/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14765476
virgin simp

>>14765476
good thread

>>14765476
IIRC, their existence is because infant primates have flat faces so the teat needs to be raised, then for whatever reason the degree of fat deposit doing the raising became a secondary sexual selection criteria.

>>14765565
that's kinda bs. chimps, gorillas, orangutans don't have boobs.

male peacock feathers display more than just the ability to gather extra resources. they also are an indication of genetic quality. if they aren't mirrored, this indicates damage which could be physical (you lost a fight? pass) or genetic.
sure, having two breasts is just so there's a backup and can give a gauge of if the woman is healthy, but there is again the genetic component, similar to the face being mirrored being seen as attractive (or, rather, a slanted face being unattractive).

>>14765476
is dick size also purely sexual selection?
t. manlet dicklet

>>14765476
It's social conditioning. In some parts of Africa it isn't a sexually arousing body part because women don't wear shirts. Although, they do cover part of their thighs and men find 'the pink part of their inner thigh' arousing

>>14765476
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlTrGIW5iZ8

>>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?

>>14766106
>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.

loaded question. is there evidence for male ape aversion to breasts? males don't get "turned off" by nursing mothers. male mammals just kill the babies if it's not theirs.

>>14766106
>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.
It just means that there's a difference between the two sexes, not that it's developed for sexual relations. Your body hair doesn't "prepare" you for sexual relations either.

>>14765476
the answer is pretty simple
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFu7LjG74fY

>>14765921
>It's social conditioning. In some parts of Africa it isn't a sexually arousing body part because women don't wear shirts.
This is the most retarded thing I routinely hear people say.

>>14765921
>In some parts of Africa it isn't a sexually arousing body part because women don't wear shirts.
why would that make it not sexually attractive?

>>14766544
NTA but I imagine being constantly exposed to ugly, saggy tits makes the thing unexciting in the long run,

>>14765594
Yup. Also big booba sag with time so the preference for big boobs could be a round about proxy for youth. Big boobs that look nice don't tend to last, so big boobs that aren't all saggy are a sign of youth.

>>14766551
that's retarded, take for example nice legs or a pretty face or a nice ass

they're attractive even though you see ugly examples of the same

the same would be true of boobs, you'd just only be attracted to the actually attractive ones

clothes are completely irrelevant in all these cases

>>14766562
>take for example nice legs or a pretty face or a nice ass
What about them? Asses are generally covered up. Legs and face aren't considered lewd. Are you sure your IQ is over 80?

>>14766590
we aren't talking about what's considered lewd socially, we're talking about what's sexually attractive

>muh IQ
best way to spot a midwit

>>14766596
Thanks for confirming your mental retardation.

>>14766544
>why would that make it not sexually attractive?
It doesn't. Tits are secondary sex characteristics that arise after puberty, all men find them sexually exciting, the idea that le noble Africans aren't interested in tits because their women walk around with them out all the time is just typical bullshit "look how different things are over there, nothing is true" relativism soft science sociology nonsense.

>>14766623
>>>/r/eddit

>>14765579

The females of all of these species have distinctive droopy nipples/chest areas.

>>14765579
They have lips that protrude, which permits the infant to suckle without being smothered.

>>14766673
>being smotherered by your mom's giant boob
hoooooo boy

>>14765476
Imagine taking a big, fat, brown, disgusting shit right on her tits.

>>14766734
No.

>>14766734
I see that you are thinking of ways to make her orgasm.