[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 70 KB, 344x500, big_fat_juicy_melons.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3861133 No.3861133 [Reply] [Original]

why do guys generally like big tits and big asses?

>> No.3861136
File: 88 KB, 400x400, +_9e363d4b6dfda35e12167a8f32986772.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3861136

sex appeal

>> No.3861138

because cow women should be at home barefoot and pregnant

>> No.3861139

Women seek stability, emotional attachment, financial support. Men seek youth, aesthetics, sex.

>> No.3861140

Bit tits imply more milk for the babby
Big ass implies more room to push out babbies

>> No.3861142

>>3861140
>Bit tits imply more milk for the babby

wrong dumbass.

>> No.3861143

You must first look at the larger picture. Most mammals are fertile for a very short period in the year, and they have a mating season when the mating happens, and then there's no sex any other time of the year. This is especially true in colder climates that have seasonality. You don't want newborns in the winter when resources are scarce, you want them in the spring, so that they have the spring, summer, and fall to mature.
The female of the species needs a signal to indicate to the male when it's capable of conceiving. Most mammals do this with smell. But, great apes don't have that great of a sense of smell, but they have strong visual acuity. So they use sight to indicate fertility. Basically great apes (humans included, addressed later) use genital swelling to indicate fertility.
The other piece of the puzzle that you need to know is that, since humans evolved in tropical climates, and developed fire and shelter technology, they can mate and have babies all year round and stand a good chance of them surviving. So note that humans are fertile all year round, there is no special "mating season" part of the year.
So humans, walking upright, tucked their female genitals between their legs, and they aren't very visible. But humans have developed a special thing called "hidden estrous" which means you can't visibly tell when a female is fertile. But since they are basically fertile all year long, mature females have enlarged butts and breasts, which mimic the swollen genitals that signal fertility in other apes.

>> No.3861148

>and full lips

Ever try to titty-fuck a girl with A cups? Don't work.

But Salma's titties would work perfectly.

>> No.3861153

big'uns n hourglass shape indicate high lvls of estrogen

>> No.3861154

>>3861143

It turns me on when I look at it from that perspective.

>> No.3861197

this thread pleases gaga

>> No.3861200

Big Tits= more nourishment for your babby

Big Ass= Large child bearing hips.

We subconciously believe that girls with big tits and asses are more likely to not die in childbirth and produce a healthy babby.

plus they're pretty cool to look at :3

>> No.3861219

I don't.

>> No.3861222

>>3861219

Then you're not a guy.

>> No.3861223

>>3861219
>generally

>> No.3861227

I like big asses because they jiggle when I fuck chicks from behind.

>> No.3861240
File: 139 KB, 505x533, eatshit3.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3861240

No.

>> No.3861321

>>3861133
Back when we were chimps, we were having sex from behind, so looking at our gonads going in-and-out of big asses was a source of pleasure while mating. Now that we mostly have sex from the front (missionary), breasts are the closest we have on that side of the body that resembles the buttocks.

>> No.3861322

With tits, anything over a handful is wasted, and just means they'll sag that much more later.

>> No.3861323

>>3861143
what this guy said

>> No.3861331

>>3861200
>Big Tits= more nourishment for your babby
Actually, no, it doesn't. It might trick you that way, and actually work in that respect, but it's just extra fat.

>> No.3861337

>>3861321
That doesn't explain a selection pressure for large asses. In fact, you assume it.

>> No.3861346

>>3861322
>anything over a handful is wasted
glad I have big hands

>> No.3861370

>>3861337

Large asses = wider hips.
Wider hips = easier childbirth.
Easier childbirth = less likely for mother AND/OR baby to die during childbirth.
Less likely to die = more likely to mate.

Tadaa.

(Literally, any one of these articles http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=wide+hips%2C+evolution&btnG=Search&as_sdt=0%2C
10&as_ylo=&as_vis=0)

>> No.3861380

>>3861370
I agree.

I'm correcting invalid arguments, not arguing against the claim.

>> No.3861389

>>3861337
http://www.femininebeauty.info/f/furnham.swami.profile.pdf

It's essential "A = B; ergo B = A" mathematics arguments for >>3861321

>> No.3861390

>>3861370
btw, this goes all the way back to paleolithics. ever heard of the venus of willendorf?

