Busting Out
Busting Out, a new documentary by filmmakers Francine Strickwerda and Laurel Spellman Smith, explores the history and politics of breast obsession in America. The film is a disarmingly honest and intimate exploration of our society's attitudes towards breasts and how they affect women’s health and happiness. Busting Out's great strength is that it manages to combine personal story-telling with devastating analysis, sad case histories with humor, and frank talk of sexual subjects with sweet innocence.
In America today, there's a lot of heat around breasts. But in so many places around the world, breasts are, well, breasts just are. They're functional, natural, normal, and out there. What I want to know is: why are we so obsessed?
Busting Out challenges both women and men to think about breasts in new ways, question what the culture tells us about breasts, and understand who’s profiting from our attitudes and who is being harmed.
“Making”. While you’re “making” your boyfriend (insert any forced/coerced behavior), remove his testicles as well. Then, after you’ve successfully emasculated your boyfriend, ask yourself what happened to the viral man you were originally attracted to.
If you haven't seen this movie you need to watch it. It is beautifully made and eye-opening. I am making my boyfriend watch it next. Women and men alike will be changed by this documentary.
fake breasts are disgusting.
The trailer makes it seem like being breast obsessed is quaint and cute. I'm not sure it's sending the right message, but I'd have to see the whole thing first... but the trailer kind of makes me not want to watch it. I know it's probably edited to get more men to watch so that they'll be coerced into learning a lesson... but I dunno - I'm scared :-)
aaah yes Darwinism! i thought ounce "we" started walking up right the breast mimicked the butt, for sexual attraction. because we began to have sex facing each other
ladies i know i may stare at your breast, but that just means im sexual attracted to you. i know its rude, but that's nature.
hmm we should always use this reasoning.
Boobies i love em' all! instinctively that is. i watched...um most of the doc. bigger seemed to be better, i certainly will take the bigger piece of cake. if you have a great butt! that wins me over too.
boobs wont make me do things for woman...they don't have a gun pointed at me, as far as i know. woman who can make me feel dumb, they drive me mad with lust.
*sigh* More overly opinionated, American men justifying their objectification of the female body. Disregarding all evidence that is placed in front of them. Some men prefer small breasts *shock* Theres a hole in your theory. Beauty is largely subjective, as we have seen ideal body standards change through out history, and continues to do so. Ever wonder why men don't have such rigid body standards? Its because we still live in a patriarchy, but I bet you'd like to dispute that as well.
Some studies also suggest small breasted women are less likely to have diabetes. Also less back problems, and are more sensitive to stimulation than big ones.
Id say having small healthy breasts is an "evolutionary advantage" over big breasts with some drooling American frat boy telling you, youve got a nice rack.
G'day.
Actually, when it comes to breastfeeding a baby, size is completely irrelevant.
The amount of fatty tissue in a woman's breast has zero to do with the amount or even the quality of her breast milk. The more her baby drinks from her breasts, the more her mammary glands are stimulated, and the more milk is secreted.
So, Jonathan, et al...your argument about "genetic programming" strikes me as pretty weak.
Self esteem and lack of springs to mind
i cant watch ths documentary... plz someone share another link to me....
i loved this doc... but i found the ending reallt brought things back to women needing to prove their power by exposing their breast and shaking their asses. i felt dissapointed and once agin being reminded that i am the woman with the big breasts and it felt defeating to mee and the truth about how wpmen always have to gain power, and in order to do so we have to flaunt a body part and feel justification, validation and approval through the eyes of others. too bad
@ demon
I thought you were implying that before the invention of TV breasts were not important to men. In my opinion this is false.
I think that a woman's confidence in herself shouldn't be based on her breast size but in some women it is. Breasts have always been a womans concern because they knew intuitively that men were interested in them and their size. They would notice that the men of the village/tribe/city etc. would think a woman with full breasts were more attractive than the others and this is for natural reasons, nothing to do with TV.
That is my argument. This documentary implies that large breasts are only a very recent obsession for men due to the media portraying that large breasts are desirable. The media portrays this because they know that this is in the instincts of a man. Do you think that if the media started portraying that 500lb women are desirable men would all of a sudden start thinking the same? Of course not! Men are wired to think certain things are attractive in women and it has nothing to do with who says what is attractive.
Jason
Jason my friend,
quote "How can you say that before 1950 breasts were of no concern to men?" when and where is it that i said this exactlly ?
