The purpose of breasts
Jan Böhme
obstacles for movement. But what are they there for?
The human being is to my knowledge the only mammal, and most certainly the
only primate, who has prominent breasts when not lactating. The standard
explanation that I am aware of is that they are supposed to mimic buttocks,
and compensate for the (at least partial) loss of this powerful sexual signal
associated with upright posture.
This explanation has always struck me as rather unsatisfactory. Breasts don't
resemble buttocks very much. Indeed, a hypertrophy of the pectoral muscle
would have produced something much more akin to buttocks. Also, whatever
resemblance breasts have to buttocks tend to diminish strongly with age and
childbirths. The breasts of women with multiple childbirths behind them
usually do not even vaguely resemble buttocks, even if they have fifteen
years of fertility left.
I noted with some surprise that I personally found the breasts of my wife
more sexually provoking after the birth and subsequent breastfeeding of
our children than before. While a single anecdotal sexual preference
certainly does not amount to very much in scientific terms, it may serve as
starting-point for a hypothesis:
Societal preferences in our society very much favour firm breasts, i e those
of nulliparous women. This makes sense in a society where the raising of
children is done in nuclear families, and when property is passed between
generations. Including stepchildren in a nuclear family might decrease
overall survival by competition, and there might also be competition for
property. Therefore, there are rational reasons for men to prefer nulliparuos
women under those circumstances.
However, we are presumably selected to our present genetic shape during our
hunter-gatherer phase. Many hunter-gatherer tribes of today have collective
child-rising after weaning. In such a society, a different mating strategy
would be rational for the male: As a child would not be the burden of one
particular mother after weaning, preferring tried and tested mothers would
increase chances of getting offspring and of its survival. An experienced
mother would a) definitively be fertile, b) have adequate nursing capacities
in terms of milk supply, and c) would have aquired the necessary
nursing skills. The preferred mating object would thus be a young female, who
has raised at least one child successfully. There is usually only one
reasonably clear difference in appearance between nulliparous and multiparous
young women, and that is the difference in breast shape.
It may be argued that breasts sag progressively not only with childbirths,
but also with age, regardless of childbirth. This is true. However, at least
in my limited personal experience, the sagging of an unsupported breast that
does not lactate, even during long periods of time, is very limited to what
happens to a lactating breast, particularly if this is not supported. Also,
there are other visual cues, such as wrinkles or tooth status, that can be
used to determine age irrespective of breast length.
So, maybe breasts tend to sag, much to the frustration of their current
bearers, because they are actually DESIGNED to sag? Maybe the saggy breast in
a young and healthy multiparous woman is supposed to mean "Come and get it! I
know the ropes, and I will bear and nurse your child successfully!"
What do you think? Anyone care to shoot holes through my argument?
Jan Bohme
Jim Moore
>Breasts have been discussed lately in this newsgroup in their capacity as
>obstacles for movement. But what are they there for?
The biggest obstacle to movement female breasts produce is in teenage
boys, who tend to be reluctant to stand up in public after viewing
them. ;-)
>The human being is to my knowledge the only mammal, and most certainly the
>only primate, who has prominent breasts when not lactating. The standard
>explanation that I am aware of is that they are supposed to mimic buttocks,
>and compensate for the (at least partial) loss of this powerful sexual signal
> associated with upright posture.
>This explanation has always struck me as rather unsatisfactory. Breasts don't
> resemble buttocks very much.
The "mimics buttocks" idea is a pretty silly one, but consider the
source. ;-) However, that doesn't mean that fat in women hasn't been
sexually selected. Caroline Pond considers that the likely answer, but
also points out a couple of important points: 1) that "in spite of the
importance attributed to them, the breasts are normally a relatively
small depot" (Caroline M. Pond, 1991:211; "Adipose Tissue in Human
Evolution", pp. 193-220. *The Aquatic Ape: Fact or Fiction?*
Edited by Machteld Roede, Jan Wind, John M. Patrick and Vernon
Reynolds. Souvenir Press: London); 2) that the fat depot across the
front of the thorax in humans seems more different than other primates
then it really is because of a combination of upright posture and a
greater overall abundance of fat in *Homo sapiens* compared to wild
primates. This means that the difference, which is there, is
nonetheless less of a change then we commonly think it is. What I
mean is that, in evolutionary terms, it wasn't such a big leap from
there to here as we usually think.
(For those who will now wish to invoke the AAT, we can also point out
that the sexual dimorphism in humans in fat quantities weighs heavily
against any functionally-adaptive explanation of female human body fat.)
<snipped: descriptions of the fact that views of desirable breast
shapes are culturally-specific>
Which I'm sure everyone will be aware of... well, they should be. Just
in case anyone hasn't gotten this point yet, what we view as desirable
in the opposite sex varies and has varied a great deal over the years,
even in relatively recent times (the last few hundred years, for
instance).
>So, maybe breasts tend to sag, much to the frustration of their current
>bearers, because they are actually DESIGNED to sag? Maybe the saggy breast in
> a young and healthy multiparous woman is supposed to mean "Come and get it!
>I know the ropes, and I will bear and nurse your child successfully!"
>What do you think? Anyone care to shoot holes through my argument?
>Jan Bohme
It seems likely, and another interesting point is that amongst chimps,
the most sexually desirable female is almost invariably the oldest
female. By our time and culture standards, she is generally one of the
ugliest females in the group, but there is no particularly good reason
to suppose that our commonly expressed views of the young being
particularly sexually attractive were forged very far back in our past.
Jim Moore e-mail:jimm...@inforamp.net
Jan Böhme
> I wrote:
> >Breasts have been discussed lately in this newsgroup in their capacity as
> >obstacles for movement. But what are they there for?
>
> The biggest obstacle to movement female breasts produce is in teenage
> boys, who tend to be reluctant to stand up in public after viewing
> them. ;-)
I know that very well. I just thought I should put she subject in some
newsgroup context. Indeed, the opinion of my wife, who is wears a D-cup, and
did not wear a bra for ten years, vis-à-vis Paul Crowleys speculations of
unsupported breasts as strongly hampering is hardly printable, even on the
Net.
> >The human being is to my knowledge the only mammal, and most certainly the
> >only primate, who has prominent breasts when not lactating. The standard
> >explanation that I am aware of is that they are supposed to mimic buttocks,
> >and compensate for the (at least partial) loss of this powerful sexual signal
> > associated with upright posture.
> >This explanation has always struck me as rather unsatisfactory. Breasts don't
> > resemble buttocks very much.
>
> The "mimics buttocks" idea is a pretty silly one, but consider the
> source. ;-) <refernces snipped>
> 2) that the fat depot across the
> front of the thorax in humans seems more different than other primates
> then it really is because of a combination of upright posture and a
> greater overall abundance of fat in *Homo sapiens* compared to wild
> primates. This means that the difference, which is there, is
> nonetheless less of a change then we commonly think it is. What I
> mean is that, in evolutionary terms, it wasn't such a big leap from
> there to here as we usually think.
I'm probably ignorant, but actually I didn't know the source for the "mimic
buttocks" hypothesis. I seem to recall having seen it several times over the
years. It is interesting that the difference isn't all that great compared
to other primates if we think of breasts as thoracic fat. But I suppose that
it still is a novelty to arrange the thoracic fat in a breast-like fashion?
> <snipped: descriptions of the fact that views of desirable breast
> shapes are culturally-specific>
> Which I'm sure everyone will be aware of... well, they should be. <explanation snipped>
Yes, of course. My point was rather, that breasts reasonably have arrived
through selection, and the latest stage they can have arrived is at some kind
of hunter-gatherer phase. Venus of Willendorf has breasts, that is the
earliest documentation I am aware of. My idea was that, whereas current
preferences must be all cultural, breast preferences in a hunter-gatherer
society might in part evolutionarily selected, and thus be biology. (And, if
so, still be there, under our cultural varnish, to some extent.)
> >So, maybe breasts tend to sag, much to the frustration of their current
> >bearers, because they are actually DESIGNED to sag? Maybe the saggy breast in
> > a young and healthy multiparous woman is supposed to mean "Come and get it!
> >I know the ropes, and I will bear and nurse your child successfully!"
>
> >What do you think? Anyone care to shoot holes through my argument?
> >Jan Bohme
>
> It seems likely, and another interesting point is that amongst chimps,
> the most sexually desirable female is almost invariably the oldest
> female. By our time and culture standards, she is generally one of the
> ugliest females in the group, but there is no particularly good reason
> to suppose that our commonly expressed views of the young being
> particularly sexually attractive were forged very far back in our past.
Ah, so you go one step further, and argue that not only might it be an
advantage to be multiparous, it might also be an advantage to be old. You're
right, of course. If indeed child-raising is communal after weaning, then you
only have to bother about the survival of the mother for the next year or
two, so young age, at least, is not of great importance.
I suppose there is one problem with the "old-is-sexy" theory in the evolution
of man, and that is the evolution of the menopause. This is, come to think of
it, a slight problem for my
"breasts-are-there-so-that-they-can-sag-and-thus-show-nursing-success"
theory, too. The evolution of a menopause doesn't seem to make sense, unless
you assume that the female took personal responsibility for the upbringing of
her children up to maturity. Why need it, if others automatically stepped in
after weaning?
If a female takes responsibility for her own offspring up to puberty or so,
mightn't it be a bad idea to impregnate the mother with the best nursing
success, if this means that she gets more children than she can take care of
in an optimal fashion? Or would the reproductive and nursing success still
offset this potential disadvantage?
Ideas, anyone?
Jan Bohme
Richard Foy
Jim Moore <jimm...@inforamp.net> wrote:
>
>
>Which I'm sure everyone will be aware of... well, they should be. Just
>in case anyone hasn't gotten this point yet, what we view as desirable
>in the opposite sex varies and has varied a great deal over the years,
>even in relatively recent times (the last few hundred years, for
>instance).
True but perhaps there is an underlying commonality. That is what
males view as sexaully attractive is that which males have been
socially conditioned to believe indicates sexual receptiveness on the
part of the female.
--
"Be sure that power is never entrusted to those who cannot love.
-- Donella H. Meadows
Jim Moore
>> source. ;-)
>I'm probably ignorant, but actually I didn't know the source for the "mimic
>buttocks" hypothesis. I seem to recall having seen it several times over the
>years.
Desmond Morris was, if not the first to come up with it, certainly the
biggest pusher of the idea. As you pointed out, of course, it's
nonsensical nature should be evident to anyone who has actually looked
at breasts and buttocks.
>It is interesting that the difference isn't all that great compared
>to other primates if we think of breasts as thoracic fat. But I suppose that
>it still is a novelty to arrange the thoracic fat in a breast-like fashion?
Yes, my point was that it isn't as big an evolutionary leap as we
usually suppose it to be.
>Yes, of course. My point was rather, that breasts reasonably have arrived
>through selection, and the latest stage they can have arrived is at some kind
> of hunter-gatherer phase. Venus of Willendorf has breasts, that is the
>earliest documentation I am aware of. My idea was that, whereas current
>preferences must be all cultural, breast preferences in a hunter-gatherer
>society might in part evolutionarily selected, and thus be biology. (And, if
>so, still be there, under our cultural varnish, to some extent.)
Definitely true. Although only a few Paleolithic figures and drawings
show any sorts of fat depots, those that do show typically modern
locations, including the breast. Of course these were our own species,
so we shouldn't be too surprised at that finding. Although other
hypotheses have been put forth as possibilities for sexually dimophic
fat depots, including breasts, they haven't panned out. Sexual
selection is the only likely candidate. There is one problem with
this, however, which is that the changes in fat distribution seen in
aging men and women don't seem likely to have had anything to do with
sexual selection; perhaps we need to think of a concept of "social
selection", where group status due to age, and evidenced by such
changes, plays a part. (?)
>> It seems likely, and another interesting point is that amongst chimps,
>> the most sexually desirable female is almost invariably the oldest
>> female. By our time and culture standards, she is generally one of the
>> ugliest females in the group, but there is no particularly good reason
>> to suppose that our commonly expressed views of the young being
>> particularly sexually attractive were forged very far back in our past.
>Ah, so you go one step further, and argue that not only might it be an
>advantage to be multiparous, it might also be an advantage to be old. You're
>right, of course. If indeed child-raising is communal after weaning, then you
> only have to bother about the survival of the mother for the next year or
>two, so young age, at least, is not of great importance.
Survival of the mother would probably have to be until about the age of
5 for her kids, going by the evidence from chimps, but that isn't such
a long time. Older individuals tend to have networks of siblings,
friends, and children, all of whom can help watch the kids.
>I suppose there is one problem with the "old-is-sexy" theory in the evolution
> of man, and that is the evolution of the menopause. This is, come to think
>of it, a slight problem for my
>"breasts-are-there-so-that-they-can-sag-and-thus-show-nursing-success"
>theory, too. The evolution of a menopause doesn't seem to make sense, unless
>you assume that the female took personal responsibility for the upbringing of
> her children up to maturity. Why need it, if others automatically stepped in
> after weaning?
I think it's highly that for the greatest part of our evolution, the
mother's existence was critical for the survival of the child until
about 5, just like in chimps. At some point, perhaps as early as the
beginning of altricial infancies (the "great brain expansion") about 2
million years ago, others could take over at a relatively early age.
Even so, I would expect -- and this is speculation -- that these more
altricial infants, if orphaned at an early age (before maybe 5-8 years
old) would be at risk of not making it to adulthood. This would also
likely vary according to the status and network of the mother.
>If a female takes responsibility for her own offspring up to puberty or so,
>mightn't it be a bad idea to impregnate the mother with the best nursing
>success, if this means that she gets more children than she can take care of
>in an optimal fashion? Or would the reproductive and nursing success still
>offset this potential disadvantage?
>Ideas, anyone?
>Jan Bohme
The suppression of ovulation due to nursing handily takes care of the
timing problems.
Jim Moore e-mail:jimm...@inforamp.net
Richard Foy
>Jim Moore wrote:
>
>I know that very well. I just thought I should put she subject in some
>newsgroup context. Indeed, the opinion of my wife, who is wears a D-cup, and
>did not wear a bra for ten years, vis-à-vis Paul Crowleys speculations of
>unsupported breasts as strongly hampering is hardly printable, even on the
>Net.
I once had a wife who had large breasts who said they were always
getting in the way of something or other. Justa nother ancedotal bit.
Richard Foy
Jim Moore <jimm...@inforamp.net> wrote:
>
>I think it's highly that for the greatest part of our evolution, the
>mother's existence was critical for the survival of the child until
>about 5, just like in chimps. At some point, perhaps as early as the
>beginning of altricial infancies (the "great brain expansion") about 2
>million years ago, others could take over at a relatively early age.
>Even so, I would expect -- and this is speculation -- that these more
>altricial infants, if orphaned at an early age (before maybe 5-8 years
>old) would be at risk of not making it to adulthood. This would also
>likely vary according to the status and network of the mother.
I realize that you are not talking about hss, but an anthropological
study by Colin Turnbull abut the IK showed that they let the kids
struggle for survival on thier own at about the age of three.
>
>>If a female takes responsibility for her own offspring up to puberty or so,
>>mightn't it be a bad idea to impregnate the mother with the best nursing
>>success, if this means that she gets more children than she can take care of
>>in an optimal fashion? Or would the reproductive and nursing success still
>>offset this potential disadvantage?
>>Ideas, anyone?
>>Jan Bohme
>
>The suppression of ovulation due to nursing handily tkes care of the
>timing problems.
Of course very few mothers nurse up to puberty in any cultures.
>
>Jim Moore e-mail:jimm...@inforamp.net
Thomas Clarke
writes:
> >I'm probably ignorant, but actually I didn't know the source for the "mimic
> >buttocks" hypothesis. I seem to recall having seen it several times over the
> >years.
> it's
> nonsensical nature should be evident to anyone who has actually looked
> at breasts and buttocks.
But it's not your conscious brain that does the looking. Its some low
level bits down around the lateral geniculate nucleus (LGN) that would
signal "sexual object ho!" to the rest of the hominid. The small number
of neurons involved limits such sexual object recognition to the grossest
of features such as paired horizontally displaced fat lumps.
Like many PA theories, there is no hard evidence for the
buttock mimicry of breasts (BMB?) hypothesis, it cannot be logically
eliminated.
> ... Although other
> hypotheses have been put forth as possibilities for sexually dimophic
> fat deposits, including breasts, they haven't panned out. Sexual
> selection is the only likely candidate.
Precisely. and the areas of the brain that would
change in response to sexual selection would be low level areas
like the LGN, the amygdala etc.
Tom Clarke
Jim Moore
>>> mightn't it be a bad idea to impregnate the mother with the best nursing
>>>success, if this means that she gets more children than she can take care
>>>of in an optimal fashion? Or would the reproductive and nursing success
>>>still offset this potential disadvantage? Ideas, anyone? Jan Bohme
>>
>>The suppression of ovulation due to nursing handily tkes care of the
>>timing problems.
>Of course very few mothers nurse up to puberty in any cultures.
As both my posts, and even the info you added, indicates, "up to
puberty" is not the time period needed. For several years, as seen in
gathering-hunting humans and in chimps, is the timing we're talking
about.
Jim Moore e-mail:jimm...@inforamp.net
Jim Moore
>> at breasts and buttocks.
>But it's not your conscious brain that does the looking.
<snipped>
>Precisely. and the areas of the brain that would
>change in response to sexual selection would be low level areas
>like the LGN, the amygdala etc.
>
>Tom Clarke
But there it's foolish to think that it's as a substitute for another
thin, especially when that other thing (the shape of our buttocks) is
itself a feature that didn't arise until after we supposedly had this
need to find a substitute for it. The conscious/nonconscious brain
business has nothing to do with it, really.
Jim Moore e-mail:jimm...@inforamp.net
Paula Sanch
>[...]
>I once had a wife who had large breasts who said they were always
>getting in the way of something or other. Justa nother ancedotal bit.
Ummhmm. Just think how it would feel if *you* had to crouch over your
plate, looking as if you thought someone was about to try to take it
away from you, in order to avoid wearing souvenirs of your dinner (in
highly embarassing loci). Not to mention that my right rib attachment
at the 7th thoracic is more-or-less permanently sprung from its
insertion.
This doesn't mean that we women are incapable of dealing with the
situation. The ones whose fitness might actually be impacted are the
ones with the HHH cups.
Paula...@emich.edu
-----------------------------
"We can disagree without being disagreeable."
(Sis. Mickey Eaton, a southern Pentecostal)
Stephen Barnard
I've just assumed that female breasts are an exaggerated secondary
sexual characteristic due to sexual selection, like a peacock's tail.
They aren't *for* anything, other than to attract males. Put yourself
in the position of someone from Mars looking at a copy of Playboy.
Wouldn't this be an obvious conclusion?
I'll probably expose my self to ridicule for this (so to speak), but I
think human penis size is also exaggerated due to sexual selection.
Steve Barnard
Jan Böhme
Jim Moore wrote:
<lots of clarifications snipped>
>I wrote:
> >If a female takes responsibility for her own offspring up to puberty or so,
> >mightn't it be a bad idea to impregnate the mother with the best nursing
> >success, if this means that she gets more children than she can take care of
> >in an optimal fashion? Or would the reproductive and nursing success still
> >offset this potential disadvantage?
> >Ideas, anyone?
> >Jan Bohme
>
> The suppression of ovulation due to nursing handily takes care of the
> timing problems.
Maybe you're right. The reason I wasn't convinced is that this works well
enough on the population level, yet is highly unreliable on an individual
level in the human beings of today. I figured that a female where it didn't
work well, yet had good physical nursing capacity would quickly get extremely
extended breasts - as she would probably more or less constantly nurse two
kids, and, according to my theory, look highly desirable, yet perhaps not be
the most clever choice for a mating partner. I suppose it all boils down to
how efficient or inefficient the lactation-induced ovulation suppression
really is (and has been).
Another problem with my theory is that I should, in the best of worlds, be
able to explain why, say, chimps have not come up with this clever idea to
maximise reproductive success. If chimps prefer older females never the same,
they won't need it. On the other hand, why would we, then? The only thing I
can think of is our increased brain size. This has definitely made labour
both more painful and more dangerous. There is much less margin for error in
the human birth canal, and therefore more idea of advertising that your birth
canal actually has passed the test at least once. Perhaps more important,
human infants are also much more helpless than chimp infants, and it thus
supposedly takes more care and competence from the part of the mother to
nurse the infant successfully.
This is one thing that doesn't automatically translates only to age and
experience. A thirty-year old female might have had six pregnancies, but
never been able to make them survive a week, (just think of postpartum
psychosis in modern human beings) and a twenty-year-old might have two
successful pregnancies and nursings behind her. Preferring the saggiest
breasts would be a better guide to the best mother than preferring age in
that situation.
Jan Bohme
Richard Foy
In article <4lnsmp$s...@news.cc.ucf.edu>,
Thomas Clarke <cla...@acme.ist.ucf.edu> wrote:
>In article <4827.6688...@inforamp.net> jimm...@inforamp.net (Jim Moore)
>writes:
>
>> >buttocks" hypothesis. I seem to recall having seen it several times over the
>> >years.
>
>> nonsensical nature should be evident to anyone who has actually looked
>> at breasts and buttocks.
>
>level bits down around the lateral geniculate nucleus (LGN) that would
>signal "sexual object ho!" to the rest of the hominid. The small number
>of neurons involved limits such sexual object recognition to the grossest
>of features such as paired horizontally displaced fat lumps.
>Like many PA theories, there is no hard evidence for the
>buttock mimicry of breasts (BMB?) hypothesis, it cannot be logically
>eliminated.
>
>> hypotheses have been put forth as possibilities for sexually dimophic
>> selection is the only likely candidate.
>
>change in response to sexual selection would be low level areas
>like the LGN, the amygdala etc.
>
>Tom Clarke
But not all men are tuned on by buttocks or breasts either for that
matter.
I suspect what is going on something more likely explainable by some
research recently reported in the New York Times regarding dopamine.
brain stem and the rest of the brain. A brief summary says that when
an experience brings strong rewards the brain stem sends signals to
almost all parts of the brain and establishes sort of recognition
patterns. The original work was reported in Nature Feb 1 96.
My personal experience suggests that this is pertinant. I have found
that the women who turn me on the most are similar in appearance to
my first romantic date.
Jan Böhme
Richard Foy wrote:
>
> In article <4827.6688...@inforamp.net>,
> Jim Moore <jimm...@inforamp.net> wrote:
> >
> >mother's existence was critical for the survival of the child until
> >about 5, just like in chimps. At some point, perhaps as early as the
> >beginning of altricial infancies (the "great brain expansion") about 2
> >million years ago, others could take over at a relatively early age.
> >Even so, I would expect -- and this is speculation -- that these more
> >altricial infants, if orphaned at an early age (before maybe 5-8 years
> >old) would be at risk of not making it to adulthood. This would also
> >likely vary according to the status and network of the mother.
>
> study by Colin Turnbull abut the IK showed that they let the kids
> struggle for survival on thier own at about the age of three.
>
I may be wrong, but are the Ik a very good model of original hunter-gather
societies? I tend to recollect that the Ik were described as a highly
damaged, fractured society that had little to do with man's original
convention.
Jan Bohme
Tom Schmal
>Jan Bohme wrote:
The preferred mating object would thus be a young female...
If indeed child-raising is communal after weaning, then you only have to
bother about the survival of the mother for the next year or
two...
>Jim Moore wrore:
the mother's existence was critical for the survival of the child until
about 5... and The suppression of ovulation due to nursing handily takes
care of the timing problems..
>R Foy wrote:
a study abut the IK showed that they let the kids struggle for survival on
thier own at about the age of three...
Helen Fisher at Rutgers can more or less tie all these observations
together. She says data shows that in humans there is a four-year
"attraction, attachment and dissatisfaction" cycle and suggests that the
stages are physiological (natural chemical amphetamines, hormones, etc)
not cultural.
She theorizes thus: Because of these attraction-chemicals females made
'special friends' with particular males. This advantaged the infant by
co-opting the father - made necessary because its mother's burden may have
heightened with having to lug it around, and made possible because its
father, with a spare set of hands, could share food in a way a quadraped
could not.
After three years dissatisfaction sets in and the two lovers part. The
child, now walking and weaned, can successfully be raised by the mother,
who is ready for another round with another male. Why is this a good
strategy for the mother and father's reproductive success?
Let's say reproductive age begins at 15, menopause at 25, death at 35.
The male is going to be looking for a younger female, one not older that
20, as that would give too short of a time to fully raise his child. So a
forever mariage does not make reproductive best sense to him. The female
is going to be looking for an older man, a proven protector, provider,
etc, so she wants a male 25 or 30. So by following each of their best
strategies, he looking for someone 15-20, she looking for someone 25-30, a
four-year (chemical) cycle is selected for.
--
Tom Schmal
Whatever we see or feel or do is the effect
of whatever we have seen or felt or done.
Jan Böhme
Thomas Clarke wrote:
>
> In article <4827.6688...@inforamp.net> jimm...@inforamp.net (Jim Moore)
> writes:
buttocks>
>
> But it's not your conscious brain that does the looking. Its some low
> level bits down around the lateral geniculate nucleus (LGN) that would
> signal "sexual object ho!" to the rest of the hominid. The small number
> of neurons involved limits such sexual object recognition to the grossest
> of features such as paired horizontally displaced fat lumps.
> Like many PA theories, there is no hard evidence for the
> buttock mimicry of breasts (BMB?) hypothesis, it cannot be logically
> eliminated.
Well, the point of my posting prior to Jim's was that breasts look like
_vertically_ displaced fat lumps much of the time, and even to the amygdala,
the resemblance between the saggy breasts of a multiparous woman and a pair
of buttocks should be too low to be recognised.
> > ... Although other
> > hypotheses have been put forth as possibilities for sexually dimophic
> > fat deposits, including breasts, they haven't panned out. Sexual
> > selection is the only likely candidate.
>
> Precisely. and the areas of the brain that would
> change in response to sexual selection would be low level areas
> like the LGN, the amygdala etc.
Yes. The idea behind my original posting was to present a hypothesis that the
purpose of breasts is to provide a good marker of a successful mother, and
that, therefore, our biological (as opposed to cultural) preference would be
favouring saggy breasts over firm. I'm sure the even amygdala can tell the
difference between the breasts of a virgin and those of a multiparous woman
who has breastfed without breast support.
Jan Bohme
Jim Moore
>I'll probably expose my self to ridicule for this (so to speak), but I
>think human penis size is also exaggerated due to sexual selection.
> Steve Barnard
See Tanner (*On Becoming Human*) 1981, page 165, not to mention every
talk on human evolution she ever gave. She also pointed out that the
easy visibility of an erect penis in a bipedal male (as opposed to
chimps, for instance, who have to deliberately display their erect
penises to attract females' attentions) would be a spur (one of many)
to males to be bipedal, and would enhance the role of choice by
females.
Jim Moore e-mail:jimm...@inforamp.net
the skeptic
In article <4lnsmp$s...@news.cc.ucf.edu>
cla...@acme.ist.ucf.edu (Thomas Clarke) writes:
>
>In article <4827.6688...@inforamp.net> jimm...@inforamp.net (Jim Moore)
>writes:
>
>> >buttocks" hypothesis. I seem to recall having seen it several times over the
>> >years.
>
not Desmond Morris who just capitalized on the idea.
>But it's not your conscious brain that does the looking. Its some low
>level bits down around the lateral geniculate nucleus (LGN) that would
>signal "sexual object ho!" to the rest of the hominid. The small number
>of neurons involved limits such sexual object recognition to the grossest
>of features such as paired horizontally displaced fat lumps.
>Like many PA theories, there is no hard evidence for the
>buttock mimicry of breasts (BMB?) hypothesis, it cannot be logically
>eliminated.
a male views a secondary sexual characteristic or indeed even considers female
breasts a secondary sexual characteristic. In our society, I will hazard the
guess that it IS the conscious brain that does the looking and as a matter of
fact, I would say that this thread would probably support my guess as it is
amusingly obvious that males in western society are very aware of and very
thoughtful on the subject of female breasts in humans. Everytime I see one of
these breast development threads on any of the newsgroups, they are very
similar in several respects and one of those is that the authors of the threads
articles are overwhelmingly male. They are also dominated by speculative views
on how the breasts would have developed in human females as a condition for
sexual selection (in other words, how the female breast is used by males to
select a productive sexual partner).
>> ... Although other
>> hypotheses have been put forth as possibilities for sexually dimophic
For instance?
>> selection is the only likely candidate.
