> 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
Is it true men are more frequently attracted to women with large breasts or is it something different? Isn't it possible that men enjoy seeing large breasts, just as men enjoy seeing large trees, or large cliff faces, or large waterfalls. Men enjoy these things but don't all rush to live where they can see these things on a daily basis. A crude comparison perhaps but it illustrates the point. I think taking the idea that men enjoy seeing large breasts and turning that into a preference for large breasts is an error. How many small breasted or average breasted models are there currently? Are there any studies that show men have a preference to mate and/or engage in relationships with women with large breasts? I don't think it is as true as is commonly perceived. I may be inclined to think this way because I find large breasts not very visually stimulating but hopefully not just for that reason.
Perhaps the preference lies with women themselves and mens preferences hardly enter into the equation? Do women like having large breasts? How do women define large? Is it different than the way men define large breasts? Isn't breast reduction at least as common as augmentation?
John Thornton