Quote "Breast size have been a sign of fertility to men for millions of years" Couldnt agree more on this affirmation, although, i am question the purpose in this documentary context ? Here we are talking about Women's self-confidance related to their breast size and shape or reproducing the species here ? Is fertility and size and shape creating the same feeling to a woman ? If so, was it the case prior to TV ?
You also asked how can i say that, it wasnt a concern for ladies prior to TV ? I will answer "Because i asked real people, i didnt read it" :)
I read yur link, i havent found anywheres that breast were ladies concern ? All i see, is that an artist seen and painted woman with breast. Did you personally asume that breast were non-existant before TV or my english is real poor?
cheers mates
Ok documentary, but does make one think of the issues women have to endure because of marketing and corporations. Women are beautiful and size is not an issue, every time a women gets implants I tend to think what a shame. I can see a reduction being necessary in some cases where pain is an issue.
Culture is obviously not our friend for when we have to try to live up to other people, shapes, sizes we are discounting whats really important.you.
Ask your familly members, just for fun, which lady had the sam questioning prior to the 1950s ? Before TV was in every household. Idd bet a whole lot of money that youll get answers like "our breast was no concern at all, they were there and that was it". The influence of our culture of today is pretty much responsible for that lack of confidence. All the breast you see in movies, magz, music videos, have bassicly 4 different shapes of silicone boobs and that is all. So all woman will end up looking the same ?
Personally, as a men, i will be attract to no shape nor sizes, but the confidence of the bearer, its all about feeling good with whatcha got.
And please !!! Stop compare yourself to "fake" boobs !!
For one I have not watched the whole thing because I have my subjective view on women who get bigger boobs, but that being said this is a cultural thing. As the Bio Anthropologist stated in the beginning of the movie in ancient China the feet were erotic, as in the United States the female breast is erotic.
I will say that in terms of the United States I believe that big breasts have become so important due to male dominance in society, and some Freudian psychology of big breasts. Its all culture. I mean we can say that obese people are undesirable, but many pieces of European art had paintings of fuller women. Its all culture, and given time U.S. culture may change where men will not find big breasts so awesome (for lack of a better word).
I being a guy, and a triple social science major, I think that most of the whole big breast thing for my generation is due in great part to consumerism, and the sexualization of my generation. Media images, and music have it's part. I am not saying that I do not like big breasts (I know :( ), but I personally am concerned with the inside. How the personality is of the woman. Overall it is culture.
oh...??? It is lot easier to learn English than this.. mm Japanese
Greywall,
There is also a lot of "latest scientific research" that argues the points stated in the articles you supplied and even answer the questions to the points.
Read the books I've recommended to open your mind. I've already ordered some of the books recommended in the articles to further educate myself and see why these books are being written when the answers are there? It sounds like you're very one sided and only have educated yourself about the one side. It's important to educate yourself on both arguments and then come to a conclusion based on all of the information, not just the information from one side.
No one is perfect, neither is Darwin and I'm sure he said specific things that have been proven wrong. His discovery of evolution and sexual selection etc. have been the foundation to what we now know. I think that what he stated about sexual selection people think is being individual based when what he meant is that it's what the individual has been programmed with because of the species it belongs to. The species as a whole prefer this type of mate over the other because it was best at producing healthy offspring. Not specifically what the individual prefers i.e. blonde/brunette etc. Not sure if you understand what I'm saying...
I agree that incest does happen in nature (rarely and due to certain circumstances) but also happens in human species, however, it is never preferred, in any animal/human culture studied in the entire world. It is severely forbidden and even illegal in most cultures today and even during the entire history of human beings.
Taken from wikipedia: Prevalence is difficult to generalize, but research has estimated 10-15% of the general population as having at least one incest experience, with less than 2% involving intercourse or attempted intercourse.[7] Among women, research has yielded estimates as high as twenty percent.
I suggest doing some research on incest in humans, it's more common than you'd think and I bet you can compare the amount of incest going on in humans directly to animals percentage wise. Now the question why does it happen?
Could be many reasons like lack of mates available, pheromones that tell the individuals that a healthy offspring will be produced (rarely) etc. I'm sure there's information out there for why it happens that I'd like to do some more research on in the future as I have only read very few literature on the subject.