>
selection the only candidate? What other speculations have been posited and
then dismissed? So far, every speculation I've seen in any of these breast
development threads has been entirely composed of speculation on how breasts
developed as a sexual selection, ie., sagging breasts indicating to MALES how
this female has successfully nursed (hahahahahahaha), how the morphology
of a females' breasts might induce the male to romanticize his first love,
how the female had to have something to attract Males when she became bipedal
as if females needed any other inducement to attract males, etc.
recisely. and the areas of the brain that would
>change in response to sexual selection would be low level areas
>like the LGN, the amygdala etc.
>
I am not saying that any of these ideas is invalid, I am just saying that they
are rather short sighted and narrow minded in the view that the secondary
sexual characteristic (indeed, if that is even what the female breasts in human
s really is!) evolved entirely for the benefit of males in selecting a
successfully reproductive mate. I don't have the answers, but I have some
questions.
Why do enlarged breasts have to be a benefit to men? Could they have developed
as a benefit to females?
What function do breasts have in the first place? They serve to nurture
infants. Infants of homo sap saps are the most immature infants of any of the
primates. They cannot cling as a pan species infant does to its' mother.
They have a few reflexes and one of them is sucking. Could enlarged breasts
have some benefit for hss infants? Okay, size has nothing to do with amount of
milk produced, however, the skeletal morphology of hss has evolved and could
it be possible that the larger breast size was selected for as a benefit for
the infant? That the attitude that breasts are a secondary sexual attribute is
merely cultural? The most logical reason for breasts to have developed in hss
the way they have is as a benefit to infants as that is their primary function.
It is entirely possible that the breasts developed for reasons other than
mere cues for males of the species.
Somebody said something about after age 5, the mother wouldn't even be needed
for the successful survival of the offspring. I don't know where that idea
came from but it is known that there the parent who seeks mating (as in our
species, the male) in the majority of cases, it is the other parent who invests
the most in the offspring (the female in hss). Most other primate species do
NOT have monogamous relationships and the mother invests the most in the
offspring. What any of that has to do with breasts, I don't know.
Most mutations that occur and are selected for have more than one significa
nce. Indeed, there are some that we can't be sure evolved for the benefit they
have now. The most important thing to remember is that these things did NOT
evolve towards something, they were random mutations that turned out to be
beneficial in someway and were selected for. The mutation didn't occur because
it was needed for something. For all we know, the mutation occured and was
selected for for some obscure reason that is lost now. It could even be some
result of females no longer swinging through the trees from limb to limb and
so instead of muscle there is fat. A stretch sure, but no more so than the
riduclous theory that breasts were selected for as being helpfulto males when
bipedalism and frontal interaction took place to help them see that this was a
female. IF, and that is a big IF, breasts evolved the shape they have today
as a cue for sexual identity et al, I would give thought to the role that our
lesser olfactory senses might have played in this. But this then gives rise to
interesting fact that hss infants can SMELL their mother through the smell of
and 'taste' of her milk, her breasts. And for the mother to put out enough
smell, perhaps the simple fact is that bigger breasts aid in that regard.
I suspect that the breasts evolved in female hss for more than one reason and
that like it has benefits in several areas, not just one. I am just trying to
make the point that the benefit to males in selecting a sexual partner to
insure successful reproduction is a narrow approach and people who are intere-
sted in this type of speculation, should at least speculate on a larger
scale. It is doubtful that males of the species at earliest stages of breast
development even knew who their children were and so it is doubtful that
they selected mates on the basis of what female was likely to successfully
reproduce their DNA and aid them in contributing to the gene pool. It is
unlikely in my humble opinion that hss breast development in females was
selected for to aid in successful selection of mates and I think it is time
for people to quit thinking of it only in this regard.
Karen Harper
zu0...@uabdpo.dpo.uab.edu
"I am too much of a skeptic to disbelieve anything..." T. Huxley
the skeptic
In article <318067...@megafauna.com>
Stephen Barnard <st...@megafauna.com> writes:
>
>I've just assumed that female breasts are an exaggerated secondary
>sexual characteristic due to sexual selection, like a peacock's tail.
>They aren't *for* anything, other than to attract males. Put yourself
>in the position of someone from Mars looking at a copy of Playboy.
>Wouldn't this be an obvious conclusion?
>
the magazine with photographic enhancements,etc., I would condlude that
females of this species were worshipped by the males and therefore very hard
to interact with and that since the ones depicted for worship in this magazine
had to be morphologically corrected with computer imagery and photography
that the females of the species were dying out and the ones left were only
pathetic mutant imitations of the ones that were worshipped such as those in
the magazine. All this would signal trouble and I would bypass this planet
as quickly as possible as having disturbing incalculable problems.
>I'll probably expose my self to ridicule for this (so to speak), but I
>think human penis size is also exaggerated due to sexual selection.
>
> Steve Barnard
males. ;) Sorry, couldn't resist that one.
Karen
the skeptic
Since the speculation that Lovejoy came up with regarding the development of
breasts being selected for because they 'mimic' the overlying fascia of the
gluteal muscles was purely intended as a side issue support of his bipedalism
theory, and wasn't really intended to be taken so seriously but has been anywa
y, the idea rests on the belief that h.s.s. are the only primates who have
frontal sex and since it has since been discovered in studies of pan paniscus,
that we are not the only primates to have frontal sex or to have sex only for
reasons of procreation, the speculation on breasts mimicking the buttocks
is basically without support of any sort whatsoever.
The bonobos have sex with and without intercourse for reasons that
have nothing to do with procreation so why is it so hard to believe that
enlarged breasts evolved for any reason other than as a selection for sexual
reproductive advantage and for MALES at that?
The heading for this thread ought to give everybody a red signal
since it is entitled "The Purpose of Breasts"....as if they evolved into what
they are in some teleological context for some specific reason such as FOR
the benefit of mate selection by males.
Stephen Barnard
As much as you want large breast size to be caused by something other
than male preference, I really don't see any compelling arguments that
you've made to the contrary. Are you willing to entertain the notion
that large penis size is due to female preference?
Steve Barnard
the skeptic
In article <3182A6...@megafauna.com>
anything at all, I just tried to make the point that it could have other
causes than the ones entertained in this thread. Obviously, I didn't make my
point clear and caused you some confusion. Sorry about that. As for enter-
taining the notion that large penis size is due to female preference, I would
be perfectly open minded to such a notion if it was proven to me that males of
the species have what you term "large penis size". I am also willing to
entertain the notion that enlarged breasts were selected for as an advantage to
males, but have seen no compelling evidence that this is true. In fact, any
ideas about either development is mere speculation, and while interesting, is
still only "notions" however interesting, entertaining or what have you.
I don't actually even have what I consider a personal theory regarding
selection for breast development, I just think that when one is speculating,
one should at least try to be inventive and broad minded and am only trying to
make that point.
IF it were proven to me, and that is a very speculative IF that male hss
penis size is disproportionately larger than other mammals, I would say that
it could have evolved that way from being selected for by any number of things
such as when the females' morphology evolved, it could be that her vagina
grew, morphology changed so that the muscles would expand for childbirth and so
large penis size was selected for...who knows? It is all mere speculation.
I am not devoted to any one "notion" in regard to speculation.
But variety is more interesting when speculating and variation is too
important to be overlooked as well.
As stated above, I admit that I have no answers, only questions. I don't
"want" breast enlargement to have been selected for for any particular reason,
I simply want to have a better selection to muse on, not one that is grounded
in an old discarded theory that got popularized in pop science broadcast media.
Jim Moore
>I believe the origin for this highly speculative idea came from Lovejoy,
>not Desmond Morris who just capitalized on the idea.
Well, that makes Desmond Morris a psychic, doesn't it, since he wrote
about this in *The Naked Ape* in 1967, while the Lovejoy article
referred to was done in 1981. Puts me in mind of the many times I've
seen Tanner and Zilhman's hypotheses from 1974 called a "reaction" to
Lovejoy's 1981 *Science* article, or to Glynn Isaac's 1978 *Scientific A
merican* article. That too would quite a feat, "reacting" years before
the fact.
>>> ... Although other
>>> hypotheses have been put forth as possibilities for sexually dimophic
>>> fat deposits, including breasts, they haven't panned out. Sexual
>
>For instance?
For instance needing fat in the immediate are of the nipples to provide
milk, or to warm milk; these have been put forth as speculative ideas,
but Caroline Pond (so far the most knowledgeable expert on the
evolutionary significance of fat in humans has examined these ideas
and finds no support for them -- for instance by looking at cross-species
comparisons. There seems to be some need of an overall minimum level
of fat needed for reproduction (likely about 12-13% in human females),
but this is an overall level of fat and not just the breasts.
>>> selection is the only likely candidate.
>>
>I'd be interested in knowing what leads you to that conclusion. Why is
>sexual selection the only candidate? What other speculations have been
>posited and then dismissed? So far, every speculation I've seen in any of
>these breast development threads has been entirely composed of speculation on
>how breasts developed as a sexual selection, ie., sagging breasts indicating
>to MALES how this female has successfully nursed (hahahahahahaha), how the
>morphology of a females' breasts might induce the male to romanticize his
>first love, how the female had to have something to attract Males when she
>became bipedal as if females needed any other inducement to attract males,
>etc.
May I gently point out that there is a world outside of Usenet, and
that confining yourself to "these threads" confines you to a tiny
subset of the knowledge available and work done in science. ;-)
>Why do enlarged breasts have to be a benefit to men? Could they have
>developed as a benefit to females?
They're not "a benefit to men" if they're a sexual signal, they're a
benefit to the woman. A male deer's antlers aren't simply a benefit
to female deer, or rather a benefit to the male? (as one example;
there may be better ones.) I notice you are using the phrase "an
inducement [for males to mate]" and assuming that if other animals mate
without such a feature, it cannot be a sexually selected feature.
Actually, sexually selected features, such as deer antlers, peacock
tailfeathers, etc., typically vary from species to species.
>What function do breasts have in the first place? They serve to nurture
>infants.
<snipped>
> It is entirely possible that the breasts developed for reasons other than
>mere cues for males of the species.
But breasts work just fine for infants if they are only (relatively)
enlarged during the period of suckling; the interesting difference is
that human female breasts are enlarged at other times as well, even
before their first pregnancy. This suggests very strongly (very very
strongly) that they are (relatively) enlarged for some reason other
than the benefit of the infant.
> Somebody said something about after age 5, the mother wouldn't even be
> needed
>for the successful survival of the offspring. I don't know where that idea
> came from but it is known that there the parent who seeks mating (as in our
>species, the male) in the majority of cases, it is the other parent who
>invests the most in the offspring (the female in hss). Most other primate
>species do NOT have monogamous relationships and the mother invests the most
>in the offspring. What any of that has to do with breasts, I don't know.
Humans are not monogamous, although they *can* be. And I didn't say
that "the mother wouldn't even be needed for the successful survival of
the infant" [after age 5] but rather that it is likely that -- as seen
in chimps -- infants of early hominids orphaned when younger at up to
5 years of age likely wouldn't survive.
> result of females no longer swinging through the trees from limb to limb and
>so instead of muscle there is fat. A stretch sure, but no more so than the
>riduclous theory that breasts were selected for as being helpfulto males
>when bipedalism and frontal interaction took place to help them see that this
>was a female. IF, and that is a big IF, breasts evolved the shape they have
>today as a cue for sexual identity et al, I would give thought to the role
>that our lesser olfactory senses might have played in this. But this then
>gives rise to interesting fact that hss infants can SMELL their mother
>through the smell of and 'taste' of her milk, her breasts. And for the
>mother to put out enough smell, perhaps the simple fact is that bigger
>breasts aid in that regard.
All this needs is scent glands in the area of the nipple, which are
very common in a great many mammals; it does not require any larger
size, and it does not provide any reason why these breasts would be
enlarged during periods when infants weren't nursing, nor even before
the female's first pregnancy.
>
>I suspect that the breasts evolved in female hss for more than one reason and
>that like it has benefits in several areas, not just one. I am just trying
>to make the point that the benefit to males in selecting a sexual partner to
>insure successful reproduction is a narrow approach and people who are
>intere- sted in this type of speculation, should at least speculate on a
>larger scale. It is doubtful that males of the species at earliest stages of
>breast
> development even knew who their children were and so it is doubtful that
>they selected mates on the basis of what female was likely to successfully
>reproduce their DNA and aid them in contributing to the gene pool. It is
>unlikely in my humble opinion that hss breast development in females was
>selected for to aid in successful selection of mates and I think it is time
>for people to quit thinking of it only in this regard.
>Karen Harper
You are making the mistake of assuming that researchers have so far
only thought of it "in this regard". That statement was true two
decades ago (even up till about the early 1980s, perhaps) but is not
true now. And the impetus for reevaluating the simplistic assumptions
that tended to be used before that time came from female researchers,
and the major research done has been done, AFAIK, by Caroline Pond. I
think her methods and her conclusions are sound.
Couple of other points you raise: there certainly was no likelihood of
hominids (until pretty recently) knowing about fatherhood; any kinship
of fathers and their children was likely accidental, through continued
relationship with the mother. Sexual selection, which is
well-established idea in science, does not assume such a knowledge.
Indeed, the connection between sexual intercourse and motherhood was
almost certainly not known until much the same time. This does not
negate the theory of sexual selection. The act of selection (until
relatively recent human times) was not one which was consciously aimed
toward having better kids.
The other point is tied with something I wrote in this thread; that
"the fat depot across the front of the thorax in humans seems more
different than other primates then it really is because of a combination
of upright posture and a greater overall abundance of fat in *Homo
sapiens* compared to wild primates. This means that the difference,
which is there, is nonetheless less of a change then we commonly think
it is. What I mean is that, in evolutionary terms, it wasn't such a
big leap from there to here as we usually think". (This statement is
based on Caroline Pond's work.)
The idea of getting more fat because we weren't swinging through trees
isn't quite thought out, but you in making that suggestion you were
pointing toward an important point about this overall higher level of
fat in humans than in wild primates.
First a note: one problem in the study of the evolutionary significance
of fat in humans is that we don't have any humans who live in an
"ancestral state", and almost all our info about the amount of fat
humans have is based on studies of people who, like typical Europeans
and North Americans, eat a lot more steadily and eat fattier foods than
our ancestors did. So our studies tend to show us having more fat than
our ancestors were likely to have had. We do get some suggestion of the
differences we're talking about by looking at a study of nomadic tribesmen
[males] in East Africa, who range from 6-12% adipose tissue [fat], as
opposed to a typical "reference" male [like you'll find in the textbooks
on physiology] who comes in at around 15% adipose tissue. Clearly
"western" males carry more fat than males in at least some other
regions typically do.
Now back to the question of the higher overall fat levels in humans as
opposed to wild primates:
The primary function of fat is as food storage; this is well-established.
The great thing about fat is that it's a handy food source you carry
with you wherever you go. The health disadvantages of lots of fat are
a problem for individuals, but evolution can help out a population in
this regard: individuals who can't handle extra fat -- healthwise --
tend to die off and the population, over generations, ends up composed
of individuals who can handle that excess fat. But there's a problem
that keeps this from happening, as there must be; otherwise animals
would all be really fat. The problem is movement; fat hinders movement
-- not especially fat in depots like breasts, but in the areas of the
joints and the limbs. This makes an animal more susceptible to
predators. This seems to keep wild primates down to about 5% adipose
tissue, while humans are higher. This suggests that human fat levels
likely didn't climb above the typical primate level (common in many
mammals) of 5% until there was very little risk of them falling prey
to any predators. This suggests that this didn't happen until they had
fairly effective weapons, probably well after modified stone tools were
developed, and quite likely not until sometime during the timespan of
*Homo erectus* -- maybe even later.
I believe there was -- in *Science* or *Nature* -- a recent article of
a study -- on robins (?) I think -- which showed a connection between
fat levels and risk of predation which supports this hypothesis. I
only read the reports in the newspapers, and as I remember this was
about 6-10 weeks ago. Anyone remember this one?
Jim Moore e-mail:jimm...@inforamp.net
the skeptic
In article <10914.6691...@inforamp.net>
jimm...@inforamp.net (Jim Moore) writes:
>
>>I believe the origin for this highly speculative idea came from Lovejoy,
>>not Desmond Morris who just capitalized on the idea.
>
>Well, that makes Desmond Morris a psychic, doesn't it, since he wrote
>about this in *The Naked Ape* in 1967, while the Lovejoy article
>referred to was done in 1981. Puts me in mind of the many times I've
>seen Tanner and Zilhman's hypotheses from 1974 called a "reaction" to
>Lovejoy's 1981 *Science* article, or to Glynn Isaac's 1978 *Scientific A
>merican* article. That too would quite a feat, "reacting" years before
>the fact.
>
And I still stick to the Lovejoy reference and will look it up for you if you
like. I never referred to any article in my posting whatsoever. In fact, I
got the information from one of my classes in physical anthropology.
>>>> ... Although other
>>>> hypotheses have been put forth as possibilities for sexually dimophic
>>>> fat deposits, including breasts, they haven't panned out. Sexual
>>
>>For instance?
>
>For instance needing fat in the immediate are of the nipples to provide
>milk, or to warm milk; these have been put forth as speculative ideas,
>but Caroline Pond (so far the most knowledgeable expert on the
>evolutionary significance of fat in humans has examined these ideas
>and finds no support for them -- for instance by looking at cross-species
>comparisons. There seems to be some need of an overall minimum level
>of fat needed for reproduction (likely about 12-13% in human females),
>but this is an overall level of fat and not just the breasts.
>
know of? I am seriously intrigued to know because I can't believe that that
is the only candidate that has been entertained and then dismissed.
>>>> selection is the only likely candidate.
>>>
>>I'd be interested in knowing what leads you to that conclusion. Why is
>>sexual selection the only candidate? What other speculations have been
>>posited and then dismissed? So far, every speculation I've seen in any of
>>these breast development threads has been entirely composed of speculation on
>>how breasts developed as a sexual selection, ie., sagging breasts indicating
>>to MALES how this female has successfully nursed (hahahahahahaha), how the
>>morphology of a females' breasts might induce the male to romanticize his
>>first love, how the female had to have something to attract Males when she
>>became bipedal as if females needed any other inducement to attract males,
>>etc.
>
>May I gently point out that there is a world outside of Usenet, and
>that confining yourself to "these threads" confines you to a tiny
>subset of the knowledge available and work done in science. ;-)
>
outside of the usenet groups. As a matter of fact, I think that some people
might need to hear that quite often so keep saying it, and maybe it will get
across. I work in science by the way. Problem is, I usually don't get on the
internet newsgroups to see what Jim Moore is up to this week.
>>Why do enlarged breasts have to be a benefit to men? Could they have
>>developed as a benefit to females?
>
>They're not "a benefit to men" if they're a sexual signal, they're a
>benefit to the woman. A male deer's antlers aren't simply a benefit
>to female deer, or rather a benefit to the male? (as one example;
>there may be better ones.) I notice you are using the phrase "an
>inducement [for males to mate]" and assuming that if other animals mate
>without such a feature, it cannot be a sexually selected feature.
>Actually, sexually selected features, such as deer antlers, peacock
>tailfeathers, etc., typically vary from species to species.
>
sexual selection. In fact, I asked why the entire thread was made up of
speculation on why large breasts were selected for because they all imply
some sort of benefit for males in selecting a sexually successful reproductive
mate.Females enjoy sex too and breasts are sometimes involved.
>>What function do breasts have in the first place? They serve to nurture
>>infants.
><snipped>
>> It is entirely possible that the breasts developed for reasons other than
>>mere cues for males of the species.
>
>But breasts work just fine for infants if they are only (relatively)
>enlarged during the period of suckling; the interesting difference is
>that human female breasts are enlarged at other times as well, even
>before their first pregnancy. This suggests very strongly (very very
>strongly) that they are (relatively) enlarged for some reason other
>than the benefit of the infant.
of problems with breast feeding in h.s.s. that don't seem to occur in other
primate species with as high a frequency. Still, this could be support for
contention that the breasts enlarged were selected for some other reason. I
reiterate, I am only asking some questions to get the subject off the tedium
of how enlarged breasts were selected for so that males could select a mate
that was reproductively successful. Also, human female breasts enlarge at the
onset of puberty which is correlated with the onset of at least the possibility
of pregnancy. So I disagree very very very very strongly with your statement
above.
>
>> Somebody said something about after age 5, the mother wouldn't even be
>> needed
>>for the successful survival of the offspring. I don't know where that idea
>> came from but it is known that there the parent who seeks mating (as in our
>>species, the male) in the majority of cases, it is the other parent who
>>invests the most in the offspring (the female in hss). Most other primate
>>species do NOT have monogamous relationships and the mother invests the most
>>in the offspring. What any of that has to do with breasts, I don't know.
>
>Humans are not monogamous, although they *can* be. And I didn't say
>that "the mother wouldn't even be needed for the successful survival of
>the infant" [after age 5] but rather that it is likely that -- as seen
>in chimps -- infants of early hominids orphaned when younger at up to
>5 years of age likely wouldn't survive.
>
defensive. I humbly apologise.
>> result of females no longer swinging through the trees from limb to limb and
>>so instead of muscle there is fat. A stretch sure, but no more so than the
>>riduclous theory that breasts were selected for as being helpfulto males
>>when bipedalism and frontal interaction took place to help them see that this
>>was a female. IF, and that is a big IF, breasts evolved the shape they have
>>today as a cue for sexual identity et al, I would give thought to the role
>>that our lesser olfactory senses might have played in this. But this then
>>gives rise to interesting fact that hss infants can SMELL their mother
>>through the smell of and 'taste' of her milk, her breasts. And for the
>>mother to put out enough smell, perhaps the simple fact is that bigger
>>breasts aid in that regard.
>
>All this needs is scent glands in the area of the nipple, which are
>very common in a great many mammals; it does not require any larger
Maybe they were and maybe they weren't. Who knows?
>size, and it does not provide any reason why these breasts would be
>enlarged during periods when infants weren't nursing, nor even before
>the female's first pregnancy.
more going on in the world than on usenet ;). On the occasion that I get the
chance and inclination at the same time to read this newsgroup, you seem to ha
ve a lot of time to author a lot of articles. Have you tried the philosophy
newsgroups? If I am correct in determining that you have a lot of time to
spend on this sort of thought and reading of the literature, do you have any
obscure information that I'm not finding on Bashi exposures in Alabama?
Bashi of the Wilcox group from the Wasatchian stage from the Eocene Paleocene
boundary like the T4 channel where several of these earliest primates have
been found? Anybody out there got any information on this?
>>
>>I suspect that the breasts evolved in female hss for more than one reason and
>>that like it has benefits in several areas, not just one. I am just trying
>>to make the point that the benefit to males in selecting a sexual partner to
>>insure successful reproduction is a narrow approach and people who are
>>intere- sted in this type of speculation, should at least speculate on a
>>larger scale. It is doubtful that males of the species at earliest stages of
>>breast
>> development even knew who their children were and so it is doubtful that
>>they selected mates on the basis of what female was likely to successfully
>>reproduce their DNA and aid them in contributing to the gene pool. It is
>>unlikely in my humble opinion that hss breast development in females was
>>selected for to aid in successful selection of mates and I think it is time
>>for people to quit thinking of it only in this regard.
>>Karen Harper
>
>You are making the mistake of assuming that researchers have so far
>only thought of it "in this regard". That statement was true two
>decades ago (even up till about the early 1980s, perhaps) but is not
>true now. And the impetus for reevaluating the simplistic assumptions
thread. See how easy it is for us to misunderstand others of our own
species? Now THAT is a subject!
>that tended to be used before that time came from female researchers,
>and the major research done has been done, AFAIK, by Caroline Pond. I
>think her methods and her conclusions are sound.
>
>Couple of other points you raise: there certainly was no likelihood of
>hominids (until pretty recently) knowing about fatherhood; any kinship
>of fathers and their children was likely accidental, through continued
>relationship with the mother. Sexual selection, which is
name of the book the article was written about, but some chap in England has
written a book all about how females "trick" their mates into thinking that
they are the fathers of their children when they are really mating with more
successful (as in financially successful) men to have their children by having
affairs. The guy is a scientist, a biologist if I remember correctly but
being educated and in the field of science doesn't equate with being correct
all the time. Just thought that was interesting.
>well-established idea in science, does not assume such a knowledge.
>Indeed, the connection between sexual intercourse and motherhood was
>almost certainly not known until much the same time. This does not
>negate the theory of sexual selection. The act of selection (until
>relatively recent human times) was not one which was consciously aimed
>toward having better kids.
>
the issue that in this thread, it is the only contention considered. And
when did sexual selection become impetus for "having better kids?" I thought
we were still arguing about the causes of sexual selection such as in the idea
of the selfish gene and all that. How did we come so far? Did I misunderstand
you again? Probably so! Hope so. I am glad that you have found a
scientist such as Carolyn Pond that you enjoy and endorse so greatly, but there
is always room for more information and open mindedness. I am sure that Pond
would herself point out that to learn more about the species we must be open
minded and not get caught up in one theory. It is the pittrap of all
scientists that we tend to come up with a theory and then devote the rest of
our careers to defending said theory. But with the usenet, this group in
mind, maybe scientists won't have to defend their positions since they have
such loyal fans.
>The other point is tied with something I wrote in this thread; that
>"the fat depot across the front of the thorax in humans seems more
>different than other primates then it really is because of a combination
>of upright posture and a greater overall abundance of fat in *Homo
>sapiens* compared to wild primates. This means that the difference,
>which is there, is nonetheless less of a change then we commonly think
>it is. What I mean is that, in evolutionary terms, it wasn't such a
>big leap from there to here as we usually think". (This statement is
>based on Caroline Pond's work.)
>
"the fat depot across the front of the thorax in humans seems more different
it be selected for?Or are you even saying that it was selected for?
>The idea of getting more fat because we weren't swinging through trees
>isn't quite thought out, but you in making that suggestion you were
>pointing toward an important point about this overall higher level of
>fat in humans than in wild primates.
>
I have no idea what caused enlarged breasts to be selected for, I would just
like to see something besides the usual sexual selection idea even if it is
the correct idea because there is no way it can ever really be disproved or
proved that I know of. Since this is merely speculation and interesting
speculation, I was just throwing out an idea in an attempt to come up with
more ideas about it. In all honesty, the sexual selection idea is as good
as any but it is not the only one and it has been fun to think of others.
I also wonder why nobody seems to mention (that I've seen anyway) that
in the sexual selection vein, breasts are fun for females of the species too.
It is an enhancement in certain sexual interactions that seem to be exclusive
to our species. But then again, if they were selected for for the benefit of
females in sexual interaction, why is it that males are the ones who are so
enamored of them? Maybe that is a question for psychology. What role does
culture play in all of this? I am throwing out questions here again, don't
let it make you defensive. It is only an idea, not a theory and not a
personal challenge. Culture does play a role in selection and evolution and
though we cannot ever grasp the full picture, we should consider culture in
evolution as it is important (consider the frequency of diabetes and obesity
in cultures that were largely foraging until recent western culturization).
>First a note: one problem in the study of the evolutionary significance
>of fat in humans is that we don't have any humans who live in an
>"ancestral state", and almost all our info about the amount of fat
>humans have is based on studies of people who, like typical Europeans
>and North Americans, eat a lot more steadily and eat fattier foods than
>our ancestors did. So our studies tend to show us having more fat than
>our ancestors were likely to have had. We do get some suggestion of the
>differences we're talking about by looking at a study of nomadic tribesmen
>[males] in East Africa, who range from 6-12% adipose tissue [fat], as
>opposed to a typical "reference" male [like you'll find in the textbooks
>on physiology] who comes in at around 15% adipose tissue. Clearly
>"western" males carry more fat than males in at least some other
>regions typically do.
>
before I read your last paragraph!!!But please don't categorize me with
Lovejoy.
>Now back to the question of the higher overall fat levels in humans as
>opposed to wild primates:
>The primary function of fat is as food storage; this is well-established.
>The great thing about fat is that it's a handy food source you carry
>with you wherever you go. The health disadvantages of lots of fat are
>a problem for individuals, but evolution can help out a population in
>this regard: individuals who can't handle extra fat -- healthwise --
>tend to die off and the population, over generations, ends up composed
>of individuals who can handle that excess fat. But there's a problem
>that keeps this from happening, as there must be; otherwise animals
>would all be really fat. The problem is movement; fat hinders movement
>-- not especially fat in depots like breasts, but in the areas of the
>joints and the limbs. This makes an animal more susceptible to
>predators. This seems to keep wild primates down to about 5% adipose
>tissue, while humans are higher. This suggests that human fat levels
>likely didn't climb above the typical primate level (common in many
>mammals) of 5% until there was very little risk of them falling prey
>to any predators. This suggests that this didn't happen until they had
>fairly effective weapons, probably well after modified stone tools were
>developed, and quite likely not until sometime during the timespan of
>*Homo erectus* -- maybe even later.