>> No.3861398

>>3861337
>In fact, you assume it.
I don't know what the other guy is talking about, but you have really shitty reading comprehension.

>> No.3861406

>Until very recently, it was a mystery to evolutionary psychology why men prefer women with large breasts, since the size of a woman's breasts has no relationship to her ability to lactate. But Harvard anthropologist Frank Marlowe contends that larger, and hence heavier, breasts sag more conspicuously with age than do smaller breasts. Thus they make it easier for men to judge a woman's age (and her reproductive value) by sight—suggesting why men find women with large breasts more attractive.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200706/ten-politically-incorrect-truths-about-human-nature

>> No.3861415

>>3861406
This is fucking retarded

>> No.3861436

>>3861415
The truth often does sound like such ._.

>> No.3861445

>>3861415
It actually makes a lot of sense when you think about it.

>> No.3861455

>big asses

It's all about dem hips. Probably a child bearing thing.

>> No.3861458

>>3861389
You fail logic forever. There is no such mathematical or logical nature to your argument.
> looking at our gonads going in-and-out of big asses was a source of pleasure while mating.
This only says "we liked having sex, and this means we like butts". It doesn't say why we should like BIG butts. And liking only matters if it increases reproductive success.

>Now that we mostly have sex from the front (missionary), breasts are the closest we have on that side of the body that resembles the buttocks.
That's retarded. We've had large breasts long before any supposed general switch to the missionary position. I mean, fucking listen to yourself. We NEVER switched exclusively to the missionary position, as a species, and that STILL has nothing to do with why women would have large breasts.

You're drunkenly stumbling towards a sexual selection argument, but you can't support or even clearly cite one.

>> No.3861472
File: 11 KB, 170x213, 1315976597926.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3861472

>>3861415
Why? Sounds valid to me.

Keep in mind valid =/= truth. You can go back and pinpoint the effect this would have on the evolutionary development of our species, but as long as the logic is valid, it's a strong possibility.

>> No.3861476

>>3861472
>but as long as the logic is valid, it's a strong possibility.
New anon here. No. You talk about validity, and then don't even talk about assessing the probability of the assumptions.

>> No.3861482

>>3861458
>It doesn't say why we should like BIG butts.

See

>>3861455

The article linked is still shit, but it's not big butts we are attracted to, it's the child birthing hips.

>> No.3861497

>>3861458
I'm not even samefag and you're projecting your inability to produce evidence or a proper argument out on other people as you like? I agree with this guy >>3861398, poor reading comprehension is poor, but we don't expect much out of a high schooler.

>> No.3861500

>>3861476
But it seems very possible. Younger women are much more likely to raise healthier children and have higher reproductive success. An indicator of age as strong as this one would be great at distinguishing between a women in her mid 20s compared to earler-mid thirties where problems begin to occur.

That would be VERY beneficial.

>> No.3861502

>>3861472
>>3861445
>>3861436
I was implying that it is common sense and I don't need Marlowe to tell me that this is why men like big tits.

>> No.3861506

>>3861502
*one of the reasons why

>> No.3861508

>>3861482
Then it's about the survival of children and mothers, and little to do with sexual selection. And to the degree that it is sexual selection, an individual's sexual enjoyment of a feature only matters to the degree that it increases reproductive success.

The funniest thing about evolution is that everyone thinks they understand it.

>> No.3861520

>>3861508
evolution = sex and physical attractiveness is the only thing that matters and literally the meaning of life, according to objective empircal true science.

>> No.3861522

>>3861508
>everyone thinks they understand it
like you?

>> No.3861523

>>3861500
>But it seems very possible
Sure. But where you basically said "valid argument, therefore very likely" set me off. That's flat wrong.

>> No.3861530

>>3861380
Whoops. I think I meant to respond to that other guy. Oh well. It needed to be put together anyway.

>>3861406
>This man's opinion
>science
Yeah, nope. All you need to do is look at a non-western culture to realize that we have highly fetishized the female breast, and this is not, in fact, inherent to human nature.
However, cross-cultural studies suggest that bigger asses are more attractive regardless of culture.
(All the links I have found are huge books.)

>> No.3861533

>>3861522
Obviously. Remarking on everyone's confidence doesn't mean I should renounce my claim to a degree of understanding.

>> No.3861544

>>3861497
>>3861398
If there is a misunderstanding, point it out. If you can't, it is you who have failed to argue.

