Evolution of the female breast

[Speldosa]

Hi! This is my first post here on SFN.

 

I'm wondering about the evolution of the female breast. The reason why I'm thinking about this is because my field is psychology, and I'm trying to form an opinion regarding if the sexual appeal of breasts for men is more a cultural thing than an inherent preference.

 

For example, its quite obvious that men should be drawn to younger females since they, among other things, are less likely to have a miscarriage. But what about the preference for big, up-pointing breasts?

 

Some initial questions:

 

Does breast size has anything to do with milk production capacity?

 

Why does women's breast swell during pregnancy? I assume this has something to do with the feeding of the baby?

 

I've "heard" that humans are the only mammal where the women's breasts swells at puberty and then stays swollen, in contrast to other mammals where the breasts only swell when it's time for a baby?

 

What about this flat-face-theory which says that infants need larger breast to be able to suck without risking to suffocate?

 

I'd be grateful for any answers!

[dttom]

I suspect if the breast volume is proportional to mammary gland content, if so, individual with larger breast theoretically should have higher capacity of producing more milk (food)...

Anyway, I just want to suggest two possible circumstances, and if you ask for evidence, I would say, no, these are just possible...

cultural origin:

An individual with supreme quality, if, for any reason (may or may not be evolutionary advantageous, but shouldn't be disadvantageous), appeal more to female of big breast size. Other individuals, following a trend of worshipness (a type of culture, and 'cultures' do exist in other primates), this preference could serve as an eliminating agent towards small breasts.

Evolutionary origin:

Breast size if proportional to food capacity available to babies, offspring could have evolutionary advantage if the females got big breasts. If one askes why it was human who did the trend but not other primates, there could have many answers, like evolutionary accidents, human having been confronted with a circumstance that milk production becomes especially important and hence selected under natural selection most...

[AzurePhoenix]

Breast size really isn't related to any significant increase in milk production. The sexual selection hypothesis makes a fair bit more sense. I think it's better to look at what other primates have got vs what we don't. When a female chimp is in heat, her genitals get prominently bulbous. In humans this doesn't really happen (it would be a major impediment to walking erect.) Instead we've evolved more all-year signs of fertility in the plumpness of the butt and breasts, big breasts acting like a peacock's tail.

- Edit

A second point I think I should add; In gelada baboons, females spend most of their time squatting with their genitals obscured, so they've developed an alternative indicator of sexual receptivity, also on their chests as in humans, with patches of bare skin on their chests that resemble the genitals in shape and swell and redden just like their genitals. Their modification took a different course than ours' did, but the point is similar.

Edited October 16, 2009 by AzurePhoenix

[CTD]

Hi! This is my first post here on SFN.

 

I'm wondering about the evolution of the female breast. The reason why I'm thinking about this is because my field is psychology, and I'm trying to form an opinion regarding if the sexual appeal of breasts for men is more a cultural thing than an inherent preference.

 

For example, its quite obvious that men should be drawn to younger females since they, among other things, are less likely to have a miscarriage. But what about the preference for big, up-pointing breasts?

 

Some initial questions:

 

Does breast size has anything to do with milk production capacity?

 

Why does women's breast swell during pregnancy? I assume this has something to do with the feeding of the baby?

 

I've "heard" that humans are the only mammal where the women's breasts swells at puberty and then stays swollen, in contrast to other mammals where the breasts only swell when it's time for a baby?

 

What about this flat-face-theory which says that infants need larger breast to be able to suck without risking to suffocate?

 

I'd be grateful for any answers!

The "flat-face-theory" would seem to be bunk.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_lactation

 

http://www.girlsaskguys.com/Articles/Other/Can-Men-Breast-Feed.html

 

Those should serve to debunk an additional common misconception or two.

[Moontanman]

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Why-Do-Women-Have-Breasts-46783.shtml

 

 

And, in fact, most of the woman's breats is not made of mammary glands (which produce milk) but of a mix of conjunctive tissue and fat tissue (that's why when a woman slims, breasts face the risk of getting smaller).

 

The development of conspicuous breasts with a characteristic shape seems to be a way of sexual signaling. This fact was encouraged during the human evolution by the nude skin, which emphasized them.

 

When men are attracted by a woman's breasts they do not think "Oh, she's gonna be a good mother!", they simply experience sexual arousal. And when a woman wears bras and other methods to emphasize her breasts, she does it to improve sexual appeal, not to show how good she is for breast feeding �Nor do I believe that women who want to have breast implants aim at improving their baby's nutrition...

 

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_do_women_have_breasts

 

Some zoologists (notably Desmond Morris) believe that the shape of female breasts evolved as a frontal counterpart to that of the buttocks, the reason being that whilst other primates mate in the typical piggy-back position, humans are more likely to successfully copulate mating face on. A secondary sexual characteristic on a woman's chest would have encouraged this in more primitive incarnations of the human race, and a face on encounter would have helped found a relationship between partners beyond merely a sexual one.

