/sci/ - Science & Math

that one manga picture about boobs vs butt

Depends, can religion ever explain dick

>>7051335
Nice ass implies wide hips good for childbirth

You're biologically inclined to enjoy wide hips and round booty

>>7051368
>Nice ass implies wide hips

No it doesn't. They're independent.

>good for childbirth

Urban myth. Wideness of hips actually has no bearing on how easy or difficult birth is.

>You're biologically inclined to

Please be aware that you don't know what people are biologically inclined to do. Spreading uninformed hypotheses as if they are fact is why "evo psych" is popsci nonsense.

>>7051377
Jesus I feel sorry for your friends & family if you're this autistic irl

it provides shock absorption for rough sex to protect the brittle bones and stop bruising

Secondary sexual characteristic. Animals like having something to get all hut under the collar over (and to know if they're trying to mount a male or female).

>>7051379
>you hurt my feelings and embarrassed me by pointing out I was wrong, therefore you're autistic

Yeah, great riposte.

>>7051377
>>good for childbirth

>Urban myth. Wideness of hips actually has no bearing on how easy or difficult birth

Source?

>>7051410
I do not need to provide you with a source.

Leave it up to the chan to imbed sexual premise in anything ever. Love you guys.

>>7051401
No, I'm just empathetic towards the people who are forced to be around you because you seem like a really annoying cunt

Also you never proved me wrong since you didn't post any kind of source

>>7051377
this

>>7051420
I'm not him, but you're the one claiming that wide hips are good for childbirth. You should provide the source.

>>7051412
So you just made it up. Spreading uninformed hypotheses as if they are fact is popsci nonsense.

>>7051377
>No it doesn't. They're independent.
Only if you like boy-buts

>>7051377
>Urban myth. Wideness of hips actually has no bearing on how easy or difficult birth is.
Urban myth or not, the important part is that wide hips LOOK more "child bearing", and thus attract better mates, regardless of how they perform.
Besides, we all know women have wider hips than men, so it's a secondary sexual charismatic of SOME kind.

>>7051412
You do now

http://faculty.bennington.edu/~sherman/sex/whr-singh2002.pdf

Christ, can't you faggots even wikipedia?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_shape#Wide_hips_.28in_females.29
Widening of the hip bones occurs as part of the female pubertal process,[2] and estrogens (the predominant sex hormones in females) causes a widening of the pelvis as a part of sexual differentiation. Hence females generally have wider hips, permitting childbirth. Because the female pelvis is flatter, more rounded and proportionally larger, the head of the fetus may pass during childbirth.[3]

>>7051443

What is that quote supposed to demonstrate?

>>7051437

Where in that article does it say that wider hips are better for childbirth? I just read it and I guess I must have missed it.

>>7051432
>Urban myth or not, the important part is that wide hips LOOK more "child bearing", and thus attract better mates, regardless of how they perform.

If they're not "more child bearing" then where would the notion that they look that way come from?

>Besides, we all know women have wider hips than men, so it's a secondary sexual charismatic of SOME kind.

Well now that's a totally separate issue.

I want to fuck big asses, but also smaller asses. If I fucked every woman's ass and came in them, every single woman, and made every single one of them pregnant with my child, I would have no qualms about it.

>>7051443
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_shape#Wide_hips_.28in_females.29
The citation in question links to two different Wikipedia articles both of them making the claim, one with [Citation needed] and the other with no citation at all.

Welcome to Wikipedia: watch your step.

>>7051412
That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
-A pretty cool guy

>>7051460
I doubt he ever said that.

>>7051452
Women with a lower waist to hip ratio have a higher reproductive capability, as well as better general health.

>>7051452
I doubt you read it if you missed the central point that it summarizes the evidence for. Get the fuck out.

>>7051468

That's ratio, not width. So if anything, that refutes it.

Babies aren't born through the "hips," they're born through the pelvic cavity. Which even narrow hips have more than enough room for, and expands during childbirth anyway. The width of hips is determined by the "top of the funnel," which is not the limiting factor.

But go ahead, if anyone can find any correlation between especially wide hips and low infant mortality or something, go ahead. I mean, if "everybody knows" that, it should be trivially easy to find.

>>7051472

Really? Quote it for me. All I see is a bunch of stuff about waste-to-hip ratio and fertility and shit - nothing about width and nothing about childbirth.

Hip width is more like pseudo social thing. While it may not declare actual child bearing advantages it is as said a trait sought after by reproductive prime males. My girls lean as fuck with a wide fucking spread.... Which equals me wanting to impregnant her.

>>7051377
A nice, round ass is most definitely correlated with hip size

Also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waist%E2%80%93hip_ratio

>>7051453
>If they're not "more child bearing" then where would the notion that they look that way come from?
Sigh.
It doesn't matter.
As long as men THINK it's child-birth related (regardless of whether it is or not), they'll be attracted to it.

>>7051479
When we talk about women with wide hips being attractive we mean women with a low waist to hip ratio. No one cares that an obese woman has larger hips than average.

Explaining how babies are born doesn't refute the scientific fact that WHR is a good predictor of fertility, reproductive capability, and health, which is why we evolved to be attracted to low WHR.

The paper I posted summarizes evidence from various fields that shows WHR predicts reproductive capability.

>>7051487
Low WHR means wide hips relative to the body. This is what people say when they talk about wide hips, and this is what males are generally attracted to. You are being facetious if you ignore that the paper talks about hip width and childbirth just because you cannot find specific words.

>A WHR of 0.7 for women and 0.9 for men has been shown to correlate strongly with general health and fertility. Women within the 0.7 range have optimal levels of estrogen and are less susceptible to major diseases such as diabetes, cardiovascular disorders and ovarian cancers.[14] Women with high WHR (0.80 or higher) have significantly lower pregnancy rates than women with lower WHRs (0.70–0.79), independent of their BMIs.[9] Men with WHRs around 0.9, similarly, have been shown to be more healthy and fertile with less prostate cancer and testicular cancer.[15]

>Evidence suggests that WHR is an accurate somatic indicator of reproductive endocrinological status and long-term health risk. Among girls with identical body weights, those with lower WHRs show earlier pubertal endocrine activity, as measured by high levels of lutenizing hormone (LH) and follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) as well as sex steroid (estradiol) activity. A Dutch prospective study on outcome in an artificial insemination program provides evidence for the role of WHR and fecundity (Zaadstra et al. 1993). These investigators report that a 0.1 unit increase in WHR decreases the probability of conception per cycle by 30% after adjustment for age, fatness, reasons for artificial insemination, cycle length and regularity, smoking, and parity.[16][17]

>>7051497
Why would they think that though, and across all cultures? and where is your evidence against the evidence that wide hips predict reproductive capability?