>> No.3861549

>>3861133
>why do guys generally like big tits and big asses?

Obviously this CAN be explained through evolutionary psychology, however it may not necessarily be the case.

It could be socially constructed or a mix; for example in japan men were extremely aroused by ta lady having tiny feet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foot_binding
I think many of todays extreme big tit fetishes are socially constructed fetishes

But i think there is a broad general biological programming to be attracted to relatively big asses and tits as the women can produce healthy children.

>> No.3861555

The primary reasons behind tits being big is because smaller tits pose a threat to human infants because of the way their noses and faces are shaped.

>> No.3861568

>>3861544
>point it out.
You assumed two people were the same in: >>3861544
>>3861458

And you made a claim the original poster was making an assumption in >>3861398 without providing proof that it was, however, an assumption. Sorry, but the burden is on you, and not at all on those who you are attacking.

>> No.3861571
File: 115 KB, 1600x1065, Bianca Beauchamp.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3861571

>>3861523
OK, bad choice of words.

I mean to say it's valid (for the reasons mentioned) and therefore worth considering as a possibility, but not necessarily true.

Also, if anyone in this thread is expecting to get more than 'opinions' on this kind of subject matter than perhaps you should leave. The only way to do this scientifically would be to go back in time and intervene in some manner that makes testing this possible.

>> No.3861582

Does anyone not like Selma's tits? I dunno, I guess she lets them hang to much. Gotta keep em firm.

>> No.3861584

>>3861568
Fair enough, sorry for combining two people.

But as for the assumption,
>Back when we were chimps, we were having sex from behind, so looking at our gonads going in-and-out of big asses was a source of pleasure while mating. Now that we mostly have sex from the front (missionary), breasts are the closest we have on that side of the body that resembles the buttocks.
What I'm trying to say is that this argument just assumes a sexual preference with no support, and says this is the entire story.
"Women have big asses because men like it"
"Women have big tits because men like it"

But WHY?

>> No.3861590

>>3861584

see

>>3861143

>> No.3861604

>>3861584
>"Women have big asses because men like it"
>"Women have big tits because men like it"

You're confusing your grammar here. It should be something like "women have sizable breasts or bottoms and men evolved to have a sexual preference towards." I'm not even sure how you got "women have <insert body part here> because men like it" when the original question was "why do guys generally like big tits and big asses?"

>> No.3861609

>>3861530
http://www.amazon.com/History-Breast-Marilyn-Yalom/dp/0345388941

This is the best I've got, but it says it right on page 1, plain as day.

>> No.3861611
File: 122 KB, 375x390, 1274424479209.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3861611

>>3861584
This idea is far too assumptive. Absolutely agree with this poster.

>>3861406
This idea relies less heavily on assumptions. But most importantly:

>>3861571
>The only way to do this scientifically would be to go back in time and intervene in some manner that makes testing this possible.
We can sit here and argue all day but it isn't science.

Go to /b/ or some shit.

>> No.3861616

>>3861590
If the fertility cycle disappears, so does the selection pressure for fertility signals. This is an argument, but I don't think it holds. Still, there ARE some fertility signals left in humans (there are behavioral cues that have been studied).

I like the argument about it big tits being a sign of youth and health (old and/or malnourished removes that sign), and big hips (and preference for big hips) being selected by childbirth survival success.

>>3861604
Again, the source of the sexual preference is totally unexplained, in that post alone. And thus, the "explanation" really explains nothing.

>> No.3861625

but I love dfc not disgusting cow tits

>> No.3861636

>>3861616
>Paternal Investment Hypothesis [11]
This hypothesis is strongly supported by many evolutionary biologists. Several hypotheses regarding human evolution integrate the idea that human females increasingly required supplemental paternal investment in their offspring. The shared reliance on this idea across several hypotheses concerning human evolution increases its significance in terms of this specific phenomenon.
This hypothesis suggests that human females concealed ovulation in order to obtain male aid in rearing offspring. Schroder (1993) summarizes this hypothesis outlined in Alexander and Noonan’s 1979 paper.[12] If human females no longer signaled the time of ovulation, males would be unable to detect the exact period in which they were fecund. This led to a change in their mating strategy; rather than seeking multiple female partners and mating with them hoping that they were fecund during that period, males instead chose to mate with a particular female multiple times throughout her menstrual cycle. A mating would be successful in resulting in conception when it occurred during ovulation, and thus, frequent matings, necessitated by the effects of concealed ovulation, would be most successful. Continuous female sexual receptivity suggests that human sexuality is not solely defined by reproduction; a large part of it revolves around conjugal love and communication between partners. Copulations between partners while the female is pregnant or in the infertile period of her menstrual cycle do not achieve the base purpose of sex – conception – but do strengthen the bond between these partners. Therefore, the increased copulations because of concealed ovulation are thought to have played a role in fostering pair bonds in humans.[13]

