# What is the purpose of the female boobie? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [May 29, 2005, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-purpose-of-the-female-boobie/306027 "2005-05-29T22:01:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Uncommon\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Uncommon\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uncommon_Sense)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2005, 1:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-purpose-of-the-female-boobie/306027/21 "2005-05-30T13:09:30Z")
> [@CalMeacham](#): > > This one comes up with great frequency. Not surprising considering the content and the number of young males on the Board. But you guys gotta learn t use he Search feature. > > Again, I endorse the Desmnd Morris theory of Buttock Mimickry. This one rally does seem to originate with Morris (he’s annoyingly chary in giving cites himself), and there’s more to it than just buttock mimickry alone – asee his books. But the gist of it is that , as stated above, re-positioning of the sexual signals occurred when e gained an upright stance. It also probably has to do with humns being always sexually ready, rather than having breeding seasons (which is why the structure is permanent – female chimp buttocks swell and redden only when they’re sexually ready). Hmans have pronounced butticks nique in the primate world because o our upright stance (they provide the muscle power to keep s upright) > > As for those who object that anthropologits don’t endorse this, you’re just not reading the right ones. See Martin Harris’ **Our Kind** , for instance. > > Finally, humans aren’t he only primates with female chest echoes of buttock markings – see the Gelada Baboon for another example. And Mandrills and other primates have male genital/face marking echoes. Did someone prank your keyboard or something? ---
**Author:** ![Raguleader](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/258eb7/32.png) [@Raguleader](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Raguleader)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2005, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-purpose-of-the-female-boobie/306027/22 "2005-05-30T13:32:33Z")
I prefer my own theory that they make convenient headrests when you are both lounging on a couch. ---
**Author:** ![galen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/ecc23a/32.png) [@galen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/galen)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2005, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-purpose-of-the-female-boobie/306027/23 "2005-05-30T14:00:27Z")
> [@toadspittle](#): > > The real question here is: > > Why do mature human females have visibly pendulous breasts even when not lactating, when other primates do not? > > The answer: Your guess is as good as mine. [This book](http://www.alibris.com/search/search.cfm?qwork=6482845&wtit=survival%20of%20the%20prettiest&matches=24&qsort=r&cm_re=works*listing*title) has a good explanation. It advertises to males that the woman will have enough milk to raise healthy offspring. ---
**Author:** ![Jake4](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/bc8723/32.png) [@Jake4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jake4)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2005, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-purpose-of-the-female-boobie/306027/24 "2005-05-30T14:11:32Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Just like long hair on women or beards on men, it’s an indicator that a female is female (and in the case of breasts, that she’s sexually mature). Do you have something against hippies, Chronos? :dubious: Long hair is not an inherent sexual characteristic. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2005, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-purpose-of-the-female-boobie/306027/25 "2005-05-30T14:47:32Z")
> [@galen](#): > > [This book](http://www.alibris.com/search/search.cfm?qwork=6482845&wtit=survival%20of%20the%20prettiest&matches=24&qsort=r&cm_re=works*listing*title) has a good explanation. It advertises to males that the woman will have enough milk to raise healthy offspring. I’m not asking you in particular for a cite, but I would like to see some data on the correlation, if any, between breast size and the actual amoung of milk produced. ---
**Author:** ![WhyNot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c77e96/32.png) [@WhyNot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WhyNot)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2005, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-purpose-of-the-female-boobie/306027/26 "2005-05-30T14:48:10Z")
> [@Chotii](#): > > While lactating breasts _do_ store a certain amount of milk, they do not store up an entire feed’s worth. What is stored, furthermore, is very low in fat (this is called foremilk) and a baby who drinks nothing else will grow poorly and experience gastric difficulties. > > Most milk is produced on demand, while the baby is suckling (this feels, if you can understand what I mean, the way water sounds when trickling through pipes). Large amounts of mammary tissue are not required for storage. No, actually