>>7051479
>That's ratio, not width. So if anything, that refutes it.
Christ, just put the bong away an go to bed.
If ratio is important, and there's a lower limit on waist size, a small waist to hip ratio just means "wide hips for her body" plus "not morbidly obese".

>>7051497
You're sounding pretty close to a SJW blank-slate moron right now.

When I was 13, do you think I knew that wide hips are equal to fertility? No, but I was still attracted to hourglass figures and bubble butts. Attraction to nice hips, legs and asses is not cultural. Get lost.

>>7051497
>As long as men THINK it's child-birth related (regardless of whether it is or not), they'll be attracted to it.

But I don't think it is and I'm still attracted to it. Same with breasts, for that matter.

>>7051491
I don't get why people have such a problem with sexual selection, it's pretty obvious when you think about it. They just quote the mantra "survival of the fittest" even though Darwin never said it and forget the thousand other aspects of genetic growth.

>>7051500
>and where is your evidence against the evidence that wide hips predict reproductive capability?
I'm not on that retard's side, I'm just saying the "good birthing hips" COULD be a myth because it's not its actual effectiveness that matters. just the perceived effectiveness.

>>7051503
>Attraction to nice hips, legs and asses is not cultural. Get lost.
I never said it was.
dumbass

>>7051498
>Low WHR means wide hips relative to the body. This is what people say when they talk about wide hips, and this is what males are generally attracted to. You are being facetious if you ignore that the paper talks about hip width and childbirth just because you cannot find specific words.

Bullshit. This whole thing started with someone saying that "wide hips" are "good for childbirth." That's the urban myth. Nobody ITT said secondary sex traits don't exist.

>>7051513
>That's the urban myth.
But it's not an urban myth. I just showed you that it isn't, and instead of admitting you made a mistake you are relying on sophistry like a child. Having wide hips are indeed good for childbirth. If you have wider hips than someone with the same weight, your frequency of birth is likely to be higher.

>>7051511
You're strongly implying it is by saying that men's preference for wide hips is a conscious decision as a result of thinking it's related to fertility.

It's not conscious at all. It's an inherited trait. Women who have wide hips/big asses are more fertile (plenty of evidence of that in this thread). Men who are more attracted to wide hips and big asses are likely to have more children, passing the booty and the booty thirst onto the next generation.

>>7051335
a prominent posterior shows higher estrogen/testosterone levels, like full lips, wide eyes, a prominent jawline etc, not to mention people usually don't parade their bare ass around town, drawing our attention to one when we see it

>>7051716
That's like saying "plants are green because they have a lot of chlorophyll." While obviously correct, it kind of bypasses the whole point of asking the question.

>>7051519
>conscious
Its subconscious, the brain makes lots guesses that we aren't aware of.

>>7051517
I bet Anon is actually a Femanon mad that she is flat with no ass and hips.

>>7051377
Wideness of hips is affected by hormones that indicate femininity. Wider hips = more fertile.

"Evo psych is popsi nonsense"
Get out of here, tumblr.

>>7051377
>"evo psych" is popsci nonsense.
lmao faggot
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZadvovEI9k

>>7051517
>I just showed you that it isn't,

No you fucking didn't.

>Having wide hips are indeed good for childbirth.

No it's fucking not. Look:

>If you have wider hips than someone with the same weight, your frequency of birth is likely to be higher.

The urban myth is that WIDER hips make CHILDBIRTH EASIER because they are wider. Not waist-to-hip ratio (why would the waist matter?). Not as an indicator of fertility. Physically because they are wider. And that is wrong and that is all I was talking about.

It's the same category as "larger breasts produce more milk." That is also an urban myth. But breasts, like hips, are also a seconday sex trait and an indicator of fertility.

>>7051822
>>7051983
>hurr durr muh redpill

Learn to read, faggots.

>>7051454
but anon women get pregnant through their vagina

>>7051990
>hurr durr muh redpill
>learn to read
this is what passes as an argument in 2015

>>7051991
>muh vagina

fuck off, tumblr

>>7051993

Argument against what? What was the brilliant argument you put forth that was ignored?

>>7051420

He seems fine to me. In general, I prefer to hang out with people that know what they're talking about, so he's got ten points over you right there.

>>7051452

You didn't miss it, you just failed to misinterpret what you read because you read carefully. Don't bother trying to explain the difference to those incapable of reading carefully; their minds are inflexible and unchanging, and that is its own punishment.

>>7051454

>every woman

But then you would have a generation of kids all related to each other, with no one to fuck but one other. It'd be too much incest.

I feel like we are missing a key point here.

We like the smell of a (regular) vagina because of pheremones.

The sweat and other juices would slowly retreat down the gooch, and I also read somewhere (citation needed) that said area produced a shit ton of pheremones as well.

If evolution wanted us to make babies why did it make it more fun to fuck the asshole

check m8

>>7051420
>I'm just empathetic
sure you are shithead. Do you want addresses so you can send flowers?

>>7052038
If God wanted us to procreate why did He make it so much fun to procrastinate?
Cornflakes Catholics

>>7051335
Probably more muscular in our ancestors that moved on all four and a good place to store some fat to aid endurance.
Now not as muscular and stores more fat to cushion and protect the pelvis that is somewhat of a weak point in bipedal animals much like the knees.

>>7051998
Not him but I'm the other guy you responded to. I said wide hips are a sign of fertility. Not really an argument since I have no idea about the childbirth thing, just a point.

And then you said that about evo psych and I knew instantly you're part of the re-emergence of creationism led by shitty hate groups like atheism+, etc.

>>7051990
>The urban myth is that WIDER hips make CHILDBIRTH EASIER because they are wider.
That has nothing to do with what you replied to, you utter retard:
>Nice ass implies wide hips good for childbirth
>You're biologically inclined to enjoy wide hips and round booty

No one cares about your stupid myth. Look at the original post in the thread. Look at the post you replied to. Neither say anything about wider hips making childbirth easier because they are wide. The question is, why are large posteriors attractive? The answer is that they imply reproductive capability.

>>7051335
big ass = best fuck

Nothing more to explain

>>7052090
Are you kidding? Our asses are huge because we're bipedal, not because of some quadrupedal vestige. Pound for pound we have the heaviest and strongest asses of the Apes, probably the strongest asses of the primates, and probably a respectable placing in the animal kingdom ass rankings overall.

