/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14765476
https://georgefrancis.substack.com/p/intelligence-and-the-evolution-of?s=r

>Why do women have breasts? Our primate relatives don’t have breasts, or rather they only grow and have breasts during pregnancy and the feeding after. There must be some reason why we evolved them yet other species did not.

>The most obvious fact about breasts is that they are sexually appealing to males - they are ‘secondary sexual characteristics’. Women develop them during puberty as they are preparing for sexual relations.

>And yet the idea that their evolution started out as being sexual characteristics does not really make sense. In the period after giving birth and during breastfeeding, primates are infertile. This is called ‘Lactational amenorrhea‘. In our relative species, breasts signal temporary infertility! So what ape would be attracted to a female with breasts given she is infertile, is caring for an infant and probably being protected by another male.

>This is what I call the ‘breast paradox’ - boobs evolved to be sexually desirable features yet this is apparently contradicted by the fact their initial development would have signalled being taken and temporarily infertile.

>Some evolutionary biologists, realising the problem of the ‘breast paradox’, suggest non-sexual explanations for their evolution. These ideas include thermoregulation, their evolution as a fat store like a camel’s hump or as a signal of lactational capacity (for a recent and thorough review of evolutionary hypotheses check out this review). Then it is supposed that the sexual role of permanent breasts came later. But these types of explanations do not really make sense. If there were these evolutionary advantages why didn’t other primates evolve them? Why don’t men have breasts too?

BOOBAChads win once again