>
subject and it is a complex and involved issue. There is reason to believe
that people who live in cultures where there are periods of food shortages
evolved a type of metabolism that allowed them to use less fat (energy storage)
so that they would survive the shortages. Now that these groups of people have
been exposed to western culture and ready food in excess as a matter of fact,
such as the Polynesians and some of the native American tribes, the incidence
of obesity and diabetes in these groups is astounding and hard to overcome.
In our culture of fast food, etc., they are at a disadvantage but it is
also interesting that in the more educated subcultures of these migrated and
non migrated groups of people, the more educated tend to have a lesser
incidence of obesity and other diet based problems. These people are making
concerted effort to overcoming their genetic predisposition to being
extraordinarily effective in fat storage. Again, culture is important. An
interesting thought and maybe there is some connection to the breast thing.
I do think that adipose is probably important in enlarged breasts and as I
said before, and maintain, there are probably more than one reason that
enlarged breasts were selected for and apparently you DID get that point, so
at least I was clear on one thing, eh?
>I believe there was -- in *Science* or *Nature* -- a recent article of
>a study -- on robins (?) I think -- which showed a connection between
>fat levels and risk of predation which supports this hypothesis. I
>only read the reports in the newspapers, and as I remember this was
>about 6-10 weeks ago. Anyone remember this one?
>
>Jim Moore e-mail:jimm...@inforamp.net
>
>
subject to predators. I also think that in our society, in our species that
obesity is usually a factor in being selected against. Though I understand the
re are some who would disagree with that. I think that sedentary living, ie.,
big brains, culture, CULTURE, probably have a lot or had a lot to do with our
species becoming subject to obesity. I wonder if because of sexual selection,
if eventually our species will be unable to handle food shortages if there
ever are any. Just a thought.Culture is a pretty important issue in terms
of evolution but how does one measure it? How does one define it? As far as
I've been able to discern, there is no one definition for culture. I think
that cultural anthropologists and physical anthropologists need to work
together more and I am afraid that the physical and cultural anthros are
getting further and further apart or is that farther.......
Karen
Just felt like arguing.
Newsgroups...next best thing to primal scream therapy, eh?
Debra Mckay
Jan Böhme <jan....@imun.su.se> wrote:
>Richard Foy wrote:
>> I realize that you are not talking about hss, but an anthropological
>> study by Colin Turnbull abut the IK showed that they let the kids
>> struggle for survival on thier own at about the age of three.
>>
>
>I may be wrong, but are the Ik a very good model of original hunter-gather
>societies? I tend to recollect that the Ik were described as a highly
>damaged, fractured society that had little to do with man's original
>convention.
>
>Jan Bohme
Your recollection is correct; the Ik were a traditional society
relocated away from their home areas, and with a disrupted social
system. As well, it seems there were problems with Turnbull's
study of them; he characterized them as behaving in certain ways
despite evidence to the contrary (this included their attitudes
toward young children), and he also ignored some rather important
anthropological ethics.
Deb
Jim Moore
>jimm...@inforamp.net (Jim Moore) writes:
>>
>>>I believe the origin for this highly speculative idea came from Lovejoy,
>>>not Desmond Morris who just capitalized on the idea.
>>
>>Well, that makes Desmond Morris a psychic, doesn't it, since he wrote
>>about this in *The Naked Ape* in 1967, while the Lovejoy article
>>referred to was done in 1981. Puts me in mind of the many times I've
>>seen Tanner and Zilhman's hypotheses from 1974 called a "reaction" to
>>Lovejoy's 1981 *Science* article, or to Glynn Isaac's 1978 *Scientific A
>>merican* article. That too would quite a feat, "reacting" years before
>>the fact.
>>
>Hmmm, you must be psychic too since I didn't refer to any particular article.
>And I still stick to the Lovejoy reference and will look it up for you if you
>like. I never referred to any article in my posting whatsoever. In fact, I
>got the information from one of my classes in physical anthropology.
My statement does not require any physic ability, just knowledge of
what and when C. Owen Lovejoy has written. Before his 1981 *Science*
article, he hadn't written on the subject at hand. He was a "bones"
guy with "bones" articles (with the exception of a couple of co-written
articles on molecular stuff and one co-written article on diet and
infectious disease and prehistory). In 1967, when Desmond Morris wrote
the stuff you're saying he got from Lovejoy, Lovejoy had just finished
his M.A., was not yet employed in anthro, and had written one article
-- on a burial site in Ohio. (I think you'll find that Morris didn't
cadge anything from that article either. ;-)
But please do find the Lovejoy reference (it will turn out to be
C. Owen Lovejoy, "The Origin of Man" *Science* 211(4480):341-350,
23 January 1981).
Jim Moore e-mail:jimm...@inforamp.net
the skeptic
In article <1805.6692...@inforamp.net>
jimm...@inforamp.net (Jim Moore) writes:
>
>>jimm...@inforamp.net (Jim Moore) writes:
>>>
>>>>I believe the origin for this highly speculative idea came from Lovejoy,
>>>>not Desmond Morris who just capitalized on the idea.
>>>
>>>Well, that makes Desmond Morris a psychic, doesn't it, since he wrote
>>>about this in *The Naked Ape* in 1967, while the Lovejoy article
>>>referred to was done in 1981. Puts me in mind of the many times I've
>>>seen Tanner and Zilhman's hypotheses from 1974 called a "reaction" to
>>>Lovejoy's 1981 *Science* article, or to Glynn Isaac's 1978 *Scientific A
>>>merican* article. That too would quite a feat, "reacting" years before
>>>the fact.
>>>
>>Hmmm, you must be psychic too since I didn't refer to any particular article.
>>And I still stick to the Lovejoy reference and will look it up for you if you
>>like. I never referred to any article in my posting whatsoever. In fact, I
>>got the information from one of my classes in physical anthropology.
>
>My statement does not require any physic ability, just knowledge of
>what and when C. Owen Lovejoy has written. Before his 1981 *Science*
>article, he hadn't written on the subject at hand. He was a "bones"
>guy with "bones" articles (with the exception of a couple of co-written
>articles on molecular stuff and one co-written article on diet and
>infectious disease and prehistory). In 1967, when Desmond Morris wrote
>the stuff you're saying he got from Lovejoy, Lovejoy had just finished
>his M.A., was not yet employed in anthro, and had written one article
>-- on a burial site in Ohio. (I think you'll find that Morris didn't
>cadge anything from that article either. ;-)
>
What did you do, spend the morning at the library?
Okay, I'll take your word for it, maybe it is wishful thinking on my part that
Lovejoy was the one to come up with such a speculation. I hate to think of
Morris being the one to have come up with such inanity. I guess I like his
books on cats and dogs best. It doesn't matter really all that much who came
up with the idea, what matters is that it has been so popularised and let's
face it, there are a lot of people who see this stuff in print or on the telly
who take it as prevailing theory or gasp, fact.
I'm in the mood for argument, let's find something more interesting to argue
about. Hmm, I can't think of anything to argue about since I don't know what
your opinions are on things. Okay, here we go...here's a couple of things I
don't like, and if you do, let's have a good argument: I don't like socio-
biology. I am usually on the side of variation and complexity and that
evolution models are all oversimplifications. I don't think there is a
consensus on the definition of culture but I will go out on a limb anyway and
say that I believe Neanderthal was culturally complex in terms of what we
might some day agree is human culture. I think that most theories paint things
as black and white which is useful but that the truth usually lies somewhere
in between or maybe just nearby. I think that the punctuated equalibrium
theory is incredibly simplistic and think that while it is possible that the
punctuation so to speak took place a few times through history, that it is
possible but I still like gradualism much better. Is that enough to give you
a start?
Oh, and I do believe that the four subfields of anthropology should diversify
and specialise as much as each person likes but that we need to keep the lines
of communication open. For instance, in primate conservation, it would be
helpful for primatologists to have the assistance of cultural anthros who would
be willing to work with the PA's and the locals to determine best courses of
conservation action for all parties concerned.
>But please do find the Lovejoy reference (it will turn out to be
>C. Owen Lovejoy, "The Origin of Man" *Science* 211(4480):341-350,
>23 January 1981).
>
Models paper too. Yes I know he is a forensic chap. I'm sure he has some
ahem, great contributions and all that. It's a free country though and I
happen to disagree with some of his er, methods, yeah, that's it.
>Jim Moore e-mail:jimm...@inforamp.net
What do you do that you have so much time to spend on writing on a newsgroup
like this? You must have lots of available time since you don't mind spending
it answering some rather strange postings on science fiction and fantasy.
I only get to get on here and play once every few months or so. It is never
what I hope for it to be but it is ahem, interesting nonetheless.
Karen email me: zu0...@uabdpo.dpo.uab.edu
>
>
the skeptic
In article <4m18a3$p...@ra.cc.wwu.edu>
Phillip Bigelow <phi...@lubricant.free.org> writes:
>
>ZU0...@uabdpo.dpo.uab.edu (the skeptic) wrote:
>
>> In our society, I will hazard the
>>guess that it IS the conscious brain that does the looking and as a matter of
>>fact, I would say that this thread would probably support my guess as it is
>>amusingly obvious that males in western society are very aware of and very
>>thoughtful on the subject of female breasts in humans. Everytime I see one of
>>these breast development threads on any of the newsgroups, they are very
>>similar in several respects and one of those is that the authors of the threads
>>articles are overwhelmingly male. They are also dominated by speculative views
>
>
>this subject (having no choice but to continuously carry said morphology
>with around with them day in and day out), it can safely be claimed that
>the female views are *also* colored. (see below).
>
Yes, you are right of course, none of us is immune to bias after all. I think
that there are plenty of women who are greatly affected by the so called
'ideal' body image that has been sold to our society by broadcast advertising.
I guess I am lucky in that I am not one of those unfortunate women who is
dissatisfied with how I look. I am not big breasted and have always been
glad for that lucky break. I've known women who were overly large who had
real problems with that characteristic both emotionally and physically.
I still think and this is only personal observation from life experience,
that men are more obsessed with breasts than women are. The only women I've
ever come across who were that serious about breasts were overly large.
I think that is typical for any person who has any phenotypical characteristic
that marks them as out of the ordinary.
>>on how the breasts would have developed in human females as a condition for
>>sexual selection (in other words, how the female breast is used by males to
>>select a productive sexual partner).
>
>
>interactivity between the two genders, and how each gender views the
>discussion.
This is an experiment? I do think this is fairly typical of gender views
except that I've only seen one other female (that I know of at least)
post an article to this discussion and I believe that her post was a
anecdotal one but can't remember exactly. I think that sometimes men and
women become so defensive over these sorts of things that they fall into the
trap of some sort of gender competition which is very bothersome to me as I
have the ridiculously romantic notion that we would all be better off if we
could learn to be complementary rather than competitive with one another.
I think that this will eventually be true but I am a hopeless romantic on
such things so admit to complete bias.
> The ABC show 20/20 had a segment on recently, regarding how women view
>their breasts. Not surprisingly, most women view their breasts from the
>point of view of *men*. Since "all" men _supposadly_ like large breasts,
>women picked-up on that cue (whether overtly or subliminally; it doesn't
>matter), and rated their own femininity with regard to their own breast
>size. Since small "wasp-like" waists are "in" in the late 20th Century,
>as well as large breasts and a tall height to go along with the waists,
>I suspect the purported "ideal" female, if computer simulated, would be
>malformed, unhealthy, and probably would be in cronic pain.
I enjoy watching shows like 20/20 but I also am aware that their findings are
from a small sample size for the most part and also am aware of the pitfalls
of surveying people since people lie to the interviewer fairly often and
respond in what they perceive the interviewer as wanting to hear. I am not
saying that what the show purports isn't true, just that it makes things sound
simpler than they are. I have also read some studies that were of the same
genre of the 20/20 study that stated that African American women don't have
the same problems with self image that European American women have; that
they are comfortable with how they look and all that. Just from observing ads
on the telly and in magazines I would think that it could be that most of the
ads with these 5'11" , 112 pound models are aimed at European Americans and
could be the reason why. It is probably also related to the anorexia
prevalence in European American females. I don't know that much about it,
just making observations here.
By the way, what is a "wasp-like" waist? Do you mean in biological or
political/theo terms?
I also picked up on the fact that you put quotation marks on "all men" as in
'all men like big breasts'. I remember picking up on that when I was in
elementary school but it never seemed to go any further than that and when I
started interacting with males, I never got that impression from any of them
in any serious way. But my experience is limited so what do I know?!;)
>
> Female anthropologists, if they study this subject, would carry a lot of
>emotional baggage with them (most of it historical), as well as the real
>physical baggage. Some of the historical baggage undoubtably is
There are female PA's who study the subject but I still think that while
females may carry some emotional baggage on the subject depending on their
experiences, that males have a real problem with viewing the subject in terms
of anything but how it affects or affected them. No offense meant, and I
don't think they do it consciously but when you see a whole thread dedicated
to why enlarged breasts were selected for and everyone that has posted to it
that is male has written about the reasons that it might have been selected
for that would have been advantageous for sexual selection....welll....what
is one to think?I can't remember who it was that wrote the one about the
possibility of sagging breasts being selected for so that males could choose
a mate who having already had success reproducing (hence the sagging breasts-
which I'm not sure says a thing about reproductive success by the way),
but that one really tickled me! I can just see some A.afarensis studying a
group of females to see which one had the most saggy breasts so that they
could pass on their genes.
There was a study done out west last year
I think using college undergrad sample for the survey where they let the male
college students select a variety of breast sizes and shapes, etc., that
were most appealing to them. The result was that the majority of them picked
young firm round shaped breasts (what a shock). Well, that could mean all
sorts of things. It could mean that on some level they recognised that these
breasts meant height of fertility, OR it could even mean that in this society
we or they have been enculturated to like those types of breasts best!
If you asked some !Kung tribesman what kind of breasts he preferred, he would
probably think you were nuts for asking.Culture plays a role as well as
biology and I personally think that it is a mistake to ignore either. The
bottom line is that we will probably never know the intracacies of such a
selection process because even if we view a selection for a trait of
evolutionary significance, it would never involve all of the same factors.
>resentment. I have never run into a woman who actually admits (or
>volunteers to admit) to being *grateful* for the opportunity to live in
>an age when large breasts are supposadly the "thing to have" in order to
>be sexually appealing. And I don't blame them. But by their possessing
To be perfectly honest I have never felt that sort of pressure that you are
talking about...I've never felt that I didn't have appeal to the opposite sex
because of my breast size. I can state with perfect honesty however that I
have felt a subtle form of pressure to be 'nice' and that my value because I
am female is tied up in how I look and how altruistic I am. I have to say
though that at my age with the life experience I've had I don't worry too
much about being 'nice' anymore though I still have to be consciously aware of
it. Women are taught at an early age through latent enculturation on many
levels (especially in the south!) that they must be nice and agreeable and
good and kind and put other people first and be altruistic and soft and all
that sort of thing and it is a terrible injustice for everybody because women
learn to be dishonest, they have to be dishonest, perhaps not outright lying,
but skirting the entire truth, learning the intricate webs of omission and
stroking egos and keeping the peace and it is very tedious. If a woman is
strong and tough and completely honest and doesn't stroke egos and soften
truths, she is just a 'bitch'. I'm learning that being a bitch isn't so bad
;) Honesty...bitchiness, what's the difference? Just kidding there, sort of.
Witness that last line, that niceness stuff creeping out in case somebody
reading this finds out that I'm not 'nice'.I'm not saying that all women
have this experience but I find it quite common.
Anecdotally, speaking of being valued for your appearance, I once saw this
extremely filthy slovenly chap with a huge beer belly that hung out beneath
his torn and grease stained t-shirt, a couple of incisors missing, nasty
smelly curls of oily curls hanging out from beneath his even more grease
stained cap that had printed on it, "Life's too short to dance with ugly
women." I laughed so hard that I had to leave the store.
>even a *small bit* of that resentment (no matter how correctly justified
>that resentment is), then *their* objectivity, too, is distorted on the
>subject of what purpose these things really have.
>
>I suspect that the "answer", if there is "an" answer at all, lies
>somewhere in between the "sexual" explainations, and the "utilitarian"
>explainations that we have seen written about on this thread. (and,
>besides,from a two-gender group-dynamics point-of-view, it is also the
>safest opinion to state! :-)
Actually, I think that selection for enlarged breasts is probably some
combination of things and in my own speculative opinion, I suspect that there
are things that happened over the millenia that we'll never know that might
have influenced this evolvement and it could be something totally ridiculous
that we could never surmise. They could have evolved as some secondary
characteristic of a mutation that was selected for for an entirely different
reason. Who knows? I didn't really see any "utilitarian" explanations on
this thread but maybe they were posted earlier and are gone now.
>Ironically though, I have noticed that part of the "utilitarian"-purpose
>crowd is male (ala Paul Crowley). So the pattern doesn't quite fit the
>expected pattern as neatly as it should be expected to fit it.
> <pb>
>
Who the heck is Paul Crowley? I have him figured for some mythical beast of
the sci.anthro.p group whose legend has grown with his shadow or something.
I have seen several references to some funny things he has posted in the past
but still haven't seen an actual post from the legend in his own newsgroup
himself.
I think the teleological bent of speculation about selection for certain
features such as enlarged breasts bothers me more than anything else because
it implies humans evolving 'towards' something, and that sort of thinking often
seduces many into thinking that humans evolved into their present state as
part of some 'greater plan'. If that is the case, though personally I don't
believe it, then the discussion becomes one of theology or philosophy and not
science. People write things like, '...breasts evolved because humans needed
a way to tell each other apart...' . Most mutations are destructive or
neutral and the few that turn out to be selected for that has significance in
evolution either phenotypically or genotypically don't evolve in response to
a need for something at all but I think a lot of people have that mistaken
notion.Maybe I am too sensitive on this issue but I live in a state where
the state board of education just passed a bill so that all the new science
texts coming out for public education in K-12 have to have a disclaimer in
the front of them that says that evolution is just a theory and that there
are alternate ones like creationism. So, I am a bit jumpy on these things!
Karen
Richard Foy
>> >mother's existence was critical for the survival of the child until
>> >about 5, just like in chimps. At some point, perhaps as early as the
>> >beginning of altricial infancies (the "great brain expansion") about 2
>> >million years ago, others could take over at a relatively early age.
>> >Even so, I would expect -- and this is speculation -- that these more
>> >altricial infants, if orphaned at an early age (before maybe 5-8 years
>> >old) would be at risk of not making it to adulthood. This would also
>> >likely vary according to the status and network of the mother.
>>
>> study by Colin Turnbull abut the IK showed that they let the kids
>> struggle for survival on thier own at about the age of three.
>>
>
>I may be wrong, but are the Ik a very good model of original hunter-gather
>societies? I tend to recollect that the Ik were described as a highly
>damaged, fractured society that had little to do with man's original
>convention.
You are right. They were damageby by being displaced from their
homelands to make way for national parks. Howver, I mentioned them to
illustrate that it is possible for children to survive without
parentaly care at 4 years age.
One might also note that some other cultures shift the way they
realte to children at around the age of 3. Traditional Chinese I
belive tend to indulge thier children until that age at which time
them become very strict with them.
Richard Foy
In article <17776A31FS...@uabdpo.dpo.uab.edu>,
Thanks for posting this. It puts a bit of realism into the
discussion. IMo far to meny people look around them at our culture
today and them project that culture backward, only leaving out the
technology, without thinking to deeply about what the culture, if
that is a good work, was like for our ancestral hominids.
Phillip Bigelow
ZU0...@uabdpo.dpo.uab.edu (the skeptic) wrote:
> In our society, I will hazard the
>guess that it IS the conscious brain that does the looking and as a matter of
>fact, I would say that this thread would probably support my guess as it is
>amusingly obvious that males in western society are very aware of and very
>thoughtful on the subject of female breasts in humans. Everytime I see one of
>these breast development threads on any of the newsgroups, they are very
>similar in several respects and one of those is that the authors of the threads
>articles are overwhelmingly male. They are also dominated by speculative views
Since the women, too, are not entirely impartially-objective observers on
this subject (having no choice but to continuously carry said morphology
with around with them day in and day out), it can safely be claimed that
the female views are *also* colored. (see below).
>on how the breasts would have developed in human females as a condition for
>sexual selection (in other words, how the female breast is used by males to
>select a productive sexual partner).
Probably true. This thread is also an on-going experiment in the
interactivity between the two genders, and how each gender views the
discussion.
The ABC show 20/20 had a segment on recently, regarding how women view
their breasts. Not surprisingly, most women view their breasts from the
point of view of *men*. Since "all" men _supposadly_ like large breasts,
women picked-up on that cue (whether overtly or subliminally; it doesn't
matter), and rated their own femininity with regard to their own breast
size. Since small "wasp-like" waists are "in" in the late 20th Century,
as well as large breasts and a tall height to go along with the waists,
I suspect the purported "ideal" female, if computer simulated, would be
malformed, unhealthy, and probably would be in cronic pain.
Female anthropologists, if they study this subject, would carry a lot of
emotional baggage with them (most of it historical), as well as the real
physical baggage. Some of the historical baggage undoubtably is
resentment. I have never run into a woman who actually admits (or
volunteers to admit) to being *grateful* for the opportunity to live in
an age when large breasts are supposadly the "thing to have" in order to
be sexually appealing. And I don't blame them. But by their possessing
even a *small bit* of that resentment (no matter how correctly justified
that resentment is), then *their* objectivity, too, is distorted on the
subject of what purpose these things really have.
I suspect that the "answer", if there is "an" answer at all, lies
somewhere in between the "sexual" explainations, and the "utilitarian"
explainations that we have seen written about on this thread. (and,
besides,from a two-gender group-dynamics point-of-view, it is also the
safest opinion to state! :-)
Ironically though, I have noticed that part of the "utilitarian"-purpose
Tom Clarke
jimm...@inforamp.net (Jim Moore) writes:
>See Tanner (*On Becoming Human*) 1981, page 165, not to mention every
>talk on human evolution she ever gave. She also pointed out that the
>easy visibility of an erect penis in a bipedal male (as opposed to
>chimps, for instance, who have to deliberately display their erect
>penises to attract females' attentions) would be a spur (one of many)
>to males to be bipedal, and would enhance the role of choice by
>females.
Do you really buy that?
It's as silly as that aquatic ape stuff!
Next thing you'll be telling us that men wear clothes and ties
to cover their inadequate manhood and display a Limbaughesque phallus.
Tom Clarke
--
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
Hamlet - Shakespeare
Richard Foy
In article <4m18a3$p...@ra.cc.wwu.edu>,
Phillip Bigelow <phi...@lubricant.free.org> wrote:
>ZU0...@uabdpo.dpo.uab.edu (the skeptic) wrote:
>
>> In our society, I will hazard the
>>guess that it IS the conscious brain that does the looking and as a matter of
>>fact, I would say that this thread would probably support my guess as it is
>>amusingly obvious that males in western society are very aware of and very
>>thoughtful on the subject of female breasts in humans. Everytime I see one of
>>these breast development threads on any of the newsgroups, they are very
>>similar in several respects and one of those is that the authors of the threads
>>articles are overwhelmingly male. They are also dominated by speculative views
>
>
>this subject (having no choice but to continuously carry said morphology
>with around with them day in and day out), it can safely be claimed that
>the female views are *also* colored. (see below).
>
>
>>sexual selection (in other words, how the female breast is used by males to
>>select a productive sexual partner).
>
>
...
>
>emotional baggage with them (most of it historical), as well as the real
>physical baggage. Some of the historical baggage undoubtably is
>resentment. I have never run into a woman who actually admits (or
>volunteers to admit) to being *grateful* for the opportunity to live in
>an age when large breasts are supposadly the "thing to have" in order to
>be sexually appealing. And I don't blame them. But by their possessing
>even a *small bit* of that resentment (no matter how correctly justified
>that resentment is), then *their* objectivity, too, is distorted on the
>subject of what purpose these things really have.
>
>I suspect that the "answer", if there is "an" answer at all, lies
>somewhere in between the "sexual" explainations, and the "utilitarian"
>explainations that we have seen written about on this thread. (and,
>besides,from a two-gender group-dynamics point-of-view, it is also the
>safest opinion to state! :-)
>
>Ironically though, I have noticed that part of the "utilitarian"-purpose
>crowd is male (ala Paul Crowley). So the pattern doesn't quite fit the
>expected pattern as neatly as it should be expected to fit it.
IMO this post seems to ignore the fact that men have for most of
history have done most of the science, and thus most science has a
male point of view. Now that women are involved in science to a
science to a significant degree, when they inject female point of
view, it is automatically suspect by the males.
Jim Moore
>Okay, okay, I surrender, I concede to your superior knowledge of semantics.
>
>What did you do, spend the morning at the library?
I don't see how knowing what Lovejoy has written is "semantics", but if
calling it that gives you comfort, go ahead. Only on the nets is
knowing one's subject and writing about it considered a sort of sin.
>Okay, I'll take your word for it, maybe it is wishful thinking on my part
>that Lovejoy was the one to come up with such a speculation. I hate to think
>of Morris being the one to have come up with such inanity. I guess I like
>his books on cats and dogs best.
He does okay when he sticks to non-humans; when he gets to humans he
tends to leave his critical faculties in his other pants or something.
Same problem E.O. Wilson had with sociobiology. Too bad.
>It doesn't matter really all that much who came
> up with the idea, what matters is that it has been so popularised and let's
>face it, there are a lot of people who see this stuff in print or on the
>telly who take it as prevailing theory or gasp, fact.
True (like a lot of other stuff).
>I'm in the mood for argument, let's find something more interesting to argue
>about. Hmm, I can't think of anything to argue about since I don't know what
>your opinions are on things. Okay, here we go...here's a couple of things I
>don't like, and if you do, let's have a good argument:
I'm afraid I'd end up being Michael Palin: looking for a good argument
but finding -- judging from your posts so far -- just an arguement.
>I don't like
<snipped>
While we could have a discussion on these things, I would have to write
posts to do so, and you seem to think it's awfully wrong of me to do
so. I wouldn't want to upset you. If, OTOH, you want to be upset, I
could point out that your ideas as written were merely banal
generalities and thus hard to agree or disagree with.
>Is that enough to give you a start?
I guess it was, but you may not like that start. Why don't you try
starting a thread, with enough thought to it to hopefully make it
interesting (in a non-Schmal/Crowley interesting way, i.e. some
connection to reality ;-).
>Oh, and I do believe that the four subfields of anthropology should
>diversify and specialise as much as each person likes but that we need to
>keep the lines of communication open. For instance, in primate conservation,
>it would be helpful for primatologists to have the assistance of cultural
>anthros who would be willing to work with the PA's and the locals to
>determine best courses of conservation action for all parties concerned.
This is being done to some extent, but it wasn't so much at first. I
was at a small conference at LSE a while back (gee, 10 years maybe) on
hunting and gathering. Bill McGrew (primatologist) was there in his
capacity as a something or other in the WWF, wanting to talk with
people about primate conservation. He was a little surprised by the
reaction of many members of the group who felt, rightly, that the WWF
overlooked the people who lived near primates in the countries it was
trying to be helpful in. He's a smart guy, though, so he listened to
their concerns and I guess he relayed them back to the board, cause I
notice that the WWF seems to realize now that you can't just deal with
the habitat as if people aren't there and haven't been there or have no
right to be there.
As for your ideas about connections between the subfields of anthro, this
was one of the things Nancy Tanner said over and over. People do tend
_not_ to listen, but there are the occassional oddballs who realize that
there are still good reasons for connections in anthro (Bill McGrew,
for instance ;-). What you do tend to hear is physical anthropologists
complaining about cultural anthro not understanding the physical side
of things (at least that's what I've heard again and again online) but
I rarely seem to hear the equally valid other side of the coin, as I
don't think physical anthropologists usually really understand their
own lack of knowledge in cultural anthro and how it affects their work.
It's a problem that goes pretty deep in both directions.
One major reason is that anthro has been big enough for a few decades
to make each subfield's conferences big enough to have. It used to be,
back in the thirties, that the AAA meetings were a few hundred, and you
had time to see different stuff, and indeed you had to talk to others
or you had too much time on your hands. Now you can go to the AAPA,
for instance, and *only* go to primatology stuff, and *only* talk to
other primatologists. That's a subsection of a subfield.