>>7052107

Are you having a stroke? You literally quoted "wide hips good for childbirth."

>>7052117
>having sex

>>7052157
They are.

>>7052117

the bigger the cushion, the better the pushin

Post more ass. I need to do some scientific observations

Why do black women have the biggest asses?

>>7051420
Burden of proof stops on you first m8.

>>7051335
That one girl smiling down at the camera just makes this pic.

Mfw people think evolutionary psychology is bullshit.

Can science explain the appeal of 2D lolis?

>>7052246
It is bullshit. It's ex post facto conjecture and nothing more. Sound scientific theories must be predictive - evopsych is just lore-building, and sketchy lore-building at that.

The human ass, atleast for men, has a key importance in running. One of the main reasons which make humans one of the best runners on the planet

>>7052298
>at least for men

So what do women use to run? Their breasts?

>>7052171
>le epic shiposting

>>7052292
How is it not predictive?

For example, evolutionary psychology predicted that attractive features correlate with health and reproductive capability, and this turns out to be true.

>>7052352

Well the female ass is not as good, but it helps too. Naturally.

>>7052292
Could you not argue the same about evolutionary biology by your standards of ex post facto conjecturing?

>83 replies

Can science explain this ass??

You ever think that a big ass just gives the illusion of wide, childbearing hips? Males were more attracted to women who appeared to have wide pelvises, so the female body responded by depositing fat around that area of the body, which was far "simpler" than actually redefining skeletal structure?

A thing of absolute beauty that science will never explain.

we engineers just tap dat ass daily
Sciencucks just stay at home doing silly experiments

>>7052504
>Fat is attractive.
Back to /b/.

>>7053005
Low Test Beta detected

>>7053006
Back to /adv/.

>>7053009
Back to >>>/r9k/ you beta

>>7053012
You're trying too hard.

>>7053001
I'm an engineerfag and I can comfirm.

>>7052467
i came into this thread yesterday expecting stuff like this but instead i got a retarded sperg argument with no image replies

>>7053026
>>7053001
And then you give them a reach around

The human being is the only animal in the world with an ass.

Science cannot explain this.

>>7053094
Why do people refer science as if it were some kind of entity?

>>7053113
Because then they can worship it and claim something immoral is merely in the name of science of course!

>>7053113

Because The United States of American. They don't think like the rest of the world.

Did everyone forget that wide hips are a biomechanical travesty? Running with wide hips sacrifices a relatively large amount of energy into rotational energy which seriously hinders sprinting away from predators.

Obviously nature had to have some benefit to doing that. Female hips are a compromise between sprinting speed and child birth.

All that is observed is reality.
Science deals with explaining reality.
Science has been able to explain almost every challenge put forward to it, and as science gets better, more and more things become explainable.
Ass is reality.
Ass is explainable.

>>7052413
>evolutionary psychology predicted that attractive features correlate with health and reproductive capability, and this turns out to be true.

[citation needed]

Especially since "attractive features" is something that has changed wildly over recorded history

>>7052460
Nope. We have witnessed adaptive evolution as predicted by the theories of evolutionary biology (after their formulation) on the microbiological scale

>>7053376
Fair call. How then do you understand the existence of behaviours? What means do you prefer in making predictions about them?

>>7053372
>le "fatties were hot once" meme

>>7053154
If the women are having to run around, the men have fucked up at protecting them.

>>7053588
My understanding of the existence of behaviors is murky as it's not my field, but I generally speculate that behaviors are a function of underlying neurology. If we have a theory which predicts behaviors in hitherto unseen or unstudied neurological states, which then is shown to be correct when these states are induced, I would call that a sound scientific theory of behavior.

As I understand, neuroscience is getting there. Evo psych is just lore.

>>7053748
Are you retarded? Look at Marilyn Monroe, and then look at Heidi Klum. Look at the busty ideal of beauty of the last century, and then look at the pigeon-chested fashions of the Victorian era. Look at island cultures that consider teeth filed down to points to be beautiful. Look at foot binding in the east. "Attractive features" is not a universally constant concept.

>>7053932
try not to confuse fashion with sexual attractiveness.

For example, look at the most popular porn stars vs the ideal of beauty as shown in fashion magazines or the runways.

>>7053937
They run the gamut of body styles. Jenna Haze vs. Sasha Grey, night and day difference.

I know you like to mentally cherry-pick your examples to support your point but nobody else has that limitation and can see that you're full of shit

>>7051368
you mean big ass implies wide hips good for childbirth proffesor?

>>7053926
Okay.

Why do men prefer younger womyn and womyn older men?
Why do men get more jealous about sexual infidelity and women more jealous about emotional infidelity?

>>7053932
>"Attractive features" is not a universally constant concept.
Youth is a universally attractive feature to males and social status is a universally attractive feature to females.

>>7051379
hes a proffesor, an assburger proffesor that google graphs and post them

>>7053954
>Why do men prefer younger womyn and womyn older men?
>Why do men get more jealous about sexual infidelity and women more jealous about emotional infidelity?

Why are you assuming that your conjectures are automatically true?

Why are you ignoring the phenomenon of "cougars"? Why are you ignoring the fact that a significant portion of women prefer a younger mate to an older one? Why are you claiming to know what makes people more jealous on average as if human psychology were homogenous and constant?

>Youth is a universally attractive feature to males
False. I personally know as many men who prefer females over 30 to females under 25.

> social status is a universally attractive feature to females.
False. I'm sure we all have known more women than we can count who are attracted to down-and-out broke-ass losers.

This is why evo-psych gets no respect. You folk beg in your premises and expect everyone to just accept them without question despite the fact that everyday life refutes the universality of these ideas.

>>7053972
>False. I personally know as many men who prefer females over 30 to females under 25
What about the females from 25-30? Poor girls, nobody likes them.

>>7053954

Why do you think you know what men and women want, let alone "universally?"

>>7053976
Yeah it's sad. Adopt a 25-30 year old woman today. For less than a dollar a day you can help these poor souls

>>7053978
http://homepage.psy.utexas.edu/HomePage/group/busslab/pdffiles/sexdifferencesinhuman.pdf
>>7053972
http://homepage.psy.utexas.edu/HomePage/group/busslab/pdffiles/sexdifferencesinhuman.pdf

>>7053972
Furthermore
>hurr durr some people have only one arm; it's incorrect to say that people have two arms!

