what i learned in class

what i learned in class

elijah
elijah

February 26th, 2006, 7:15 pm #1

i know you guys probably get annoyed when i bring up stuff i learned about this topic, but this is interesting:

i had a couple lectures in a class called biosocial anthro and the teacher was talking about physical cues. a cross-cultural study found that people rate western women as appearing younger than non-western women because of 1) shelter from the environment, 2) make-up, and 3) bras.

for that class we have a discussion session once a week run by a grad student majoring in sexual selection. she mentioned that during human evolution, men that prefered saggy breast didn't reproduce and pass their genes as much as men who sought firm breast (because breast characteristics indicate estrogen levels, age, etc.). hypothetically, if 50% men prefer firm breast and 50% prefer saggy breast and if breasts indicate fertility (which they do), then many generations later, the proportion of men who prefer firm breasts will increase because those men pass more of their genes than men who prefer saggy breasts.

Reply
Share

Nat
Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

February 26th, 2006, 7:38 pm #2

I think there are two flaws with this theory:

1} Women are fertile and making babies many years after their breasts begin to sag. Indeed, pregnancy accelerates sagging.

2} I don't think there is a shred of evidence that "preferences" are hereditary. My tastes are totally different than my parents and siblings and I think that is typical.
Reply
Like
Share

elijah
elijah

February 26th, 2006, 8:14 pm #3

1) women are most fertile from 20-25. womens' chance of having unhealthy babies increase as they age. an example is down-syndrom. they chance of a woman having a baby with down-syndrome exponentially increase as she ages after 25.

2) there are many "preferences" that are human universals. there are certain behaviors, that once proven to work well, become common to the entire species and isn't just heriditary. like men's preference for firm breasts is seen in western culture, eastern culture, indigenous people, etc.

there's a book called yanomamo (by napoleon chagnon). they are a one of the last 2 or 3 completely isolated indeginous societies. they're naked people. but if anyone checks it out, on page 69, it mentions that women of higher status wear a vine from around their neck to under their breasts (probably to lift and accentuate them--just my guess).
Reply
Share

Joined: February 12th, 2006, 10:05 am

February 26th, 2006, 8:20 pm #4

i know you guys probably get annoyed when i bring up stuff i learned about this topic, but this is interesting:

i had a couple lectures in a class called biosocial anthro and the teacher was talking about physical cues. a cross-cultural study found that people rate western women as appearing younger than non-western women because of 1) shelter from the environment, 2) make-up, and 3) bras.

for that class we have a discussion session once a week run by a grad student majoring in sexual selection. she mentioned that during human evolution, men that prefered saggy breast didn't reproduce and pass their genes as much as men who sought firm breast (because breast characteristics indicate estrogen levels, age, etc.). hypothetically, if 50% men prefer firm breast and 50% prefer saggy breast and if breasts indicate fertility (which they do), then many generations later, the proportion of men who prefer firm breasts will increase because those men pass more of their genes than men who prefer saggy breasts.
Elijah, I don't know where your tutors are getting their theories from, but are you sure that they are not taking something illegal before class! Anyway, here is some more twaddle if you like, but from a respectable source, at least here in the UK. Dr Desmond Morris (author of The Naked Ape and other books) has hypothesized - and that's all it can be with evolution because we can't know for a fact - that women developed enlarged breasts as a result of our ancestors standing up. When we were like the other great apes and walked around on all fours, the bit of the body that was most prominant was our behinds and the males of the troop would know when a female was ready to reproduce by its appearance. Standing on our hind legs meant this was not readily visable any more and a substitute evolved, enlarged breasts. Considering humans are the only ape to have developed enlarged breasts on their females, it does seem a plausable theory. (Sorry, that reads like a derogatory sentence but it isn't meant like that.) Try that on you student/tutors. Otherwise I go with Nat's explanation.
Reply
Like
Share

elijah
elijah

February 26th, 2006, 8:23 pm #5

i know you guys probably get annoyed when i bring up stuff i learned about this topic, but this is interesting:

i had a couple lectures in a class called biosocial anthro and the teacher was talking about physical cues. a cross-cultural study found that people rate western women as appearing younger than non-western women because of 1) shelter from the environment, 2) make-up, and 3) bras.

for that class we have a discussion session once a week run by a grad student majoring in sexual selection. she mentioned that during human evolution, men that prefered saggy breast didn't reproduce and pass their genes as much as men who sought firm breast (because breast characteristics indicate estrogen levels, age, etc.). hypothetically, if 50% men prefer firm breast and 50% prefer saggy breast and if breasts indicate fertility (which they do), then many generations later, the proportion of men who prefer firm breasts will increase because those men pass more of their genes than men who prefer saggy breasts.
it's found that having a shorter legs-to-torso ratio is correlated to higher testosterone. males have proportionately longer torsos and females have proportionately longer legs.

so my theory (which is totally unproven), is that that is why we see a lot of young guys wear their pants below their butt. i see this in all cliques at school--white guys, black guys, those that listen to rap, those that skate, etc. i think that maybe boys wearing their pants low advertises favorable "maleness" qualities similar to women wearing bras advertise favorable "femaleness" qualities.

this is pretty much something i pulled out of my ass. so i expect a lot of criticism. i'm interested in you guys feedback.
Reply
Share

Nat
Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

February 26th, 2006, 8:26 pm #6

1) women are most fertile from 20-25. womens' chance of having unhealthy babies increase as they age. an example is down-syndrom. they chance of a woman having a baby with down-syndrome exponentially increase as she ages after 25.