Talks at any of the conferences are scheduled on the assumption that
*no one* -- no one at all -- is ever going to interested in going to
anything outside of their narrow specialty. And the Asian Studies conf
and the AAPA get scheduled on the same weekend on opposite ends
of the country, on the assumption that no one would ever want to go to
both. Then there's the amount of literature to go through in any
subfield -- an enormous amount -- yet the split-up of conferences also
makes it hard to network with people outside your specialty. Big fun,
eh?
>What do you do that you have so much time to spend on writing on a newsgroup
>like this? You must have lots of available time since you don't mind
>spending it answering some rather strange postings on science fiction and
>fantasy. I only get to get on here and play once every few months or so. It
>is never what I hope for it to be but it is ahem, interesting nonetheless.
You do have a fascination with how I survive in life.
Jim Moore e-mail:jimm...@inforamp.net
Stephen Barnard
Richard Foy wrote:
> IMO this post seems to ignore the fact that men have for most of
> history have done most of the science, and thus most science has a
> male point of view. Now that women are involved in science to a
> science to a significant degree, when they inject female point of
> view, it is automatically suspect by the males.
> --
This statement would be OK, except for one thing. In science there
*should be* no male point of view and no female point of view --- only a
scientific point of view. It's undeniable that scientific judgement is
sometimes influenced by gender bias, but when it is recognized it should
be removed, no matter what the source. This isn't to say that special
male and female perspectives aren't ever useful in observation and
interpretation, only the gender bias should not be allowed to color the
outcome. The argument that men have had a long time to misinterpret
things, so now women deserve a shot at it, doesn't hold water. To the
extent that female gender bias can expose and therefore counteract male
gender bias, I suppose it could be a good thing. But this is a
sociological effect, though, and won't eventually lead to more valid
theories.
Steve Barnard
the skeptic
In article <5663.6693...@inforamp.net>
jimm...@inforamp.net (Jim Moore) writes:
>
>
>
>
<Boring stuff snipped>
>I'm afraid I'd end up being Michael Palin: looking for a good argument
>but finding -- judging from your posts so far -- just an arguement.
>
Elvis on it.
>
>While we could have a discussion on these things, I would have to write
>posts to do so, and you seem to think it's awfully wrong of me to do
>so. I wouldn't want to upset you. If, OTOH, you want to be upset, I
I think you do have some good arguments even if I disagree with the way you
present them.
>could point out that your ideas as written were merely banal
>generalities and thus hard to agree or disagree with.
>
s, and perhaps anal, but definitely not banal.
>>Is that enough to give you a start?
>
>I guess it was, but you may not like that start. Why don't you try
>starting a thread, with enough thought to it to hopefully make it
>interesting (in a non-Schmal/Crowley interesting way, i.e. some
>connection to reality ;-).
to provoke defensiveness. I guess I am moody as I am no longer in the mood
to argue. Maybe I will start a new thread, trouble is, I would consider it
interesting but how can I compete with science fiction!?
WHOIS/What is Crowley? Some new species I've somehow missed hearing about?!
subfields and devote all of their department to say archaeology or whatever as
opposed to the more holistic (ideally at least) department that requires a
background in each of the subfields by undergraduates to get their degree?
Being in a university that stresses the latter, I am inclined to think that it
makes more sense but I am sure there are advantages of being in a department
with only one subfield; perhaps the training in that subfield is more intense.
I am an 'old' student (dropped out first time, married, had the kids, went
back, divorced!) and am pursuing physical anthropology (paleoprimatology
hopefully) but work in the archaeology lab and field and so have come across
problems a few times from state archaeologists who have no background in any
of the other subfields, most problematically, cultural anthro. so see a lot
of practical disadvantages at least in that perspective. What you pointed out
about the way the meetings are held stresses the point too that there is not
enough time to do everything and so having a background in all of the subfields
in undergraduate school and making certain contacts might be helpful.
>>What do you do that you have so much time to spend on writing on a newsgroup
>>like this? You must have lots of available time since you don't mind
>>spending it answering some rather strange postings on science fiction and
>>fantasy. I only get to get on here and play once every few months or so. It
>>is never what I hope for it to be but it is ahem, interesting nonetheless.
>
>You do have a fascination with how I survive in life.
>
quite fascinated and think you should just post a complete autobiography.
Favorite colour, which Elvis stamp YOU would have picked had it been up to
you, career history, oh, I know, just post your CV with a personal bio and
maybe that will satisfy my curiosity on your fascinating self. ;)
>Jim Moore e-mail:jimm...@inforamp.net
>
Karen (the fascinated and banal)
>
Jan Böhme
the skeptic wrote:
and since it has since been discovered in studies of pan paniscus,
> that we are not the only primates to have frontal sex or to have sex only for
> reasons of procreation, the speculation on breasts mimicking the buttocks
> is basically without support of any sort whatsoever.
Good. Then we agree on that.
> The bonobos have sex with and without intercourse for reasons that
> have nothing to do with procreation so why is it so hard to believe that
> enlarged breasts evolved for any reason other than as a selection for sexual reproductive advantage and for MALES at that?
The fat in the human breasts maybe give a advantage to the females, but it is
difficult to imagine that the advantage would be greater than if the fat had
been located elsewhere.
> The heading for this thread ought to give everybody a red signal
> since it is entitled "The Purpose of Breasts"....as if they evolved into what
> they are in some teleological context for some specific reason such as FOR
> the benefit of mate selection by males.
Is it so difficult to believe that sexual characteristics of no obvious
practical value might have to do with mate choice? Human females have
breasts. Other apes, including pan paniscus, hasn't. Its evolution is likely
to have been driven by selection. Finding out whiat conditioned this
selection can of course be construed as teleology. But only if the other
alternative is that they have arrived by neutral drift. How likely is that?
I hasten to add, that I originated this thread by tossing out my theory on
why breasts evolved. I don't consider it particularly macho and certainly not
playboyesque. In case you missed it, I speculate that permanent,
fat-containing breasts evolved in order to sag after breastfeeding, and that
saggy breasts thus proivided a marker for a successful mother, which became
more necessary when babies were born in a more immature state, and thus put
heavier demands on the competence of the nursing mother.
Jan Bohme
Jan Böhme
Stephen Barnard wrote:
>
> I've just assumed that female breasts are an exaggerated secondary
> sexual characteristic due to sexual selection, like a peacock's tail.
> They aren't *for* anything, other than to attract males. Put yourself
> in the position of someone from Mars looking at a copy of Playboy.
> Wouldn't this be an obvious conclusion?
Is it that simple? The peacock already _had_ a tail to start with, and that
tail had a practical purpose. Evolution just enlarged it. Breast _originated_
in the human lineage. Besides, if the parallel holds true, female breast
should have evolved to their largest accommodable size. This is obviously not
true for the vast majority of the female breasts. Indeed, if runaway
selection were responsible, one would expect virginal breast hypertrophy to
be the norn, rather than a relatively rare condition.
> I'll probably expose my self to ridicule for this (so to speak), but I
> think human penis size is also exaggerated due to sexual selection.
>
> Steve Barnard
If this is correct, I suppose that the vagina must have co-evolved. There has
to be some compatibility there. Is the human penis proportionally larger than
that of a chimp or a bonobo?
Jan Bohme
Jan Böhme
the skeptic wrote:
>
> It seems pretty obvious to me that it depends on cultural constructs as to
> how a male views a secondary sexual characteristic or indeed even considers
> female breasts a secondary sexual characteristic. In our society, I will
> hazard the guess that it IS the conscious brain that does the looking and
> as a matter of
> fact, I would say that this thread would probably support my guess as it is
> amusingly obvious that males in western society are very aware of and very
> thoughtful on the subject of female breasts in humans. Everytime I see one
> of these breast development threads on any of the newsgroups, they are very
> similar in several respects and one of those is that the authors of the
> threads articles are overwhelmingly male. They are also dominated by
> speculative views on how the breasts would have developed in human females
> as a condition for sexual selection (in other words, how the female breast
> is used by males to select a productive sexual partner).
As I wrote in my original posting in this thread, I am quite aware of that
cultural factors are overwhelmingly dominant in our response to breasts and
that these have to be sorted out, as breasts certainly have not evolved in
cultural contexts even vaguely similar to our own.
As you point out, the threads breast threads in sci.anthropology.paleo are
dominated by males. So are all threads in sci.anthropology.paleo that I have
followed, in fact. So are the vast majority of all threads on the entire
Usenet, come to think of it. Much as I would like an increased female
contribution on the Net, I am not responsible for my sex, and I resent very
strongly if anyone uses my sex as an argument against me.
To be precise: I am a male Swedish academic working in a department with a
female chairperson and a majority of the faculty female. My mother and my
grandmother are and were, respectively, highly respected professionals with a
national standing in their professions. Thus I have no problem at all seeing,
or acknowledging, women's intellectual capacity or contributions. If you
different gender perspective provide you with different ideas, put them
forward and we can discuss them, as you have indeed done to some extent later
in your posting. Pooh-poohing ideas just because of the sex of their
proponent is an example of blatant sexism that no Swedish male academic would
have even contemplated since the end of World war I, at least.
Also, as Philip Bigelow pointed out, women are not disinterested observers,
either. Maybe particularly not American women: judging by the complete
hysteria that seems to rage concerning breasts and breast size in the US,
both among males and females, it would be psychologically very appealing for
a woman who was fed-up with this whole circus to postulate that breasts do
not have anything to do with sex at all.
> I'd be interested in knowing what leads you to that conclusion. Why is
> sexual selection the only candidate? What other speculations have been
> posited and then dismissed? So far, every speculation I've seen in any of
> these breast development threads has been entirely composed of speculation
> on how breasts developed as a sexual selection, ie., sagging breasts
> indicating to MALES how this female has successfully nursed
> (hahahahahahaha),
Why on earth would this piece of information be of any use for a female? If
anyone needs the information, it is a male. Otherwise, it is useless. You
can't mean seriously that you set up a counter-theory where sagging breasts
are there to inform other FEMALES that this female has nursed successfully?
Or to inform the female herself? What would the use for this be?
> how the morphology
> of a females' breasts might induce the male to romanticize his first love,
> how the female had to have something to attract Males when she became
> bipedal as if females needed any other inducement to attract males, etc.
> >precisely. and the areas of the brain that would
> >change in response to sexual selection would be low level areas
> >like the LGN, the amygdala etc.
> >
> >Tom Clarke
>
> I am not saying that any of these ideas is invalid, I am just saying that
> they are rather short sighted and narrow minded in the view that the
> secondary sexual characteristic (indeed, if that is even what the female
> breasts in humans really is!) evolved entirely for the benefit of males in
> selecting asuccessfully reproductive mate. I don't have the answers, but I
> have some questions.
> Why do enlarged breasts have to be a benefit to men? Could they have
> developed as a benefit to females?
> What function do breasts have in the first place? They serve to nurture
> infants. Infants of homo sap saps are the most immature infants of any of
> the primates. They cannot cling as a pan species infant does to its'
> mother. They have a few reflexes and one of them is sucking. Could
> enlarged breasts have some benefit for hss infants? Okay, size has nothing
> to do with amount of milk produced, however, the skeletal morphology of hss
> has evolved and couldit be possible that the larger breast size was
> selected for as a benefit for the infant? That the attitude that breasts
> are a secondary sexual attribute is merely cultural? The most logical
> reason for breasts to have developed in hss the way they have is as a
> benefit to infants as that is their primary function. It is entirely
> possible that the breasts developed for reasons other than mere cues for
> males of the species.
Yes, but you don't construct an argument the way I did. And I think that you
miss the point with human breasts, which is that they are _permanent_. All
mammals have breasts when lactating. If the benefit of breasts were solely
for lactating purpose, there would be no need for breasts when not lactating.
If a bigger breast was needed during lactation, let it expand, and then
recede when not needed. So do all other mammals. That's the whole point, and
this is why it is so difficult to escape sexual selection as a hypothesis.
I can try to construct some kind of logically consistent hypothesis for you:
Maybe the mammary gland wasn't soft enough as a cushion for the proto-human
baby, so the breast was interspersed with fat, which is not involuted after
breastfeeding, and thus had to become more permanent. I have difficulties in
seeing how a slightly softer cushion would be favorable enough to be
selected. On the other hand, I can envisage the need for a marker for a
successful mother, if nursing became more demanding with altricial infants.
> The mutation didn't occur because
> it was needed for something. For all we know, the mutation occured and was
> selected for for some obscure reason that is lost now.
Yes, of course. The "mommy sag" theory would be something like this, too,
since there are strong cultural preference for firm breasts in most societies
today.
>It could even be some
> result of females no longer swinging through the trees from limb to limb
>and so instead of muscle there is fat.
Then, why do men not possess breasts?
> A stretch sure, but no more so than the
> riduclous theory that breasts were selected for as being helpfulto males
> when bipedalism and frontal interaction took place to help them see that
> this was a female.
I agree that this is silly. We men may be daft, but we're not THAT daft :-)
> IF, and that is a big IF, breasts evolved the shape they have today
> as a cue for sexual identity et al, I would give thought to the role that
> our lesser olfactory senses might have played in this.
Interesting thought, but how? There are no particular sweat glands or
anything on the breasts. There are, of course, in the armpits, which are in
the vicinity, but how would breasts enhance orfaction from them? If you just
want to expand body area, wouldn't it be better to have it higher up, closer
to our noses? After all, our ape cousins are not the best olfactors among
mammals they either, are they?
>But this then gives rise to
> interesting fact that hss infants can SMELL their mother through the smell of
> and 'taste' of her milk, her breasts. And for the mother to put out enough
> smell, perhaps the simple fact is that bigger breasts aid in that regard.
Again, you wouldn't need _permanent_ breasts for this.
> I suspect that the breasts evolved in female hss for more than one reason
> and that like it has benefits in several areas, not just one. I am just
> trying to make the point that the benefit to males in selecting a sexual
> partner to insure successful reproduction is a narrow approach and people
> who are interested in this type of speculation, should at least speculate
> on a larger scale. It is doubtful that males of the species at earliest
> stages of breast development even knew who their children were and so it is
> doubtful that they selected mates on the basis of what female was likely to
> successfully reproduce their DNA and aid them in contributing to the gene
> pool.
Here you miss the whole point. Of course the peahen does not reason "this
male has an extra large and colourful tail, so his genes are likely to be of
extra good quality in general, so therfor I favour him"! This need not be
done on a conscious level at all to work. If it did, how would sexual
selection work at all in, say invertebrates?
>It is
> unlikely in my humble opinion that hss breast development in females was
> selected for to aid in successful selection of mates and I think it is time
> for people to quit thinking of it only in this regard.
The best way of making this happen is to put forward cogent, consistent
hypotheses not involving sexual selection on the evolution of permanent
breasts in hss. Just telling others that they are wrong, and that they are
wrong because they are male, is, I presume, a potentially less successful
strategy ;-)
> "I am too much of a skeptic to disbelieve anything..." T. Huxley
Except sexual selection of breasts in hss, it would seem :-)
Jan Bohme
Thomas Clarke
I think this discussion is inappropriate for
sci.anthropology.paleo.
Since breasts and penises don't fossilize, there can be
no scientific discussion of paleo-sexual selection.
Tom Clarke
Jim Moore
In reply to a message by Tom Clarke on 29-Apr-96 08:04:41:
>jimm...@inforamp.net (Jim Moore) writes:
>>See Tanner (*On Becoming Human*) 1981, page 165, not to mention every
>>talk on human evolution she ever gave. She also pointed out that the
>>easy visibility of an erect penis in a bipedal male (as opposed to
>>chimps, for instance, who have to deliberately display their erect
>>penises to attract females' attentions) would be a spur (one of many)
>>to males to be bipedal, and would enhance the role of choice by
>>females.
>Do you really buy that?
>It's as silly as that aquatic ape stuff!
It has two rather significant differences, Tom: 1) it fits all the
facts (not just a carefully selected subset); and 2) the facts it
fits are real, actual facts, not phony "facts".
Jim Moore e-mail:jimm...@inforamp.net
Jim Moore
>Is it that simple? The peacock already _had_ a tail to start with, and that
>tail had a practical purpose. Evolution just enlarged it. Breast _originated_
> in the human lineage. Besides, if the parallel holds true, female breast
>should have evolved to their largest accommodable size. This is obviously not
> true for the vast majority of the female breasts. Indeed, if runaway
>selection were responsible, one would expect virginal breast hypertrophy to
>be the norn, rather than a relatively rare condition.
First, my pointing out Pond's findings about the fat across the thorax
and bipedalism causing it to be more evident means that the "tail" was
there, so to speak, as soon as we became habitually bipedal. Also, one
wouldn't assume -- or shouldn't assume -- that sexual selection would
cause runaway selection for the largest size; note that peacock tails
are selected -- this has been tested -- not according to size, but
according to pattern. Many sexually selected characteristics are
selected according to criteria other than size, and often the variations
are rather slight to our eyes.
>> I'll probably expose my self to ridicule for this (so to speak), but I
>> think human penis size is also exaggerated due to sexual selection.
>>
>> Steve Barnard
>If this is correct, I suppose that the vagina must have co-evolved. There has
> to be some compatibility there. Is the human penis proportionally larger
>than that of a chimp or a bonobo?
>Jan Bohme
Yes, human penises are quite a lot thicker than those of our close
relatives.
Jim Moore e-mail:jimm...@inforamp.net
the skeptic
In article <3184AB...@imun.su.se>
Jan Bvhme <jan....@imun.su.se> writes:
>
>the skeptic wrote:
>
>>
>> It seems pretty obvious to me that it depends on cultural constructs as to
>> how a male views a secondary sexual characteristic or indeed even considers
>> female breasts a secondary sexual characteristic. In our society, I will
>> hazard the guess that it IS the conscious brain that does the looking and
>> as a matter of
>> fact, I would say that this thread would probably support my guess as it is
>> amusingly obvious that males in western society are very aware of and very
>> thoughtful on the subject of female breasts in humans. Everytime I see one
>> of these breast development threads on any of the newsgroups, they are very
>> similar in several respects and one of those is that the authors of the
>> threads articles are overwhelmingly male. They are also dominated by
>> speculative views on how the breasts would have developed in human females
>> as a condition for sexual selection (in other words, how the female breast
>> is used by males to select a productive sexual partner).
>
>As I wrote in my original posting in this thread, I am quite aware of that
>cultural factors are overwhelmingly dominant in our response to breasts and
>that these have to be sorted out, as breasts certainly have not evolved in
>cultural contexts even vaguely similar to our own.
>
it that you maintain that they evolved as a 'subconscious' response for
selection of successfully reproducing mates?I am confused about your
position here, are you saying that attraction to sagging breasts was a
cultural response or a biochemical one?
>As you point out, the threads breast threads in sci.anthropology.paleo are
>dominated by males. So are all threads in sci.anthropology.paleo that I have
>followed, in fact. So are the vast majority of all threads on the entire
>Usenet, come to think of it. Much as I would like an increased female
>contribution on the Net, I am not responsible for my sex, and I resent very
>strongly if anyone uses my sex as an argument against me.
group are dominated by males. I don't know about the rest of them but have
read a few so can't make such a sweeping statement, but have never seen one
quite as unbalanced, by gender that is, as this one. I wonder why.
I can tell you that you would probably be shocked at the number of women
who have written to me to tell me that they are glad somebody finally
said what I said. Unfortunately, I must have said it in a way that
made you terribly defensive.
I was NOT using your gender as an argument against
you. I was merely trying to point out that it seems rather obvious to me
that most of the posts on this thread, and most of the speculations I've
seen elsewhere on this subject are male biased in the sense that they view
this as a significant evolutionary characteristic selected for as a benefit
for men such as being benficial to men in determining the best possible mate
for them to propigate and pass on their genes.
>
>To be precise: I am a male Swedish academic working in a department with a
>female chairperson and a majority of the faculty female. My mother and my
>grandmother are and were, respectively, highly respected professionals with a
>national standing in their professions. Thus I have no problem at all seeing,
>or acknowledging, women's intellectual capacity or contributions.
because they have a black friend.
. If you
>different gender perspective provide you with different ideas, put them
>forward and we can discuss them, as you have indeed done to some extent later
>in your posting. Pooh-poohing ideas just because of the sex of their
>proponent is an example of blatant sexism that no Swedish male academic would
>have even contemplated since the end of World war I, at least.
the funniest one. Sorry. I shouldn't have made fun of your theory. I admit
that that was mean and I should have just described what I think is wrong
with it. I have a tendency sometimes to think that things that are obvious
to me are obvious to everybody else. I will go on to explain why your
sagging breast theory has problems.
>
>Also, as Philip Bigelow pointed out, women are not disinterested observers,
>either.
Neither are males.
Maybe particularly not American women: judging by the complete
>hysteria that seems to rage concerning breasts and breast size in the US,
>both among males and females, it would be psychologically very appealing for
>a woman who was fed-up with this whole circus to postulate that breasts do
>not have anything to do with sex at all.
are, it is rather mild, and to speculate on psychologically appealing
for women to postulate.....that is rather ambiguous and quaint.
>
>> I'd be interested in knowing what leads you to that conclusion. Why is
>> sexual selection the only candidate? What other speculations have been
>> posited and then dismissed? So far, every speculation I've seen in any of
>> these breast development threads has been entirely composed of speculation
>> on how breasts developed as a sexual selection, ie., sagging breasts
>> indicating to MALES how this female has successfully nursed
>> (hahahahahahaha),
>
idea as an example of the humour in the sexual selection speculations.
THat was rather mean of me.
>Why on earth would this piece of information be of any use for a female? If
>anyone needs the information, it is a male.
sagging breasts might be useful for females, but that enlarged breasts might
be. I was also making fun of your theory and that was unfair. I apologise.
I don't think there is anything useful about sagging breasts.
I am afraid you missed the whole point here. This piece of information, ie.,
sagging breasts, supposedly indicative of a females' reproductive success,
is a little far fetched. In the first place, are you saying that enlarged
breasts evolved to answer a 'need' for males to be able to select a mate?
I didn't take it that way at first, but in this posting, I'm not so sure.
Secondly, do you really think that whenever enlarged breasts evolved in
women that males selected their mates because they wanted to produce
children? Even if subconsciously, on some chemical level or whatever, males
are compelled to mate because they want to pass their genes on to the next
generation, it would still be subconsciously; males would want to mate, not
reproduce and so they would not be looking for cues in prospective mates of
reproductive success. Even if that were not true and men were looking for
cues in prospective mates to their prior reproductive success I don't think
that sagging breasts would be a very good clue. There is a great deal of
variation in humans and there are many women who successfully reproduce and
nurse their children without having sagging breasts. By the time many
females have sagging breasts, they are no longer fertile. If males selected
their mates on the prospect of how successfully they wouold provide offspring
for the male and needed the benefit of enlarged breasts to do so, they would
probably be better cued by young firm breasts at the height of fertility.
Sagging breasts do NOT indicate fertility in any way that I can see.
It is far more likely that if males actually chose their mates on the basis
of successful reproduction that they would choose firm 'young' breasts as
they would more likely be fertile.
You have taken my post to mean that I thought your idea was wrong because
of your gender. You are wrong. I was making the point that most of the
ideas on sexual selection for enlarged breasts were limited to the sexual
selection type hypotheses. I feel that this is because most of the authors
are male. I used your sagging breast idea to allude to the humour of it but
that really was mean of me and I apologise again.
I don't think that it is appropriate for me to counter argue
with views that are female biased because there would be little point to it.
Mutations that occur that are selected for and so become significant in
evolution are selected for because they are beneficial to survival first and
reproduction of the species in some way or another. I don't think that this
excludes reasons beyond selection of a mate by males. Maybe they were
selected for because they are beneficial to females, or gasp, their infants.
I just wanted to point that out on this thread and actually had hoped that
maybe somebody might have some more original ideas. Obviously I was too
facetious in my posting and offended you.
>> I am not saying that any of these ideas is invalid, I am just saying that
>> they are rather short sighted and narrow minded in the view that the
>> secondary sexual characteristic (indeed, if that is even what the female
>> breasts in humans really is!) evolved entirely for the benefit of males in
>> selecting asuccessfully reproductive mate. I don't have the answers, but I
>> have some questions.
make the point that the ideas were narrow minded.
>> Why do enlarged breasts have to be a benefit to men? Could they have
>> developed as a benefit to females?
>> What function do breasts have in the first place? They serve to nurture
>> infants. Infants of homo sap saps are the most immature infants of any of
>> the primates. They cannot cling as a pan species infant does to its'
>> mother. They have a few reflexes and one of them is sucking. Could
>> enlarged breasts have some benefit for hss infants? Okay, size has nothing
>> to do with amount of milk produced, however, the skeletal morphology of hss
>> has evolved and couldit be possible that the larger breast size was
>> selected for as a benefit for the infant? That the attitude that breasts
>> are a secondary sexual attribute is merely cultural? The most logical
>> reason for breasts to have developed in hss the way they have is as a
>> benefit to infants as that is their primary function. It is entirely
>> possible that the breasts developed for reasons other than mere cues for
>> males of the species.
>
>Yes, but you don't construct an argument the way I did.
n of a point.
And I think that you
>miss the point with human breasts, which is that they are _permanent_. All
>mammals have breasts when lactating. If the benefit of breasts were solely
>for lactating purpose, there would be no need for breasts when not lactating.
tell you that enlarged breasts could STILL have been selected for in humans
whether it was NEEDED or not.Even if it wasn't NEEDED, it could have
benefits.
>If a bigger breast was needed during lactation, let it expand, and then
>recede when not needed. So do all other mammals. That's the whole point, and
>this is why it is so difficult to escape sexual selection as a hypothesis.
with swollen milk glands. Other mammals' breasts do not enlarge in the
way or to the degree that humans' are permanently. I don't think that is a
good defense for not being able to avoid the sexual selection hypothesis.
While sexual selection is a valid idea, it is not the only one.
As for "let it expand..." well, tell the alleles that are just waiting to
mutate that and let me know how successful you are.
>
>I can try to construct some kind of logically consistent hypothesis for you:
>Maybe the mammary gland wasn't soft enough as a cushion for the proto-human
>baby, so the breast was interspersed with fat, which is not involuted after
>breastfeeding, and thus had to become more permanent. I have difficulties in
>seeing how a slightly softer cushion would be favorable enough to be
>selected. On the other hand, I can envisage the need for a marker for a
>successful mother, if nursing became more demanding with altricial infants.
trap of defending your theory to the end. I cannot consider enlarged breasts
that sag as a marker for a prospective mate. It is not logical for the reasons
I stated above. It is not logical that males selected their mates consciously
on the basis of their prior reproductive success which they would have to do
if they were looking at womens' breasts to see which ones were sagging.
>
>> The mutation didn't occur because
>> it was needed for something. For all we know, the mutation occured and was
>> selected for for some obscure reason that is lost now.
>
>Yes, of course. The "mommy sag" theory would be something like this, too,
>since there are strong cultural preference for firm breasts in most societies
>today.
>
MOST societies today. There certainly is in western societies and it would
not surprise me if this cultural preference evolved due to firm breasts
being a subliminal cue that the female is in her fertile years. I believe
that in sheer population numbers that perhaps your statement is true, but
in numbers of societies, I don't think it is.
>>It could even be some
>> result of females no longer swinging through the trees from limb to limb
>>and so instead of muscle there is fat.
>
>Then, why do men not possess breasts?
This is not a theory and as Jim Moore pointed out, it has not been thought
out, I was just throwing the idea out there trying to make the point that
I've tried to spell out to you here; that just because sexual selection
hypotheses might be good, they don't exclude others. We are often short
sighted once we come up with a theory or idea about something, it is hard
to be creative and open minded. Imagine a passport. Now imagine a passport
that doesn't exist. They look the same, don't they? That is part of our
perceptual processes and so once we see something in a certain light, it is
very difficult to envision it in another. I merely pointed out the obvious;
that the postings on this thread were mostly authored by males and that the
ideas as to the "purpose" of breasts in h.s.s. that were posted by same said
males revolved around sexual selection. I think there is a correlation there.
>
>> A stretch sure, but no more so than the
>> riduclous theory that breasts were selected for as being helpfulto males
>> when bipedalism and frontal interaction took place to help them see that
>> this was a female.
>
>I agree that this is silly. We men may be daft, but we're not THAT daft :-)
>
I don't think that men are daft in that case. I just think that they are
male. And in being male, think of the world and all that is in it in terms
of their view of it. Same is true of females though I think sometimes that
males are louder about such things (a cultural thing) and so sometimes
females have 'heard' most of the male view and understand it but realise
that it only presents half of the picture. But if females try to make the
point, the point that the other half of the picture is not being seen and
that there is more information that could make the picture whole, they are
admonished because in defensiveness, some of the viewers of the already known
picture think that the new picture might replace theirs, erase it, when all
the time, the intent of presenting the other half of the picture is to add
to the first to make it whole. Viewing a whole picture is much more
informational. Do you understand what I am trying to say here?