>>7053999
>anything that isn't a fundamental particle isn't a valid scientific concept

>>7053995
>A single study
>from a school in Texas
lol get the fuck out of here

>>7053999
If some people have only one arm, it is indeed incorrect to claim that all people have two arms.

But either way, that's just a red herring. Human preferences - sexually and otherwise - vary so widely across the board that any claim of some universal preference is going to need some very, very strong evidence in support.

>>7054017
>>7054018
Did you even read the paper?

>>7054019
I did. Interesting findings. Unfortunately for your point, a single study does not constitute solid scientific evidence - corroboration is required.

>>7054026
>implying it's the only evo psych study
? Hmm I wonder what the 3000 papers that cite it are about

>>7054019
With methodology this flawed, no wonder nobody takes evo psych seriously

>>7052152
You misread what he said, which is much the same as what you said.

>>7051998
the video I linked, you spastic
text version is available in the link

>>7053932
> le Marilyn Monroe was fat meme
>Those measurements were 5 ft. 5.5 inches tall; 35 inch bust; 22 inch waist (approximately 2-3 inches less than the average American woman in the 1950s and 12 inches less than average today); and 35 inch hips, with a bra size of 36D.
>though it should be noted that a 22 inch waist in many popular American jean sizes today would be below a 0.

>>7054174
Who said fat? No one but you.

She was short and curvy. Models today are tall and less curvy. This shows that the cultural ideal of female beauty is not a constant.

>>7054357
Except in youth. Whoops.

>>7054357

Models being tall doesn't necessarily imply that men today perceive tall women as more beautiful.

>>7051377
>Wideness of hips actually has no bearing on how easy or difficult birth is.
Yes it does you fucking retard. Women with small hips are strongly adviced to get a C-section every fucking day in any hospital

>>7054423
Interesting point.

Would be more likely to indicate that that nets more magazine sales or ad revenue at best.

>>7054406
The concept of the cougar exists. Whoops.

>>7054423
Have you seriously never heard of long legs being spoken of as attractive?

>>7054451
Oh right, where a woman of considerable age attempts to seduce a low-value mate because she can no longer attract a decent one.
Yes.. And? I find it funny too.

>>7054453

I have, but similarly I've heard of petite features being spoken of as attractive.

And if tallness was truly a desirable trait in women generally you'd expect to hear men express dislike towards shorter women.

>>7054456
There is a significant portion of the male population who actively pursue older women, which is unfortunate for your theory that youth is a universal attractor.

Not that I expect an evo psych booster to pay attention to pesky things like logic or critical thought

>>7054461
Hurr durr someone who can't afford a healthy (ideal/preferable) diet -clearly- will refuse any food at all because it isn't the best.

People take what they can get you retard.

>>7054460
>similarly I've heard of petite features being spoken of as attractive

Exactly. This is exactly my point - there is no universal standard as to what constitutes attractiveness. Some men like short girls, some like tall. Some like fat, some like thin. Some like em barely legal, some like em with life experience. Human attraction is a complex subject that cannot be boiled down to a single set of concise conjectures.

>>7054357
Models are not representative for the ideal of female beauty.

Compare girls in porn and models as an example. Most men don't really go for the model-thin type.

Although I like thin girls. A lot.

>>7054463
There you go in begging a premise in again. You're implicitly claiming that the only reason a man would go for an older woman is because he can't get younger women, which is a completely baseless claim, just like most if not all of evo psych's claims. I myself know several men who reject the advances of the very young and present their own advances towards older women, just as I know men who focus on younger women to the exclusion of the older ones. There is no universal standard for what is attractive, no matter how badly you want there to be, and no matter how many unsupported premises you beg into your argument.

>>7054469
>girls in porn
Body styles in porn run the gauntlet from the slender to the curvy, from the petite to the tall, from the skinny to the fat. Saying "look at girls in porn" as if they all have the same body type is just ludicrous.

I like how evo psych pretends attraction is all about "value" and certain physical features while completely ignoring interpersonal interactions and compatibility

Evo psych might be valid for lower mammals but our cognition is capable of overriding our midbrain. The fact that people can quit smoking cigs is just one piece of evidence that shows this. If we were completely 100% at the mercy of our midbrains in all things, nobody would ever consciously choose to stop doing anything that is instantaneously pleasurable.

>>7054472
Just look at how often the videos are watched or how they are rated, and you will clearly see what kind of body type most people are going for. Don't make it harder than it has to be.

>>7054473
>we can quit smoking
you haven't seen the paper about rodents generally (majority) quitting a month long crack binge if they're given an engaging environment?

>>7054474
"most people" =/= universal

Besides, I don't know how you can seriously suggest the claim that certain videos are higher-rated than others based solely on body type and still consider yourself a person of science. There are so many different factors which will affect how a given video is received (type of activity, production value, length, video quality, presence/absence of certain kinks just to name a few) that to lay it all on body type would be completely ridiculous even if there were a consistent body type across all top-viewed or top-rated videos, which there isn't.

>>7054475
Is that so? Then I would have to suggest that evo psych is bullshit all the way to that level of mammalian development as well, assuming this paper's results were replicated by other studies and the methodology was sound (always pretty big assumptions in behavioral studies).

>>7054477

I'm afraid you don't grasp the most basic concept that those evolutionary psychology studies are going for. Do you understand what an average is? If not perhaps you should google it.

When a study finds that for example "men rate women with neotenous features as more attractive" they're not claiming some universal fact that applies to any man out there, they're observing a pattern wherein on average men rate women with neotenous features as more attractive. Just because there's variance doesn't mean noticeable, real patterns don't exist.

>>7054478
I don't think evo psych is claiming you can't act against instinct, it's just trying to explain why a certain instinct exists in the first place.

>>7054487
>Do you understand what an average is?
Did you miss the several posts in this thread where someone claimed that evo psych has determined UNIVERSALLY attractive qualities? Learn to read

>>7054478
Imo even if you disagree with the work of evolutionary psychologists, you can't doubt the premise the field is based on if you accept that of evolution/evolutionary biology since at root it's about how evolutionary pressures shape the mind and behaviour which all stem from the brain, which is itself obviously shaped by evolution.

As a note on the attractiveness as it relates to mating strategy and etc.
EP doesn't suggest that women sit down and say well oh I'll have sex with this person but not this person because it gives me a higher probability of having healthy children based on this and that factor.
Simply that you would expect to find more women with preferences for mates which lead to the most copies of their genes being passed on because those people tend to pass on more copies of their genes.

>>7054491

That's just you misinterpreting what he means but the word universal.

