The book “Why Beautiful People Have More Daughters” by Satoshi Kanazawa and Alan Miller is all over the tubes right now. Specifically that:
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.
Stephen J. Dubner is calling BS and says:
I would think that, even during the Stone Age, if a man had to resort to judging a woman’s age by the relative sag of her breasts instead of a number of other signifiers, he probably wasn’t the kind of fellow who was going to successfully reproduce anyway.
I think it’s more likely to be:
- Breasts identify women as a group making bigger breasts hyper-female. As evolutionary successful men favor women in general, the more exaggerated female traits are the more attractive their possessor seems.
- Large breasts give easier visual clues to child-rearing than small ones. If men favor women who haven’t already reared children this is easier to see on breasts more likely to sag and/or wrinkle. I.e. Age is less important than history.
Besides if breasts are a clue to age and men are more attracted to more fertile (i.e. younger) women, the ideal breasts would be small and pert which indicate sexual maturity and youth simultaneously. The research says most men go for bigger though.
Thoughts?
I’m not in a position to be picky. I’ll say yes to any size boob, but prefer them to be firm. I will always, however, say no to man boobs.
I’ve actually thought more about this than I care to admit. My opinion is this: Men prefer large breasts because, to the man’s prehistoric mind, breasts = fertility. The larger the breast, the more likely the woman attached to them will be able to bear children and further the male’s agenda to have offspring. The smaller the breast, the less likely the woman is to be a healthy carrier of his seed.
Just a theory, of course. I seriously doubt the “sag” of the breasts are any indication of a man’s primal sexual attraction to any given female, especially when we’re talking a large pair versus a small pair, with the requisite (assumed) age attachment.
Winter - No arguments here.
Chris - Nice theory but breast size has nothing to do with fertility so the lack of corroboration would make that kind of evolutionary preference unlikely. It has to be something with a bearing on fact else it’d be washed out by other random, unconfirmed preferences. Essentially a preference for big breasts has to confer some sort of advantage to men.
Here’s a thought. Maybe as women with large breasts often develop before those with small ones, men who pick women who have just become sexually mature, as evidenced by their development, have more offspring as younger women are more fertile. Conversely smaller breasted women would be older on average before they give birth and pass on fewer genes overall.
Nobel prize to the usual address.
Oh, I know breast size and spit to do with fertility… I’m more coming from that part in the male mind that thinks large breasts and round hips make for ideal mother-types. I’m drawing a brainfart here, but there’s a famous book, that I read back in school, where the author mentions “pneumatic” women being pretty-much the ideal in this future utopia.
As for the “advantage” - heh, you’re kidding, right?
Odd, among friends I am the only one not paying attention to breasts somehow. It is common to hear me say: ” Oh, I haven’t noticed here breasts yet.. “.
For the record: I am straight.
Somehow face and hair seem more appealing for me.
I could write a thesis on this…
Large breasts are/have been a sign of health and wealth.
Breast size doesn’t necessarily correlate to fertility ~ however, a too-thin woman risks not being able to carry & deliver. Since breasts are mainly fat tissues, more (natural) breast tissue is a sign of health ~ & wealth, as she’s got the luxury of enough food sources to pad herself. (Ditto on full, rounded behinds and hips.) This padding is good for the babe, good for species survival. Full breasts are also a sign of pregnancy, a recent babe feeding etc. These too are part of the ‘history’ Sam mentioned.
Nowadays, large breasts are still a sign of wealth (implants) ~ and are often needed to arouse and ‘advertise female’ as so many women in our popular culture are literally too thin to conceive. The absence of full hips and large behinds means fake boobs may be required.
I prefer a nice ass, and I’ll always say a nice ass is better than a pair of nice breasts, and a flat ass is just tragic, whether it’s on a woman with 32As or 44DDs.
Inhibitor - I like boobs and I often ignore them too, and the majority of the women I’ve dated have been pretty slight. Like you - faces and personalities are more important.
Gracie - Interesting theory but high body fat isn’t universally attractive so it can’t be that. Human breasts are unusual for their roundness anyway (ever see a primate with D’s?) Flat, droopy breasts would be easier to suckle. There’s some reason we’ve evolved to grow, and prefer, big round breasts on slim women.
Chris - You like big butts and you cannot lie. Some other commenters might deny…
This topic has been lingering on my mind since I read your post. I was reminded of the teenaged boy’s obsession with large breasts. It really hits an early peak.
The girls who develop early and/or who are quite busty get the most attention and those like myself with small breasts much less so. It feels much like a caste system. Not that this example explains anything. Just evidence to me of some sort big breast symbolism. To say nothing of the power of puberty to make one hyper focused on sex.