 

Others believe that the human breast evolved in order to prevent infants from suffocating while feeding. Since human infants do not have a protruding jaw like our ancestors and the other primates, the infant's nose might be blocked by a flat female chest while feeding. According to this theory, as the human jaw became recessed, so the breasts became larger to compensate.

 

Secondary sexual characteristics seem to be part of the answer and breastfeeding helpless infants seem to be the two most accepted answers.

 

CDT what if anything does either of your links have to do with the OP?

[dr.syntax]

Hi! This is my first post here on SFN.

 

I'm wondering about the evolution of the female breast. The reason why I'm thinking about this is because my field is psychology, and I'm trying to form an opinion regarding if the sexual appeal of breasts for men is more a cultural thing than an inherent preference.

 

For example, its quite obvious that men should be drawn to younger females since they, among other things, are less likely to have a miscarriage. But what about the preference for big, up-pointing breasts?

 

Some initial questions:

 

Does breast size has anything to do with milk production capacity?

 

Why does women's breast swell during pregnancy? I assume this has something to do with the feeding of the baby?

 

I've "heard" that humans are the only mammal where the women's breasts swells at puberty and then stays swollen, in contrast to other mammals where the breasts only swell when it's time for a baby?

 

What about this flat-face-theory which says that infants need larger breast to be able to suck without risking to suffocate?

 

I'd be grateful for any answers!

 

REPLY: The in some ways unusual form of human females breasts, is thought by some to be a secondary sexual attractant that evolved to resemble the female buttucks. All primates other than humans copulate with the male behind the female, so called doggy style in the common parlance. ...Dr.Syntax

[toastywombel]

The "flat-face-theory" would seem to be bunk.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_lactation

 

http://www.girlsaskguys.com/Articles/Other/Can-Men-Breast-Feed.html

 

Those should serve to debunk an additional common misconception or two.

 

What the heck? Why did you post two links about male lactation?

[CTD]

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Why-Do-Women-Have-Breasts-46783.shtml

 

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_do_women_have_breasts

 

Secondary sexual characteristics seem to be part of the answer and breastfeeding helpless infants seem to be the two most accepted answers.

The "flat-face-theory" would seem to be bunk.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_lactation

 

http://www.girlsaskguys.com/Articles/Other/Can-Men-Breast-Feed.html

 

Those should serve to debunk an additional common misconception or two.

 

CDT what if anything does either of your links have to do with the OP?

 

What, if anything, would lead you to think you can discuss sexual dimorphism without properly contrasting the two sexes? What, if anything, makes you think male humans have breasts compatible with assertions of the "flat-face-theory"?

 

What, if anything, so motivates people to oppose the presentation of on-topic evidence?

 

Here, let me add some bold to the O.P. and perhaps people who aren't wearing hate-coloured glasses will see some relevance.

Hi! This is my first post here on SFN.

 

I'm wondering about the evolution of the female breast. The reason why I'm thinking about this is because my field is psychology, and I'm trying to form an opinion regarding if the sexual appeal of breasts for men is more a cultural thing than an inherent preference.

 

For example, its quite obvious that men should be drawn to younger females since they, among other things, are less likely to have a miscarriage. But what about the preference for big, up-pointing breasts?

 

Some initial questions:

 

Does breast size has anything to do with milk production capacity?

 

Why does women's breast swell during pregnancy? I assume this has something to do with the feeding of the baby?

 

I've "heard" that humans are the only mammal where the women's breasts swells at puberty and then stays swollen, in contrast to other mammals where the breasts only swell when it's time for a baby?

 

What about this flat-face-theory which says that infants need larger breast to be able to suck without risking to suffocate?

 

I'd be grateful for any answers!

It was convenient for me to present those relevant links and I did so. Fer cryin' out loud!

[toastywombel]

Here, let me add some bold to the O.P. and perhaps people who aren't wearing hate-coloured glasses will see some relevance.

 

Why are you so hateful in your tone, really nearly every-single post you make you either insult directly or indirectly the people of this forum while putting yourself on a pedestal.

 

Why do you find the need to tell us how your going to add some "bold" to the o.p.?

 

Why not just say what you are going to say instead of adding a "self-promoting" introduction?

 

Furthermore that is not effective communication, you use the word "bold" in grammatically incorrect way (its an adj or adv), and you make a strange abbreviation (o.p.) that I suppose is for "original post".

 

You may have an interesting point of the necessity to look at the male dichotomy to understand female dichotomy, but if you knew anything about human nature, its natural for one to have knee-jerk rejection of another's ideas, if that other comes off cocky and insulting.

[Moontanman]

CDT, males do not breast feed, the male breasts are only there because all fetuses start out as female. The male breasts have nothing to do with breast feeding. Your assertion is nothing but obfuscation to throw the thread off topic.

[mooeypoo]

My my, people. Read the rules, and stop resorting to personal attacks or we will need to take a more permanent action than a closed thread.

 

 

 

Okay, I took the liberty of giving everyone on this thread a second chance; the senseless, useless bickering was deleted, so the thread can - hopefully - go back on the right track of actually discussing SCIENCE rather than blaming one another of bad debate.

 

Please get back on track, people.

Edited October 20, 2009 by mooeypoo