Sounds like you grew up on a farm which is an artificial environment (not natural) for wild animals to be mating on. Put those same animals out of the farm in a wild herd of 100's to choose, do you think they'll still choose their sister to breed with? Of course there's incest found on a farm in a small group of cows, cats, dogs, rabbits etc. that are found on a farm....it's not a natural environment and there's a complete lack of potential mates...
Species are programmed to at least mate with someone, even if they're related when there is a scarcity of mates available and at least take a chance and produce offspring so there is a next generation than sit around and go extinct.
Your argument regarding humans not practicing incest and that's the reason humans and animals are different holds no ground. Both humans and animals practice incest and there's tons of information that proves it. Not sure where you got this idea from. Sources?
I agree, learning new things is also part of evolution....how did we learn to suck our mothers breast as a baby without being told to or shown how? Things we've learned how to do that helped us survive became instinct. Birds had to learn to break out of the shell, the ones that didn't, died in the egg...
Jason
Jason,
So...., even after reading the article which was based upon research from more than 50 references written during the period from 1938 to 2003 and which contained expert opinions, if you're still stuck with the Darwinian theory of sexual selection then perhaps I can't do anything with your point of view. (If a hell of latest scientific research couldn't do something with your opinion then why should I expect that...)
Yet the second reference was related to the point of view of "American Association for the Advancement of Science" who think that Darwin was a narrow minded. It's not me. It's the latest expert opinion. If you still insist that Darwin was right then I wouldn't say anything but would request you to send a copy of your theorum to them for reconsideration of their opinion.
Now, I never said that animals "NATURALLY" want to mate with relative. When we talk abou evolution then what does 'Natural' mean... evolution is the nature. I had said that animals do mate with their close relative. (And BTW I didn't just study that, I've personally been seeing cows, cats, dogs, chickens and rabbits doing this) And furthermore, you can again go through my comments I also never said that human were mating with close relatives.... and if it was any such thing happening in the history, it was isolated case and was happening in a particular culture.
What I tried to explain was 'If animals sexual instincts were equally applied to human then human would laso be mating with their relatives, because animals do so'. The link explaining animals mating with relatives was posted by me long ago. Perhaps after reading that you added the word 'Naturally' in your argument, because answer did not distinguish such animal behavior as 'Natural' or 'Unnatural'. I tried to prove that ('Naturally' or 'Unnaturally') humans don't mate with close blood relations. Now if animals, even if unnaturally, do this, it means their sexual instincts are different from humans.
Now, you know very well that theory of evolution is all about 'change'.... and I think that Change just doesn't mean to loose the tail, but to learn new things too. Perhaps I already referred somewhere 'Alvin Toffler' saying 'To learn, unlearn and re-learn' would be the literacy of 21st century'.
But of course, nobody can't ask anybody to unlearn the old things and relearn afresh'. Take care.
OK, I've read both articles. All arguments stated I was able to argue and back up based on information I have come across during my lifetime. These authors need to dig deeper to find the answers instead of just saying sexual selection doesn't exist because there are homosexuals and both male female sexes found in the same individual.
Why do these individuals exist? Notice how they kept saying that "due to the environment" some species don't have a sex, or are homosexual etc. Key word is "environment."
The environment of the praying mantis made it more beneficial to the survival and reproduction to its species for the male to self sacrifice itself after mating. Perhaps due to lack of food, or lack of ability for the female to get food after mating with a male. At one point, a female decided to eat the male and this female and her offspring survived. Ones that didn't, didn't survive. Now it's instinct for this to happen.
The lizard found in Texas had an environment that made it more beneficial to its species to only produce females. Perhaps due to an illness in the past that almost wiped out all males? Could be a million different reasons. Again, females who developed the ability to create life without a male, survived, ones that didn't, didn't.
The fish that have the ability to change to male or female ("based on it's environment" as the article says) is beneficial to its species survival. Possibly because in its past there have often been times where either sex is scarce so the ability to change is beneficial.
Bees having 2 female sexes, the queen and female worker bees. Again, it's environment made it best for it's survival and reproduction to have a queen and many female worker bees.
The author of either of these articles don't go on to explain why these creatures have evolved this way?
It seems to me that they're confusing a species with a diverse sexuality with sexual selection. Diverse sexuality is the entire species. A very diverse sexuality or very uniform sexuality has to do with the survival of the species as a whole. Sexual selection has to do with the individuals in that species and who they select to mate with based on what the history of their species have programmed them with to produce the best surviving offspring.