>> No.3861637

>>3861616
>source of the sexual preference is totally unexplained
Well it's pretty much obvious where the source comes from, it's evolutionarily selected for if you're ancestors are around it for eons and eons. It's almost like asking "why did chickens evolved to be tasty?" That's not how it works.

>> No.3861642

I'd like to add that, in comparison with other great apes, not only do humans have ridiculously huge always-"swollen" breasts, but humans also have ridiculously huge penises.

>> No.3861644

>>3861616
The pair bond would be very advantageous to the reproductive fitness of both partners throughout the period of pregnancy, lactation, and rearing of offspring. Pregnancy and lactation require vast amounts of energy on the part of the female, necessitating a large amount of energy intake in the form of food. However, during these periods, the female’s foraging ability would be greatly hindered because of constraints placed upon her by the pregnancy itself or the amount of time tending to or minding the offspring. Supplemental male investment in the mother and her offspring is advantageous to all parties. While the male is supplementing the female’s limited foraging intakes, she can devote the necessary time to the care of her offspring. The offspring benefits from the supplemental investment, in the form of food and defense from the father, and receives the full attention and resources of the mother. Through this shared parental investment, both male and female would increase their offspring’s chances for survival, thereby increasing their reproductive fitness. This increased reproductive fitness is the key to natural selection favoring the establishment of pair bonds in humans and since pair bonds are thought to have been strengthened by concealed ovulation, this must have been under selective pressure.

>> No.3861654

>>3861637
What?

>it's evolutionarily selected for if you're ancestors are around it for eons and eons.
That's not an explanation! That's just another "it's selected for" statement, with no argument!

>> No.3861663

more cushion for the pushin

>> No.3861666

Way back when we were monkey-men, random mutations caused our females' breasts and butts to be bulked up with excess fat. Animals like super normal stimulus, and so the females with more pronounced butts and breasts were more likely to obtain and keep mates.

Allow this to run for several million years and you get modern humans.

>> No.3861670

>>3861637

That type of shit annoys the fuck out of me. You just take anything and throw "hurr evolution" somewhere in there and pretend it makes sense.

>> No.3861673

blackman are you an evolutionary biologist?

>> No.3861684

they don't
i'll take a flat chested bitch over one of those landwhale gigantosaurus fat fucks any fucken day of the fucking week
fuck

>> No.3861687

>>3861654
1). It is an explanation.
2). It is an argument.

May not be good argument/explanation, but are still an argument/explanation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection
http://www.archive.org/details/geneticaltheoryo031631mbp
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110125172418.htm
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v443/n7107/full/nature05049.html
http://books.google.com/ebooks?id=YY4EAAAAYAAJ&dq=the%20origin%20of%20species

>> No.3861690

>>3861670
Most everything has an evolutionary basis.

Any speculated idea is a possibility. But one thing is for certain: evolutionary mechanisms are involved. As long as the reasons used to back up the claims are logical, it at the very least 'makes sense' even if it isn't a major possibility or necessarily true (tip: none of these explanations are necessarily true. It's just one big wankfest of "my maybe possible idea is better than yours").

>> No.3861691

>>3861666
This, again, fails to identify the source of the sexual selection pressure. It just says that it had an effect over time.

There is a difference between saying "male peacocks have beautiful huge tails because females like it in a mate, and that's why their tails got huge and beatiful", and then actually explaining WHY this sexual preference is effective!

>> No.3861692

>>3861690
>>3861687
This. Get it through your heads faggots.

I"ve had enough. I'm out.

>> No.3861695

>>3861670
You sure it's not just because you have trouble understanding evolution? I mean, it's pretty much common to view it through a 20/20 bias and get really confused on it.

>> No.3861697

>>3861687
Let's back up.

>Well it's pretty much obvious where the source comes from, it's evolutionarily selected for if you're ancestors are around it for eons and eons.
That doesn't say anything.

>It's almost like asking "why did chickens evolved to be tasty?" That's not how it works.
This has nothing to do with prior arguments, as far as I can tell.

I'm only demanding that the fitness of a given sexual preference be argued. Just saying "Trait X exists because it was selected for" explains nothing.

>> No.3861700

>>3861692
Good, get out. You don't know half of what you think you do.

>> No.3861704

ITT: retards arguing among themselves with retarded logic. when the question has already been answered

>> No.3861708
File: 216 KB, 677x903, Sanna Al Hadawi.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3861708

>>3861666
Before the random mutations can become 'the norm' they first must be sexually preferable.

The whole society doesn't just develop large tittehs and butts over night. There is variety within the population and over time the larger butts/tits are selected for and THEN become the norm (or at least preferred) due to the males who are attracted to them becoming more succesful at passing on their preference over time.

However, that doesn't address the initial attraction to the butts/breasts in the first place.

tl;dr: Your idea is full of holes.

>> No.3861715

>>3861704
What is the answer then?

Oh wait, there is no proof to support any one idea over the idea. Just discussions as to the validity of each idea and potential impact it could have on a population over time. Fuck off.

>> No.3861716

>>3861690
Did the OP ask for a
>big wankfest of "my maybe possible idea is better than yours"
or did he ask for a scientific explanation for big-tit preference?

Science is not about making shit up. It's about trying to find out what's true and modeling it.

>> No.3861720

I don't get the problem here.

The female form is such for the same reason the peacocks tail is such. For the same reason the male member is so atypically large. For the same reason the deer has antlers.

It indicated a slight fitness edge, to have breasts a bit bigger, to have hips a bit wider. So the fakers, women with fat padding them out, were selected for even more strongly than those without such embellishments. Iterate this over five million years.

>> No.3861723

>>3861716
OP asked for something that we can't supply a scientific answer for.

Go on. Carry out an experiment that supports one idea.

OH SHIT, YOU CAN'T? GET OUT OF TOWN!

A wankfest of possibilities is the best he can hope for given the question.

>> No.3861725

>>3861715
There are some hypotheses with argued support ITT.

Then there are statements that pretend to be explanations, but don't really explain anything.

>> No.3861732

>>3861697
>Just saying "Trait X exists because it was selected for" explains nothing.
But we've had so much research and documentation on such a matter in the past two-to-three decades that it actually does explain themselves.

>This has nothing to do with prior arguments, as far as I can tell.
See >>3861584
>"Women have big asses because men like it"
>"Women have big tits because men like it"

Evolution does not work via "this species likes big muscles, therefore they evolved to have more big muscles." That makes no sense, it works by way of "this species has big muscles, ergo they'll evolve to prefer big muscles based on their environment."

>That doesn't say anything.
See top quote.

>> No.3861733

>>3861720
>The female form is such for the same reason the peacocks tail is such.
That's exactly it. There are quite a few people ITT who can't tell you why male peacocks have large tails.

"Because female peacocks prefer it" is only a part of the answer. WHY is that preference selected for?

>> No.3861736
File: 4 KB, 260x194, images (1).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3861736

i witness this debate in pure AWW. big tits and big asses just make my dick happy if a tree was softer id put my dick in it so wuts the fuss?

>> No.3861737

If your explanation doesn't have anything to do with improving chance of living/fertility, it's wrong.

-science

>> No.3861739

>>3861732
>Evolution does not work via "this species likes big muscles, therefore they evolved to have more big muscles."
That's exactly the point I am arguing. I agree with you.

Preferences are not an answer. The preferences must be explained as well.

>> No.3861743

>>3861733
>>3861733
>>3861733
> There are quite a few people ITT who can't tell you why male peacocks have large tails.
>"Because female peacocks prefer it" is only a part of the answer. WHY is that preference selected for?

Fucking this. If you can't make a plausible answer to this question, then you don't understand evolution at all.

>> No.3861747

Bit tits and asses are selected for because they cause an erection. The increased blood flow makes you horny and more likely to have sex with the girl.

This is 8th grade stuff.

>> No.3861756

the explanations in this thread are solid. anyone who disagrees is just trying to appear smart. fuck off with your egoist bullshit.

