We've all heard people from time to time in their conversations ask
about this riddle. Many say that they're all fat and don't know why men
care about them, etc.
This is what some think evolution says, plus some alternative views. I like to test ideas. What's everyone's take on this? :
There is no relationship with bosom size/shape and the amount of baby
milk one can produce, and the other primates don't have permanent
bosoms like humans do. However, there's a relationship between sexual
maturity and size/form (too old and they're not shaped as well and too
young, you get the point). Because of this, many zoologists and
evolutionary psychologists think they evolved out of sexual selection,
just like a male peacock's feathers get in his way but say to the
females, "Come here good looking!"
On the other side of the coin, some opponents to sexual selection point
out there's no relationship between bosom size and how likely a woman
is to get married. They say that if it's sexual selection, then you'd
expect it would give a woman an advantage in obtaining a mate. They say
most of the time sexual selection is actually in the males in the
animal kingdom, since most females who live long enough will mate,
while quite a few of the males never get to score (mammals and birds).
They also point out how the majority of human females who live long
enough find some kind of partner.
So what's your opinion so far? Any insights? Since bosoms are just fat
and many social conversations are curious about the answer to this
riddle, why do men like them, and why do women have them? Keep in mind
there's no relationship between size/milk potential, and also getting
married, and the other primates only have them when nursing rather than
permanently.
So, what if we were to go at this question from a different angle? I
have an idea of my own and a way to make it scientifically falsifiable.
I need some feedback here. Here goes .... Women tend to look for men
with nice cars and lots of diamonds! Just kidding! I meant there's some
interest in resources there. What if it's possible that there was a
population bottleneck in the course of human history, some think there
was? What if during times of famine having a male partner who had lots
of resources had an evolutionary advantage for the woman and her kids?
Maybe we could say "Women have permanent bosoms unlike other primates
because they gave a distinct sexual selection advantage during times of
severe famine because they could get the men with the better resources"
rather than just sexual selection, since most who make it to the right
age find a mate anyway?
Just like someone tests their car/sink after fixing it, maybe we could
test our theory? Any ideas? I think probably the easiest way to make it
possible to be falsified would be to see if there's a relationship
between bosom shape/size and how much money a woman's husband earns?
Yes, I know you couldn't go around doing that. However, just like
scientists say there's no relationship between size and milk, maybe
those in the "medical field" who handle that could be bribed with
research money into testing our idea by doing an extensive survey where
they find out how much their patients' husbands make? Although
correlation doesn't prove causation, we could control for as many third
variables that seem reasonable, and see if there's still the
relationship. Although we can't prove, do you think that would make it
falsifiable and count as a logical consequence? I was also
brainstorming the possibility of looking at genes responsible for
permanent bosoms and seeing if the estimation for these certain genes
evolving coincide with certain bottleneck/widespread famine dates
scientists may be aware of.
Enough about my thoughts, what does everyone else here think about our
hypothesis? Any other ideas on why men are attracted to them and why
women have them?
-----------------------
recettes bio enfants