• billgamesh@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    It’s true that it’s not proven. What is true is that human breasts are weird and no one is sure why. The theory I most support is sexual selection because it looks like it’d be good for feeding babies

    Many cultures even today don’t “fetishize” breasts

    I didn’t say fetishize. Sexual selection just means it ihas informed decisions to mate

    surely due to the production of milk that is supportive of the best growth for babies

    You’d think this but apparently it’s not true. This is why I think it’s a sexual selection thing. Some stone age dude probably thought the same thing

    if your idea of “sexual selection” was correct, wouldn’t every woman have massive tits

    Humans are the only animal that have big tiddies when they aren’t nursing.

    • BreadOven@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      Sorry, I only used fetishizing because others were saying that. You did not say that. I sort of see what you’re saying, but I’m still not on board. Is there any sort of references to support this?

      The milk production thing isn’t a thing? Maybe not breast size, but nipple size? Apparently that is a limiting factor for proper breast feeding (at least from what I’ve seen).

      While humans are the only species (that I know of) who have the “big tiddys” (and goth GFs at that), if it was really a selective pressure, wouldn’t the distribution of breast sizes be much smaller than it is?

      I realize my first post was a bit aggressive (sorry, thought you hadn’t thought out your opinion as well as you have, my fault), I’m not attacking your opinion, just curious.