>> No.3861758

>>3861747
That's not an explanation of why men find it arousing. At all. It's the same fucking half-assed non-explanation as half of this thread.

>> No.3861762

>>3861743
What kind of answer are you looking for you dickbag? Bitch ass hens find that shit hot so they fuck the cockheads with the shinniest and biggest feathers sticking out of their ass.

>> No.3861770

>>3861756

Were you cowering in the corner of your dark room while you typed that? Lol.

>> No.3861772

>>3861758
>>3861747
ima gunna ask steve and god why

>> No.3861773

>>3861762
An answer that demonstrates an understanding of evolution by postulating a way for the female preference for large-tailed males to increase reproductive success of both kinds genes (the big-tail genes and the prefer-big-tail genes).

>> No.3861783

>>3861770
yep, more "i'm smarter than you" bullshit.

fuck off out of /sci/.

>> No.3861785

>>3861773
Babby's first biology class

>> No.3861791
File: 36 KB, 319x600, 319px-Venus_von_Willendorf_01.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3861791

If you are a human, you love this.

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

>> No.3861793

Oh my god.

Salma Hayek is a goddess.

Those boobs are god tier. If only I could have sexual relations with her....

;_;

>> No.3861795
File: 20 KB, 347x350, darkroom.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3861795

>>3861770
No, but I was cowering in the corner of a darkroom, trying to process a photo that demonstrates how shitty this thread is.

>> No.3861804

>>3861793
You can almost see her nude, and be a little slutty, in Frida.

>> No.3861806

>>3861733

Sexual selection works such;

The systems that look for fitness in one gender check the other gender in certain ways. Some signs are hard to fake, while others are easy to fake, and all are somewhere on this scale. So animals latch onto a particular sign, for no particular reason, it's just that it is strongly correlated with fitness. But this can be exaggerated without significant cost to the individual. So now the fakers are even more successful. And this spreads through the population. So to be more successful, you now have to fake even more, devote more resources to the signal. Over time, sexual selection can make all kinds of crazy crap, which at the end only serves as an indicator that you have the resources to not only survive, but also have all this wasted decoration.

Having ample breasts is a sign of fitness, for obvious reasons. Without hair covering our bodies, they are more visible for the purposes of sexual selection. So preferring breasts a bit bigger is a bit better. Now the fake breasts, the ones with fatty tissue being stored there, stimulates the males even more. Iterate.

>> No.3861810

>>3861785
Hey, I've got a good answer. I'm not asking the question to get an answer - I'm asking it as a challenge to the people who don't seem to know anything about evolution.

>> No.3861815

>>3861743

I remember posting this in here before a while back.
In my animal behavior class, we were discussing sexually selected traits. In the context of sword-tailed fish (if I recall correctly) one proposed initiator of runaway sexual selection was:
1) There is variation in the population in degree of sensory stimulus that is heritable.
2) Certain shapes/colors have different effects on different individuals in the population. (ie, there is a bias in preference for or against a particular shape or color on an individual level, resulting from the neural goings-on of perception as dictated by genes)
3) A female is more likely to mate with a male she has a sensory bias for.
4) Both the female preference trait and the male trait exhibited are passed into the next generation.

>> No.3861821

a sad day because one half of /sci/ realized the other half knows nothing about evolution

>> No.3861825

evolutionary psychology is fucking bullshit and you should be ashamed for believing it is true

>> No.3861827

>>3861795

Heh, nicely done.

>>3861783

Baw. Stop being a faggot. None of the responses in this thread make a bit of sense.

>> No.3861828

>>3861821
And this surprises you?

>> No.3861847

>>3861806
This is more the right track. But the way you talk about "faking", I'm not sure we have the same understanding of fitness signals. Devoting lots of resources to a reliable fitness signal isn't "faking", if that's what you're saying. Male peacocks do genuinely have to be very good at getting food and avoiding predators to maintain a large tail long enough to reproduce. It kills the males, but it helps his daughters, who inherit his fitness at food-getting and predator-avoidance. The male is getting fucked over, but that's how evolution works sometimes.

I think you're right about large tits, though. They're a fitness signal, because malnourished/chronically ill women are less likely to have them. Historically, you can't fake having large unnecessary fat deposits. And you're right -boob jobs are a manifestation of cheating on that signal.

