A couple things, both somewhat peripheral to the main point:
1) Is there actually some adaptive benefit to large breasts? I seem to remember reading somewhere that there isn’t and they’re only common in humans because guys select for them.
2) This is an awfully straight-male-centric post. I realize that this is a community which probably consists mostly of straight (or at least bi) males, but I would have appreciated some explicit parenthetical remark or footnote noting that assumption.
With as much awareness as a footnote or parenthetical would take, the post could have been edited from
as anyone who’s ever fallen for a woman based entirely on her looks can tell you.
to
as anyone who’s ever fallen for someone based entirely on looks can tell you.
without changing the intended meaning one iota, and easily making the entire post more friendly to many who might have felt slighted (or just left out) by the original.
1) I’ve heard some people say that it involves ability to produce milk for the baby, and others say that it’s a signal of health (ie evolution wouldn’t concentrate resources there unless all the other organs were already healthy). I only mentioned the first possibility in this post, which on second thought was overly simplistic.
2) You mean in relation to the evo psych of lust? Yes, I suppose that’s true; as I said, a lot of this post is based on introspection, and when I introspect about the sex drive I tend to think about the straight male sex drive for obvious reasons. I don’t really know what kind of footnote I could include besides “And females also exist and also fall in love for stupid reasons sometimes”, but if there’s something specific which you think needs to be said I’ll add it in.
(AFAIK, there’s no good research or theorizing on the evolutionary psychology of how homosexuals select partners, and the evolution of homosexuality is still a confusing and controversial field. Would be interested if you know of anything.)
1) Women with small breasts have no problem breastfeeding, although they do have to do it more frequently—it’s possible that in some environments infrequent nursing was an advantage, although I’m skeptical that this alone could be responsible for the male fixation on breasts over other indicators.
2) A footnote or parenthetical saying something like “Note: The word “you” actually refers to you only if you are a straight or bisexual male” would be fine.
I have no special knowledge on how same-sex partners are generally selected, just my data point from being bi myself.
Gah. I understand now. Second-person writing strikes again. Edited to third person, and all references to breasts removed and replaced with references to wide hips, which as far as I know everyone agrees have a clear evolutionary benefit.
The appearance of wide hips also signals hip fat deposits, which help with offspring development. Not everyone has a C-section—and the operation has risks. Also, with sexually-selected traits, there is little point in bucking the trend—if you choose to mate with narrow-hipped girls, they will tend to produce narrow-hipped offspring which then no-one else finds attractive. My assessment would be that apparent hip width is still quite a useful heuristic.
1) I’ve heard some people say that it involves ability to produce milk for the baby, and others say that it’s a signal of health (ie evolution wouldn’t concentrate resources there unless all the other organs were already healthy). I only mentioned the first possibility in this post, which on second thought was overly simplistic.
Also somewhat off-point but I’ll post this anyways:
I’ll agree that this post is “male-centric” in the sense that Alicorn is talking about. But I don’t think it’s fatally so, as any smart woman (or homosexual for that matter) can of course recognize that the mate-choosing parallel is arbitrarily chosen, and can make the necessary changes to create a parallel example in mate-choosing that’s more relevant to his/her own life.
However, as a heterosexual man myself, I’ll respond directly to the example.
I must admit that I take a lot of pleasure in choosing women for “the wrong reasons” aka appearance (especially wide hips!). I’m wise enough now in my dotage to know that I’m getting myself into a world of trouble. But I tend to enjoy that trouble. It’s part of the peculiar spice of life as far as I am concerned. I’d rather have knock-down drag-out shouting matches and a relationship doomed to failure with a crazy, beautiful woman, than be with a “perfect partner” that inspires less viscerality in me. And even if offered the lucky match of sexy AND smart/wise/kind, I might even go so far as to say I’d prefer beautiful and difficult to beautiful and well-matched.… maybe. It does lend a fun tang to life.
But perhaps this only reinforces Yvain’s point. Those are my particular criteria, and I am best served as a rational person to seek out women with those criteria, knowing they are what makes me most happy.
