What is the EVOLUTIONARY ADVANTAGE...

of boobs?  Alternatively, what is the EVOLUTIONARY DISADVANTAGE?  The way I figure, any sex-specific trait must have both an advantage and disadvantage; even if a trait is only useful to one sex, why make it sex-specific if it offers no disadvantage?  For example, males have nipples, which presumably have no advantage but no disadvantage either.

The obvious answer has to do with their role in breast-feeding.  But I'm told that such pronounced breasts are unnecessary for this, and humans are unique among mammals for having perpetually swollen breasts.  Apparently other primates only have breasts when lactating, and they are typically less prominent than human ones.

I've developed a theory, but it's a bit politically incorrect.  I've noticed that the breasts I find most attractive almost without exception belong to females who are at their most fertile; typically between the ages of 15 and 25.  So might it be the case that breasts primarily serve not for maternal nutrition, but as a quick way for males to tell who is most fertile?  A sort of biological freshness indicator?  I recognize that this theory is not satisfying emotionally, since it's basically saying females go to the trouble of having breasts just so that males can objectify them better.

As for the disadvantage, I can't be sure but I suspect they might make athleticism more difficult.  Also perhaps the mere process of developing them uses up additional resources.

Are you fucking kidding me?

>>2
Why would I be fucking kidding you?  It's a legitimate question, and a serious theory though of course I don't know if it's true or not.

You might think that it's obvious that breasts are sexual attractants (though some feminists argue this is purely cultural).  However, I was never fully satisfied by this, because it doesn't explain why only women have breasts.  After all, both men and women are attracted to each other.  If breasts are a good way of getting men attracted to women, then why are they not a good way of getting women attracted to men?  But if they are fertility indicators then it makes sense that only women have them, since men are more or less always fertile.

This doesn't explain why other primates don't share this trait, but they have their own fertility indicators.  Indeed, most species have ovulation indicators.  So maybe the real mystery here is why humans have concealed ovulation.

This is so interesting, well evolution is stupid.

And men can have big breast.. if they have the worng type of hormones in their body..

The layer of fat protects the mammary glands against stone arrowheads, thus the women with larger breasts could continue feeding their infants even after getting hit by a stone arrow during much of mankind's history. This is why average female breast size has been declining since the Bronze Age.

>>5
And then through genetic conditioning of larger breast being more survivable and desirable they became something with an ingrained sexual appeal even though the practical survivability appeal has been long made redundant.

Protection would account for having concealed ovulation too, I think. The thing that bugs me is if no other primates have it how did we get it?

Not to sound like a creationist but it really makes me wonder about why there's been no remains of whatever primate we supposedly came from past a certain point. However that could be easily attributed to them being destroyed over time by the developing species and other things, that or they're under the land that's currently underwater.

But even with the remains to track the course back to whenever, it still doesn't really explained why we've developed so much and at the rate we have. It just seems like there's been some sort of intervention from somewhere, not necessarily 'divine' though.

Men-primates are attracted to ass. When the fornicate, the like to have big butt to look at. Humans, however, developed the missionary position, in which the butt was no longer visible during sex. To account for this, nature developed female breasts, as a surrogate ass.

Anon above me said something so profoundly stupid that you probably ignored it, but it's true - boobs are often hypothesized as resembling ass. Like an ass for the front of your body. We started walking upright; maybe that's why we needed an ass on our chest? Primates don't show off their chests, so boobs wouldn't be much of an advantage.

Better breasts means better breast development which means better hormone levels during puberty which hints at a better fertile woman. So in a way, they are cues for males to find the best women.

Also, fat deposits are necessary to produce milk.

And they're fun to play with.

The system defines who is anonymous.  We are just playing a game.

The real hacking takes place behind our words.

I've heard theories that babies need big/non-flat breasts to nurse from, because our faces are flat, which makes the nursing more comfortable and a less jamming-your-face-to-a-wall feeling.