The idea of adding the female view to the male view is complementary.
And sometimes, the only way to get the other view out there is to shout.
And females are never supposed to shout ;)
>> IF, and that is a big IF, breasts evolved the shape they have today
>> as a cue for sexual identity et al, I would give thought to the role that
>> our lesser olfactory senses might have played in this.
>
>Interesting thought, but how? There are no particular sweat glands or
>anything on the breasts.
sweat glands or anything on the breasts? If my anatomy text was correct, the
mammary glands are simply modified sudoriferous (sweat) glands.
There are, of course, in the armpits, which are in
>the vicinity, but how would breasts enhance orfaction from them? If you just
>want to expand body area, wouldn't it be better to have it higher up, closer
>to our noses?
Look closely at any primate nursing an infant. Notice their nose. The nose
became more prominent over the years and even in infants, the nostrils are
not positioned in a place that makes it convenient to breathe while nursing
if the infant is nursing a fairly flat breast which compared to humans,
other lactating primates are fairly flat. The nose is not very prominent in
human infants but their noses could still be a hindrance if they were trying
to breathe at the same time that they nursed. Now, this is just another one
of those ideas I flung out there on the spur of the moment and have not
thought out really and am perfectly willing to discard it if it is proven to
be unusable. In fact, it sounds kind of ridiculous as I write it!
It was an illustration of the point that there are all kinds of
possibilities for enlarged breasts evolving. I think that the biggest
detriment to the sexual selection hypotheses is that there are so many
human societies where breasts play no role in sex or sexual selection and
so I think that before we can assume that sexual selection is the ONLY
hypothesis to make regarding selection for enlarged breasts in humans then
we have to first understand why breasts are viewed so disparately among
human societies. If culture plays this strong a role in a sexual character-
istic how can we make a logical hypothesis that on the basis of half or
whatever the number is, of societies? I don't think it is consistent.
After all, our ape cousins are not the best olfactors among
>mammals they either, are they?
fur in infancy. This means that they are less likely to lose their mother,
etc. Human infants are spectacularly inept and need all the help they can
get from evolution.
>
>>But this then gives rise to
>> interesting fact that hss infants can SMELL their mother through the smell of
>> and 'taste' of her milk, her breasts. And for the mother to put out enough
>> smell, perhaps the simple fact is that bigger breasts aid in that regard.
>
>Again, you wouldn't need _permanent_ breasts for this.
beneficial as other mammals' breasts do not enlarge to the extent that
human females' permanent breasts are enlarged (discounting variation ;)
The simplest way for a females' breasts to be enlarged during lactation
which without birth control could have amounted to 20 years (yikes) for what
I hope is obvious to you but I can spell it out if you need me to,
is for them to already be enlarged at the onset of
puberty. It would consume a lot of energy to have inflatable body parts.
(Just a joke...don't get bent out of shape here!).
Males wouldn't NEEEEEd to see sagging breasts to find out if a woman had
had children, would he?Would enlarged breasts actually have been selected
for to determine if a woman had children? That is a little far out in my
opinion.
>
>> I suspect that the breasts evolved in female hss for more than one reason
>> and that like it has benefits in several areas, not just one. I am just
>> trying to make the point that the benefit to males in selecting a sexual
>> partner to insure successful reproduction is a narrow approach and people
>> who are interested in this type of speculation, should at least speculate
>> on a larger scale. It is doubtful that males of the species at earliest
>> stages of breast development even knew who their children were and so it is
>> doubtful that they selected mates on the basis of what female was likely to
>> successfully reproduce their DNA and aid them in contributing to the gene
>> pool.
>
>Here you miss the whole point. Of course the peahen does not reason "this
>male has an extra large and colourful tail, so his genes are likely to be of
>extra good quality in general, so therfor I favour him"! This need not be
>done on a conscious level at all to work.
basis of their colourful tail only withing certain geographical or political
boundaries such as industrial societies.
If a female has sagging breasts and
this 'turns a man on' because it is a cue that she is a successfully
reproducing mother, how come our society prefers firm breasts and most other
societies don't even have a preference and don't think of them in terms of
sex? If all men across the globe for the most part had a preference for
certain types of breasts such as sagging ones, I think that we would see
evidence but since westernised cultures are the only ones that I am aware of
at least, that care so much about breasts, I can't believe that this is
true. If it is not on a conscious level then it would be more global unless
westernised humans have speciated and I am not aware of it. Oh sure, there
would be variation, but not based on political and cultural boundaries.
Do peahens in Highland New Guinea have no preference for colourful tails?
A note: I have never heard a man say that he picked his mate on the basis of
her breasts.
Also, are you saying that we are genetically programmed to have preference
for a certain type of breast? If men were choosing saggy breasted women
subconsciously is it because their genetic makeup informed them that these
were successfully reproducing females? I'm sorry but I think that is a
pretty major evolutionary leap when it would be much simpler for the male to
find out if the female had already had children. And if she had had children
there is the possibility that she has a mate already. There is also the
possibility that the females might have had at least some say so or some
choice in the matter too and while I agree that in our species it is the male
that usually pursues copulation, there might have been some choice by the
females of whom they mated with. I don't believe that until modern
human society that every male had indiscriminate choice just because he was
physically stronger.
If a male selects a mate on the basis
of choice, choosing a sagging breasted woman and doesn't know he is selecting
a saggy breasted woman for any other reason than that he thinks sagging
breasts are beautiful, is it culture or is it genetically programmed? If it
is culture, then it is probably not reproductive success oriented. If it is
genetic, it would be species wide, not limited to westernised industrial
societies.
>>It is
>> unlikely in my humble opinion that hss breast development in females was
>> selected for to aid in successful selection of mates and I think it is time
>> for people to quit thinking of it only in this regard.
>
>The best way of making this happen is to put forward cogent, consistent
>hypotheses not involving sexual selection on the evolution of permanent
>breasts in hss. Just telling others that they are wrong, and that they are
>wrong because they are male, is, I presume, a potentially less successful
>strategy ;-)
their sex. I pointed out that they were limited in their view because of
their sex and I still maintain that. I disagree with your sagging breast
hypothesis and now that I have explained what I mistakenly thought was
obvious, maybe you will see that I did not say you were wrong because you
are male. I do believe that the fact of being male or female colours the
way we view the world. I perhaps bruised your male dignity by being
facetious in some of my comments. I forget that not everybody has a sense
of humour and that some people take themselves far too seriously. I was
careless in my comments as they obviously offended your feelings about being
male. I also think that if you want to put forth a valid argument to my
or any other post that perhaps you should wait until you aren't overly
emotional and defensive.I can also point out to you that I never said that
the sagging breast speculation of yours was wrong, just that it was a sexual
selection idea by a male. There is nothing "wrong" with that. It is,
however, very tedious to see the one train of thought about the "purpose"
of breasts. I did ridicule your sagging breast idea without explaining why
because I made the mistake of thinking that the problems with it were
obvious and shouldn't have done that as you would not have posted your idea
if you had understood the problems with it.
I still maintain
that the male view on the "purpose of breasts" has been just that....the
male view. It is not bad, it is not wrong, it is just male and that is
not the whole view.
>
>> "I am too much of a skeptic to disbelieve anything..." T. Huxley
>
>Except sexual selection of breasts in hss, it would seem :-)
secondary sex characteristic, I don't believe they evolved as an aid to males
in selecting a mate, true. So I guess I will have to quit quoting poor ol'
Huxley. I usually just use that to avoid arguing with people interested in
converting me from my pagan state so that they will leave me alone.
Karen
Richard Foy
In article <31855F...@megafauna.com>,
Stephen Barnard <st...@megafauna.com> wrote:
>Richard Foy wrote:
>
>> IMO this post seems to ignore the fact that men have for most of
>> history have done most of the science, and thus most science has a
>> male point of view. Now that women are involved in science to a
>> science to a significant degree, when they inject female point of
>> view, it is automatically suspect by the males.
>> --
>
>This statement would be OK, except for one thing. In science there
>*should be* no male point of view and no female point of view --- only a
>scientific point of view.
True there *should be* no point of view. But there is. There always
has been and there always will be. Scientists are people first and
scientists second. No matter how much people try to avoid it it is
im[possible to eliminate it.
It's undeniable that scientific judgement is
>sometimes influenced by gender bias, but when it is recognized it should
>be removed, no matter what the source. This isn't to say that special
>male and female perspectives aren't ever useful in observation and
>interpretation, only the gender bias should not be allowed to color the
>outcome. The argument that men have had a long time to misinterpret
>things, so now women deserve a shot at it, doesn't hold water. To the
>extent that female gender bias can expose and therefore counteract male
>gender bias, I suppose it could be a good thing. But this is a
>sociological effect, though, and won't eventually lead to more valid
>theories.
Youa re arguing what should be. I am talking about what is. IMO
adding the the female point of view tends to balance the male point
of view which has biased science for so many years, especially in the
humanities.
The best example of this is Karen Honig, a student of Freud, who
early in here career wrote learnedly based on Freud's theory about
penis envy. Later after doing more of her own work she lernedly
rejected that theory. Penis envy is just an extreme example of mail
bias.
Richard Foy
In article <3184AB...@imun.su.se>, Jan Böhme <jan....@imun.su.se> wrote:
>the skeptic wrote:
>
>Here you miss the whole point. Of course the peahen does not reason "this
>male has an extra large and colourful tail, so his genes are likely to be of
>extra good quality in general, so therfor I favour him"! This need not be
>done on a conscious level at all to work. If it did, how would sexual
>selection work at all in, say invertebrates?
>
>>It is
>> unlikely in my humble opinion that hss breast development in females was
>> selected for to aid in successful selection of mates and I think it is time
>> for people to quit thinking of it only in this regard.
>
>The best way of making this happen is to put forward cogent, consistent
>hypotheses not involving sexual selection on the evolution of permanent
>breasts in hss. Just telling others that they are wrong, and that they are
>wrong because they are male, is, I presume, a potentially less successful
>strategy ;-)
>
>> "I am too much of a skeptic to disbelieve anything..." T. Huxley
>
>Except sexual selection of breasts in hss, it would seem :-)
The weakest point in the sexual selection argument for breasts is
that women are limited in the number of chldren they can bear,
whereas there is no similar limit for men. Women can easily get a
wide variety of men to mate with them, except for cultural
constraints and inhibitions, simply by "presenting," that is
indicating her readiness to mate.
Richard Foy
In article <31848D...@imun.su.se>, Jan Böhme <jan....@imun.su.se> wrote:
>
>I hasten to add, that I originated this thread by tossing out my theory on
>why breasts evolved. I don't consider it particularly macho and certainly not
>playboyesque. In case you missed it, I speculate that permanent,
>fat-containing breasts evolved in order to sag after breastfeeding, and that
>saggy breasts thus proivided a marker for a successful mother, which became
>more necessary when babies were born in a more immature state, and thus put
>heavier demands on the competence of the nursing mother.
Why does a male, if not culurally inhibited, care about how
successful, a mother might be. It costs him essetntially nothing to
impregnate her. So why wouldn't he impregnate all the fmales that he
can?
the skeptic
In article <31848D...@imun.su.se>
>> that we are not the only primates to have frontal sex or to have sex only for
>> reasons of procreation, the speculation on breasts mimicking the buttocks
>> is basically without support of any sort whatsoever.
>
>Good. Then we agree on that.
>
>> The bonobos have sex with and without intercourse for reasons that
>> have nothing to do with procreation so why is it so hard to believe that
>> enlarged breasts evolved for any reason other than as a selection for sexual reproductive advantage and for MALES at that?
>
>The fat in the human breasts maybe give a advantage to the females, but it is
>difficult to imagine that the advantage would be greater than if the fat had
>been located elsewhere.
>
thinking more along the lines of breasts being beneficial in that they enhance
sexual interaction for females. Men in our society enjoy breasts at that
level from everything I've been told, but so do females, did you not know that?
>> The heading for this thread ought to give everybody a red signal
>> since it is entitled "The Purpose of Breasts"....as if they evolved into what
>> they are in some teleological context for some specific reason such as FOR
>> the benefit of mate selection by males.
>
>Is it so difficult to believe that sexual characteristics of no obvious
>practical value might have to do with mate choice? Human females have
>breasts. Other apes, including pan paniscus, hasn't. Its evolution is likely
>to have been driven by selection. Finding out whiat conditioned this
>selection can of course be construed as teleology.
so. It is very easy to fall into teleological thinking and much of your
post just before this one appears that way to me. Perhaps you don't mean it
to be, but when you stress that something evolved as a need and then go on to
argue against permanent breasts for benefit in successful nurturing of
infant with sentences such as, ' if they were going to be helpful in lactation
why not just "expand" as other mammals do when they are lactating..."
you are going to be construed as thinking teleologically. If you don't
understand that, I will be glad to go into boring detail about teleology with
you.
>But only if the other
>alternative is that they have arrived by neutral drift. How likely is that?
>
cue males to the success of reproduction in females.
>I hasten to add, that I originated this thread by tossing out my theory on
>why breasts evolved. I don't consider it particularly macho and certainly not
>playboyesque. In case you missed it, I speculate that permanent,
>fat-containing breasts evolved in order to sag after breastfeeding, and that
>saggy breasts thus proivided a marker for a successful mother, which became
>more necessary when babies were born in a more immature state, and thus put
>heavier demands on the competence of the nursing mother.
in any means or way that you or any other male on this thread was "playboy-
esque" or "macho". My observations about the gender of the authors of these
posts and the fact that they seem to only consider sexual selection as a
possibility seems to correlate quite consistently. I don't think that because
a male sees the world from a male view that that means he is "macho" or
"playboyesque", it only means that he is male and has been enculturated as
a male.
And by the way, there you go again with the teleological thinking....you
say you threw out an idea about breasts evolving "IN ORDER TO".... as if
the mutation and its' subsequent selection evolved towards some orientation,
by plan, reason, etc.
You are overly defensive about being a male and I have to wonder why.
Freudians would have a field day with you. You mentioned that you were a
Swedish academic. Does this mean that you teach at a Swedish University?
And if so, what is your specialty? After this post and the one before it,
I am burning with curiosity about your education.
Karen
the skeptic
In article <4m58k1$6...@news.cc.ucf.edu>
cla...@acme.ist.ucf.edu (Thomas Clarke) writes:
>
>I think this discussion is inappropriate for
>sci.anthropology.paleo.
>
that regard it? Is there a faq that says that discussion on this
group is limited to fossils? If so, then most of the other threads
should be censored, banned.
>Since breasts and penises don't fossilize, there can be
>no scientific discussion of paleo-sexual selection.
>
>Tom Clarke
Karen
Phillip Bigelow
someone wrote (getting hard to follow attributes on this thread):
>>
>>> IMO this post seems to ignore the fact that men have for most of
>>> history have done most of the science, and thus most science has a
>>> male point of view. Now that women are involved in science to a
>>> science to a significant degree, when they inject female point of
>>> view, it is automatically suspect by the males.
And indeed they should be automatically held suspect. Why should any
"point of view" held by the majority of one particular gender be
considered above critical scientific reproach? The same criticism is
directed at the males too. It applies equally. Turn-about isn't fair
play when one is doing science. What if both points of view are wrong?
What if the point of view that is currently "out of favor" is actually
more accurate than the newer one replacing it?
The fact that ANY gender-based point of view is taking hold in the
scientific literature should be worrisome.
Part of the problem with gender-based interpretations is that they are
analogous to that old saying, "Can't see the forest for the trees".
If one is part of the system that he/she is trying to "objectively"
study, and if he/she is naive of the possible subliminal messages their
gender imparts on their conclusions, their conclusions will be, pardon my
French, "screwed".
The only reasonable solution that I can see is to have men review
scientific papers written by women, and to have women review scientific
papers written by men. <with the express directions, provided by the
editor, to check for inappropriate gender-rhetoric in the manuscript>.
And if that solution isn't very workable, perhaps it is time to start
inventing new scientific language to describe human behavior.
<pb>
James Kohl
In article <3184AB...@imun.su.se>, jan....@imun.su.se says...
>There are no particular sweat glands or anything on the breasts.
Quite the contrary. In the literature, apocrine glands have been reported
--in the area around the nipple. Moreover, the entire breast is a
modified apocrine (scent-producing) gland.
>There are, of course, in the armpits, which are in the vicinity,...
Note the anatomic origin of the breast in the armpit and reports of
axillary breast.
>If you just want to expand body area, wouldn't it be better to have it
>higher up, closer to our noses?
I think the olfactory connection works quite well, even with the current
location of the breasts. Perhaps this is because scent molecules waft
upwards.
>After all, our ape cousins are not the best olfactors among
>mammals they either, are they?
This may be a subject for debate. Recent evidence that humans may mate
for genetic diversity on the basis of subtle odor cues suggests that
(consciously or not) we are using our olfactory acuity and specificity in
a manner similar to that of rodents and other terrestrial mammals in
which olfaction is critical to reproductive success. Perhaps other apes
also use olfaction more than we currently believe. Mammalian
olfactory-genetic-neuronal-hormonal-behavioral reciprocity suggests that
this would be true.
Similarly, it is beginning to appear that humans both produce and respond
to pheromones--some of which may be both produced and distributed from
the breasts.
Jim Kohl
Stephen Barnard
Jan B–hme wrote:
>
> Stephen Barnard wrote:
> >
> > I'll probably expose my self to ridicule for this (so to speak), but I
> > think human penis size is also exaggerated due to sexual selection.
> >
> > Steve Barnard
>
> If this is correct, I suppose that the vagina must have co-evolved. There has
> to be some compatibility there. Is the human penis proportionally larger than
> that of a chimp or a bonobo?
>
> Jan Bohme
I'm not sure about this, but I think human penis size is larger
proportionately than that of chimps and bonobos. Someone please correct
me if I'm wrong. Anyway, if not, who's to say that penis size isn't a
sexually selected trait in chimps and bonobos?
In any case, human penis size is highly variable. Everyone has heard
the folk wisdom that Negroes have larger penises, on average, than
Caucasians. I've spent a lot of time in locker rooms, and I have to
say, reluctantly, that I think it's true. I don't know of any studies
that would confirm this. (Can you imagine getting the NIH to fund such
a study?)
I know there is at least one African tribe in which the men have
incredibly large penises. They parade around in public with these
things hanging down to their knees. They can literally tie them in
knots. It makes sense to me that in a tropical climate, where people
can comfortably go naked, that penis size could be a trait that would be
fodder for sexual selection. In the cooler climate of Europe, however,
a female might never get the chance to size up her potential mates.
Is this a male-oriented point of view? I don't think so. I'm
suggesting that a human *male* sexual characteristic may be due to
sexual selection by females. As a male, that doesn't bother me in the
slightest.
Steve Barnard
Paul Crowley
In article <4m58k1$6...@news.cc.ucf.edu>
cla...@acme.ist.ucf.edu "Thomas Clarke" writes:
> I think this discussion is inappropriate for
> sci.anthropology.paleo.
>
> Since breasts and penises don't fossilize, there can be
> no scientific discussion of paleo-sexual selection.
Scientific evidence is, in principle, obtainable. I feel that it is
very wrong to rule out discussion on a factual issue just because
_at_the_present_ we can't prove it one way or the other.
1) Ligaments supporting such weight may leave indications on bones.
2) Footprints fossilize, so we *may* get impressions of other body
parts - like those from Pompeii.
3) DNA stores volumes of data. If we could read it properly it
might be able to tell us the whole evolutionary story.
4) There is a mass of circumstantial evidence.
Anyway, they are large features, and to ignore them is to ignore a
vital and important aspect of human evolution.
It's not the topic that is inappropriate for a sci. group. It's
the level of debate. But then that also applies to most threads
started by the so-called professionals.
Paul.
Barry Mennen
In <318490...@imun.su.se> Jan Böhme <jan....@imun.su.se> writes:
>
>Stephen Barnard wrote:
>>
>> I've just assumed that female breasts are an exaggerated secondary
>> sexual characteristic due to sexual selection, like a peacock's
tail.
>> They aren't *for* anything, other than to attract males. Put
yourself
>> in the position of someone from Mars looking at a copy of Playboy.
>> Wouldn't this be an obvious conclusion?
>
that
>tail had a practical purpose. Evolution just enlarged it. Breast
_originated_
>in the human lineage. Besides, if the parallel holds true, female
breast
>should have evolved to their largest accommodable size. This is
obviously not
>true for the vast majority of the female breasts. Indeed, if runaway
>selection were responsible, one would expect virginal breast
hypertrophy to
>be the norn, rather than a relatively rare condition.
>
I
>> think human penis size is also exaggerated due to sexual selection.
>>
>> Steve Barnard
>
>If this is correct, I suppose that the vagina must have co-evolved.
There has
>to be some compatibility there. Is the human penis proportionally
larger than
>that of a chimp or a bonobo?
>
>Jan Bohme
Wasn't it Sarah Blaffer-Hrdy who hypothesized that female breasts
developed (along with loss of estrous cycles) to mask ovulation? have
I missed this point somewhere in the discussion? or is it simply out of
favor?
Barry Mennen
Richard Foy
In article <4m698o$h...@ra.cc.wwu.edu>,
You raise some interesting points. However, they are all pretty much
bsed on the assumption that one can put aside all biases and
"objectively" do science. The human being is *not* an objective
being. We are extremely good at rationalizing our innate believes,
and we are particularly good at doing this on a gender based basis.
And wle are alos very good at selecting our science and our studies
to support our predisposstion.
Tuesday's New York Times has an article that very clearly illustrates
this. It is about a conference sponsored by the New York Academy of
Science on what one might call the "Relate and Relax Response."
The "Fight or Flight Response" has been well researched and well
publicised in scientific and lay literature. The "Relate and Relax"
response has been just recently and not yet extensively studied.
The Flight or Fight might be called the Yang aspect of the autonomic
nervous system and the "Relate and Relax the Yin.
Both responses appear to be equally important to the success of
mammals in general and humans in paraticular. Why then, except for
male bias has the F or F been extensively studied and the R & R
totally ignored until recently, except for male bias?
Richard Foy
In article <1611.6694...@inforamp.net>,
Jim Moore <jimm...@inforamp.net> wrote:
>Yes, human penises are quite a lot thicker than those of our close
>relatives.
HMMM. Maybe large penises were slected for becausee they provided
more successful mating while standing up in the water. :-)
Ralph L Holloway
On Wed, 1 May 1996, Stephen Barnard wrote:
> In any case, human penis size is highly variable. Everyone has heard
> the folk wisdom that Negroes have larger penises, on average, than
> Caucasians. I've spent a lot of time in locker rooms, and I have to
> say, reluctantly, that I think it's true. I don't know of any studies
> that would confirm this. (Can you imagine getting the NIH to fund such
According to Rushton's analysis of UN shipments of condoms around the
world, Africa gets the largest sizes...;-] No, it wasn't funded by NIH or
NSF.
> I know there is at least one African tribe in which the men have
> incredibly large penises. They parade around in public with these
> things hanging down to their knees. They can literally tie them in
> knots. It makes sense to me that in a tropical climate, where people
> can comfortably go naked, that penis size could be a trait that would be
> fodder for sexual selection. In the cooler climate of Europe, however,
> a female might never get the chance to size up her potential mates.
Damn, and I thought they were slinging 'em over their shoulders...er,
what tribe was this?
> Is this a male-oriented point of view? I don't think so. I'm
> suggesting that a human *male* sexual characteristic may be due to
> sexual selection by females. As a male, that doesn't bother me in the
> slightest.
Apropo of the above observations on this one tribe in Africa, what were
the women selecting for? Closelines?
RH
Jan Böhme
the skeptic wrote:
> I think using college undergrad sample for the survey where they let the
> male college students select a variety of breast sizes and shapes, etc.,
> that were most appealing to them. The result was that the majority of them
> picked young firm round shaped breasts (what a shock). Well, that could
> mean all sorts of things. It could mean that on some level they recognised
> that these breasts meant height of fertility, OR it could even mean that in
> this society we or they have been enculturated to like those types of
> breasts best! If you asked some !Kung tribesman what kind of breasts he
> preferred, he would probably think you were nuts for asking.
That cultural preference determines our overt breast preferences is a truism.
It would, indeed, be very interesting to ask a !Kung tribesman (or rather,
several) the same question. If he, as you surmise, think that you are nuts
for asking, this could, in analogy with your reasoning above, mean _either_
that !Kung culture does not value breasts particularly high, _or_ that
breasts have arisen for non-sexual purposes. On the other hand, IF he favours
saggier breasts over firmer, this means _either_ that !Kung culture has a
thing about saggy breasts _or_ that there may be something to my ideas, after
all. On the third hand :-), if the !Kung tribesman perfers firm, rounded
breasts, then we are _both_ probably talking nonsense, as there are no
sociocultural reasons to favour firm breasts that I can imagine of in !Kung
society.
> Culture plays a role as well as
> biology and I personally think that it is a mistake to ignore either. The
> bottom line is that we will probably never know the intracacies of such a
> selection process because even if we view a selection for a trait of
> evolutionary significance, it would never involve all of the same factors.
Culture is, indeed a strongly confounding factor if one attempts to sort out
selection of secondary sexual characteristics. (Maybe we should have a new
thread discussing "The purpose of beards". Could be fun.) As I see it, there
are two ways to go. One is to ask !Kung tribesmen and other representatives
of traditional hunter-gatherer societies about their breast preferences. This
probably has to be done quickly, before said hunter-gatherers have watched
the telly too much :-). A common sexual attitude to breasts in different such
societies would be more indicative of an eventual biological preference than
thhe sexual preferences of our culture.
The other way one could possibly go is to try to would be to look for
manifestations of sexual desire that does not depent as much on language (and
thus culture) as telling an investigator which is the nicest breast. I tend
to recollect that penile swelling has been used as readout for sexual desire
in some studies. IF investigations using such, more fundamental, readout
systems, show a different preference than when people state it orally,
wouldn't that be a reasonably strong indicator that the preference with the
physical readout system is biological, and the preference stated in words is
cultural?
>If a woman is
> strong and tough and completely honest and doesn't stroke egos and soften
> truths, she is just a 'bitch'. I'm learning that being a bitch isn't so
> bad ;) Honesty...bitchiness, what's the difference? Just kidding there,
> sort of.
This doesn't really belong to the thread, and I do realise that you have a
valid point as regards the cultural expectations on women in our society, but
I would still like to be a bit serious about this. In my experience, people
who are persistently disagreeable very often rationalise this trait as
"honesty", regardless of their sex. Being an obnoxious bully is _not_ the
same thing as being honest. Learning to disagree without being disagreeable
is of utmost importance for the development of personal integrity both in men
and women. As is learning to know under which circumstances it really _is_
appropriate to be disagreeable ;-). Of course, this is culturally determined.
As the Usenet is a multi-cultural mediums, this probably means that people
from more aggressive cultures (such as the American culture) should be a
little wary. What is innucous to them might be highly offensive to a
Japanese, or even to an educated Central or Northern European.
>People write things like, '...breasts evolved because humans needed
> a way to tell each other apart...' . Most mutations are destructive or
> neutral and the few that turn out to be selected for that has significance
> in evolution either phenotypically or genotypically don't evolve in
> response to a need for something at all but I think a lot of people have
> that mistaken notion. Maybe I am too sensitive on this issue but I live in
> a state where the state board of education just passed a bill so that all
> the new science texts coming out for public education in K-12 have to have
> a disclaimer in the front of them that says that evolution is just a theory
> and that there are alternate ones like creationism. So, I am a bit jumpy
> on these things!
Of course you are right, from a principled point of view. However, the
"evolution in response to" is a nice pedagogical _metaphor_. It facilitates
the discussion to state "breasts evolved because of X", rather than saying
"in an environment with a variable X, which is very likely to have been
around during the critical part of human evolution, a mutation concentrating
the thoracic fat to the nipple areas conferred a certain advantage". The
second phrasing is scientifically more correct. It is also six times as long.
As long as we keep in mind what we _really_ mean, I think that the usage is
innocuous.
Jan Bohme
Jan Böhme
the skeptic wrote:
>
> In article <3184AB...@imun.su.se>
> Jan Bvhme <jan....@imun.su.se> writes:
>
> >
> >the skeptic wrote:
> If culture is dominant in our response to breasts, overwhelmingly so, how
> is it that you maintain that they evolved as a 'subconscious' response for
> position here, are you saying that attraction to sagging breasts was a
> cultural response or a biochemical one?
