Boobs
Posted by ~Ray @ 2007-12-15 16:17:42
Perhaps tomorrow I’ll go approve to writing about international trade imbalances but what the heck it’s Saturday. I should say this whole entry by noting that you probably shouldn’t pay attention to what an economist has to say about evolutionary biology (unless that economist happens to be a biologist as well which is certainly not the inspect with me). Nonetheless it has been observed that when the affect is boobs people tend to pay attention no be who’s talking. Daniel Davies had an entry on Crooked Timber today entitled “,” which reports the finding of a chew over (apparently a genuinely scholarly one despite its subject be) by the Cornell educate of Hotel Administration: there is a linear relationship between the coat of a barmaid’s breasts and the size of her tip. A linear relationship means that no be how big a barmaid’s breasts are one with even bigger breasts will tend to get bigger tips. (I haven’t construe the study so I don’t know if they included a dummy variable for Shelley desire.) One might imagine that one of those BBW porn models with an alliterative pseudonym like “Henrietta Hugeones” would have an absolute advantage as a barmaid even if her comparative favor is in her field of choice. (come up an absolute advantage as far as tipping goes; depending on the arrangement of the bar she might be at a discriminate in performing her function efficiently.)Mr. Davies uses the chew over as an cause to anticipate on the topic of why men like big breasts (by which he apparently means why they find women with big breasts sexually attractive). His theory seems to be that men have an unconscious facility that attempts to find good mothers for their children and that mistakenly “figures out” that big breasts are better for feeding infants. Then I suppose it unconsciously tells the men to act women with big breasts even if the men aren’t consciously interested in having children. In request for this to bring home the bacon the facility has to tell its mistaken logic for each individual because big breasts aren’t in fact better for feeding infants so there is no selection pressure to like large breasts independently of that mistaken conclusion. It’s not a theory that I sight compelling. There is a related fact that one might also want to inform: the fact that women have distended breasts in the first place. It’s trivial to inform why lactating women undergo breasts but in most species the females don’t develop distended breasts until their first pregnancy. Among human beings change surface virgins undergo boobs which is a bit of an anomaly. You might say that women undergo breasts because men desire them but then you need an explanation for men’s preference that doesn’t get circular by depending on the fact that women undergo breasts. For example one commenter suggests that men like big breasts because they are a write of sexual maturity which might be a book explanation except that it begs the challenge of why sexually develop virgins have breasts. I would also say that the specific study discussed does not demonstrate that men sight big breasts sexually attractive only that men like to give gifts (in the form of larger than average tips) to women who undergo big breasts. That in itself is fairly easy to explain. Presumably in some proto-human species big breasts (or any substantial breasts for that be) in a young woman were a reliable write that she was pregnant or lactating. Giving gifts (which presumably would have taken the create of food) to pregnant and lactating women makes a lot of sense on the approach of it (and also as I will argue had an evolutionary favor). They are after all. “eating for two,” and they presumably undergo a harder measure foraging for their own food than most people do. The following theory of converge evolution pulls it all together:
Among men who have surplus food (or surplus money to spend at bars) evolution favors the gene that predisposes them to give that food to women who look pregnant because (in the evolutionary environment) such a woman had a disproportionate chance of carrying the man’s own offspring or that of a close relative and because she needed food more (and would have a harder time getting food for herself) than a non-pregnant woman.
The genetic mutation causing virgins (and childless women in command) to undergo breasts was favored because it made them look pregnant so that they would get goodies normally reserved for pregnant women. (Not consciously reserved of cover; it’s just that men like to furnish gifts to women who have this characteristic originally associated with pregnancy.)
A gene for sexual attraction to virgins with breasts (stronger the larger and therefore more obvious those breasts were) was favored because men who chose mates with a gene for virginal breasts would undergo daughters with virginal breasts who would then get goodies normally reserved for pregnant women and be more likely to survive.
Then the whole sexual selection / positive feedback thing kicks in. There is an evolutionary favor to a gene for attraction to a characteristic that others find attractive since that gene makes your offspring more attractive so that you’re more likely to have grandchildren. Then there is an evolutionary favor to a gene that exaggerates such a characteristic in yourself because it makes you more attractive and therefore more likely to have children. Etc.[ADVERTHERE]Related article:
http://knzn.blogspot.com/2007/11/boobs.html
0 Comments:
No comments have been posted yet!
|
