist Marvin Harris supported it in his works. And Desmond Morris isn’t an untrained popularizer. He’s a zoologist who edited a book on primate behavior before he wrote _The Naked Ape_ and its many sequels. But it’s quite clear that neither has ever actually seen naked female breasts. The only way that breast have the cleavage that mimics the buttocks is if the woman is wearing a bra. Evolution depends on the invention of sexy underwear. :dubious: Neither Harris nor Morris are considered mainstream in their hypotheses. I find it very telling that Morris is from the UK, where cleavage is a big deal (British magazines talk about “the best cleavage on the beach,” something that’s unheard of in the US). If he were from 19th century China, no doubt he’d come up for an evolutionary explanation for foot binding. But there is a long list of things about women that have been fetishized: legs, feet, hips (note that the Naked Maja – painted to titillate men – emphasizes the hips and not the breasts), ass, waist, and things like the neck rings in some African tribes, black fishnet stockings, bustles, corsets, etc. Are these all evolutionary? Really? In general, anthropologists think the “breasts as buttocks” theory is nonsense. ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2010, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-there-been-research-into-the-shape-of-modern-female-breasts-are-they-contrary-to-nature/562397/18 "2010-11-30T19:16:58Z")
> [@](#): > > But there is a long list of things about women that have been fetishized: legs, feet, hips (note that the Naked Maja – painted to titillate men – emphasizes the hips and not the breasts), ass, waist, and things like the neck rings in some African tribes, black fishnet stockings, bustles, corsets, etc. Are these all evolutionary? Really? Not as universal as breast and buttock attraction, though. Foot binding , rings around the neck, lip plugs are pretty restricted in area. But I can show you evidence of breast and buttock attraction from all over the world and all time periods. Nor is it true that breasts must be bound and produce a tight Cleavage to be effective buttock-mimics. And I think that Harris was considered pretty mainstream in his lifetime – he was on the faculty at Columbia and in Florida. His theory of Cultural Materialism wasn’t the most popular, but there are plenty of academics carrying it on now. ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2010, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-there-been-research-into-the-shape-of-modern-female-breasts-are-they-contrary-to-nature/562397/19 "2010-11-30T19:23:34Z")
> [@](#): > > OK, but by that standard, don’t most animals meet face-to-face? I mean, even when dogs sniff each others’ butts, they start off head-to-head. Yes. But my point is that, after greeting hostess, I very rarely then go around and sniff her butt. Only in _special_ cases. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2010, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-there-been-research-into-the-shape-of-modern-female-breasts-are-they-contrary-to-nature/562397/20 "2010-11-30T20:05:45Z")
> [@CalMeacham](#): > > Lets. Anthropologist Marvin Harris supported it in his works. And Desmond Morris isn’t an untrained popularizer. He’s a zoologist who edited a book on primate behavior before he wrote _The Naked Ape_ and its many sequels. Tow scientist agreeing does not a theory make. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-there-been-research-into-the-shape-of-modern-female-breasts-are-they-contrary-to-nature/562397.md?page=2)