I will pick up that book Evolution's Rainbow by Joan Roughgarden (which got bad reviews by the way) to see if perhaps they do go into the whys and have answers or just state more problems that there are answers for if you look deeper for them.
Says Vasey of his work with Japanese macaques: "I see females competing for males all the time. I see males ignoring females that are desperate to copulate with them." Why are females competing with each other for males and why are males ignoring them? They only ask questions but don't dig for the answers. Females are always competing for the best male and maybe the best males aren't interested because their sexual desire is being satisfied by another more desirable female (or females).
Why is homosexuality found in some species? It's not due to sexual selection but due to the survival of the species. Perhaps it's a way to naturally control the population of the species? Maybe the species produces homosexuals so they do not produce and overpopulate? There are many arguments that can be drawn from this that they don't seem to investigate.
Not comparing animal behavior to human behavior I think is the silliest thing we can do. They say that we don't engage in cannibalism and infanticide and also we take care of elderly individuals. If you look at human history, not very long ago infanticide and cannibalism was practiced and taking care of our elderly is a very recent behavior in the history of humans directly related to how abundant resources are today and the ability to provide for the elderly. If it came down to food scarcity and who eats, you (at reproducing age) or an elderly person who do you think is going to get the food and survive? We don't have this problem because we have abundance of everything. Look at the statistics of children murdered by their step fathers. Direct relation to infanticide happening today.
If you're going to use these 3 things to say animals and humans are very different in behavior that is just absurd. Because we don't practice cannibalism (again, if food was scarce, wouldn't you?) infanticide (it is happening today, research statistics on child deaths by step fathers) and we take care of elderly (again related to the amount of resources available to us to give to them).
Women hide their fertility to promote sperm competition from mating with multiple males while fertile. If a woman displayed her fertility like baboons or other primates, the male would guard her 24 hours a day during this time and she wouldn't be able to have multiple partners. Women are biologically driven to have multiple partners' sperm inside of her while fertile. This allows the healthiest sperm to compete with the others, win and fertilize the egg and also promotes diversity in offspring. It also lowers the chance of infanticide like the article says by letting each male think he could possibly be the father and be more reluctant to kill the baby when born. Read the scientific studies found in Sperm Wars by Robin Baker to really get into this if you don't believe this stuff.
Still waiting for sources you stated that say animals naturally want to mate with relatives and also you said you read that in human history relatives were mating with each other and preferred it that way? Babylonian times was it? Sources please??
Jason
I thought about a mistake after I submitted my comment. We did not evolve from Neanderthals like I said, although, they were close cousins of ours who died out. The comparison I should have used and meant to use was the prehistoric cave man compared to us today because we did evolve from them and not Neanderthals. On a side note, at one point, homo sapiens and Neanderthals were the same animal and then went their separate ways, evolving into each.
Greywall,
Firstly, I'm looking for sources of Babylonian incest 20,000 years ago and sources for which animals regularly have incest and it benefiting their survival. I'm very interested in reading about this information you have stated.
Secondly, look up "The Major Histocompatibility Complex" (MHC) to learn about how this gene found in all animals makes it possible for each individual to instinctively tell "relative" from "non-relative", meaning good genetic mate and bad genetic mate.
Next, regarding the instincts of animals compared to humans, read "The Myth of Monogamy", "The Red Queen", "The Selfish Gene" and a few others I can't think of right now that describe 100's of animal research studies that will blow your mind in regards to how similar animals behave to humans. Humans are animals, there's no question about it. Insects, birds, fish, amphibians, reptiles and mammals all share very very similar instincts in every way from choosing a mate, to courting, to finding food, to caring for their young, it's all the same.
Of course the closer you get to humans, the more obvious comparison it is i.e. comparing the behaviors of primates to humans as opposed to a snail to a human (even though both can compare at different levels).
You say that because other animals are matriarchal they're selecting the fittest female. What does a matriarchal society have to do with selecting the fittest female? Isn't the fittest female looking for the fittest male? It's equal. It doesn't matter if it's matriarchal or patriarchal, both fittest sexes are most desirable to each other in any species.
Further, you're saying that in a matriarchal society, the woman is in demand so she doesn't care which male she sleeps with but the males all want the fittest female? Makes no sense. I've never heard of this and I think common sense tells us that the most attractive in any species, male or female are desired most regardless of it being a matriarchal or patriarchal society.
