• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Boobs

DrZoidberg

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
11,334
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
I'm reading this book:

https://www.amazon.com/Sapiens-Humankind-Yuval-Noah-Harari/dp/0062316095

Sapiens. Which is about our species and the circumstances surrounding our emergence in becoming the dominant primate.

It has a section about relationship styles of hunter-gatherers. He takes up the popular theory of hunter-gatherer communalism. Every child had a mother. But the tribe's men all cared for every child. Since there was no way for them to know which one was their kid. In the theory is also that women slept around. She had an incentive to do, especially when pregnant, so as it would mean that the men wouldn't have any clue as to who the real father was.

This brings me to the topic of boobs. Women's breasts swell when they're pregnant. Which means another man came first. Wouldn't the logic be here that we're NOT attracted to big breasts?

In the theory of communalism is also included that nobody really knew that sex caused babies. Which makes sense, since there's such a long time span between sex and noticeable pregnancy. But instincts doesn't care about what we know. They're formed by what works. We clearly have an instinct to like big breasts. I find this theory counter-intuitive.

Anybody have a good explanation? I'm drawing a blank.

BTW. I think it's pretty clear that we're not inherently monogamous. We have an incentive to appear monogamous. As well as having an incentive to want our partners to be monogamous. But if we were truly monogamous we'd lose interest in porn when we get a partner. Which never happens. As well we should lose an interest in flirting, or even stop enjoying being flirted with. Which also never happen. So I think communalism must be the true theory. I'm just having trouble making the bits fit.

So guys, please help me out
 
DrZoidberg said:
I'm reading this book:

https://www.amazon.com/Sapiens-Humankind-Yuval-Noah-Harari/dp/0062316095

Sapiens. Which is about our species and the circumstances surrounding our emergence in becoming the dominant primate.

It has a section about relationship styles of hunter-gatherers. He takes up the popular theory of hunter-gatherer communalism. Every child had a mother. But the tribe's men all cared for every child. Since there was no way for them to know which one was their kid. In the theory is also that women slept around. She had an incentive to do, especially when pregnant, so as it would mean that the men wouldn't have any clue as to who the real father was.

This brings me to the topic of boobs. Women's breasts swell when they're pregnant. Which means another man came first. Wouldn't the logic be here that we're NOT attracted to big breasts?

In the theory of communalism is also included that nobody really knew that sex caused babies. Which makes sense, since there's such a long time span between sex and noticeable pregnancy. But instincts doesn't care about what we know. They're formed by what works. We clearly have an instinct to like big breasts. I find this theory counter-intuitive.

Anybody have a good explanation? I'm drawing a blank.

BTW. I think it's pretty clear that we're not inherently monogamous. We have an incentive to appear monogamous. As well as having an incentive to want our partners to be monogamous. But if we were truly monogamous we'd lose interest in porn when we get a partner. Which never happens. As well we should lose an interest in flirting, or even stop enjoying being flirted with. Which also never happen. So I think communalism must be the true theory. I'm just having trouble making the bits fit.

So guys, please help me out
Click to expand...

Women can still have sex when they're pregnant, so women's breast swelling would have no effect on sexual relations. It's likely that the swelling has nothing to do with sex, and more to with hormonal changes happening due to bearing a child.

When it comes to human functions you have to break down evolutionary pressure into proximate and ultimate causes. The ultimate cause of sex is to produce a baby, but the proximate cause is because men/women want to get off. So evolutionary pressure in terms of reproduction works to encourage people to get off, with the result being babies. So, since the proximate cause of babies is still in effect when breasts swell, I'd conclude that breast size isn't a selective factor in reproduction, at least when we're talking about them being overly large.

In terms of an instinct to like big breasts, I'm not entirely sure. I'd think we have a tendency to like women who have breasts at all, because they indicate the woman is fertile. But bigger, curvier breasts are probably a sign of increased fertility and health, so on average men probably have an affinity to bigger than smaller ones.

Re: Monogamy, I'd guess it depends on how you want to define monogamy. Most societies today are socially monogamous, but biologically we're attracted to everyone who's physically fit. So effectively we are monogamous (on average), but sexually we aren't. Does that mean we truly aren't, or does it simply mean that sexual attraction is more like a sensory organ that draws us toward whoever is physically fit?