Neotenous features in women's faces for example could be said to be a "universally attractive quality" because it is consistently found as a sign of attractiveness across all cultures. That doesn't mean every single person who is attracted to women prefers neotenous features.

>>7054496
>universal doesn't mean universal
What the fuck am I reading?

This kind of bullshit double-talk has no place in science.

>>7054493
You can't claim a link between evo biology and evo psych unless you understand the neurological mechanisms that explain the psychological phenomena you're talking about.

Besides, evo psych isn't a predictive field. It's ex post facto lore-building.

>>7054511

Any science having to do with human behavior and perception is going to deal with averages. This is obvious and you're just being willfully ignorant by not interpreting the word correctly in this context.

>>7054512

>It's ex post facto lore-building.

You can say that about pretty much anything related to evolution.

>>7054512
>Besides, evo psych isn't a predictive field. It's ex post facto lore-building.

'They report successful tests of theoretical predictions related to such topics as infanticide, intelligence, marriage patterns, promiscuity, perception of beauty, bride price, and parental investment.'
So are you going to challenge the claims or just say they aren't made?

>>7054477
I hope you are aware that 90% of all porn videos are the same fucking routine, just with different persons doing it. So, yes, I assume that the physical attractiveness of the female actress is a major factor contributing to many views and a high rating. And yes, it is absolutely uncanny how similar the body type of popular porn stars on the internet are to each other. Hell, even if you are looking for specific kinks, you will find that those videos starring females with this particular body type will have the most views/the highest ranking. If you don't want to read anything into it because it's unscientific to you, then don't, but to me that's a clear message.

>>7054529
>The word "universal" doesn't mean "universal" in this context
What the fuck am I reading?

>>7054535
Fair.

>>7054537
They report successful predictions of things they surveyed ex post facto to develop their theories. They do not predict any new information.

>>7054556

In the English language words can have multiple meanings in different contexts. It's pretty neat. Here's some definitions of "universal" that apply to what I've said earlier:

>a : present or occurring everywhere
>b : existent or operative everywhere or under all conditions <universal cultural patterns>
>a : embracing a major part or the greatest portion (as of humankind) <a universal state> <universal practices>

With these definitions, neotenous features for example are a universally attractive quality in women

>>7051349
boobs are mathematically proven
https://www.google.com/search?q=exp%28-%28%28x-4%29^2%2B%28y-4%29^2%29^2%2F1000%29+%2B+exp%28-%28%28x%2B4%29^2%2B%28y%2B4%29^2%29^2%2F1000%29+%2B+0.1exp%28-%28%28x%2B4%29^2%2B%28y%2B4%29^2%29^2%29%2B0.1exp%28-%28%28x+-4%29^2%2B%28y-4%29^2%29^2%29&oq=exp%28-%28%28x-4%29^2%2B%28y-4%29^2%29^2%2F1000%29+%2B+exp%28-%28%28x%2B4%29^2%2B%28y%2B4%29^2%29^2%2F1000%29+%2B+0.1exp%28-%28%28x%2B4%29^2%2B%28y%2B4%29^2%29^2%29%2B0.1exp%28-%28%28x+-4%29^2%2B%28y-4%29^2%29^2%29&aqs=chrome..69i57.386j0j4&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8

>>7054560
So you're saying that they collected data, and then fit hypotheses precisely to the already collected data and called it prediction?

>>7054568
>"universal" doesn't mean "universal"
What the fuck am I reading?

>>7054572
So you're saying you're too retarded to understand simple statements?

>>7051335
Can science explain the fact that when I see those asses I want to bury my face in them and explore them with my 5 senses?

or am I just a dawg

>>7054576
Sure.
Anyway, have fun with your if-we-evolved-from-apes-why-are-there-still-monkeys tier understanding.

>>7054600
Have fun pretending that observation is the same as prediction.

>>7054611
This is like saying that evolution is not science because it's not predictive. And then when correct predictions evolution made are given to you, you just say that evolutionary biologists knew that already and are just making observations. You're as dumb as a creationist.

>>7054648
Evolutionary biology is predictive. Evolutionary psychology - indeed psychology in general - is not.

>>7051377
Since everyone else already called you retarded and autistic allow me to explain;

"Catastrophic evolution" is when one trait becomes so important that fuck everything else.
Example: Homo Erectus brain size.
Our head size increased by 300% in a very short time. That led to major problems in child bearing. A potentially fatal flaw in the course of human evolution.

The solution: Dat Ass.
Since that time. just 0.5 mya the males have been drawn to specific females hereafter known as "those who can squeeze one out and still make me a sammich"

ipso facto case closed n'shit.

Interesting aside: make chimps are mostly aroused by the vivid pink of in-season lady chimp parts; a bright pink. Pink is still sexy for us of course but with H. Sapiens it's shape more than color.

>>7051427
>You should provide the source.
i'm not any of them but ffs really?

You need source on what ever talking monkey on Earth understands by age 15?
Just fucking wow.

>>7051431
Shall we conduct a study to confirm that being underwater makes you wet?

Should we design an experiment to confirm or deny the belief that fire is hot?

Let us explore the assumption that if it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck then it's probably a motherfucking duck.

/sci/ is a madhouse full of sad, pathetic mental defectives.

>>7052467
Of course not.

That ass is clearly the work of a loving and generous God.
Amen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJz1V8ERHm8

i think this post need post some sci/ asses, like this math teacher

>>7054804
It's as predictive as evolutionary biology.

>>7055207
Now that's an ass!

>>7054470
>>You're wrong and have baseless evidence
>>Proceeds to make entire point using anecdotal evidence
>>much logic such thinking

>>7054864
this is sci, not a fucking chatter box of apes. You need to leave. You don't believe in scientific discussion you just want opinion pieces that match your own. That's what twitter is for, so go back there.

>>7051432
>>7051497
>>7051822
>>7054854
How do you know people are attracted to plump asses and wide hips BECAUSE of their relation to child-bearing, regardless of whether they want a child or not? Just curious. And please don't just say "w-well it's how it is because biology says so, somehow"

Years of reasearch on the motivic Galois group and its relation to the renormalization group flow didn't prepare me for bubble butt and the Tannakian correspondence to premature ejaculation.

>>7053169
>science can explain everything because I define it as such

SS + GOMAD

>>7051377
>popsci nonsense
↑ this
yes, nonsense

>>7055219
Nope. Sorry.

>>7055735
why is she wearing yoga pants outside the gym? is she poor?

>>7055913

Have you been living under a rock? It's been the trend for a long time. Some say it's just for comfort and ease, but others say it's for attention. What would I know..I'm just a betafag math major.

>>7055738

>>7051377
Holy shit its Dwight Schrute.

>>7056275

Dwight Schrute would give information that was either inaccurate or missing the point (e.g. contradicting something that was clearly said just to be nice). Which do you think that is?

>>7055734
How do you know people evolved and God didn't just put us all here? Just because phenotypic classification predicted genetic distance doesn't mean they're related and that evolution is real.

>>7055913
Yep. You'd better help her! :}

>>7055898
Yes it is. I'm sorry you are in denial about proven science just because it hurts your feelings. Why are you on this board if you are just going to post creationist logic?

>>7056308
>proven science

>>7056315
>I'm in denial

>>7056308
"Proven science". LOOL. Do you have any clue of how "science" is manufactured?

>>7054888
I can confirm this

>>7054570
you fucking nerd

Evolutionary psychology is the science that seeks to explain through universal mechanisms of behavior why humans act the way they do. Evolutionary psychology seeks to reconstruct problems that our ancestors faced in their primitive environments, and the problem-solving mechanisms they created to meet those particular challenges. From these reconstructed problem-solving adaptations, the science then attempts to establish the common roots of our ancestral behavior, and how those common behavioral roots are manifested today in the widely scattered cultures of the planet. These hypothesized common roots are then rigorously tested with the use of a parallel universe gateway, an experimental animal population of Cro-Magnons and a time machine. The goal is to understand human behavior that is universally aimed at the passing of one's genes into the next generation.

The Adapted Mind, Barkow, J.H., Cosmides, L., and Tooby, J. (eds) 1992, Oxford University Press, New York

>>7051377
>Implying Tomato isn't fruit

>>7056308
>proven science
Proof by induction is impossible, sorry.

In any case, evo psych has the same predictive power as psych in general, which is to say none at all. I'm sorry that this hurts your butt, but that's just the way it is.

>>7058765
>These hypothesized common roots are then rigorously tested with the use of a parallel universe gateway, an experimental animal population of Cro-Magnons and a time machine

kek

>>7058912
>Evolution is just a theory!
Yup just keep ignoring the evidence that shows wide hips predict reproductive capability. If your only argument is "can't know nuffin!" then why are you on a science board?

>>7058883
it is, fuck whoever made that picture
also: Being knowledgeable is knowing tomato is fruit. Being intelligent is not putting it into fruit salad.

>>7058934
I don't think you understand what "predictive" means in the context of science. The wide hips/fertility connection was observational and the theory was modified to accommodate this. That's not predictive power, that's lore-building.

>>7058934
>wide hips predict reproductive capability
what does this have to do with psychology

oh that's right. nothing. it's a finding of biology

>>7058949
You're the one who doesn't understand what it means. No one scientifically observed that wide hipped women were more fertile before we were aware that men were attracted to wide hips. Again, your position is no different from denying that evolution is a scientific fact. You have no response to the evidence, no counterargument. You lose, good day sir.

>>7058953
Read the fucking paper you moron.

>>7058883
>>7058939

A tomato IS a fruit AND IT'S ALSO A VEGETABLE. It is a fruit in the botanical sense and a vegetable in the culinary sense. "Vegetable" has no scientific definition. That's why "actually, it's not a vegetable hurr durr" is classic Mount Stupid. You learn one thing (that it's a fruit) and think you know much more than you do.

ITT: people arguing past each other

There is no reason you cannot study psychology from the perspective of evolution. In fact, you should.

"Wide hips make birth easier, therefore they are attractive" is a reasonable hypothesis. It makes intuitive sense.

HOWEVER, it happens to be wrong - women with wide hips do not have any easier of a time giving birth.*

This is the problem and the difference between evo psych as a legitimate field and "evo psych" as pop sci bullshit - the latter consists of pretending hypotheses are fact, and any who question them are "as bad as creationists." After all, it has "evolution" right in the name!

*It may be true that women with bigger waist-to-hip ratio are more fertile, on average, but that's a totally different hypothesis in several ways.

>>7058976
>HOWEVER, it happens to be wrong - women with wide hips do not have any easier of a time giving birth.*
but thats wrong tho

>>7058996

Kill yourself.

>>7058958
> No one scientifically observed that wide hipped women were more fertile before we were aware that men were attracted to wide hips

Attraction is not a constant. Different men are attracted to different things. Some like em wide, some like em narrow. Some like small girls, some like big bitches. Diff'rent strokes.

Sorry that you back a pseudoscience. I realize it must be difficult. You really shouldn't take your frustration out on everyone else, though. We didn't make you go into evololtionary psychlology

>>7058976
That's not what evo-psych says though, it's a strawman. The theory is that wide hips are attractive because they signal reproductive capability. And they do in fact predict reproductive capability.

>>7059043
Another idiotic strawmen. The contention is not that every man is attracted to wide hips, the contention is that wide hips are generally attractive. This is also supported by the paper I posted. Why are you incapable of arguing relevant points? Where is your argument?

>>7059043
>Not all humans can see, therefore evolution does not explain eyesight
This is how stupid you are

>>7059070
>That's not what evo-psych says though, it's a strawman.

It's what started this whole thing 200 replies ago. And it gets repeated endlessly elsewhere, as well. So no, it's not a strawman. If it's not what YOU think then you should stop defending it, and start distancing yourself from the pop sci red pillers or whatever.

>the contention is that wide hips are generally attractive

Not that it matters, but even that has a wide variation.

>>7059085
>People who don't share my taste in women are literally disabled
This is how stupid you are

>>7059086
>It's what started this whole thing 200 replies ago.
Yes, it started 200 replies ago WITH YOUR POST. That's the only one that mentions the claim "wide hips make childbirth easier". You have been arguing a strawman from the start and I've called you out on it countless times. But you just ignore it.

>People who don't share my taste in women are literally disabled
That has nothing to do with the analogy. You disingenuous fuckhead.

Here's a brainteaser for you: why are males generally attracted to females? Obviously evolution had nothing to do with it.

>>7059086
>Not that it matters, but even that has a wide variation.
Are you an engineer?
Because sure, it would have a wide variation; some people are gay and men don't have wide hips ergo..

>>7059093
>Yes, it started 200 replies ago WITH YOUR POST.

It started with >>7051368
>Nice ass implies wide hips good for childbirth

So no, you're an idiot.

>>7059093
>That has nothing to do with the analogy. You disingenuous fuckhead.

Why, because it makes you look foolish?

>why are males generally attracted to females? Obviously evolution had nothing to do with it.

Now THAT is a strawman.

>>7059105
>So no, you're an idiot.
Where does he say wide hips make childbirth easier? He says wide hips are good for childbirth. This is a scientific fact.

>Why, because it makes you look foolish?
The only one who looks foolish here is you. You avoided the point of the analogy and drew an irrelevant distinction between them. Do you understand what an analogy is? Apparently not.

Do you or do you not accept that evolution explains widespread adaptive biological features?

>Now THAT is a strawman.
So you do accept evolutionary psych. Thanks for playing fuckhead.

>>7059123
>He says wide hips are good for childbirth. This is a scientific fact.

No it isn't you fucking idiot.

>>7059123
>Do you understand what an analogy is?

Do you? You are literally equating different tastes with being blind. Blatant No True Scotsman - anything that doesn't fit your story doesn't count! Because reasons!

>>7059123
>So you do accept evolutionary psych.

Yes, like I said before, you should certainly study psych through the lens of evolution. That doesn't mean any hypothesis you pull out of your ass is automatically true. Stop equivocating.

>>7059144
>No it isn't you fucking idiot.
I gave you scientific evidence that it is.

>Do you? You are literally equating different tastes with being blind.
That's not how analogies work retard. If I make an analogy between circles and squares that does not mean I am equating circles and squares. That means that I am showing they have a characteristic in common, not all characteristics. Wow, I actually had to explain how analogies work to you. You really are that dumb.

>Yes, like I said before, you should certainly study psych through the lens of evolution.
Bahahaha. Your first post:
>Spreading uninformed hypotheses as if they are fact is why "evo psych" is popsci nonsense.
Wow it only took about 100 posts for to change your mind. You really are a rational individual.

>That doesn't mean any hypothesis you pull out of your ass is automatically true.
No one said it was, that's why there was research done on it. Which you still have not responded to. Keep pretending it doesn't exist.

>>7059070
>The contention is not that every man is attracted to wide hips, the contention is that wide hips are generally attractive.
>the contention is that wide hips are generally attractive
>wide hips are generally attractive
>generally

Man what a cop-out. And that's not even as true as a term like "generally" would imply. There is not, at all, some mondo preference for wide hips over other kinds of hips. Some dudes like wide hips. Most dudes just like something human with a vulva that isn't morbidly obese.

How is evo psych considered a science, again? I mean, I know it isn't by real scientists, but what's your contention of how it's generally science?

>>7059198
Again, if you read the paper you keep ignoring, you will see that you are simply wrong. There is a widespread preference for wide hips among males across cultures.

>>7059085
>I use inapplicable analogies instead of actually backing up my point.
This is how stupid you are.

Eyesight confers a survival advantage, so yes, it is predicted by evo bio. The absence of eyesight is a dysfunction of an adaptive biological feature.

Being attracted to women without wide hips is not a dysfunction, and I'll wager that the ratio of sighted to blind people is way, way larger than the ratio of wide hip lovers to others.

>>7059208
Except that there isn't.

I've read the paper; it's bunk. It's only cited by other people pushing evo psych nonsense, what the other guy calls "hypotheses you pull out of your ass" that you then claim to be true.

By the way, you should realize that you've been arguing with at least two people.

>>7059212
>Being attracted to women without wide hips is not a dysfunction, and I'll wager that the ratio of sighted to blind people is way, way larger than the ratio of wide hip lovers to others.
I NEVER SAID IT WAS YOU DISINGENUOUS PIECE OF SHIT.

LACKING AN ADAPTIVE FUNCTION DOES NOT MEAN YOU ARE DYSFUNCTIONAL.

BEING ATTRACTED TO WOMEN WITH HIGHER REPRODUCTIVE CAPABILITY IS AN ADAPTIVE FUNCTION.

EYESIGHT IS ALSO AN ADAPTIVE FUNCTION.

WE KNOW BOTH THESE FUNCTIONS ARE A PRODUCT OF EVOLUTIONARY SELECTION BECAUSE OF THIS.

FUCK OFF.

>>7059222
Still ignoring the actual evidence in the paper. You are no different from anyone else who denies scientific evidence because it conflicts with their preconceived worldview.

>>7059223
Why you so mad, bro? It's not my fault you are bad at crafting analogies.

>>7059227
What actual evidence? That paper is pop-sci lore-building bunk that doesn't even prove what you say it proves. It might at best be weak evidence for a mild correlation, but with an experimental design so lacking in rigor, I honestly don't even see how you can call this science with a straight face.

It doesn't have to. Ass needs no explanation.

>>7051377

>that guy who thinks evo psyche is some made up bullshit

Truly your type are the creationists of the science realm.

>>7059364
Evo psych is definitely a field of study, but it's no more science than the rest of psych and it has a serious problem with accepting the first plausible explanation that comes up as the truth, which is just bad logic

>>7059223
LOL this nigga got trolled hard

>>7052504
>Female body responded by depositing fat around that area of the body
>Responded
LOL

>>7051335
Here's an actual question.

Can science explain why I find this picture so much hotter than any porn picture of identical caliber asses?

>>7055735
I can't stop watching.

>thread about booty
>only 11 images and only half of those are about booty
what happened to you 4chan, you used to be cool.

>>7059735
Seriously wtf.

>>7059742
It has nothing to do with mate selection.

>>7052022
>It'd be too much incest.
I disagree

>>7055734
Wat? Do you understand what evolution is?

You like ass because it happens that those who liked ass in the past spawned more surviving, fertile offspring. Why? Probably because those with plump asses happened to be healthier and more suited to breeding.

People place way too much of a face on evolution.

OP. A short member of the horse family.
/thread

>>7053094
If that is Sasha Grey, then I'm a sad piece of wizard adept who has no life. Damn. All that thirst for knowledge and excitement to live, it has been replaced by Ass.

>>7060439
That is true mate, but it really is a piece of quite delicious ass. No one can blame you.

>>7059735
fucking hell, how does a butt like that even exist

>>7053954
>Why do men prefer younger womyn and womyn older men?

Well...

http://www.livescience.com/1136-male-chimps-prefer-older-females.html

>>7054880

Nothing you just said can't be proven.

What if the material you sank on water is impermeable and comes ou dry?

What it it's a cool fire?

Shut up with your non-scientific method, you can only refute an hypothesis if you have proof to refute it.