2) there are many "preferences" that are human universals. there are certain behaviors, that once proven to work well, become common to the entire species and isn't just heriditary. like men's preference for firm breasts is seen in western culture, eastern culture, indigenous people, etc.

there's a book called yanomamo (by napoleon chagnon). they are a one of the last 2 or 3 completely isolated indeginous societies. they're naked people. but if anyone checks it out, on page 69, it mentions that women of higher status wear a vine from around their neck to under their breasts (probably to lift and accentuate them--just my guess).
I don't deny young men have a preference for women with firm breasts- just as young women have a preference for men with a full head of hair and a flat belly. But I don't think this is hereditary- its just a natural attraction to those of your same age group. For example- most people who are 50 and looking for a mate look for someone near their age- not someone who is 20- regardless of breast sag.
Reply
Like
Share

elijah
elijah

February 26th, 2006, 8:38 pm #7

Elijah, I don't know where your tutors are getting their theories from, but are you sure that they are not taking something illegal before class! Anyway, here is some more twaddle if you like, but from a respectable source, at least here in the UK. Dr Desmond Morris (author of The Naked Ape and other books) has hypothesized - and that's all it can be with evolution because we can't know for a fact - that women developed enlarged breasts as a result of our ancestors standing up. When we were like the other great apes and walked around on all fours, the bit of the body that was most prominant was our behinds and the males of the troop would know when a female was ready to reproduce by its appearance. Standing on our hind legs meant this was not readily visable any more and a substitute evolved, enlarged breasts. Considering humans are the only ape to have developed enlarged breasts on their females, it does seem a plausable theory. (Sorry, that reads like a derogatory sentence but it isn't meant like that.) Try that on you student/tutors. Otherwise I go with Nat's explanation.
what we both said were additions to each others statements. there was no contradictions that i saw. maybe enlarged breasts became a sexaul signal because the vagina wasn't visible when humans stood up. but what i was talking about was the firmness of female breasts as giving a certain info compared to sagginess of breasts giving different info about mate value. but, like you said, enlarged breasts were necessary before males could have begun to make judgements of fertility from breast cues.


and, what i do before class doesn't make a differnce to anything i say.
Reply
Share

Nat
Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

February 26th, 2006, 8:40 pm #8

it's found that having a shorter legs-to-torso ratio is correlated to higher testosterone. males have proportionately longer torsos and females have proportionately longer legs.

so my theory (which is totally unproven), is that that is why we see a lot of young guys wear their pants below their butt. i see this in all cliques at school--white guys, black guys, those that listen to rap, those that skate, etc. i think that maybe boys wearing their pants low advertises favorable "maleness" qualities similar to women wearing bras advertise favorable "femaleness" qualities.

this is pretty much something i pulled out of my ass. so i expect a lot of criticism. i'm interested in you guys feedback.
But females who have early puberty/fertility has SHORTER limbs. Indeed, tall women- with long legs tend to have small breasts and be rather masculine. So this blows that theory right out of the water.

As for women wearing bras to "advertise favorable "femaleness" qualities" I think this is another contradiction- when breasts are bound up and encapsulated they become unreal- artificial. Indeed the reason people object to braless women is their bouncing breasts and protruding nipples are considered "too sexual".
Reply
Like
Share

elijah
elijah

February 26th, 2006, 9:08 pm #9

I don't deny young men have a preference for women with firm breasts- just as young women have a preference for men with a full head of hair and a flat belly. But I don't think this is hereditary- its just a natural attraction to those of your same age group. For example- most people who are 50 and looking for a mate look for someone near their age- not someone who is 20- regardless of breast sag.
actually, people aren't attracted to those in their age group. it was found that adolescent boys fantasize about slightly older women because older women (18-25) are more fertile. when i was 16, my first girlfriend was the married lady next door who was 23.

it was also found that people's first marriage are with someone who's close in age. but when men remarry, they tend to choose younger women (relative to themselves) with each subsequent marriage. older men, if they had the choice (in other words money) will marry a woman with as high reproductive value as he can get. in other words, he'll choose a younger woman. how often do you see a man cheat or leave his wife for a woman his age or older?



Reply
Share

Nat
Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

February 26th, 2006, 9:29 pm #10

I'm sure these things happen, but I suspect they are more aberration than the rule.
Can you provide credible statistics to support these assertions?
Reply
Like
Share