The opposition culture vs nature (why "biochemical" rather than
"neurophysiological" or just "physiological"?) is patent in modern hss.
However, as far as we can tell, culture plays a negligible role in the
behaviour of other mammals. I surmised that our physical evolution largely
was concluded when our cultural evolution started, for the simple reason that
brain size, which is a late trait, presumably is a precondition for cultural
development. Thus, there was, in all likelihood, not much culture to account
for during the most of the development that led to hss. The hypothesis would
then be that attraction to sagging breasts might indeed be physiological,
although buried under a thick layer of cultural varnish in our culture.
<long, rather rambling gender discussion deleted>
> If your ethnocentricism here is an attempt to make me as defensive as you
> are, it is rather mild, and to speculate on psychologically appealing
> for women to postulate.....that is rather ambiguous and quaint.
Well, you obviously take some emotional umbrage at my hypothesis, since you
have expanded so long on that it has been porposed and commented by men,
rather than stating that it has been proposed and commented by idiots, which
would have been an alternative.
> Ah...I see the reason you feel so defensive. I apologise for using your
> idea as an example of the humour in the sexual selection speculations.
> THat was rather mean of me.
I will not argue with you about who is defensive. I have enough experience
arguing with people who scream "I AM NOT ANGRY! IF YOU TELL ME ONCE MORE I AM
ANGRY, I'LL KNOCK YOUR BLOCK OFF! AND BESIDES, WHY ARE YOU YELLING AT ME?" to
know that it is pointless, and this seems a pretty good analogy.
> You missed the point I was trying to make. I wasn't making the point that
> sagging breasts might be useful for females, but that enlarged breasts
> might be. I was also making fun of your theory and that was unfair. I
> apologise. I don't think there is anything useful about sagging breasts.
In my cultural context, you didn't make fun of my hypothesis, you just
pooh-poohed it. If you would have noted drily that it would be interesting to
see what kind of pictures I download from the Net, or something, you would
have made fun of me and my theory in my context. However, you don't have to
apologise for pooh-poohing my idea. Pooh-poohing goes on at the Usenet all
the time. It rarely leads to anything constructive, though, so bandwith
considerations might be appropriate.
> I am afraid you missed the whole point here. This piece of information, ie.,
> sagging breasts, supposedly indicative of a females' reproductive success,
> is a little far fetched. In the first place, are you saying that enlarged
> breasts evolved to answer a 'need' for males to be able to select a mate?
> I didn't take it that way at first, but in this posting, I'm not so sure.
As Jim pointed out, the step between overall thoracic fat and breasts isn't
that great. IF motherly expertise started to be more important with altricial
child development, AND there was a time when the thoracic fat in the female -
quite possibly by neutral drift - could have several appearances, including
concentrated to the mammary area, THEN a male responsive to elongated
mammary-centered thoracic fat lumps might be at a reproductive advantage, as
he selected proven mothers. If so, he would spread his genes, including those
determining preference for elongated fat lumps in the mammary area. As this
disposition becomes more common, females with elongated mammary fat lumps get
a higher and higher reproductive advantage, which sperads _their_ genes for
thoracic fat distribution, and so on. It might not have happened that way,
but there certainly are no reasons why it couldn't from the point of current
theories of evolution and selection.
> Secondly, do you really think that whenever enlarged breasts evolved in
> women that males selected their mates because they wanted to produce
> children? Even if subconsciously, on some chemical level or whatever, males
> are compelled to mate because they want to pass their genes on to the next
> generation, it would still be subconsciously; males would want to mate, not
> reproduce and so they would not be looking for cues in prospective mates of
> reproductive success.
Isn't this a bit naive? Males only want to mate, yes. But the males that want
to mate the most successful mothers get their genes spread more. Sexual
selection on the whole is of course about subconscious preferences. Damn it,
the way we figure now, the vast majority of the earth's critters don't HAVE
much of a conscience anyway. And still many display highly elaborate, in all
likelihood selected - mating behaviours.
> Even if that were not true and men were looking for
> cues in prospective mates to their prior reproductive success I don't think
> that sagging breasts would be a very good clue. There is a great deal of
> variation in humans and there are many women who successfully reproduce and
> nurse their children without having sagging breasts. By the time many
> females have sagging breasts, they are no longer fertile.
Now you are talking a lot more sense. It _is_ a weakness in my theory that
small breasts sag less, yet do well in nursing. However, we have to realise
that nursing in a hunter-gatherer society is performed with unsupported
breasts. If I make the by now, in this newsgroup, almost compulsory reference
to the pictures of women in National Geographic, it seems clear that even
reasonably small breasts do indeed sag with motherhood without support. This
conclusion seems to be borne out also for women of European stock: The women
I know that have nursed children without wearing a bra here in Sweden, all
claim that they experienced considerably more breast sagging than their
bra-wearing sisters of similar breast size, be that size large or small.
Thus, maybe only very small breasts don't sag "enough" out in the wild.
As I pointed out in my original posting, using saggy breasts as a cue for
reproductive success has to be used together with other cues that determine
age (there are a few, you know) in order to avoid simply mating with the
oldest female, which would be stupid after the evolution of the menopause.
However, we don't know wheter permanent breasts evolved before or after the
evolution of the menopause.
>If males selected
> their mates on the prospect of how successfully they wouold provide offspring
> for the male and needed the benefit of enlarged breasts to do so, they would
> probably be better cued by young firm breasts at the height of fertility.
> Sagging breasts do NOT indicate fertility in any way that I can see.
> It is far more likely that if males actually chose their mates on the basis
> of successful reproduction that they would choose firm 'young' breasts as
> they would more likely be fertile.
There is more to reproductive success that mere capacity of giving birth to
young, especially if there is altricial development of the young. If a
significant number of the mother's, especially first-time mothers, fail at
bringing their young past infancy, then a sagging breast, indicative of at
least one full breastfeeding period, would indeed be a reassuring sign. I
seem to recollect that at least mountain gorillas indeed have a very poor
life expectancy for the children of first-time mothers. If the same was true
in our forebears, a male who avoided mating with nulliparous females would be
at a strong competitive advantage for producing offspring.
it.
> Mutations that occur that are selected for and so become significant in
> evolution are selected for because they are beneficial to survival first and
> reproduction of the species in some way or another.
Yes. And if chilren of experienced mothers are at a significant survival
advantage, the males that can best identify experienced mothers will be at an
advantage.
I don't think that this
> excludes reasons beyond selection of a mate by males. Maybe they were
> selected for because they are beneficial to females, or gasp, their
> infants.
Yes, maybe they are. But you still brush away the fact that breast are
permanent, fat-containing sturctures in hss. Since the developing-involuting
mammary gland is an invention as old as the mammals themselves, I, for one,
would assume that traits beneficial only to the nursing child were most
likely to appear by using the homeotic and developmental patterns that were
since long there for lactation.
>
> >> Why do enlarged breasts have to be a benefit to men? Could they have
> >> developed as a benefit to females?
Your conception of "benefit" is a little perverse. Is the peacock's tail a
benefit only to the peahen, then?
> >> What function do breasts have in the first place? They serve to nurture
> >> infants. Infants of homo sap saps are the most immature infants of any of
> >> the primates. They cannot cling as a pan species infant does to its'
> >> mother. They have a few reflexes and one of them is sucking. Could
> >> enlarged breasts have some benefit for hss infants? Okay, size has nothing
> >> to do with amount of milk produced, however, the skeletal morphology of hss
> >> has evolved and couldit be possible that the larger breast size was
> >> selected for as a benefit for the infant?
Still, how? What benefit would a larger breast indeed give an infant? It's
not there for helping clinging, anyway. Supporting the head of infants still
incapable of doing this on their own might be one idea. However, this seems
to be done much easier with the arm or with the hand than with the help an
enlarge breast. I don't reject the idea. I only can't come up with a cogent
hypothesis along those lines. Trouble is, I did come up with one along the
lines of sexual selection.
That the attitude that breasts
> >> are a secondary sexual attribute is merely cultural? The most logical
> >> reason for breasts to have developed in hss the way they have is as a
> >> benefit to infants as that is their primary function. It is entirely
> >> possible that the breasts developed for reasons other than mere cues for
> >> males of the species.
> >
> >Yes, but you don't construct an argument the way I did.
>
> You are right because it wasn't constructed as an argument, just an
> illustration of a point.
Which is considerably less persuasive than a fully constructed argument,
alas.
> Human breasts enlarge during lactation too. It is because they are engorged
> with swollen milk glands. Other mammals' breasts do not enlarge in the
> way or to the degree that humans' are permanently. I don't think that is a
> good defense for not being able to avoid the sexual selection hypothesis.
> While sexual selection is a valid idea, it is not the only one.
> As for "let it expand..." well, tell the alleles that are just waiting to
> mutate that and let me know how successful you are.
OK, we view human breasts differently (also scientifically, I mean :-)). To
you, they are first and foremost enlarged. To me, they are first and foremost
permanent. Besides, I don't think point mutations necesarily play all that
great a role for homeotic development. Gene duplication and exon shuffling
generally seem more likely, speaking from my professional background as a
molecular geneticist. And if so, the circumstance that promoters with the
proper temporal and spatial specificities already were available, would
inrcrease the likelihood of a beneficial breast-enlargement mutation using
precisely those already available promoters, in which case the effect would
be transient, and restricted to lactation, as the other lactation-secific
changes in the mammalian breast.
> I don't think that is logical or consistent. I think you are caught in the
> trap of defending your theory to the end. I cannot consider enlarged
> breasts that sag as a marker for a prospective mate. It is not logical for
> the reasons I stated above. It is not logical that males selected their
> mates consciously on the basis of their prior reproductive success which
> they would have to do if they were looking at womens' breasts to see which
> ones were sagging.
Well, if you can't even consider it, then there is no business discussing it,
is there? But you again repeat the major howler that mate selection need be
_conscious_. Of course it needn't. My hypothetical proto-human male just
thought saggy breasts were sexy. He had no idea of why. Just as a peahen has
no idea why a nice peacock's tail is so sexy to _her_.
> I disagree that there are strong cultural preferences for firm breasts in
> MOST societies today. There certainly is in western societies and it would
> not surprise me if this cultural preference evolved due to firm breasts
> being a subliminal cue that the female is in her fertile years. I believe
> that in sheer population numbers that perhaps your statement is true, but
> in numbers of societies, I don't think it is.
You didn't read my original posting, at least not very well. A bias toward
firm, virginal breasts would be expected in all societies that pass along
property between generations in nuclear families. Preferring virgin brides
in such a context confers the advantage of avoiding stepchildren as much as
possible, since they are a complication and a nuiscance under such
conditions. Indeed, most property-transmitting cultures I know of have a
strong preference for virgin brides. And if they have, I would be very
surprised if they didn't favour virgin-type breasts as well.
> >> A stretch sure, but no more so than the
> >> riduclous theory that breasts were selected for as being helpfulto
> >> males when bipedalism and frontal interaction took place to help them
> >> see that this was a female.
> >
> >I agree that this is silly. We men may be daft, but we're not THAT daft :-)
>
> I don't know who you mean when you say "we" but I suspect you mean males.
Oh dear. We _do_ have entirely different senses of humour. "We men" was
intended _not_ as "we men with theories about the evolution of secondary sex
characteristics" but as "we men", period, all of us, from the chimp-hominid
split down to present time. The idea outlined above required men to be unable
to tell a female without special visual aids e.g. breasts. I was merely
insisting that I thought that this feat was well within the capablilities of
my sex.
> <olfaction mightplay a role>
> >
> >Interesting thought, but how? There are no particular sweat glands or
> >anything on the breasts.
>
> The smell of the mothers' milk!!!!!What do you mean there are no particular
> sweat glands or anything on the breasts? If my anatomy text was correct,
> the mammary glands are simply modified sudoriferous (sweat) glands.
I expressed myself very clumsily. Yes, the breast is a modified apocrine
gland. Worse still, there are scent glands on the nipples of many mammals.
What I meant was that no addition of apocrine glands or other scent glands is
achieved by enlarging the human breast.
> Look closely at any primate nursing an infant. Notice their nose. The nose
> became more prominent over the years and even in infants, the nostrils are
> not positioned in a place that makes it convenient to breathe while nursing
> if the infant is nursing a fairly flat breast which compared to humans,
> other lactating primates are fairly flat. The nose is not very prominent in
> human infants but their noses could still be a hindrance if they were trying
> to breathe at the same time that they nursed. Now, this is just another one
> of those ideas I flung out there on the spur of the moment and have not
> thought out really and am perfectly willing to discard it if it is proven to
> be unusable. In fact, it sounds kind of ridiculous as I write it!
This is an interesting point. The advantage of the small noses in human
infants is obvious for anyone who has actually watched an infant suckle a
mother. You would argue that the breast is there te get the poor infant a
little more breathing-space, by making the breast curve away, and thus
provide more space for the nose. The "need" wouuld be about the same in other
primates, though, so then you would have to argue that it happened in us, as
opposed to other primates, by chance, but OK. My only objection is anecotal:
Certainly _my_ kids, and, as far as I can tell, most other kids whom I have
seen suckling their mothers, have actually seemed to dig in their little
noses into the soft breast, rather than making use of its convex curvature
for breathing better.
> >>But this then gives rise to
> >> interesting fact that hss infants can SMELL their mother through the smell of
> >> and 'taste' of her milk, her breasts. And for the mother to put out enough
> >> smell, perhaps the simple fact is that bigger breasts aid in that regard.
> >
> >Again, you wouldn't need _permanent_ breasts for this.
>
> Again, you wouldn't NEEEEEEEEED permanent breasts but it could still be
> beneficial as other mammals' breasts do not enlarge to the extent that
> human females' permanent breasts are enlarged (discounting variation ;)
> The simplest way for a females' breasts to be enlarged during lactation
> which without birth control could have amounted to 20 years (yikes) for what
> I hope is obvious to you but I can spell it out if you need me to,
> is for them to already be enlarged at the onset of
> puberty. It would consume a lot of energy to have inflatable body parts.
> (Just a joke...don't get bent out of shape here!).
Using your own way or arguing, isn't this a little teleological? If we
already have this set of fine mammay- an lactation- specific promotors, isn't
there much more likelihood that one of those is shuffled next to a gene
controlling the development of subcutaneus fat?
> Males wouldn't NEEEEEd to see sagging breasts to find out if a woman had
> had children, would he?Would enlarged breasts actually have been selected
> for to determine if a woman had children? That is a little far out in my
> opinion.
Problem is, weiewed that way, you NEEEEEEED just about nothing. And still,
here we are. And we are unlikely to have arrived only by genetic drift.
> >
> >Here you miss the whole point. Of course the peahen does not reason "this
> >male has an extra large and colourful tail, so his genes are likely to be of
> >extra good quality in general, so therfor I favour him"! This need not be
> >done on a conscious level at all to work.
>
> No, you miss the important point here. Peahens don't select mates on the
> basis of their colourful tail only withing certain geographical or political
> boundaries such as industrial societies.
No, it's you who have missed the whole point. I have never argued that a
single human male today bases mate choice on saggy breasts, either
consciously or subconsciously. My argument doesn't center around current
preferences at all, since these are largely in the opposite direction. My
argument is purely theoretical, based on the unexpected appearance of
permanent breasts in human females, but not in other primates. It is to some
extent testable, as I have outlined in another response to you.
> If a female has sagging breasts and
> this 'turns a man on' because it is a cue that she is a successfully
> reproducing mother, how come our society prefers firm breasts and most other
> societies don't even have a preference and don't think of them in terms of
> sex?
I have explained this again and again and again. For the last time: If you
live in nuclear families and transfer property between generations you are
bloody likely to favour virgin brides, and most likely to prefer virgin
breasts.
Also, could you please be a little more specific as to which cultures are so
uninteresting in breasts from a sexual standpoint. And please don't fall into
the trap of surmising that all cultures displaying bare breasts are by
definition uninterested in them as sexual signals. That would be very
ethnocentric.
If all men across the globe for the most part had a preference for
> certain types of breasts such as sagging ones, I think that we would see
> evidence but since westernised cultures are the only ones that I am aware of
> at least, that care so much about breasts, I can't believe that this is
> true. If it is not on a conscious level then it would be more global unless
> westernised humans have speciated and I am not aware of it.
Again, you state as gospel that no cultures except the westernised ones think
of breasts as sexual signals. Is this just whishful thinking of yours, or can
you provide me with references?
Oh sure, there
> would be variation, but not based on political and cultural boundaries.
> Do peahens in Highland New Guinea have no preference for colourful tails?
Again, are you so damn certain that there is no sex preference for breasts in
New Guinea? Please note that, since preference of saggy breasts runs contrary
to the Western idea of how breasts should look, western anthropologists might
have had a more difficult time recongising this as breast preference, if it
wasn't vey obvious.
> A note: I have never heard a man say that he picked his mate on the basis of
> her breasts.
> Also, are you saying that we are genetically programmed to have preference
> for a certain type of breast? If men were choosing saggy breasted women
> subconsciously is it because their genetic makeup informed them that these
> were successfully reproducing females? I'm sorry but I think that is a
> pretty major evolutionary leap when it would be much simpler for the male to
> find out if the female had already had children.
This depends on the structure of the society he lived in. If I am correctly
informed, !Kung mothers suckle their chidren up to the age of between two and
three, whereafter they are raised in a more communal fashion. Would it be
that easy to tell which mothers had children in such a society? We don't know
much about primordial man's society.
And if she had had children
> there is the possibility that she has a mate already. There is also the
> possibility that the females might have had at least some say so or some
> choice in the matter too and while I agree that in our species it is the male
> that usually pursues copulation, there might have been some choice by the
> females of whom they mated with.
Sure. Female choice is not at all incompatible with my theory. The only thing
that would kill it, choicewise, would be the _abscence_ of _male_ choice.
Long posting. I wonder how many who will read it. I'll end by stating that I
think that it is quite possible that breasts have arisen through different
causes, som of them which may be sexual and some of them that may not. But I
still think that I have al least made a try at formulating a hypothesis that
makes some more sense than erárlier hypotheses, for what that's worth.
Jan Bohme
Richard Foy
Sciences. The topic was a neuro-hormonal phenomenon wihch is
essentially the opposite of the "flight or fight" response.
One might call it the "relate and relax" response. The thing that is
interesting is that the "fight or flight" response has been
extensively studied, much has been known about the details of it for
a long time. The "relate and relax" has just recently been studied
and there is not too miuch known about it. IMO the reason is:
The "fight or flight" is more characteristic of the male yang aspect
of individuals, while the "relate and relax" is mare characteristic
of the Yin female aspect of individuals. It for example appears when
women are breast feeding their babies. Both of these responses are
apparently found in all mammals.
Thus as the bulk of research, until recently, was done by men only the
"fight or flight" was discovered and investigated. Now that women are
involved the "relate and relax" is discovered and investigate. Both
of these appear to be as important to species well being and survival.
Richard Foy
In article <4m83pg$3...@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>,
It was either her or Helen E. Fisher. I have not read anything that
refutes the argumentes that were made regarding that. And I think it
is very pertinant to the discussion going on here.
the skeptic
In article <rfoyDqr...@netcom.com>
rf...@netcom.com (Richard Foy) writes:
>
>In article <4m83pg$3...@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>,
>Barry Mennen <bar...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>>Wasn't it Sarah Blaffer-Hrdy who hypothesized that female breasts
>>developed (along with loss of estrous cycles) to mask ovulation? have
>>I missed this point somewhere in the discussion? or is it simply out of
>>favor?
>
>It was either her or Helen E. Fisher. I have not read anything that
>refutes the argumentes that were made regarding that. And I think it
>is very pertinant to the discussion going on here.
>--
It sounds interesting and perhaps it is only because it is
early in the morning (for me at least!), I can't put together
why enlargement of breasts would mask the ovulation cycle.
It does seem a possibility that loss of the estrous cycle might
be relevant, I just don't see how it is tied in. If anybody has
more information about it, I would like to hear it.
KHarper
Jan Böhme
Richard Foy wrote:
>
> Why does a male, if not culurally inhibited, care about how
> successful, a mother might be. It costs him essetntially nothing to
> impregnate her. So why wouldn't he impregnate all the fmales that he
> can?
This is clearly a valid argument against sexual selection by mate choice for
breasts. The only problem I have with it, is that it seems to be a valid
argument against sexual selection by mate choice of feminine traits in at
least all mammals.
One way to get around it is surmising that impregnation was a little more
costly to the male than we believe. If male courtship was more complex and
costly, it might be a good idea to focus on good targets from the beginning.
How likely this situation is in our forebears is another matter. Chimps and
bonobos do not seem to have particularly high costs to impregnation, I
readily admit.
Jan Bohme
Stephen Barnard
Richard Foy wrote:
> The Flight or Fight might be called the Yang aspect of the autonomic
> nervous system and the "Relate and Relax the Yin.
>
> Both responses appear to be equally important to the success of
> mammals in general and humans in paraticular. Why then, except for
> male bias has the F or F been extensively studied and the R & R
> totally ignored until recently, except for male bias?
>
> "Be sure that power is never entrusted to those who cannot love.
> -- Donella H. Meadows
>
> URL http://www.he.tdl.com/~hfanoe/index.html
Maybe because fleeing and fighting are perfectly well defined,
observable behaviors, while relating and relaxing are relatively fuzzy?
What is "relating" anyway?
Steve Barnard
Jan Böhme
>
> modified apocrine (scent-producing) gland.
I am already aware that I expressed mystelf in a very clumsy and inaccurate
manner. What I meant to say was rather this: The enlarged breasts of hss have
no _extra_ apocrine glands. When I wrote "breasts" above, I really meant
"breasts minus nipples", as all mammalian species have nipples, and they thus
are not special to human beings. Sorry!
> I think the olfactory connection works quite well, even with the current
> location of the breasts. Perhaps this is because scent molecules waft
> upwards.
This is often stated in lay contexts, but is it really so, in a
physico-chemical sense? Most scent molecules are distinctively heavier than
air. Why should they waft upwards, really? On the other hand, convective air
streams may of course make them waft upwards from a human body anyway.
> >After all, our ape cousins are not the best olfactors among
> >mammals they either, are they?
>
> This may be a subject for debate. Recent evidence that humans may mate
> for genetic diversity on the basis of subtle odor cues suggests that
> (consciously or not) we are using our olfactory acuity and specificity in
> a manner similar to that of rodents and other terrestrial mammals in
> which olfaction is critical to reproductive success. Perhaps other apes
> also use olfaction more than we currently believe. Mammalian
> olfactory-genetic-neuronal-hormonal-behavioral reciprocity suggests that
> this would be true.
>
> Similarly, it is beginning to appear that humans both produce and respond
> to pheromones--some of which may be both produced and distributed from
> the breasts.
Yes, but that wasn't quite the point I was trying to make. Yes, we may
actually use odor cues for mating to some extent. But our lousy conscious
sense of smelling makes it highly unlikely that we do so more than other
mammals, and indeed quite likely that we do so less. In such a context,
wouldn't it be a little surprising if a special feature for olfactory mating
evolved i homo sapiens, of all species.
Unless, of course, if the breast is a smelling-aid, which amplifies the
olfactory signal such that we poor smellers actually can detect it ;-)
JAn ohme
Jim Moore
>> And if she had had children
>> there is the possibility that she has a mate already. There is also the
>> possibility that the females might have had at least some say so or some
>> choice in the matter too and while I agree that in our species it is the
>> male that usually pursues copulation, there might have been some choice by
>> the females of whom they mated with.
>Sure. Female choice is not at all incompatible with my theory. The only thing
> that would kill it, choicewise, would be the _abscence_ of _male_ choice.
Female choice has been noted in humans (even by Darwin, in a passage
which he left suitably veiled given his audience ;-), and of course is
also compatible with Trivers' parental investment theory. Darwin's
quote is:
"But this form of selection [female choice] may have occasionally acted
during later times; for in utterly barbarous tribes the women have more
power in choosing, rejecting, and tempting their lovers, or of afterwards
changing their husbands, than might have been expected. As this is
a point of some importance, I will give in detail such evidence as
I have been able to collect." Darwin 1871:901 *The Descent of Man, and
Selection in Relation to Sex* London: John Murray (Reprinted, 1936).
And of course, being Charles Darwin, he goes on to do so in some detail.
>Long posting. I wonder how many who will read it. I'll end by stating that I
>think that it is quite possible that breasts have arisen through different
>causes, som of them which may be sexual and some of them that may not. But I
>still think that I have al least made a try at formulating a hypothesis that
>makes some more sense than erárlier hypotheses, for what that's worth.
>Jan Bohme
I was in the library yesterday (Karen will hate me for that, I guess),
and noted a little more info dealing with the "young virginal"
preference vs. "more experienced preference". (First, I have to say I
was amused to find her pushing the idea that prehistoric males would
prefer "young virginal" types, since that idea is generally pushed by
men.) Of course, it doesn't make sense in terms of chimps, not only
in terms of which females they actually prefer, but also because young
mothers (and this is true in humans as well as chimps, and a whole
lotta other animals as well) are not as successful mothers as older
mothers.
The particular point I was thinking of though, is about the idea she
also had (and many other people do as well) that females are simply
primed and ready to pop out kids as soon as they start menarche (and
develop those breasts). In fact, outside of "modern" culture, the
pattern is quite different; they typically go through "a long period
of adolescent subfertility following menarche" and "late age for first
birth" (Jane Lancaster, 1986:17, "Human Adolescence and Reproduction:
An Evolutionary Perspective" in *School-Age Pregnancy and Parenthood*,
edited by Jane Lancaster and Beatrix Hamburg. Aldine de Gruyter: New
York.) She notes that this is also true for non-human primates. This
means it is quite reasonable that males evolved tastes which dovetailed
with this evolutionary reality.
As you have pointed out well, the present likes and dislikes of males
in any given culture do not rule out this suggestion of sexual selection
being involved in the permanence of female breasts. Your point about
the permanence rather than the absolute size being critical in this
discussion is well-taken.
I don't know why a couple of people (including at least one who is "in
science") are finding the idea that sexual selection is not necessarily
conscious (it *can* be) quite so difficult to understand, but am happy
to see it has been pointed out (I'm just repeating it to hopefully help
it get drummed in ;-).
Jim Moore e-mail:jimm...@inforamp.net
Jim Moore
>So what do you think about universities that cut out one, two or three of the
>subfields and devote all of their department to say archaeology or whatever
>as opposed to the more holistic (ideally at least) department that requires a
>background in each of the subfields by undergraduates to get their degree?
>Being in a university that stresses the latter, I am inclined to think that
>it makes more sense but I am sure there are advantages of being in a
>department with only one subfield; perhaps the training in that subfield is
>more intense.
Given how tight money is, it's gonna be hard for most folks to get the
training they should with some experience in the various fields. What
I keep hearing, though, is that even in places with the various types
around, there's a lot of non-understanding and rancor, and not much of
the sort of interplay (which is not without rancor, given it's
academia, after all ;-) that was found at say, Berkeley or U of Chicago
during the 1960s. Some good people came out of that, along with the
biosocial outlook. The interplay I speak of was not necessarily
between the people in the different subfields there (Ralph would know
far better than I how much that happened) but in the work there.
Perhaps it was an atmosphere. I think some of that sort of atmosphere
must be present in the UK, as people like Bill McGrew, Tim Ingold,
Robert Foley (and others) seem to be carrying forth that style of
interplay between the fields; it's also apparent in some of the psych
work being done here and there (altho naturally some is done poorly
too).
>>>What do you do that you have so much time to spend on writing on a
>>>newsgroup like this? You must have lots of available time since you don't
>>>mind spending it answering some rather strange postings on science fiction
>>>and fantasy. I only get to get on here and play once every few months or
>>>so. It is never what I hope for it to be but it is ahem, interesting
>>>nonetheless.
>>
>>You do have a fascination with how I survive in life.
>>
>Yes I do, I suppose it is that curiosity about adaptation. In fact, I am
>quite fascinated and think you should just post a complete autobiography.
>Favorite colour, which Elvis stamp YOU would have picked had it been up to
>you, career history, oh, I know, just post your CV with a personal bio and
>maybe that will satisfy my curiosity on your fascinating self. ;)
It shouldn't be surprising that someone would decline to accept such a
request in the context of your posting style and a public newsgroup.
It's kinda like being asked such a question by having a belligerent drunk
shout it across the room in a crowded bar -- an answer is not likely
forthcoming. (Apologies for the unattractive metaphor.) Another time,
another place, another approach -- different result. I'm not adverse
to talking about myself.