What kind of (pseudo)scientist would I be then, to carry out this parallel? The kind that climbs Martian pyramids just because they are there, knowing full well it’s exceedingly unlikely they were made by aliens? Hmmm....
A couple things, both somewhat peripheral to the main point:
1) Is there actually some adaptive benefit to large breasts? I seem to remember reading somewhere that there isn’t and they’re only common in humans because guys select for them.
2) This is an awfully straight-male-centric post. I realize that this is a community which probably consists mostly of straight (or at least bi) males, but I would have appreciated some explicit parenthetical remark or footnote noting that assumption.
With as much awareness as a footnote or parenthetical would take, the post could have been edited from
to
without changing the intended meaning one iota, and easily making the entire post more friendly to many who might have felt slighted (or just left out) by the original.
1) I’ve heard some people say that it involves ability to produce milk for the baby, and others say that it’s a signal of health (ie evolution wouldn’t concentrate resources there unless all the other organs were already healthy). I only mentioned the first possibility in this post, which on second thought was overly simplistic.
2) You mean in relation to the evo psych of lust? Yes, I suppose that’s true; as I said, a lot of this post is based on introspection, and when I introspect about the sex drive I tend to think about the straight male sex drive for obvious reasons. I don’t really know what kind of footnote I could include besides “And females also exist and also fall in love for stupid reasons sometimes”, but if there’s something specific which you think needs to be said I’ll add it in.
(AFAIK, there’s no good research or theorizing on the evolutionary psychology of how homosexuals select partners, and the evolution of homosexuality is still a confusing and controversial field. Would be interested if you know of anything.)
1) Women with small breasts have no problem breastfeeding, although they do have to do it more frequently—it’s possible that in some environments infrequent nursing was an advantage, although I’m skeptical that this alone could be responsible for the male fixation on breasts over other indicators.
2) A footnote or parenthetical saying something like “Note: The word “you” actually refers to you only if you are a straight or bisexual male” would be fine.
I have no special knowledge on how same-sex partners are generally selected, just my data point from being bi myself.
Gah. I understand now. Second-person writing strikes again. Edited to third person, and all references to breasts removed and replaced with references to wide hips, which as far as I know everyone agrees have a clear evolutionary benefit.
The appearance of wide hips also signals hip fat deposits, which help with offspring development. Not everyone has a C-section—and the operation has risks. Also, with sexually-selected traits, there is little point in bucking the trend—if you choose to mate with narrow-hipped girls, they will tend to produce narrow-hipped offspring which then no-one else finds attractive. My assessment would be that apparent hip width is still quite a useful heuristic.
Here’s a somewhat more plausible explanation for how the breast-selection cycle got started in humans.
Edit: fixed link
Also somewhat off-point but I’ll post this anyways:
I’ll agree that this post is “male-centric” in the sense that Alicorn is talking about. But I don’t think it’s fatally so, as any smart woman (or homosexual for that matter) can of course recognize that the mate-choosing parallel is arbitrarily chosen, and can make the necessary changes to create a parallel example in mate-choosing that’s more relevant to his/her own life.
However, as a heterosexual man myself, I’ll respond directly to the example.
I must admit that I take a lot of pleasure in choosing women for “the wrong reasons” aka appearance (especially wide hips!). I’m wise enough now in my dotage to know that I’m getting myself into a world of trouble. But I tend to enjoy that trouble. It’s part of the peculiar spice of life as far as I am concerned. I’d rather have knock-down drag-out shouting matches and a relationship doomed to failure with a crazy, beautiful woman, than be with a “perfect partner” that inspires less viscerality in me. And even if offered the lucky match of sexy AND smart/wise/kind, I might even go so far as to say I’d prefer beautiful and difficult to beautiful and well-matched.… maybe. It does lend a fun tang to life.
But perhaps this only reinforces Yvain’s point. Those are my particular criteria, and I am best served as a rational person to seek out women with those criteria, knowing they are what makes me most happy.
What kind of (pseudo)scientist would I be then, to carry out this parallel? The kind that climbs Martian pyramids just because they are there, knowing full well it’s exceedingly unlikely they were made by aliens? Hmmm....