>> No.3861854

>>3861815
>4) Both the female preference trait and the male trait exhibited are passed into the next generation.
I think this part should be elaborated. It's not just a "rinse and repeat" statement.

If a given sexual preference leads to offspring that are less fit (less likely to survive long enough to reproduce), the sexual preference itself will be selected against. So sexual preference tends to line up with fitness signals, rather than being totally arbitrary.

>> No.3861860

>>3861847

It's faking at first, no question.

It is cheaper to pad out breasts with fat than to make more mammary tissue.

At the end of the path, sure, it's a fitness signal in and of itself. But evolution does not start by trying to spend money.

>> No.3861872

You will never date a girl with steatopygia ;_;

>> No.3861875

>>3861860
Oh, we're talking about different things.

If you think large breasts are a "lots of milk" signal, I think we really do disagree. Men don't consciously decide whether tits are hot, so conscious inference isn't part of it. If big tits really DID mean more milk, than that would explain the preference - men who accidentally develop the "like big tits" mutation will be more reproductively successful, because they pick the women who are better at nourishing children. But this is not the case. Bigger tits AREN'T correlated with better milk production.

So where does the selection pressure for large tits come from? I think that it's correlated with being healthy, well-fed, and of reproductive age. Because of this, men who like big tits choose to mate with women that are more likely to have healthy and fit children (because of genes, not the mother's capacity to produce milk).

>> No.3861881
File: 273 KB, 900x600, 1317891869763.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3861881

>> No.3861886

>>3861875
(cont)
> (because of genes, not the mother's capacity to produce milk).
Sorry, this comment was poorly worded. Both cases are just about genes.

I mean, "because of the fitness traits the mother will pass to the children".

>> No.3861900

because theyre curvy and round and off limits to a regular stranger and everyone knows seeing what you cant have makes you want it more

>> No.3861904

>>3861875

The whole question in this thread was why ultimately is it breasts and ass. Saying it's a sign of fitness in and of itself doesn't quite answer that one.

So I say that initially, it was the difference between underdeveloped chimp tit and well developed chimp tit. Then the fake signal, padding it out with a bit of fat that might otherwise have been stored elsewhere, started to show up. And this just iterated out until we have the absurd breasts we see today.

>> No.3861907

>>3861875
(cont)
Considering your position more though, I can see how an initial "bigger breast" preference MIGHT have been due to correlation with milk production.

You have a point! Thanks for showing it to me. Milk production isn't correlated with tit size now, but it might have been in the past, when tits were much smaller. Thanks!

>> No.3861910

>>3861904
you're a retard. congrats

>> No.3861927

>>3861875
it comes from society dude and standards of beauty differ between different societies.

>> No.3861931

>>3861910

I know it wasn't chimps. But it seems reasonable to assume that the last common ancestor had something closer to the mammary's of a chimp than a person.

>> No.3861932

>>3861904
>nitially, it was the difference between underdeveloped chimp tit and well developed chimp tit.
Sure, it's an indicator of reproductive age.
>Then the fake signal, padding it out with a bit of fat that might otherwise have been stored elsewhere, started to show up.
This doesn't seem to be sufficient for a runaway on its own. Men are attracted to secondary sexual traits that indicate sexual maturity, sure, but I don't think this shows a pressure for very large breast size. Maybe if combined with being an indicator of health and/or food-getting success. Then the mean who love HUGE tits are not only mating with sexually mature women, but women who are better at getting extra fat deposits.

>> No.3861953
File: 238 KB, 1011x1500, 1316653792423.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3861953

>>3861133

smaller is better imo

>> No.3861954

It seems to me that a species which undergoes an especially hard selection pressure wouldn't have room for expensive fitness signals. Like several generations of near-starvation conditions. Male peacocks that divert calories to make huge tails, or women who try to make huge tits, would be more likely to starve than individuals who do not attempt such metabolic expenditures.

Does any biofags know about this?

>> No.3861962

>>3861954
That's surely true, but it doesn't matter if you starve as long as you get fucked first.

>> No.3861973

Because that's what everybody else likes. Everybody fucking sucks. They're shallow. Everything they frigging do is to try and fit in and look cool in front of their friends.