Also, what animals are matriarchal? Most species I know of, the males are usually physically bigger than the female, therefore, run the show. I know of some spiders and a few others where the female is physically bigger, therefore, in charge but these are rare.
Explain to me why humans like having sex often? Where does that urge come from? Is humans having the drive to mate all of the time not an instinct? It's not conscious that humans want to mate often, we just want to (i-n-s-t-i-n-c-t).
Evolution selected people who liked having sex more often than the other person because these people produced more surviving babies. The genes that like having sex more often got passed on more than the ones that didn't. Now we all enjoy sex often and have produced 6,000,000,000 of us in this generation because of it.
You'll find it interesting that in studies they have found that the birth rate in humans as you go further north in the Northern Hemisphere produce more births in the spring season than any other time of the year. In the same area, the local animals also give birth to their young during the same peak time the human births are at their most. Reason being, the further north you go, the more severe winter is. Food is abundant in spring, animals and humans in the North have evolved to be more sexually active and the females more fertile during times that will produce offspring in the spring.
Babies that were born at other times in the year didn't survive the brutal winters the further north you go so their genes were not passed on. Comparatively, in historical records, humans held religious celebrations and other festivals coincidentally much more often around the 9 months before spring time frame. Meaning, humans had the urge to "party" during certain times of the year because these parties led to mingling, coupling off, sex and 9 months later a baby in spring. Again, when something helps a species survive repetitively it becomes I-N-S-T-I-N-C-T.
To say that humans have not changed or evolved over time is absurd, how do you explain the physical appearance of Neanderthals and that's only going back about 50,000 years! Huge muscular hairy humans built to survive cold winters and take down animals for meat compared to now is a pretty big change. What good are huge muscles to a human now who sits in front of a computer all day or worked the farm during the last few generations? The cost to grow and maintain those muscles costs too much so they wen't away. Surviving brutal winters and chasing Wholly Mammoths' wasn't required to survive anymore.
I'm not sure I understand what you're looking for in regards to what you'd like to see change? You say "our most productive body parts aren't changing". Of course they're not! They're productive! They help us survive! If it came to one day that we no longer have a use for hands, guess what, they'd probably go away over 1000's of years because they're costly to make and the energy that goes into making them at embryo stages would go to say more brain power because that is more beneficial to our survival than hands we don't use...
Human sexual behaviors are much more complex yes but they are still the same behaviors as animals, just more complex because we evolved with intelligence animals didn't.
Animals that reproduce without a mate, which I only know of a handful in the entire world have no sexual instincts because they are asexual. How can you even intelligently question that?
What species are mating with other species and producing offspring? Unless their DNA are extremely similar a female of one species isn't fertile to the male of another and vice versa. Sources on this statement as I'm interested to see what species mates with another and produces a half breed or even just mates for the fun of it?
Animals mate with their own species just like humans mate with their own. This is instinct because mating with another species is a waste of time as it doesn't produce anything that helps either species survive or reproduce.
Again, sources for what animals are mating with relatives and at what point in human history relatives were mating with each other and preferred it that way?
Thanks,
Jason
Greywall,
Regarding animals having sex with their relatives, I'm sure there are a very small list of animals which are exceptions that only reproduce with their relatives and their survival benefit from doing this but the vast majority of the animal kingdom do not, especially mammals. I would like to know the source you have found that says otherwise?
The source and reference to my belief is found in the book "The Red Queen" by Matt Ridley. This book talks about how criticial it is for the animal kingdom to constantly evolve their immunity to disease as disease is constantly 1 step behind killing off it's host. You have to also keep in mind that only humans in the entire animal kingdom have medical technology and vaccines. Think of how many times in your life you had strep throat, a very bad flu, infection in any part of your body etc. all of these without medical technology you probably would have died from not even including humans having constant access to proper nourishment and abundance of food. For any animal on the face of the earth, to live a long and healthy life takes extreme luck and a very strong immune system. Almost all die of disease before they reach old age.
"The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins goes into depths about this topic as well. Our brothers and sisters share 100% of our genetic makeup, our individual parents 50%, our individual grandparents 25% and so on. Breeding with your brother or sister produces the exact same genetic makeup because of sharing 100% of the genes you were both made of. This results in the exact same immune system that faught disease long enough for your to reproduce but now this next generation is 1 generation behind the generation of disease. Disease has caught up with the immune system produced because diseases are constantly evolving as well finding ways to not get killed by the immune system of it's host. It's a constant battle between the host and the disease that is in perfect balance most of the time. It becomes imbalanced when things such as inbreeding create bad immune systems. This is why pheromones naturally attract men and women with very different immune systems. Very different immune systems will create a very diverse immune system in their offspring.
Disease doesn't want to become too powerful and kill it's host because that is suicide and the host needs some diseases to survive. We need certain types of bacteria in our bodies and do not want immune systems that kill them off beacuse that is suicide to the host.
In "The History of Human Marraige" by Edward Westermarck he talks about this Babylonian tradition in the chapter about virginity. It is studied in numerous cultures that practice marriage (or a form of it), the husband does not want to marry a virgin. I forget all of the details why but many historical cultures had similar traditions where the woman had to lose her virginity to someone else before being with her husband. This is very different from other parts of the world where the woman has to be a virgin on her wedding night and if she is not she is severely punished. From one extreme to the other and you are correct, these traditions are cultural and usually involve the influence of religion and/or government regulations. In the same book it says there were many cultures where every woman in the tribe/city/village had to sleep with the king/leader/selected man once she reached a certain age and the future husband and/or parents would pay the king or a man who's job it was to do this very generously to do so. In many cases it was because the blood from a woman losing her virginity was considered evil and from the devil, and these men were risking thier lives taking the devil out of her, again religious influenced.
How do you conclude that because it was culturally manditory for women to prostitute themselves as virgins, this means that men were sleeping with their mothers, sisters and daughters 20,000 years ago? Source for this? Personally I think that whenever religion is involved in a culture and dictates their mating habits, you'll find a lot of corruption which control the people to do unnatural things.
I agree with the man not being needed in many animals found in the world. I think that the reason for this is simply because the mother can handle it. With humans, we give birth to the most defenseless offspring in the animal kingdom and requires 100% of the mothers time for the first few years. A human baby cannot walk, speak, or pretty much do anything and this is because it brain is the most premature born brain in the animal kingdom as well. If a baby was in the womb longer so that it's brain could mature to comparable levels of other animals i.e. being able to walk at birth, find food on it's own etc. it's head wouldn't fit through the birth canal of it's mother. The mother needs the fathers help in bringing her food and providing for her and her baby since she is so tied to constantly helping the baby survive. I stated this in a previous comment but fathers who didn't stick around, didn't have offspring that survived which didn't send his "uncommitted genes" into the next generation. Fathers who helped became committed and helped the mother during pregnancy and the early years of raising their baby had offspring that survived and his "committed genes" got passed on to what we see today where men generally seem to want to commit once they have found a woman they want to have children with. Whether they want to remain committed after the children are gone is a compeletely different discussion.
It wasn't instinct that caused the chimps tail to vanish, it was simply not needed so it got smaller and smaller until it was gone. Think of the body of any animal on an investment level. To grow that tail takes more investment (in food, water, energy to control it etc.) than if you didn't have that tail. Evolution looks at the body and sees that if something is not being used, less and less energy (or investment) go into making it and more energy go to areas of the body that help the survival of the animal. If the tail is not being used, the return on investment is 0. It's not helping the animal to survive because it is no longer living in trees. Keeping the tail takes energy to maintain as an adult as well as extra energy for the mother to provide to her growing baby inside of her to grow that tail as an embryo. Individuals who had longer tails had to eat more calories per day to survive because they had a bigger body mass to maintain. Mothers had to eat slightly more food to provide the energy to her growing embryo to grow that tail. During periods of scarce food, survival of the fittest didn't provide enough food for these individuals to survive and they starved and died out. The individuals who did survive were the ones with slightly shorter tails and needed a little less calorie intake per day. Over time the shorter tails survived more than longer tails until. Evolution eliminates anything not being used to conserve energy for survival in other areas.
Women didn't evolve with 3 or 4 breasts just beacuse men like them because that doesn't support what I just talked about. If it took 3 or 4 breasts to produce a surviving baby, women would have 3 or 4 breasts. 2 are sufficient to feed usually 1 baby being born at a time so they have 2. Pigs for example who give birth to many piglets have many breasts to feed them all.
I find it absurd that you say a man will select a woman who's breasts will make him happy for years and years beacuse we enjoy sex. Yes we enjoy sex but both you and I know that as time goes on, breasts sag and get more and more unattractive. They get further away from the ideal breast indicating fertility. Ask any man which breast he would prefer, the breast of a 60 year old woman or the breast of a 20 year old woman. Wonder what he'll say. Men select breasts simply because they signify fertility. Men like sex with young fertile women because the chance of them producing healthy offspring are higher than a woman indicating less fertility i.e. breasts sagging.
You say in regards to instincts, humans are humans and animals are animals seperating both meaning humans have a completely different set of instincts than animals do. This I completely disagree with. We're all here to survive and reproduce, every species on the planet the same. Sure, we all have many different ways of doing so but the same outcome is always accomplished, survive long enough to reproduce. Look closer and the behaviours of any animal and compare it to human behaviour. You can find almost any animal instinct in humans.
Jason
I'll be out of city for some days but surely be waiting for your reply and'll reply the same, may be a little late.
Jason
I had raised questions regarding three stages of human behavior. I disagree with you that no animal have sex with their said relations. It’s all there. You should've given the reference and source of your belief. Further, I had raised questions regarding "Three Stages" of male human behavior which included acceptance of relations and then protecting such relations from strangers’ sexual invasions.
Regarding the question about third stage of said behavior, I would like to refer an interesting quote from Herodotus, the famous Greek historian who had written that "The worst Babylonian custom is that which compels every woman of the land once in her life to sit in the temple of love and have intercourse with some stranger... the men pass and make their choice". Now how long ago Babylonian society existed? May be just within a time period of maximum 4,000 years BC. Was this custom prevailing all around the world at that time? I don’t think so. It was a particular culture and society. This historical fact proves that human mal sexual behaviors differes from culture to culture. So, within a period of around 6,000 year how did this babylonian custom vanish? If this one (my questioned) stage could be completed just within such a short time, then Babylonians must have been having sex with their mothers, sisters and daughters, may be around a maximum period of 20,000 years ago?? There are such examples found in much later times too. I read somewhere that long ago in some Hindu tribes there was some sort of weird ritual of marrying with sisters if there was a curse from some Gods to be avoided to. A much historically known and recorded example is that of probably some "Raja Dahar" of Debal who married his real sister to avoid the curse of Gods (which came in the shape of a muslim invader) from some Arabian area (probably Iraq).
Again coming towards your theory of ‘Still-Working-Male-Instinct’ I think that probably you are missing a big point here while reconciling animals’ and human sex-partner choosing instincts. In most of the animals, we see sort of ‘matriarchal’ pattern of behaviors where ONLY females have to take the responsibility to rear the offspring and take care of them. There are very few species of animals where males also participate in rearing and taking care of off-springs. This instinct is still working in animals in the same old fashioned way it worked 100,000 years ago because they (male) know that they wouldn’t be around when female bears the baby. So, female should be THE FITTEST and THE STRONGEST to take care of his genetic legacy, left behind. This is not the case since 1,000’s of year. Human don’t have ‘Matriarchal Societies’ anymore. It existed probably in Mesopotamian era, not now, nowhere around the world.
And by the way, if evolution caused the Darwin’s chimp’s tail to vanish due to instinct, because it wasn’t needed any more, then why didn’t the the same instinct in human females of attracting males cause them to have three or four beasts over 100,000 years? I wonder why?
In patriarchal societies where males lead the society and are not only just supposed to, rather they actually take care of their sex-partners and off-springs, they choose such sex-partners from whom they can enjoy and satisfy their recurring needs of sexual entertainment for the maximum part of their lives, since there’s a short span when children are to born (5-10 years) but longer span is to live with, enjoy and take pleasure together.. Because, human are at the top of list of living creatures who do sex for the sake of enjoyment, pleasure and recreation. Though scientist are now recovering that many animals also do the same.
You have been talking about the sexual behavior of animals with "Matriarchal" instincts and traits and trying to synchronizing the same with the "Patriarchal" human society which is quite unimaginable and uncalled for at this moment of human behavioral Reconnaissance?? An apple must be compared with an apple and a Pigeion with a Pigeon. Again, if instinct could work with the tail, why didn’t it work with the breasts?
No any particular animal behavior can be compared with the same particular human behavior today…. How can we compare human behavior to enjoy "Sex-Talk" with any animal behavior?? NO WAY. Human are human, animals are animals. Both of us have different behaviors, instincts, cultures, values and traits. A lion may damn care about the size of tits of the lioness because that’s an animal which don’t enjoy the sex and thinks only about the overall fitness of the female. A Male human is quite a different creature from that.