Jim Moore e-mail:jimm...@inforamp.net
Jan Böhme
Richard Foy wrote:
>
> Tuesday's New York Times has an article that very clearly illustrates
> this. It is about a conference sponsored by the New York Academy of
>
> The "Fight or Flight Response" has been well researched and well
> publicised in scientific and lay literature. The "Relate and Relax"
> response has been just recently and not yet extensively studied.
>
> nervous system and the "Relate and Relax the Yin.
>
> Both responses appear to be equally important to the success of
> mammals in general and humans in paraticular. Why then, except for
> male bias has the F or F been extensively studied and the R & R
> totally ignored until recently, except for male bias?
Could F or F possibly have been a trifle easier to discern, and therefor
easier to study, ALSO for a female investigator?
Jan Bohme
Phillip Bigelow
>> nervous system and the "Relate and Relax the Yin.
>>
>> Both responses appear to be equally important to the success of
>> mammals in general and humans in paraticular. Why then, except for
>> male bias has the F or F been extensively studied and the R & R
>> totally ignored until recently, except for male bias?
>Maybe because fleeing and fighting are perfectly well defined,
>observable behaviors, while relating and relaxing are relatively fuzzy?
>
>What is "relating" anyway?
"Relating", as it is defined by those in-the-know, is thus:
You get a bunch of baboons and put them in a cage. You wait for some
dispute to break-out (one baboon stole the other baboon's bannana, for
example).
The screaming and hooting and ganging-up on the transgressor baboon by
the other baboons is ignored by the researchers (obviously, to the
researchers, these activities have been studied to death by past,
overwhelmingly-male investigators, so it *must* have been an inaccurate
observation, anyway).
Instead, the researchers send in a "mediator" baboon, (obviously, a
baboon from a different, more "cultured" and calmer research
facility...an outsider, if you will). The mediator baboon (obviously a
female), walks calmly around the cage and touches each baboon on the arm
and looks understandingly in the eyes of each and every baboon in the
cage. Soon, the whole group of baboons is calmed, and they begin to
hold-hands in a giant circle, and whimper quietly en masse.
The researchers observing this amazing event, begin to cry in empathy
with their study subjects in the cage. Only after a couple good cups of
herbal tea and then getting in touch with each and every researcher's
true feelings, can the researchers in the primate study team finally sit
down to write-up their amazing discovery. And the amazing discovery is
this: Baboon-encounter groups are real, and that "if everybody can just
come together and get along", then every primate on earth will be
relaxed.
Yes folks, the "Relate and Relax" theory of behavioral interaction
that Richard Foy wrote about is, clearly, the better way to describe
animal behavior.
Just walk up and ask any lion or wolf during its meal.
<pb>
the skeptic
In article <2913.6697...@inforamp.net>
with this issue because at my school, it is precisely the serious threats from
budget cuts that seem to have been a catalyst for extensive change in the
interaction between the subfields. Without going into a lot of detail, we have
been hit very very very hard and rumours had been flying the last year that
the 'powers that be' might merge anthropology with sociology or even close the
department. After an initial short period of panic and moaning, our fairly
closely knit community of students felt that it was either sink or swim and
we all suddenly got very interested in dogpaddling. We felt that it was
within our power to change the situation, in some ways more than within the
power of the faculty and we have made a concerted effort to change things.
The small dogpaddling movement set the attitude and the momentum has been
gaining strength ever since. I used to hear the various professors make
mild mannered 'jokes' about the various other subfields but that attitude is
completely gone. Archaeology is working with PA on mapping sites and using
GIS stuff and PA students are working on archaeological excavations. Cultural
students are working on the digs too and have used the experiences in
creative ways such as investigating the reason the 'Sloss ghost' myth was
useful to employers over the decades Sloss was in operation. The linguistics
students are working with us in archaeology and have volunteered on a
paleoprimatology dig. The faculty is fully supportive and have become very
involved in interchange and information exchange between the subfields and this
has been a very exciting change to watch take place in such a short period of
time. I do remember hearing some mild sort of complaints about CA's among
PA, small 'digs' (pun intended) aimed at archaeology by CA and so on and
that sort of thing has entirely disappeared as far as I can tell.
By the way, my advisor (PA) was at Berkeley in the 1960's. We sometimes
accuse him of being the 'naked guy' for fun. Of course, he never has
denied it outright....;)
(Snipped my bad joke here!)
>>>
>>>You do have a fascination with how I survive in life.
>>>
>>Yes I do, I suppose it is that curiosity about adaptation. In fact, I am
>>quite fascinated and think you should just post a complete autobiography.
>>Favorite colour, which Elvis stamp YOU would have picked had it been up to
>>you, career history, oh, I know, just post your CV with a personal bio and
>>maybe that will satisfy my curiosity on your fascinating self. ;)
>
>It shouldn't be surprising that someone would decline to accept such a
>request in the context of your posting style and a public newsgroup.
>It's kinda like being asked such a question by having a belligerent drunk
>shout it across the room in a crowded bar -- an answer is not likely
>forthcoming. (Apologies for the unattractive metaphor.) Another time,
>another place, another approach -- different result. I'm not adverse
>to talking about myself.
>
across a crowded bar! I was poking fun at myself actually but I guess that
didn't come across. But then again, I am without netiquette and quite
beyond approach according to the wisdom of Paul Crowley so please just
overlook my total lack of regard for netiquette though I've never been a
belligerent drunk but then again, would any belligerent drunk think he was
a belligerent drunk?
Karen Harper
zu0...@uabdpo.dpo.uab.edu
>Jim Moore e-mail:jimm...@inforamp.net
>
>
James Kohl
In article <3189D6...@imun.su.se>, jan....@imun.su.se says...
>
>James Kohl wrote:
>> I think the olfactory connection works quite well, even with the
>> current location of the breasts. Perhaps this is because scent >>
>> molecules waft upwards.
>
>This is often stated in lay contexts, but is it really so, in a
>physico-chemical sense?
In at least one model, yes; the scent molecules are delivered via dead
skin cells, which form a pheromonal "cloud" that surrounds
us--distributing the pheromones due to friction (e.g., fast dancing would
do it).
>>Most scent molecules are distinctively heavier than air.
I'm not sure that this is pertinent.
>>Why should they waft upwards, really?
Consider, for example, that when one applies a fragrance, it is the
fragrance rather than one's natural body odor that is first consciously
perceived. Whether or not the molecules that provide the characteristic
fragrance are heavier than air is not so important if the molecules can
be detected in parts per billion of air (for example--musky molecules).
>>On the other hand, convective air
>streams may of course make them waft upwards from a human body anyway.
Yes, he said, while preparing to go out dancing (and distributing his
pheromones and receiving hers).
The effects of pheromones on other mammals have little to do with
conscious perception. Instead, pheromones evoke a physiological response
that is associated with steroid hormone production and with behavior. It
is unlikely that other animals consciously perceive a cause and effect
relationship--just as it is unlikely that humans would consciously
recognize a similar cause and effect relationship--human pheromones being
causal, and the effect being on steroid hormone-influenced behavior.
>Unless, of course, if the breast is a smelling-aid, which amplifies the
>olfactory signal such that we poor smellers actually can detect it ;-)
Humans are not microsmatic (poor smellers). Our olfactory acuity and
specificity are second to none. In addition, we have more processing
power via added cortical development. Thus we may use chemical
information in a variety of ways--the most important of which would be a
toss up between food choice and mate choice (depending on which of these
you think is most important to survival of the species). Both food
preference and mate preference may be determined by a classically
conditioned olfactory response cycle. However, we make a conscious
connection between odors and food preference, all the while ignoring a
subconscious connection between pheromones and mate choice (which may
also be influenced by the size and firmness of the pheromone-producing
and distributing human female breasts.
BTW, a book chapter by Karl Grammer, et al. (in German, in press) now
reports that the ovulatory copulins (i.e., pheromones) of women induce an
increase in testosterone in men. The effect is also linked to an increase
in the attractiveness of women who were previously judged unattractive,
in the absence of the putative pheromonal stimuli. I suspect that such a
response could also be linked to pheromone production and distribution
from the breasts.
James Kohl
http://www.pheromones.com
the skeptic
In article <3812.6697...@inforamp.net>
jimm...@inforamp.net (Jim Moore) writes:
>
>>> And if she had had children
>>> there is the possibility that she has a mate already. There is also the
>
>>Long posting. I wonder how many who will read it. I'll end by stating that I
>>think that it is quite possible that breasts have arisen through different
>>causes, som of them which may be sexual and some of them that may not. But I
>>still think that I have al least made a try at formulating a hypothesis that
>>Jan Bohme
Well, I read the thing through and have to say that I think you have made me
rethink my initial "pooh-poohing" as you call it of the idea. I still think
there are a few problems with it but then again, there always are when we are
trying to look through time. It was easier for me to respond to this post
as it is shorter and my unix dinosaur internet access is soooo slow.
>
>I was in the library yesterday (Karen will hate me for that, I guess),
spent the day at the library as you seem to have so many references handy.
Maybe you have a photographic memory and can memorise references, but I
can't and most people can't so I thought maybe you spent the day at the
library. Maybe you should read Phillip Bigelow's posting about the
baboons that is so funny and we should hire a baboon mediator to calm
everybody down. Hehehe.
>and noted a little more info dealing with the "young virginal"
>preference vs. "more experienced preference". (First, I have to say I
>was amused to find her pushing the idea that prehistoric males would
>prefer "young virginal" types, since that idea is generally pushed by
>men.) Of course, it doesn't make sense in terms of chimps, not only
>in terms of which females they actually prefer, but also because young
>mothers (and this is true in humans as well as chimps, and a whole
>lotta other animals as well) are not as successful mothers as older
>mothers.
>
>The particular point I was thinking of though, is about the idea she
>also had (and many other people do as well) that females are simply
>primed and ready to pop out kids as soon as they start menarche (and
>develop those breasts). In fact, outside of "modern" culture, the
>pattern is quite different; they typically go through "a long period
>of adolescent subfertility following menarche" and "late age for first
>birth" (Jane Lancaster, 1986:17, "Human Adolescence and Reproduction:
>An Evolutionary Perspective" in *School-Age Pregnancy and Parenthood*,
>edited by Jane Lancaster and Beatrix Hamburg. Aldine de Gruyter: New
>York.) She notes that this is also true for non-human primates. This
>means it is quite reasonable that males evolved tastes which dovetailed
>with this evolutionary reality.
>
at the onset of menarche. I just said that breasts develop within the
same range of time. For crissakes, there are 9 year olds who go through
puberty and start menses, do you think I am crazy enough to think that
they are capable of having children ? Well, besides the purely technical
aspect at least? I was trying to point out that just like menarche begins
at a certain period in a females' life, so too does breast development.
That does seem to have some correlation, does it not?
>As you have pointed out well, the present likes and dislikes of males
>in any given culture do not rule out this suggestion of sexual selection
>being involved in the permanence of female breasts. Your point about
>the permanence rather than the absolute size being critical in this
>discussion is well-taken.
>
perhaps it is just my idea of an "older" mother is different than your
concept of an "older" mother. But that is not what made me rethink my
idea about Jan's idea, it was what he said about property. That makes me
realise that he has a valid point about the present culture preferring
young and firm breasts. Also, Jan asked for a reference on a particular
culture not having a preference for any particular breast shape, size,
what have you, and I will try to find that reference though it will probably
take a little time as it was in one of either my cultural textbooks or one
of the zillions of ethnologies I've had to read. I said something about
Highland New Guinea for emphasis and they might have been in that report
that I read. But still, as you point out (Jan), people don't always
tell the truth or understand the question being asked such as, "What kind of
mammary fat lumps appeal to you?" so I think someone should do a study
like Jan mentions to gage penile response to different breast types ;).
I say that jokingly but actually, it would be very interesting.
But then, would the subject only be shown breasts? I guess it would be
interesting to see what the response would be with just breasts and then
in another control, whole body and gage response between overall body fat
as well. I just read or saw somewhere (I have no reference so don't bother to
be polite) that a study was done where the researchers programmed a number
of facial types of all sorts into a computer and came up with an 'average'
face. When shown a wide variety of facial types, nearly every person
in the study preferred the simulated average face as someone they were
most attracted to for both men and women. Humans do appear to have a
definitive preference for certain facial types. I wonder how this fits in.
Is this a cultural evolution? If we were selecting mates on the basis of
body types, when we began to cover our bodies, did this begin a preference
for certain facial types? If so, is there some correlation between what
appeals to us in a face and in a body? Just pondering a train of thought
here. Please, folks, no wagering. The author, no it was a commentator so
it must have been the thing I saw on TLC the other night, the commentator
said that perhaps people preferred the average face to weed out "wild" genes.
Since I have already committed all sorts of netiquette faux pas, why be shy
now? I will go ahead and do it again by adding personal experience to the
discussion that Jan mentioned about friends having nursed and all that. I
am 37, nursed two children, don't wear a bra and my mammary fat lumps are
still that....just lumps, don't sag. But then again, I didn't nurse my
children for four years.
So, to Jan here: I will say that you have convinced me that your idea is
possible . I still think there is more to it than that, but since I don't
have any good ideas about what they are........I will leave it at that and
keep an open mind.
Karen
Richard Foy
In article <1777D95BS...@uabdpo.dpo.uab.edu>,
the skeptic <ZU0...@uabdpo.dpo.uab.edu> wrote:
>In article <3812.6697...@inforamp.net>
>jimm...@inforamp.net (Jim Moore) writes:
>tell the truth or understand the question being asked such as, "What kind of
>mammary fat lumps appeal to you?" so I think someone should do a study
>like Jan mentions to gage penile response to different breast types ;).
>I say that jokingly but actually, it would be very interesting.
>But then, would the subject only be shown breasts? I guess it would be
>interesting to see what the response would be with just breasts and then
>in another control, whole body and gage response between overall body fat
>as well.
I don't see how anyone could do the study Jan suggested in a way that
would sperate nature from nuture.
Richard Foy
In article <318875...@imun.su.se>, Jan Böhme <jan....@imun.su.se> wrote:
>Richard Foy wrote:
>>
>> Why does a male, if not culurally inhibited, care about how
>> successful, a mother might be. It costs him essetntially nothing to
>> impregnate her. So why wouldn't he impregnate all the fmales that he
>> can?
>
>This is clearly a valid argument against sexual selection by mate choice for
>breasts. The only problem I have with it, is that it seems to be a valid
>argument against sexual selection by mate choice of feminine traits in at
>least all mammals.
That is a problem.
>
>One way to get around it is surmising that impregnation was a little more
>costly to the male than we believe. If male courtship was more complex and
>costly, it might be a good idea to focus on good targets from the beginning.
True.
>
>How likely this situation is in our forebears is another matter. Chimps and
>bonobos do not seem to have particularly high costs to impregnation, I
>readily admit.
And humans actual sexual behavior tends to be somewhat like bonobos
rather than like the cultural prescription.
James Kohl
In article <rfoyDqw...@netcom.com>, rf...@netcom.com says...
>
>In article <318875...@imun.su.se>, Jan Böhme <jan....@imun.su.se>
wrote:
>>Richard Foy wrote:
>>>
>>> Why does a male, if not culurally inhibited, care about how
>>> successful, a mother might be. It costs him essetntially nothing to
>>> impregnate her. So why wouldn't he impregnate all the fmales that he
>>> can?
>>
>>This is clearly a valid argument against sexual selection by mate
choice for
>>breasts. The only problem I have with it, is that it seems to be a
valid
>>argument against sexual selection by mate choice of feminine traits in
at
>>least all mammals.
>
>That is a problem.
>
>>
>>One way to get around it is surmising that impregnation was a little
more
>>costly to the male than we believe. If male courtship was more complex
and
>>costly, it might be a good idea to focus on good targets from the
beginning.
Another way to get around it is to surmise that the male adapts to the
pheromonal stimuli of close kin (so that the typical physiological and
behavioral response cycle is inhibited--as is sexual attraction).
However, to take this approach one must acknowledge that the breasts are
pheromonally active, and that mammalian, including human pheromones, may
play a role in the behavioral development of the incest taboo.
James Kohl
Jim Moore
In reply to a message by the skeptic on 04-May-96 00:39:46:
>>men.) Of course, it doesn't make sense in terms of chimps, not only
>>in terms of which females they actually prefer, but also because young
>>mothers (and this is true in humans as well as chimps, and a whole
>>lotta other animals as well) are not as successful mothers as older
>>mothers.
>
>What age are you talking about here when you say older mothers?
Starting with non-first child mothers; in other words, any mother with
some experience. The mortality rate is far higher for first children;
for non-human primates it's about double the rate for later offspring.
>I also never said that females are simply primed and ready to pop out kids
>at the onset of menarche. I just said that breasts develop within the
>same range of time. For crissakes, there are 9 year olds who go through
>puberty and start menses, do you think I am crazy enough to think that
>they are capable of having children ? Well, besides the purely technical
>aspect at least? I was trying to point out that just like menarche begins
>at a certain period in a females' life, so too does breast development.
>That does seem to have some correlation, does it not?
In that they happen at some time in a female's life, but not that they
happen at the same time. They both come under the broad heading of
"adolescence", but at different stages, and fertility is at a
different stage again. This is one point that Lancaster (and others
in that book) in the book I mentioned is at pains to describe. First
let me point out that another of the major points in that book is what
they call a "secular trend in growth" in which the dates for menarche,
first birth, and completed growth are all advanced. This is what leads
to the modern situation of earlier menses and fertility which you refer
to above; it is a modern phenomena which is related to diet and which
is also seen in non-human primates in the laboratory and in provisioned
wild populations.
As for the timing of the adolescent changes in females, Lancaster
points out that "menarche itself is preceded by most of the essential
features of physical development indicating adult status: the
adolescent growth spurt, the attainment of nearly adult values for
weight and stature, and the growth of breasts and pubic hair"
(Jane Lancaster, 1986:21, "Human Adolescence and Reproduction:
An Evolutionary Perspective" in *School-Age Pregnancy and Parenthood*,
edited by Jane Lancaster and Beatrix Hamburg. Aldine de Gruyter: New
York.) She points out that "for girls, the first external sign of
puberty is the development of the breast bud. This is an odd and
noteworthy feature of human development and one which is likely to go
unnoticed without comparative mammalian data. The typical primate
female will not begin to develop breasts until the later stages of
pregnancy" (Lancaster 1986:20, ibid.)
When you couple that with the fact that -- *in populations which haven't
undergone the aforementioned secular trend in growth* i.e. populations
such as those in our evolutionary past -- the first pregnancy, in both
humans and non-human higher primates, is typically long after first
menses and long after the start of regular intercourse. This is
strikingly different from the situation for boys, who become fertile
at the start of pubertal development ("passing through a phase of
being a 'fertile eunuch' before acquiring his male secondary sexual
characteristics" -- love that phrase ;-). "This fact suggests some
special evolutionary pressure to delay to delay fertility for the human
female, giving her a time when she can function both socially and
sexually as an adult but not assume a maternal role" (Lancaster
1986:21).
Clearly the timing of the development of breasts in human females, as
well as their permanent nature, is quite different from non-human
primates, and is not tied to the needs of young (who won't exist
until years after). This is further indication that they exist in the
way they do because of sexual selection rather than the needs of the
child. Another major difference between the breasts of female humans
and those of non-human primates is that "the breasts of the human
female are made conspicuous and stable with deposits of fat, in
contrast to other primates whose breasts experience an increase in
glandular tissue that resorbs again after weaning if another pregnancy
does not ensue" (Lancaster 1986:20-21).
>Yes, it is but I still think there is a problem with time lines here and
>perhaps it is just my idea of an "older" mother is different than your
>concept of an "older" mother.
Hopefully I've made that clearer.
>But that is not what made me rethink my
>idea about Jan's idea, it was what he said about property. That makes me
>realise that he has a valid point about the present culture preferring
>young and firm breasts.
And, I hope, about the likely differences between current likes and
dislikes and those of our ancient ancestors...
Jim Moore e-mail:jimm...@inforamp.net
Jim Moore
In reply to a message by the skeptic on 02-May-96 08:18:47:
The idea is that breasts are a form of sexual advertisement; in other
words, this is part of the same thing you were lately "pooh-poohing".
;-)
The specific idea in this is that a male would stay around for outside
of estrus sex if he didn't know when the women is ovulating (mind you,
we are still saying "knowing" as a not-necessarily-conscious knowing
here). This would presumably then provide the female with more help in
raising kids (indirect help, probably, like food). There are a couple
of problems with this particular variant on breasts as sexual ads (and
hey, I'm just echoing their phrase).
One is that sex outside of estrus is now known to occur in species
which still have a quite easily discernible estrus (i.e. pygmy chimps).
Another is that the people who push this idea find it apparently
necessary to make these ancestors monogamous, and they -- as others do
as well -- have to jump through some fancy rhetorical hoops to make them
so (since we aren't [we *can* be]). For instance:
"*Hence monogamy does not imply fidelity.*" [emphasis in the
original] (Helen E. Fisher 1992:63-64, *Anatomy of Love: The Natural
History of Monogamy, Adultery, and Divorce*, W.W. Norton and Company,
New York and London).
And:
"Monogamy is not necessarily synonomous with an exclusive pair bond, and
either partner may occasionally solicit an outsider." (Sarah Blaffer
Hrdy 1981:35, *The Woman That Never Evolved*. Cambridge, Mass. and
London: Harvard University Press).
Another probably important point is that the estrus period was not
"lost" (which is why these authors have changed their original ideas
from "lost" to the more accurate "masked"). Even in today's human
population, there seems to be a rise in female-initiated sexual
intercourse during the female's fertile period. James Kohl (who posts
here at times) also mentions that some men report finding women more
alluring during that period as well (I haven't gotten to the point in
his book where he expands on this). Nancy Tanner suggested that the
masking of visible estrus signals due to bipedalism, along with less
direct and easy access to olfactory signals (i.e. smelling rears is
less convenient when bipedal than when quadrupedal), probably increased
the role of female choice in hominids.
Jim Moore e-mail:jimm...@inforamp.net
Richard Foy
In article <1777B74F0S...@uabdpo.dpo.uab.edu>,
the skeptic <ZU0...@uabdpo.dpo.uab.edu> wrote:
>In article <rfoyDqr...@netcom.com>
>rf...@netcom.com (Richard Foy) writes:
>
>>
>
>
>>In article <4m83pg$3...@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>,
>>Barry Mennen <bar...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>In <318490...@imun.su.se> Jan Bvhme <jan....@imun.su.se> writes:
>>>
>>>Wasn't it Sarah Blaffer-Hrdy who hypothesized that female breasts
>>>developed (along with loss of estrous cycles) to mask ovulation? have
>>>I missed this point somewhere in the discussion? or is it simply out of
>>>favor?
>>
>>It was either her or Helen E. Fisher. I have not read anything that
>>refutes the argumentes that were made regarding that. And I think it
>>is very pertinant to the discussion going on here.
>>--
>
>I, for one, would like to hear more about this idea.
> It sounds interesting and perhaps it is only because it is
>early in the morning (for me at least!), I can't put together
>why enlargement of breasts would mask the ovulation cycle.
>It does seem a possibility that loss of the estrous cycle might
>be relevant, I just don't see how it is tied in. If anybody has
>more information about it, I would like to hear it.
I jsut checked "The Woman That Never Evolved" by Hrdy and "The
Ananomy of Love" hy Helen E. Fisher. Both of them discuss the
concelament of estrus, as a potential for getting males to provide
more protection and help for their children. I didn't see either of
them mention the breast in that context.
Richard Foy
>easier to study, ALSO for a female investigator?
I don't think so. It is very easy to obsere the behaviors that are a
result of the 'relate and relax' response. Women holding hands, women
nursing babies, women "talking" with babies, responding to their
sounds, or in other animals, the grooming behavior of primates, and
other animals etc. etc.
And to a lesser extent similar behaviors of men. Heterosexual men in
other cultures that the US dancing togther, men playing non competive
games, probably men barbacueing a steak together, men fishing, men
chanting together......
Most of these are speculations as to where they involve the "relate
and relax' response. After all it has not been studied much. But I
suspect that they are from the details in the article I mentioned.
Richard Foy
In article <318A17...@megafauna.com>,
Stephen Barnard <st...@megafauna.com> wrote:
>Richard Foy wrote:
>> The Flight or Fight might be called the Yang aspect of the autonomic
>> nervous system and the "Relate and Relax the Yin.
>>
>> Both responses appear to be equally important to the success of
>> mammals in general and humans in paraticular. Why then, except for
>> male bias has the F or F been extensively studied and the R & R
>> totally ignored until recently, except for male bias?
>>
>> "Be sure that power is never entrusted to those who cannot love.
>> -- Donella H. Meadows
>>
>> URL http://www.he.tdl.com/~hfanoe/index.html
>
>observable behaviors, while relating and relaxing are relatively fuzzy?
>
>What is "relating" anyway?
The initial work on this was done on women nursing babies. Please
note that the term "relate and relax" was not used in the araticle I
disussed. Those are my words to briefly hang a tag on the process.
The behavior that the first work was done on was mothers nursing
babies, wihch is probably even more well defined than fight of
flight.
Richard Foy
In article <4me6gv$k...@ra.cc.wwu.edu>,
Phillip Bigelow <phi...@lubricant.free.org> wrote:
>Stephen Barnard <st...@megafauna.com> wrote:
>>Richard Foy wrote:
>>> The Flight or Fight might be called the Yang aspect of the autonomic
>>> nervous system and the "Relate and Relax the Yin.
>
Please note their is no "Relate and Relax" theory. Those words a tag
I hung on a *physiological* autonomic nervous/endocrine system
process as discussed in the article.
Your response it appears to me is much more a fucntion of my
fascination with the AAT than it is an attempt to udnerstand the
meaning of the article I so briefly summarized. In order for you to
discuss it intelligently I would suggest that you might read the NY
times article or even the journal articles that are referenced
therein.
By the way I recognise that the topic may not be exactly on target
for this news group but it is an least as much so as many threads
that I have oberserved recently.
Phillip Bigelow
rf...@netcom.com (Richard Foy) wrote:
>In article <4m698o$h...@ra.cc.wwu.edu>,
>Phillip Bigelow <phi...@lubricant.free.org> wrote:
>> The only reasonable solution that I can see is to have men review
>>scientific papers written by women, and to have women review scientific
>>papers written by men. <with the express directions, provided by the
>>editor, to check for inappropriate gender-rhetoric in the manuscript>.
>> And if that solution isn't very workable, perhaps it is time to start
>>inventing new scientific language to describe human behavior.
>You raise some interesting points. However, they are all pretty much
>bsed on the assumption that one can put aside all biases
He/she can't do that. That is where the reviewers come in to the
picture. The bias won't be totally removed from the paper by the review
process, of course, but the process, if it is conducted in a way that
watches out for gender-bias beliefs, can at least force the author of the
paper to *qualify* some of his/her statements. Or at least it forces the
author to better define words that have somewhat fuzzy definitions. For
example, the word "choice", which is apparently becoming prevalent in the
scientific literature on primate behavior, comes to mind.
>and
>"objectively" do science. The human being is *not* an objective
>being. We are extremely good at rationalizing our innate believes,
Now you are making my argument for me!
However, I don't know exactly how "innate" most of our beliefs are,
though.
In any case, it doesn't really matter.
Elaine Morgan's books are excellent examples of the opposite extreme of
the so-called "male-dominated" scientific literature that you noted
earlier.
Unfortunately, Morgan's books weren't reviewed for gender-bias
terminology/behavior any more than were the generations and generations
of male researchers that have published before her.
As I wrote earlier, turn-about is not doing good science. It is just
the opposite side of the same corroded coin.
<pb>
Barry Mennen
>
>
>"Be sure that power is never entrusted to those who cannot love.
> -- Donella H. Meadows
>
>URL http://www.he.tdl.com/~hfanoe/index.html
Using the "concealed estrus" model for a moment, enlarged breasts would
be part of an anatomical package that would simulate a
sexually-receptive state; here it would be essentially constant, unlike
an estrus-based primate. Thus, the male is kept continually interested
and--more or less--around a lot. All speculative, but interesting
anyway.
Kieran Shanahan
In article <rfoyDqo...@netcom.com>, rf...@netcom.com# says...
>The weakest point in the sexual selection argument for breasts is
>that women are limited in the number of chldren they can bear,
>whereas there is no similar limit for men. Women can easily get a
>wide variety of men to mate with them, except for cultural
>constraints and inhibitions, simply by "presenting," that is
>indicating her readiness to mate.
>--
Ah, at last a cogent point! This is indeed the weakness of the "sexual
advertisement" theory of breast permanence/enlargement, since it shifts
the locus of sexual choice to the female, rather than the male. This
opens up a much wider field of theoretical speculation....let's hear
some!!!!