>"man look at those rich people, they're fat wimps. I WANNA HAVE SEX WITH A FAT WIMP"
>Fat is found to be unhealthy, and big strong muscles healthy
>"ew ur fat get away, I wanna find a girl who's real thin"
>"Look at how fat that girl's ass is, it's disgusting."
>Black people suddenly become the hip thing, and they like big asses
>"sheeyit yo i gotta get up in summa dat phat booty"

Lots of places don't even give a shit about breast sizes, and liking tits used to be considered a paraphilia until everybody suddenly started loving them. It's all cultural.

>> No.3861978

>>3861962
> but it doesn't matter if you starve as long as you get fucked first.
Not really, IMO. Making a baby is expensive. The closer you are to starving, the less likely your kid is going to make it. That's why big tits were selected for as a fitness signal, in non-starvation-mode times. It shows you're good at getting more than enough food.

But if NO ONE gets "more than enough" food because of harsh conditions, you are at a disadvantage to survival and successful reproduction.

>> No.3861987

>>3861973
> It's all cultural.
There's a component, even a strong influence. But saying it's all cultural is clearly wrong. Sexual behavior has some strong trends across our entire species and history.

There's a reason you're talking about T&A, and it's not just cultural.

>> No.3862024
File: 24 KB, 500x333, 1313395407208.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3862024

>mfw this entire thread

how the fuck is this bullshit science or math related?
get this bullshit out.

>>>/b/

>> No.3862027

>>3861987
I guess there's a biological reason people like the color purple too. Throughout history, it was greatly desirable to be wearing purple. Now pimps really like the color purple. This can't possibly all be culture, man!

I strongly believe it is almost all cultural. And a lot of people like small tits.

>> No.3862039

>>3862024
That is your face, because you're a baby.

>> No.3862045

>>3862024

its biology

>i complain about things on the internet because im a piece of shit

>> No.3862048

>>3862024
>evolutionary psychology
>not science
Kindly GTFO.

>> No.3862054
File: 525 KB, 953x882, 1315521368876.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3862054

>>3862039
>implying a baby has the intelligence, or the capability of typing something up

ISHYGDDT

>> No.3862077

>>3862027

Our sexual preferences can be strongly altered culturally, true. But there does seem to be a seed of common desires that peaks up it's head.

Men like breasts, ass, feet and dicks. According to science at least (well, statistics and social science...) We can be reset to like em big, small, perky, floppy, whatever.

>> No.3862086

>>3862048
it's fucking pseudoscience

>> No.3862094
File: 49 KB, 331x311, 1317501711078.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3862094

>>3862048
>he thinks evolutionary psychology is scientific
>mfw it is no more scientific than behavioral paleoanthropology (guessing at the behavior of ancient humans)
>or any psychology for that matter
>mfw you probably think psychology is science

>> No.3862102

>>3861973
Larger Breasts/Arse = more Omega-3 fatty acids (thats where they primarily store themselves)

>> No.3862103

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

>> No.3862111

People who disregard evolutionary psychology will continue to be a slave to their genes.

And your genes aren't there to make you happy. Oh, no.

If you want to be an unknowing puppet, fine. But still a puppet of your inherited mental distortions.

>> No.3862126

>>3862111
Calling evolutionary psychology bullshit is not tantamount, as you imply, to denying genetics. Evolutionary psychology has nothing to do with genetics. Evo-Psych tries to explain everything with an adaptationist argument, which leads to numerous errors.

>> No.3862143

>>3862126
A lot of "evolutionary psychologists" are probably spouting bullshit, sure. And a lot of early chemists were just alchemists.

But the field itself? The influence of past selection pressures in shaping our current mental biases? This is a really important topic if you're interested in being rational.

http://lesswrong.com/lw/l1/evolutionary_psychology/

>> No.3862195

Fertility.

Or the appearance of it.

/thread.

>> No.3862220

>>3862143

it ignores memetics, social history etc. and none of the claims are provable

>> No.3862233

>>3862220

I don't think that one should be citing memetics as the more mature field of study.

>> No.3862250

>>3862220
You're assuming that "evolutionary psychology" is some kind of cultish totalitarian bullshit where the claim is that ALL HUMAN THOUGHT IS COMPLETELY DUE TO SELECTION PRESSURES.

No. This is a strawman.

>> No.3862379

also body consistency.

>> No.3862747
File: 227 KB, 600x753, 1317511491836.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3862747

Because asses are amazing.

>> No.3862765

because we can't have them ;_;