[lbo-talk] Biology vs. Sociobiology: Father's Milk

[Mycos]

Jim Devine wrote:
> One of the questions that sociobiology or crude Darwinism (which
> stresses natural selection über alles) can't answer is why women have
> large breasts -- because the size plays no adaptive function and this
> phenomenon is rare or even nonexistent outside of homo sapiens. One
> theory -- cf. Marvin Harris' OUR KIND -- accepts Darwin's theory of
> sexual selection, which many crude Darwinists see as almost heretical:
> women have large breasts simply because men are more attracted to
> women with them, so that the "large breast" gene is more likely to be
> passed down the generations.
> 
> I must admit to being obsessed with this topic. ;-)
> 
> JD
> 

Actually, I had heard or read somewhere that exaggerated breast 
development came about in response to mankind having stood erect(no pun 
intended). Formerly, like the rest of our mammalian kin, the sex act was 
initiated from behind (doggy-style). Naturally, the exposed buttocks 
were a rather prominent feature during this whole exercise. However, 
once we stood up on two feet and faced each other, this means of 
attraction quite litterally disappeared. And that's where the breasts 
came in.

Seriously, if you compare a picture of large breasts and cleavage and a 
firm little hiney..... Oh dear. I believe I'm losing my academic 
objectivity here<g>.

Anyhow, the two features look remarkably similar.
-- 

Gary Williams

<a href="http://mycos.blogspot.com/">Mycos</a>