milk is produced at a fairly even rate all the time. It’s just not being removed when the child isn’t nursing, and so it collects in the ducts. There is foremilk and hindmilk in each duct, but the foremilk is literally in front and comes out first. BUT, it doesn’t take much room to store the milk in the milk ducts and glands, and doesn’t (once you’re over engorgement) increase the size of the breast when you’re full. Large breasts do, however, tend to have a larger storage capacity, and babies of large breasted women tend to go longer between feedings, but eat the same net amount as from smaller capacity moms. From [kellymom](http://www.kellymom.com/bf/supply/milkproduction.html#storagecapacity) > [@](#): > > Storage capacity: Another factor that affects milk production and breastfeeding management is mom’s milk storage capacity. Storage capacity is the amount of milk that the breast can store between feedings. This can vary widely from mom to mom and also between breasts for the same mom. Storage capacity is not determined by breast size, although breast size can certainly limit the amount of milk that can be stored. Moms with large or small storage capacities can produce plenty of milk for baby. A mother with a larger milk storage capacity may be able to go longer between feedings without impacting milk supply and baby’s growth. A mother with a smaller storage capacity, however, will need to nurse baby more often to satisfy baby’s appetite and maintain milk supply since her breasts will become full (slowing production) more quickly. I no longer buy into the frequency of pumping/nursing increases milk theory. I personally produce about an ounce an hour right now. So If I go two hours between pumps, I’ll get two ounces; four hours between pumps will get me four ounces. It’s remarkably consistent, and does not increase with more frequent pumping or breastfeeds, all the LLL stuff to the contrary. Rather, it increases with time - as time has gone on and my baby has gotten bigger, my body makes more milk per hour. I find it amazing how my body, which for three months had no nipple contact with my daughter, could “know” when to increase production, but it did. The hospital would mention that she was eating more through her feeding tube, and sure enough, my pumping log would show an increase in the per hour production within a few days, _even though I’d been pumping the same frequency and duration._ :eek: > [@galen](#): > > It advertises to males that the woman will have enough milk to raise healthy offspring. Grr. False advertising. Do you know how hard it was for this 38DDD to get lactation help for low milk production? Even the damn lactation nurses at the hospital laughed and said I \*must \*be producing enough! :mad: ---
**Author:** ![WhyNot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c77e96/32.png) [@WhyNot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WhyNot)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2005, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-purpose-of-the-female-boobie/306027/27 "2005-05-30T14:49:50Z")
Gah! forgot to put in the second quote, which makes my last paragraph much more coherent. Also from kellymom: > [@](#): > > What does the research tell us about increasing milk supply? > > Milk is being produced at all times, with speed of production depending upon how empty the breast is. Milk collects in mom’s breasts between feedings, so the amount of milk stored in the breast between feedings is greater when more time has passed since the last feed. The more milk in the breast, the slower the speed of milk production. ---
**Author:** ![WhyNot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c77e96/32.png) [@WhyNot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WhyNot)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2005, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-purpose-of-the-female-boobie/306027/28 "2005-05-30T14:58:06Z")
Post! Last POST! _sigh_ Can you tell I’ve been up all night nursing and pumping? Goin’ back to bed while the baby’s napping… ---
**Author:** ![ultrafilter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/3d9bf3/32.png) [@ultrafilter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ultrafilter)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2005, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-purpose-of-the-female-boobie/306027/29 "2005-05-30T15:37:19Z")
> [@Jake4](#): > > Long hair is not an inherent sexual characteristic. Any number of hair-care product commercials call that assumption into question. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2005, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-purpose-of-the-female-boobie/306027/30 "2005-05-30T15:44:06Z")
> [@ultrafilter](#): > > Any number of hair-care product commercials call that assumption into question. It’s not a characteristic that differs really significantly between males and females. Long hair as a female characteristic is mostly cultural. ---
**Author:** ![chrisk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@chrisk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chrisk)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2005, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-purpose-of-the-female-boobie/306027/31 "2005-05-30T15:46:07Z")
> [@ultrafilter](#): > > Any number of hair-care product commercials call that assumption into question. Do they really?? Note that what jake4 probably meant to say was that long hair is not an inherently distinctive sexual characteristic, since someone had mentioned it as an indication of female-ness. Whether long hair can be an indication of sexual health in both sexes, etcetea is a different question. But what the hair-care products do really has nothing to do with the INHERENT nature of hair I think, so much as a whole bunch of things that we’ve socialized about long hair on women. (And which process of socialization the commercials, themselves, contribute to.) Done. ---
**Author:** ![ultrafilter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/3d9bf3/32.png) [@ultrafilter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ultrafilter)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2005, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-purpose-of-the-female-boobie/306027/32 "2005-05-30T15:53:57Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > It’s not a characteristic that differs really significantly between males and females. Long hair as a female characteristic is mostly cultural. If long hair on men was common, we’d undoubtedly see the same sorts of commercials for men. I did misread **jake4** ’s post, and I’m not arguing against what he did say. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2005, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-purpose-of-the-female-boobie/306027/33 "2005-05-30T16:01:38Z")
> [@ultrafilter](#): > > If long hair on men was common, we’d undoubtedly see the same sorts of commercials for men. Of course. But it’s uncommon because of culture, not inherently. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2005, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-purpose-of-the-female-boobie/306027/34 "2005-05-30T19:33:21Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally Posted by kanicbird > If it is a biological indicator of sexual maturity It would follow that other primates would only need this indicator if they take about the same amount of years to reach sexual maturity. If they matured faster this indicator does not seem as important. > huh? In other words human childhood is so long compaired to other primates (asumption) that a obvious indicator is needed to let human men know who is sexually mature. [theory]If human childhood was not nearly as long then I don’t think it would matter that much if men had sex with sexually immature females, because they would mature fast enough and become mature and have babies soon enough. But since humans take so long to mature, it would be an increadable waste of energy to have sex with someone who won’t be able to have babies for years. The visual indicator (boobies) is unmistakable a sign of maturity, and it suggests that a female is capable of rearing a child. [/theory] Though the idea that is it a visually subsitute for the ass is also interesting, but early humans did not equate sex with babies, and big boobies and for that matter wide nipples sort of indicates baby support. ---
**Author:** ![ultrafilter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/3d9bf3/32.png) [@ultrafilter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ultrafilter)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2005, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-purpose-of-the-female-boobie/306027/35 "2005-05-30T19:50:29Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > Though the idea that is it a visually subsitute for the ass is also interesting, but early humans did not equate sex with babies, and big boobies and for that matter wide nipples sort of indicates baby support. Who says it’s on the conscious level? ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2005, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-purpose-of-the-female-boobie/306027/36 "2005-05-30T19:52:31Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > In other words human childhood is so long compaired to other primates (asumption) that a obvious indicator is needed to let human men know who is sexually mature. Many animals, regardless of the time it takes to maturity, undergo changes in appearance at the time of maturity to indicate they may be a suitable mating partner. This goes for animals whose life span may be measured in months, not just for those that have extended juvenile periods. In particular, many other primates show changes to indicate they have reached maturity. Really, the long period of immaturity in humans has nothing to do with this. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2005, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-purpose-of-the-female-boobie/306027/37 "2005-05-30T21:42:17Z")
> [@](#): > > Who says it’s on the conscious level? I sort of made the assumption only because it seems so obvious on a conscienous level. 1 - Baby takes milk from nipple 2 - Big Buffalo hold lots of meat, Big buffalo skin holds lots of water 2a Big = better 3 - Big boobies and nipples means lots of milk for babies (even if it’s not true) > [@](#): > > Many animals, regardless of the time it takes to maturity, undergo changes in appearance at the time of maturity to indicate they may be a suitable mating partner. Yes, and it seem like this is one such indicator. Men in general has to be hit over the head with an indicator to actually see it, and the boobie fits the bill nicely. ---
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2005, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-purpose-of-the-female-boobie/306027/38 "2005-05-31T20:41:22Z")
I think there are two fallacies afloat in this thread. a) The ever-recurrent Desmond Morris fallacy. No, human wimmins aren’t breastacular in order to attract men, via reminiscence-of-asscheeks or otherwise. Men aren’t attracted to females because females gots titticles, men are attracted to titticles 'cuz womens has gots them. If the gals had funny little bony shoulder protruberances instead, we’d think they were sexy due to who it is that’s got 'em. Heck, I know males who are attracted to high heeled shoes and nylon underwears. b) The also ever-recurrent purposeful evolution fallacy. Rather than assume human female breasts exist like that “for a purpose”, it’s probably more useful and accurate to think in terms of “some juxtaposition of variation and selection resulted in globular breasts being among general surviving traits of the species”. It could easily be nothing more than “females need a high bodyfat content to sustain pregnancy and nurse infants, and females who stored lots of extra bodyfat there did better survivalwise than those who didn’t”, and no particular reason for storing it _there_ instead of somewhere _else_, just that it did happen that way…that sort of thing. ---
**Author:** ![ultrafilter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/3d9bf3/32.png) [@ultrafilter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ultrafilter)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2005, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-purpose-of-the-female-boobie/306027/39 "2005-05-31T20:48:58Z")
Gotta disagree with you on both counts. > [@](#): > > a) The ever-recurrent Desmond Morris fallacy. No, human wimmins aren’t breastacular in order to attract men, via reminiscence-of-asscheeks or otherwise. Men aren’t attracted to females because females gots titticles, men are attracted to titticles 'cuz womens has gots them. If the gals had funny little bony shoulder protruberances instead, we’d think they were sexy due to who it is that’s got 'em. Heck, I know males who are attracted to high heeled shoes and nylon underwears. I think you’re misunderstanding exactly what Morris is proposing. He’s not proposing that men are attracted to breasts because women have them. He’s proposing that men are attracted to breasts because men are attracted to the shape of the female buttocks and the breasts are shaped like the buttocks. Given that a man can rate the attractiveness of a female cartoon character, I think it makes sense that there are certain forms that pique our interest. > [@](#): > > b) The also ever-recurrent purposeful evolution fallacy. Rather than assume human female breasts exist like that “for a purpose”, it’s probably more useful and accurate to think in terms of “some juxtaposition of variation and selection resulted in globular breasts being among general surviving traits of the species”. It could easily be nothing more than “females need a high bodyfat content to sustain pregnancy and nurse infants, and females who stored lots of extra bodyfat there did better survivalwise than those who didn’t”, and no particular reason for storing it _there_ instead of somewhere _else_, just that it did happen that way…that sort of thing. There’s a subtle distinction here. Evolution on the whole doesn’t have a purpose in the sense of a grand design that it’s all working towards. However, individual traits can and definitely do have reasons to exist. The reason why permanent breasts are so fascinating from an evolutionary standpoint is because none of our closest relatives have them. If it was just a matter of fat storage, why wouldn’t we look more like the other great apes? ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2005, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-purpose-of-the-female-boobie/306027/40 "2005-05-31T21:12:36Z")
Ahunter3, the thing about sexual selection is that it works as a feedback loop. Males or females are attracted to a particular trait, so that trait is passed on preferentially. But so is the tendancy to be attracted to that trait. And so we end up with peacock tails, moose antlers, and the whole panoply of primate mustaches, noses, beards, hair tufts, and various swellings in diverse parts of the body. Humans happen to have swollen breasts, it could have been swollen shoulderblades, sure, except it wasn’t. We’re attracted to swollen breasts because women have them, and women have them because we’re attracted to them. If women had swollen shoulderblades males would evolve to become attracted to swollen shoulderblades, and women would evolve even more swollen shoulderblades, and males would become even more attracted to them. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-purpose-of-the-female-boobie/306027.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-purpose-of-the-female-boobie/306027.md?page=3)