>>7061245
Are people ITT seriously suggesting that men do not generally sexually prefer younger women? Of course they do. Sure, there are some weird guys around, but come on.

>>7051335
At some point in history, the butts of our female ancestors, much like the the butts of females of some primate species today, swole up whenever they were fertile; the instinct of males to want to fuck big asses never went away. Interestingly enough, breasts came about when we became bipedal and started mating face to face; we needed asses on the front to turn us on.

>>7061330
>you can only refute an hypothesis if you have proof to refute it.

True, but you can just ignore a hypothesis if it has no supporting evidence.

>>7060439
I pity those who can't instantaneously recognize Sasha's backside, it's an artistic massterpiece.

>>7060211
you're not funny.

>>7059735
Well that's what happens when you talk to math/science nerds about sexuality.

>>7051412
Shiiiiiit nigga even this faggots logic is as airy as a gaspy aspy, so many lols. Youre more popsci than PopSci

-prove width/resultant plasticity of the birth canal is irrelevant to successful childbirth
-prove that ass is no longer a sex characteristic, preferably while staring down the bloated ass of a baboon, inb4 but male!
-disprove the myriad scientific literature that directly ties essentially -every- attractive physical attribute to reproductive fitness.

I'm going to save the rest of my insults until you start slipping on your own shit, tally hoooooooooo!

>>7054580
No -sniff- no grizryou're a G

>tfw no big booty gf

>>7061656
This I can relate to. Well played. Lol.

>>7061350

I don't think those chimpanzees are trapped in a heteronormative thought prison by the cis scum.

>>7061747
What if there are cis scum chimpanzees which impose a heteronormative thought prison on the other chimpanzees

>>7061245
>http://www.livescience.com/1136-male-chimps-prefer-older-females.html
>Moreover, female chimps show no evidence of menopause, which means their fertility is not limited by age.
Gee I wonder if they might not make for the best model of human attraction and mating.

>>7061350
Nobody is arguing that it's not the general case. People are arguing that it's not universal.

>>7055913
>More comfortable
>More attention
>No cons other than basement dwellers on the internet have a negative opinion of you
Why wouldn't she wear them?

>>7051420
and you never posted a source that proved your statement right

plump bottom = healthy bodyfat percentage

healthy body fat = fertility and good gestation

really not that complicated

>>7064782
Did she take her butt from her breasts?

>>7064791

body fat distribution is genetic. where your body stores its fat is really not something you can control

>>7064795
This does not look like fat and neither does >>7064782
Awesome.

>>7064802

exactly. healthy level of fat versus unhealthy

>>7052988

what the hell is she holding

>evolutionary psychology is pseudoscience meh meh
So there is absolutely no scientific explanation for beauty standards? It's merely standards?

>>7064932
A pipe (for weed).

>>7065258
More likely a dildo

>>7065793

Nope. It's obviously a glass pipe.

>>7065244
Either she do gotta booty. or. she don't do gotta booty

>>7053972
>>7053926
>>7053376
>>7052292

props to this guy for going to this length to explain why evopsych is a disoriented field

psych is already poorly adjusted conjecture, and even still psych must be predicated by evolution, so any theory of psych is utterly transformed by evopsych as evolution dominates psychology.

if this is true, which it is, and it must be, because it has to be, then the field of evopsych is an inversion of psych, where evopsych should be the statue, and modern psych should be what we build. it's all backwards, trying to balance a stick on an apple on a stick is five conjectures too many for me.

on the flipside, I love evopsych. I can find a reason to any psychological behavior very quickly, but explaining it is fucking tedious work without a framework to refer to.

why do men prefer (statistically) younger women?
simple answer in terms of math is that males are testosterone, that makes them aggressive and big. small females are female, big males are male, the conclusion is that if you fuck something smaller than you, there's a better chance it's a girl

if you get fucked, you'd better hope your a girl

process this a thousand times over, and naturally girls will have a number of neurological conceptions of what a man is, and vice versa.

>>7066352
here is why evopsych is legit, if done properly. currently it's susceptible to attacks like yours

>why do women wax?
because men are hairier by default, so the subconscious signs being hairy as a manly trait, and hairy women are most generally found unattractive.
>b-but society forces me to wax
and you try to force me to like you unwaxed. there's the line i draw, because it's not only against my upbringing, but everything my primal sexual instincts scream for

there is sound reasoning and explanation in evopsych when you think in proper terms

>>7066390
Your post is a good example of why evopsych is not legit.

Can science ever explain double D's, though?

>>7066579
What's you point?

>>7066579
yuck. Looks like a different species to me.

why are we so convinced that it is solely reproductive benefits gained from big asses and not other factors, for example athleticsm? The ass is by far the most important muscle in terms of athleticsm only behind the heart. It generates the most force and is the biggest muscle in the body. You think a punch developed it's power from the arm muscles? Wrong! It came from the torque produced by the rotational speed of the glutes,hips,lumbar spine, and abdominals. The arm is just a lever to deliver the force to some fuckers jaw, the muscles in the arm are so very unimportant. Women love men with big asses. Love men with big asses! It's not just men that are attracted to the ass. Make no mistake. Pic related.

>>7066596
in terms of generating force the ass is by far the most important muscle. Stop doing curls and do some hip thrusts. The ass not only generates powerful punches, it also is extremely important in running. Anyone reading this, try and bring your leg back completely straight behind you like you're running. You'll feel your ass flex and chances are you have a weak as fuck ass. Probably can't even hip thrust 135x8. It's also extremely important in protecting the lower back from injury. It is so advantageous to have a big,strong ass for fighting,protecting,running. Pic related.

>>7059400

>no more science than the rest of psych

So you agree it's a science then :^)

>>7066603
so, I believe that when humans were evolving big asses were seen as beneficial to BOTH sexs not just men. On one side you had women that saw men with big asses and knew that they had strong muscular bodies that were able to withstand the stresses of trying to survive in the wild. That big strong ass sure helped the men with hunting and becoming the true alpha of the pack. Being able to punch harder, lift heavier, sprint faster, and thrust his aching cock harder into that primitive pussy. On the otherside you had men that saw women with big asses and knew that she had enough fat stores to nourish a child when times were rough and food possibly scarce, and don't forget about the increased chance she births a big bottom alpha. The idea behind better birthing I think is unsupported, but the attractiveness to ass is not.thank you.

>>7066627
So, may we conclude this discussion with a, "dat ass?"

>>7066470
wow lol thsi picture is bad

srsly who makes embarrassingly stupid shit like that. is it reddit?