Kieran Shanahan
In article <4m2b8p$5...@longwood.cs.ucf.edu>,
cla...@longwood.cs.ucf.edu says...
>
>jimm...@inforamp.net (Jim Moore) writes:
>
>>See Tanner (*On Becoming Human*) 1981, page 165, not to mention every
>>talk on human evolution she ever gave. She also pointed out that the
>>easy visibility of an erect penis in a bipedal male (as opposed to
>>chimps, for instance, who have to deliberately display their erect
>>penises to attract females' attentions) would be a spur (one of many)
>>to males to be bipedal, and would enhance the role of choice by
>>females.
>
>Do you really buy that?
>It's as silly as that aquatic ape stuff!
>
>Next thing you'll be telling us that men wear clothes and ties
>to cover their inadequate manhood and display a Limbaughesque phallus.
>
>Tom Clarke
>
Why is this hypothesis silly? Give us a reasoned argument.
And what are ties, if not phallic symbols? Do they have utility?
Richard Foy
In article <4mg2es$r...@nw002.infi.net>,
James Kohl <jk...@vegas.infi.net> wrote:
>In article <rfoyDqw...@netcom.com>, rf...@netcom.com says...
>>
>wrote:
>>>Richard Foy wrote:
>>>
>>>One way to get around it is surmising that impregnation was a little
>more
>>>costly to the male than we believe. If male courtship was more complex
>and
>>>costly, it might be a good idea to focus on good targets from the
>beginning.
>
>Another way to get around it is to surmise that the male adapts to the
>pheromonal stimuli of close kin (so that the typical physiological and
>behavioral response cycle is inhibited--as is sexual attraction).
>However, to take this approach one must acknowledge that the breasts are
>pheromonally active, and that mammalian, including human pheromones, may
>play a role in the behavioral development of the incest taboo.
I believe that the children who were raised in Kibbutz's do not marry
any one who was raised in the same Kibbutz. This suggests to me that
the incest taboo, is not so much *kin* recognition and taboo as it is
thsoe who one grew up with.
Richard Foy
In article <4mguso$1...@ra.cc.wwu.edu>,
Phillip Bigelow <phi...@lubricant.free.org> wrote:
>rf...@netcom.com (Richard Foy) wrote:
>>In article <4m698o$h...@ra.cc.wwu.edu>,
>>Phillip Bigelow <phi...@lubricant.free.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>>You raise some interesting points. However, they are all pretty much
>>bsed on the assumption that one can put aside all biases
>
>
>He/she can't do that. That is where the reviewers come in to the
>picture. The bias won't be totally removed from the paper by the review
>process, of course, but the process, if it is conducted in a way that
>watches out for gender-bias beliefs, can at least force the author of the
>paper to *qualify* some of his/her statements. Or at least it forces the
>author to better define words that have somewhat fuzzy definitions. For
>example, the word "choice", which is apparently becoming prevalent in the
>scientific literature on primate behavior, comes to mind.
I agree that the review process if conducted well can lower the
biases. However, there are mroe biases than gender biases that one
needs to be aware of and watch out for.
>
>
>
>>and
>>"objectively" do science. The human being is *not* an objective
>>being. We are extremely good at rationalizing our innate believes,
>
>
>Now you are making my argument for me!
Good that means that at least one of us is listening.
>However, I don't know exactly how "innate" most of our beliefs are,
>though.
>In any case, it doesn't really matter.
Innate was not a good choice of words, but I don't know of a better
one to describe those believs that have been absorbed by us by the
time we are two orthree years old so that they are compleley
unconscious.
I guess I don't understand why it doesn't matter.
>Elaine Morgan's books are excellent examples of the opposite extreme of
>the so-called "male-dominated" scientific literature that you noted
>earlier.
>Unfortunately, Morgan's books weren't reviewed for gender-bias
>terminology/behavior any more than were the generations and generations
>of male researchers that have published before her.
I have only read one of her books, "The Descent of Woman" many years
ago. The one thing tthat I observed in that book that seems to be as
you say, was a few paragraphs on the how face to face mating
developed. That seemed to me to be coming from a feminists bias.
I must read Scars one of these days.
> As I wrote earlier, turn-about is not doing good science. It is just
>the opposite side of the same corroded coin.
True but at least then you have seen the whole coin. And if, as you
seem to agree, everyone is biased perhaps the best we can do is to
seen the two sides of the corrorded coin and thus speulate a bit what
the indisee of it might look like.
Richard Foy
In article <3468.6698...@inforamp.net>,
I think one would has to excuse the words about monogamy. Our culture
ahs an exteremely strong moral/religious/ethical conditioning that
"monogamy is good" that anyone who has sex outside of a monogamous
marriage is some what tainted etc.
So though I excuse the monogamous message I still find it
interesting.
At one point Fisher has discussed the idea that tehre seems to be a
natural ~3 year period during which "romance" is strong, but then she
goes on to say if you work hard at it you can make a marriage last
longer than that.
>
>Another probably important point is that the estrus period was not
>"lost" (which is why these authors have changed their original ideas
>from "lost" to the more accurate "masked"). Even in today's human
>population, there seems to be a rise in female-initiated sexual
>intercourse during the female's fertile period. James Kohl (who posts
>here at times) also mentions that some men report finding women more
>alluring during that period as well (I haven't gotten to the point in
>his book where he expands on this). Nancy Tanner suggested that the
>masking of visible estrus signals due to bipedalism, along with less
>direct and easy access to olfactory signals (i.e. smelling rears is
>less convenient when bipedal than when quadrupedal), probably increased
>the role of female choice in hominids.
Intesting.
Jim Moore
In reply to a message by Richard Foy on 05-May-96 16:02:33:
>I think one would has to excuse the words about monogamy. Our culture
>ahs an exteremely strong moral/religious/ethical conditioning that
>"monogamy is good" that anyone who has sex outside of a monogamous
>marriage is some what tainted etc.
>So though I excuse the monogamous message I still find it
>interesting.
To an extent, yes; that is, perhaps in a newsgroup or some
non-scientific venue (altho accuracy is better even then). But I don't
think it should, or can be, excused when trying to make a scientific
hypothesis. It's garbage in, garbage out, or more likely the
variant "garbage in, gospel out".
Jim Moore e-mail:jimm...@inforamp.net
Jim Moore
In reply to a message by Richard Foy on 04-May-96 15:13:18:
>Please note their is no "Relate and Relax" theory. Those words a tag
>I hung on a *physiological* autonomic nervous/endocrine system
>process as discussed in the article.
>Your response it appears to me is much more a fucntion of my
>fascination with the AAT than it is an attempt to udnerstand the
>meaning of the article I so briefly summarized. In order for you to
>discuss it intelligently I would suggest that you might read the NY
>times article or even the journal articles that are referenced
>therein.
Phil's response is (sadly) right in line with his recent responses on
anything where someone has attempted to bring him up to date with the
study of social interaction. The funny thing is that the subject of
intervention, yes, mediation, and peacemaking in primates (someone
should write a book on that last -- why, someone has!) which he
apparently finds so bizarre, has been finally recognized as a critical
missing link in such research.
It's been recognised (by primatologists, anyway) that some of the
most critical times for social interaction in primates have been
systematically understudied. There has been a massive overemphasis
on fights and aggression. One simple reason is that they are obvious
rather than subtle; another is that they are infrequent rather than
ubiquitous, making them stand out, and easy to systematize. Frans
de Waal, who, in *Chimpanzee Politics*, largely dealt with such matters,
came to realize that the outcome of these aggressive encounters was
often decided not in the fights themselves, but in the periods between
the encounters. This realization comes about as the result of listening
to the past several decades of work -- mostly by women -- which pointed
this stuff out.
There seems to be here a view of the observer being either biased or
non-biased, but a far more accurate way of looking at the reality of
how this work has evolved would be to recognize the observer as having
a certain *perspective*. It is true that before about the mid 60s and
the work of Thelma Rowell, the perspective was very largely supplied by
males, and this perspective did limit what was seen (compared to the
[always] larger dataset of what was happening). Contrary to what some
posts have implied, a look at the work, largely by women, which
corrected this limited perspective seems almost always to have been a
more encompassing perspective rather than just a different bias. Male
researchers such as Kawaii, Nishida, McGrew, and de Waal (among
others) were able to see the validity of this more encompassing
perspective. I recently mentioned Kawaii's admission that, to his
surprise, female researchers were able to make sense of female
primates' actions to a far greater degree than male researchers. He
and others like him who are able to see the value of the more
encompassing view women have brought to primatology are to be
commended. More biased men might be stuck in a time warp, still
making nonsensical claims like "chimps and gorillas live in
male-dominant run groups" (and later perhaps deny they ever said it ;-).
Actually, the long-term studies by Japanese researchers in themselves
helped provide a somewhat different, and very valuable, perspective in
primatology. They tend to also look at how the group works, rather
than concentrate on the dominance relations within it. They see a group
dynamic, thinking of how the group provides its "leadership", rather
than how individuals vie for that leadership. The latter tends to be
something that Western males have traditionally thought of, a "great
men of history" approach. It is a severely limited way of attempting
to examine social interaction.
These approaches, initiated by the different perspectives of women and
of Japanese primatologists, have allowed researchers to begin looking
at dynamics which uncouple the concepts of "dominance" and "leadership"
and provide a clearer picture of what is happening in these groups.
Jim Moore e-mail:jimm...@inforamp.net
Phillip Bigelow
jimm...@inforamp.net (Jim Moore) wrote:
>
>As for the timing of the adolescent changes in females, Lancaster
>points out that "menarche itself is preceded by most of the essential
>features of physical development indicating adult status: the
>adolescent growth spurt, the attainment of nearly adult values for
>weight and stature, and the growth of breasts and pubic hair"
>(Jane Lancaster, 1986:21, "Human Adolescence and Reproduction:
>An Evolutionary Perspective" in *School-Age Pregnancy and Parenthood*,
>edited by Jane Lancaster and Beatrix Hamburg. Aldine de Gruyter: New
>York.)
From an evolutionary biology point of view, a human female is sexually
mature at the onset of menstruation, which in some human females, can be
achieved at around age 9-10.......
"Adulthood", in a zoological context at least, is by convention reserved
only for those sexually-mature individuals who have attained a
morphology that doesn't significantly change with further increased age.
Which, of course, doesn't apply in the case of human females who have
just reached sexual-maturity.
The title of her paper also seems somewhat oxymoronic. From a zoological
point of view, how can a sexually-mature female simultaneously be an
adolescent? In zoology, an "adolescent" individual is defined as one who
is *approaching* sexual maturity. Why is this definition altered for
humans? Special pleading?
>She points out that "for girls, the first external sign of
>puberty is the development of the breast bud. This is an odd and
>noteworthy feature of human development and one which is likely to go
>unnoticed without comparative mammalian data. The typical primate
^^^^^^^
>female will not begin to develop breasts until the later stages of
>pregnancy" (Lancaster 1986:20, ibid.)
Lancaster wrote of the "typical" primate female not developing breasts
until the later stages of pregnancy. This statement inplies that some
other primates, in addition to humans, also show a different ontogentic
timing of breast development. It would be informative to know which
primates (other than human females) are not "typical" in this regard.
And are there any obvious phylogentic or ecological relationships that
can be drawn from these "non-typical" primates?
<pb>
Phillip Bigelow
ZU0...@uabdpo.dpo.uab.edu (the skeptic) wrote:
>In article <2913.6697...@inforamp.net>
>jimm...@inforamp.net (Jim Moore) writes:
>but I am sure there are advantages of being in a
>>>department with only one subfield; perhaps the training in that subfield is
>>>more intense.
Some subfields really should be moved, and they should have been moved a
long time ago. Example: can someone explain to me why paleoanthropology
isn't a subfield in either the Department of Biology, or in the
Department of Geology/Paleontology??? How on earth did it ever get
associated with the behavioral science departments???
>>Given how tight money is, it's gonna be hard for most folks to get the
>>training they should with some experience in the various fields. What
I don't think by one simply "being" in an Anthropology Department, with
it's varied mix of cultural anthropologists, cross-over sociologists,
psychologists, and demographers, and paleoanthropologists, will *ever* in
itself make a paleoanthropology student a better paleoanthropologist.
What makes good scientists, and what makes good science, is
*collaborative* research. That hasn't happened much between the cultural
anthros and the paleo anthros, from what I have heard. In order for a
paleoanthropologist to do collaborative work with a cultural
anthropologist, the two have to be on speaking terms in the first place!
:-)
<pb>
James Kohl
In article <rfoyDqx...@netcom.com>, rf...@netcom.com says...
>I believe that the children who were raised in Kibbutz's do not marry
>any one who was raised in the same Kibbutz. This suggests to me that
>the incest taboo, is not so much *kin* recognition and taboo as it is
>thsoe who one grew up with.
I'm not sure that the human pheromonal hypothesis can be readily
differentiated to favor either (1) kin recognition or (2) familiarity.
One could posit that (2) famliarity with the odors of opposite sex
conspecifics typically would occur only with (1) kin.
That the kibbutz children might become familiar with the pheromones of
non-kin in an atypical living relationship, is suggestive of olfactory
adaptation--and thus adaptation to what would otherwise be a potential
olfactory-hormonal-mating behavior response to the pheromones of one's
kin (in a typical living relationship). In any case, the kibbutz children
seem to defy the Law of Propinquity, which suggests they should grow up,
fall in love with, and marry spoused from their own kibbutz.
James Kohl
http://www.pheromones.com
the skeptic
In article <4mimqj$1...@misery.millcomm.com>
to wear the silliest ones and it is interesting that for the most part, the
morphology of ties is suggestive (hehe) in that they point the way right to
the body part as finely as the X on a treasure map. ;)
Missnetiquette, Karen Harper
Thomas Clarke
kie...@millcomm.com (Kieran Shanahan)> e-mailed
a request for argument:
>cla...@longwood.cs.ucf.edu says...
>jimm...@inforamp.net (Jim Moore) writes:
>>>See Tanner (*On Becoming Human*) 1981, page 165, ...
>>> She also pointed out that the
>>>easy visibility of an erect penis in a bipedal male
>>> ... would be a spur (one of many)
>>to males to be bipedal, and would enhance the role of choice by
>>females.
>>Do you really buy that?
>>It's as silly as that aquatic ape stuff!
>Why is this hypothesis silly? Give us a reasoned argument.
A couple of reasons. One since penises don't fossilize, there is
no way to prove which came first: large phallus or erect posture,
so that any connection will probably have the status of a just-so
story.
Second, all anecdotal evidence I have - testimony by female friends -
is that power counts far more than penis size in determining mate
choice.
Of course, there is nothing logically impossible about a penal
arms race - females favoring large penises which favors the birth
of males with large penises - just as there is noting logically
impossible about many other hypotheses involving soft tissues.
>And what are ties, if not phallic symbols? Do they have utility?
Oh, I agree that ties have phallic significance. I think the
appropriate just-so story is that large penises are a threat
display against other males. Like antlers. Large penised males
win threat displays and get to mate leading to more large
penised males. Now that we post iceage cro-magnons wear clothes,
the lower level brain machnery that evolved as a response to penile
threat displays finds its use in the boardroom as respone to the threat
display of the power tie.
The hypothesis of a penal threat/submission response has the selective
advantage of reducing the damage incurred in direct fighting over females.
It also has the advantage of being more consistent with the
sexual dimorphism of hominids. It is of course subject to the same
lack of evidence of all hypotheses about behavior involving soft tissues.
Tom Clarke
James Howard
Human males and females produce more testosterone than male and female
chimpanzees respectively. It is testosterone that makes a male more
formidable than another; more aggressive. It just happens that penis
size is also a result of testosterone. It is a proven fact that blacks
produce more testosterone than whites. (Citation, Journal of the
National Cancer Institute, is at my website in article on human
evolution: http://www.naples.net/~nfn03605.) Another mechanism is
triggered upon aggression; this is the "flight or fight mechanism." The
explanation of how this works, the direct connection of increased
testosterone in humans, and how these have controlled human evolution are
at my website. I invite you to read it. Please, please... however,
read it carefully. The explanations are there; I get numerous emails
demonstrating that the work was only scanned, not read.
Tom Clarke
jimm...@inforamp.net (Jim Moore) writes:
>In reply to a message by Tom Clarke on 29-Apr-96 08:04:41:
>>jimm...@inforamp.net (Jim Moore) writes:
>>>See Tanner (*On Becoming Human*) 1981,
>>>.... She also pointed out that the
>>>easy visibility of an erect penis in a bipedal male (as opposed to
>>>chimps, for instance, who have to deliberately display their erect
>>>penises to attract females' attentions) would be a spur (one of many)
>>>to males to be bipedal, and would enhance the role of choice by
>>>females.
>>Do you really buy that?
>>It's as silly as that aquatic ape stuff!
>It has two rather significant differences, Tom: 1) it fits all the
>facts (not just a carefully selected subset);
Well I just posted on this, but I will repeat myself.
I don't think this fits the sexual dimorphism of hominds very well.
A better explanation would be the use of the large penis as a
threat display between males in competition over females. Sexual
dimorphism of hominds is usually taken to imply that the tendency
is many females to a single male in mating which is consistent with
male competition for mates.
> and 2) the facts it
>fits are real, actual facts, not phony "facts".
What real facts? The only "fossil" penis that I recall
is that "ice-man" in the alps. Contemporary reports
on female penal preference are conflicting.
I like the male competition explanation. It accounts for the
tie as an essential part of business clothes.
Tom Clarke
--
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
Hamlet - Shakespeare
Jim Moore
In reply to a message by Phillip Bigelow on 06-May-96 03:08:22:
>jimm...@inforamp.net (Jim Moore) wrote:
>> >>As for the timing of the adolescent changes in females, Lancaster
>>points out that "menarche itself is preceded by most of the essential
>>features of physical development indicating adult status: the
>>adolescent growth spurt, the attainment of nearly adult values for
>>weight and stature, and the growth of breasts and pubic hair"
>>(Jane Lancaster, 1986:21, "Human Adolescence and Reproduction:
>>An Evolutionary Perspective" in *School-Age Pregnancy and Parenthood*,
>>edited by Jane Lancaster and Beatrix Hamburg. Aldine de Gruyter: New
>>York.)
>From an evolutionary biology point of view, a human female is sexually
>mature at the onset of menstruation, which in some human females, can be
>achieved at around age 9-10.......
What you describe is a modern situation (which is tied to diet). The
mean age for menarche in the U.S. at present is 12.8 years, while in
the early 1800s it was about age 17. However, I would have to say that
for primates at least, the definition of sexual maturity you give is
far too simplistic. More on that below:
>The title of her paper also seems somewhat oxymoronic. From a zoological
>point of view, how can a sexually-mature female simultaneously be an
>adolescent? In zoology, an "adolescent" individual is defined as one who
>is *approaching* sexual maturity. Why is this definition altered for
>humans? Special pleading?
No, it's because your definition is quite simplistic and for primates
it's inaccurate. For girls, the path to sexual maturity begins with
the start of the growth patterns mentioned in the Lancaster quote
above, which typically start well before menarche. After first menses,
in both human gather-hunter groups and in higher primates, there is
still a long period of subfertility, typically about a year in rhesus
macaques, one and a half to two and a half years in baboons, and two
to four years in chimps and humans. This corresponds with the period
of time it typically takes to establish regular menstrual cycles after
first menses. As Lancaster quotes the title of a research article on
the mechanism behind this (by Lunenfeld et al.): "the ovary learns to
ovulate". (The mechanism involves the maturing positive feedback
system balancing estrogen and luteinizing hormone.) It also corresponds
with the last maturing sexual feature in female humans, the adult
capacity of the birth canal and pelvis.
So sexual maturity in primates is not achieved at first menses, as it
is animals such as rats and sheep. This is because "for such species,
the postive feedback mechanism regulating ovulation matures at birth,
not years after menarche, so that for them, puberty equals instant
fertility" (Jane Lancaster, 1986:26, ibid.).
>>She points out that "for girls, the first external sign of
>>puberty is the development of the breast bud. This is an odd and
>>noteworthy feature of human development and one which is likely to go
>>unnoticed without comparative mammalian data. The typical primate
> ^^^^^^^
>>female will not begin to develop breasts until the later stages of
>>pregnancy" (Lancaster 1986:20, ibid.)
> Lancaster wrote of the "typical" primate female not developing breasts
>until the later stages of pregnancy. This statement inplies that some
>other primates, in addition to humans, also show a different ontogentic
>timing of breast development. It would be informative to know which
>primates (other than human females) are not "typical" in this regard.
>And are there any obvious phylogentic or ecological relationships that
>can be drawn from these "non-typical" primates?
> <pb>
The non-typical primate she is implicitly referring to are humans.
We *are* primates, you know...
;-)
Jim Moore e-mail:jimm...@inforamp.net
Jim Moore
In reply to a message by Tom Clarke on 06-May-96 10:37:28:
>jimm...@inforamp.net (Jim Moore) writes:
>Well I just posted on this, but I will repeat myself.
>I don't think this fits the sexual dimorphism of hominds very well.
>A better explanation would be the use of the large penis as a
>threat display between males in competition over females. Sexual
>dimorphism of hominds is usually taken to imply that the tendency
>is many females to a single male in mating which is consistent with
>male competition for mates.
But what we see in hominids is a reduction is sexual dimorphism.
The "threat display" idea not only seems laughable; I've never seen
any halfway credible suggestion that provides support for it.
>> and 2) the facts it
>>fits are real, actual facts, not phony "facts".
>What real facts? The only "fossil" penis that I recall
>is that "ice-man" in the alps. Contemporary reports
>on female penal preference are conflicting.
The fact that human penises are bigger -- particularly thicker -- than
those of our primate relatives. This suggests that we are the ones who
changed from the ancestral form.
>I like the male competition explanation. It accounts for the
>tie as an essential part of business clothes.
>Tom Clarke
Ties, and phallocarps, are not penises, Tom. Why don't you just say
that Mount Blanc pens? We are talking about an evolutionary past, not
modern culturally derived symbols.
Jim Moore e-mail:jimm...@inforamp.net
Jan Böhme
the skeptic wrote:
> I also never said that females are simply primed and ready to pop out kids
> at the onset of menarche. I just said that breasts develop within the
> same range of time. For crissakes, there are 9 year olds who go through
> puberty and start menses, do you think I am crazy enough to think that
> they are capable of having children ? Well, besides the purely technical
> aspect at least? I was trying to point out that just like menarche begins
> at a certain period in a females' life, so too does breast development.
> That does seem to have some correlation, does it not?
It sort of does, but then it depends. When I took the phsyiology course
(1979), average menarche in Sweden was 12.5 years and going down. Menarche is
digital, either you have had it, or you don't. Breast development is more
gradual. It _starts_ at around eleven or just before in Sweden. But it takes
a long time to finish. At least when I read surgery, Swedish surgeons
considered that up to age eighteen the breast still developed, and that
breast surgery was counterindicated before then. At least this was true for
large breasts. Breast reductions were not performed before eighteen. (No
other breast surgery was contemplated on teenagers back then, and I
wonder if that still isn't the case in Sweden) There probably is some safety
margin to that, but still...
> Yes, it is but I still think there is a problem with time lines here and
> perhaps it is just my idea of an "older" mother is different than your
> concept of an "older" mother. But that is not what made me rethink my
> idea about Jan's idea, it was what he said about property. That makes me
> realise that he has a valid point about the present culture preferring
> young and firm breasts. Also, Jan asked for a reference on a particular
> culture not having a preference for any particular breast shape, size,
> what have you, and I will try to find that reference though it will probably
> take a little time as it was in one of either my cultural textbooks or one
> of the zillions of ethnologies I've had to read. I said something about
> Highland New Guinea for emphasis and they might have been in that report
> that I read.
There might be some cultures that are rather uninterested in breasts. I did
not really question this. What I questioned ws rather that a great number of
non-western cultures would be so disposed.
>But still, as you point out (Jan), people don't always
> tell the truth or understand the question being asked such as, "What kind
> of mammary fat lumps appeal to you?" so I think someone should do a study
> like Jan mentions to gage penile response to different breast types ;).
> I say that jokingly but actually, it would be very interesting.
Indeed, I believe that there are people doing such things. One only has to
find them and collaborate with them. Well, only... We should also have a
control group from a culture preferring a different breast shape than our
culture. An agreement in penile respone between two groups with different
cultural preferences should be reasonably convincing. The second best thing
would be to rate oral and physiological responses differentially, as I think
I sketched in a previous posting.
> But then, would the subject only be shown breasts? I guess it would be
> interesting to see what the response would be with just breasts and then
> in another control, whole body and gage response between overall body fat
> as well.
Interesting point. Body fat clearly matters. In my anecdotal experience, most
men are either noncommittal or outright negative to their girlfriend's
dieting, even in our culture, so there I think we really do have biological
preference here. I don't think the subjects should be shown only breasts, -
that would be kind of artificial, wouldn't it - but at least the complete
torso. If one wants to look at response to breasts, I suppose one has to
control for average body fat. Perhaps by using pictures of the same woman,
and the remodelling her breasts with Photoshop, or something.
> I just read or saw somewhere (I have no reference so don't bother to
> be polite) that a study was done where the researchers programmed a number
> of facial types of all sorts into a computer and came up with an 'average'
> face. When shown a wide variety of facial types, nearly every person
> in the study preferred the simulated average face as someone they were
> most attracted to for both men and women. Humans do appear to have a
> definitive preference for certain facial types. I wonder how this fits in.
> Is this a cultural evolution? If we were selecting mates on the basis of
> body types, when we began to cover our bodies, did this begin a preference
> for certain facial types? If so, is there some correlation between what
> appeals to us in a face and in a body? Just pondering a train of thought
> here. Please, folks, no wagering. The author, no it was a commentator so
> it must have been the thing I saw on TLC the other night, the commentator
> said that perhaps people preferred the average face to weed out "wild" genes.
There was an article in Scientific American on this topic perhaps ten years
ago. However, I have got the feeling that perception psychologists now have
discovered that it isn't that simple, and that some traits are preferred even
if they depart from the average. One thing I tend to recollect is that
smaller noses seem to be regareded as more beautiful than average noses. This
is a juvenile trait, if anything, which is a bit embarrassing in this
context. On the other hand, it is not a culture-free resopnse, either. If a
culture favours virginal breasts, it probably favours virginal noses (well,
you know what I mean :-)) as well.
> Since I have already committed all sorts of netiquette faux pas, why be shy
> now? I will go ahead and do it again by adding personal experience to the
> discussion that Jan mentioned about friends having nursed and all that. I
> am 37, nursed two children, don't wear a bra and my mammary fat lumps are
> still that....just lumps, don't sag. But then again, I didn't nurse my
> children for four years.
My stuff was anecdotal, as well. I suppose it would be possible to perform
some kind of a scientific study on that, too, if one really wanted to.
> So, to Jan here: I will say that you have convinced me that your idea
> is possible . I still think there is more to it than that, but since I
> don't have any good ideas about what they are...I will leave it at that and
> keep an open mind.
Dammit, you sound more convinced than I am!
As far as I see things, there are the following problems or complications
with the "mommy sag" hypothesis:
1) Was male choice really strong enough to influence selection tht strongly?
At least in bonobos, nobody seems to be very choosy at all, to put it mildly.
The only compelling argument for male choice as a shaping selective force
that I can muster is not too scientific: without it, I can't understand how
women would have become half as pretty as they really are! (Half seriously,
at least. There seems to be a gender- and culture-neutral consensus that
women are prettier than men, anyway, so it isn't just that we have evolved to
like what we get.)
2) There are other things peculiar to female physiology in hss. There is no
heat cycle, for one thing. Also, female orgasm is said to be limited to hss.
(But I have no idea whether this is true. Jim probably knows.) All these
changes probably should at least be taken into account when one considers
hypotheses of sexual selection of female sexual characteristics.
On the other hand, I have a hard time understanding the link between a
permanent, enlarged breast and olfaction and pheromones. They probably are
important also in human matings, but via a permanent breast?? Or perhaps the
fold under a saggy breast serves to conserve and amplify body odors :-)?
Anyway, I tossed this out to get a review from a more varied expertise that I
would get from my own crowd of immunologists and molecular geneticists. Being
an immunologist, I know very well that most theories and hypotheses are damn
wrong, but that there is a great difference between a hypothesis that is
wrong and silly, and one that is wrong an clever. The review I have got in
this group so far has convincd me that, whereas it easily could be completely
wrong, it is at least not totally daft.
For the moment, that's fair enough.
Jan Bohme