In any case, poly relationships are still common, so I think it speaks to human behaviour being fairly plastic.
 
I understand that big boobs (among humans) are a result of sexual selection, so they are not required for anything. It's a just an evolutionary analog of fad.
 
the apparent preference for larger boobs is not about one set of ample boobs being bigger (and better) than another pair of ample boobs.
It is (as I understand it) about the difference between undeveloped (and therefore not ready for sex) boobs versus fully developed (and totally ready to pop out a baby) boobs.
 
There's an advantage to mating with a woman who has already had a child, even if it isn't yours, because it shows she's capable of it. Hence big boobs are the mark of mature, successful mothers.

Also, they are buttocks for the front. Apes are attracted to big butts, because they mate from that direction. When humans began to go upright, the position of the vagina shifted from behind to beneath, and so we can have sex from either direction. However, the male's attraction to pairs of big round things together remained, thus women with larger breasts were seen as attractive.
 
Monogamy is a function of the development of the concept of private property. Private property can only exist in a culture which supports the idea. Society sets the rules of what can be owned, and what can't be, as well as how one establishes ownership. Children complicate this arrangement. In a private property culture, children are the responsibility of the parent, not the tribe. This means a monogamous sexual relationship(at least for the mother) must be maintained. In earlier times, when women were considered property of the family group, rape was considered a property crime, not an assault, since it reduced a woman's value to the family. This was especially true if she was a young unattached woman, who could be traded as a bride to another family group.

If one wants to argue that we are not naturally monogamous, the real contention is that we are naturally thieves.
 
Bronzeage said:
If one wants to argue that we are not naturally monogamous, the real contention is that we are naturally thieves.
Click to expand...


Wow just like baboons. I'm still fascinated with Amazon anatomy. One can tell whether they are left bow shooters or right by by just looking at which breast is bruised.
 
Bronzeage said:
Monogamy is a function of the development of the concept of private property. Private property can only exist in a culture which supports the idea. Society sets the rules of what can be owned, and what can't be, as well as how one establishes ownership. Children complicate this arrangement. In a private property culture, children are the responsibility of the parent, not the tribe. This means a monogamous sexual relationship(at least for the mother) must be maintained. In earlier times, when women were considered property of the family group, rape was considered a property crime, not an assault, since it reduced a woman's value to the family. This was especially true if she was a young unattached woman, who could be traded as a bride to another family group.

If one wants to argue that we are not naturally monogamous, the real contention is that we are naturally thieves.
Click to expand...

Nope. After feeding itself sex is the most fundamental aspect of any sexual organism. The sexual urges are so strong that they cannot be purged or changed. We can change our behaviour. But we have no way of influencing what we want. Many therapists have tried.

We are quite clearly capable of wanting both monogamy and polyamory. Some lean more to one or the other. Some change over a lifetime (which is me). Some are stable. I've known plenty of polys and plenty of monogamists. I've yet to come up with any kind of pattern. I suspect it's one of those traits which sometimes is good and sometimes is bad. So both are kept alive in the genome.

But I am convinced that this is strongly genetically coded, and that we have no conscious choice here.
 
Isn't it true that the pheromones between humans and the great apes are still similar enough a human female will make a male ape want to have sex with her?
 
BH said:
Isn't it true that the pheromones between humans and the great apes are still similar enough a human female will make a male ape want to have sex with her?
Click to expand...

I think it would be difficult to get funds for this kind of research, but the proposal would make interesting reading.
 
BH said:
Isn't it true that the pheromones between humans and the great apes are still similar enough a human female will make a male ape want to have sex with her?
Click to expand...

Pheromones don't work on humans. We have them. They just don't seem to do much. We've tested them. Big disappoint
 
DrZoidberg said:
BH said:
Isn't it true that the pheromones between humans and the great apes are still similar enough a human female will make a male ape want to have sex with her?
Click to expand...

Pheromones don't work on humans. We have them. They just don't seem to do much. We've tested them. Big disappoint
Click to expand...

It's not so much that pheromones don't work on humans, it's that we don't need them anymore.
We have sex all year round. We have no real need to time our births to when food is the most plentiful, so a "mating season" is superfluous.
 
TFT?

Take this.





850px-The_Scientific_Method_as_an_Ongoing_Process.svg.png

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom