Thank God that someone is finally doing this essential research. But what about legs? In a recent survey 10% of men preferred the right leg and 10% preferred the left leg. But most men preferred something in between.
Very funny. Essential research? No. But racial realist views are still taboo, so expanding the preponderance of the evidence can be beneficial to advancing these views. When I was in high school, the black kids would sometimes ask me in a slightly disparaging tone, “Why white girls ain’t got no ass?”.
One might consider a scenario of divergent evolution of the main non-visceral site for fat storage, such that for reasons unknown, African women evolved to be more steatopygic and Eurasian women evolved toward fat storage in breasts. When searching for porn, modern men of the two regions would then be seeking the supranormal stimulus appropriate to the genetics of their group, as genetically programmed in the men. Under this scenario, geographic variation in male preference would not shed light on the origin of permanent breasts.
It could be that large breasts were selected for as supranormal stimuli. But for the actual origin of permanent breasts, explaining the initial stage of enlargement seems more relevant than focusing on hypertrophied breasts. A mystery as great as the origin of permanent breasts is why there remains so much variation in size in an organ presumably selected for; there must be unrecognized tradeoffs.
I read your linked post, rather too fast probably. One problem with the anti-pedophilia hypothesis for the origin of permanent breasts is that other secondary sexual characteristics, specifically widened hips and pubic hair, can function to mark the end of girlhood and the beginning of fertile years. Why add permanent breasts to these signals?
Beyond that criticism, evolutionary biology long ago (in 1966 in George C. Williams' book, "Adaptation and Natural Selection") discarded the idea that evolution was driven by species survival or any advantage to the species. Since Williams, adaptive hypotheses are framed in terms of advantage to individuals possessing the trait of interest.
A wider pelvic girdle is clearly an adaption to a birth canal large enough for a large-headed infant. Pubic hair is believed to disseminate pheromones for intra- or inter-sexual communication. Both are adaptive at the level of the individual. Evolutionists would start consideration of the origin of permanent breasts with the presumption that they are advantageous to the individual female as well, perhaps simply as an ornament demonstrating vigor. Or to suggest to the potential mate that milk production will be prodigious.
> We might also wonder why the old books from the 1800s had a relatively higher rate of mentioning these topics than modern books pre-1980.
(1) Usage of ass to refer to the animal was much more prevalent in 19C I would guess.
(2) Probably greater share of technical books across time.
(3) Hypothetical: Victorian prudery, 18C was more "freewheeling".
> ... as the big spike in "ass" in American English books dates back only to the 1990s, not to the 1960s cultural revolution.
Another hypothesis I have had for some time is that the growing interest in butts relative to boobs in the past couple of decades also has to do with many women starting to go to the gym and work out, which AFAIK was a marginal phenomenon a generation ago and earlier. Although the average female ass has gotten much fatter during this period, the top butts today are toned bubble butts that look much better than the top butts in 1974, whereas no such improvement could happen with boobs. This made butts relatively more attractive all else equal.
it is worth understanding here that the sexual revolution was not a quick event of the 1960s. Public sentiment changed gradually and the revolution finally ended just around the 1990s.
Emil, I believe I am going to solve the evolutionary mystery of human female permanently protruding breasts. As we all know, women developed wider hips for a wider birth canal as human heads increased in size. In turn, men who felt attraction to the resulting roundness of the hips, would more likely reproduce. This attraction to roundness was so important that women also became round in other areas, like the chest.
My theory is that the increased interest in buttocks results from the increased frequency of breast augmentation. Straight men (and some women) are trying to answer the question, "Is she really hot, or is she fake?" Large breasts have become suspect; buttocks may appear a more reliable guide.
I'd never seen the acronym, but I've read the term without knowing exactly what result the procedure effects. (Please leave me ignorant.) Perplexity tells me that in the US it's become more common as breast augmentation has become less common, so if my theory holds, we may see a reversal in which searches on breasts increase as searches on buttocks decrease.
It's equivalent to breast (I don't have data). It's all about bigger, doesn't matter where, but best if behind, boobs, and lips are as big as possible. Not sure how your theory holds up to that.
You know, the preference of rappers and their relatives for large buttocks has been well documented (Mix-a-Lot et al. 1992), but I'm wondering if there there's a large source of information on Asians' proclivities. Gee, if only we had an area of popular culture with substantial East Asian influence... ;)
If I had to speculate why the rise of ass happened in the 90s, I would say that there were two contributing factors.
One factor is the cultural impact of hiphop. Black people (due to being on average on faster life history trajectories) like junk in the trunk. With hiphop being exported from black people to the broader world, this resulted in preference for ass over boobs also being exported. (See: "Baby Got Back" by Sir Mix A Lot)
A second factor might be the rise of weightlifting? This I feel a lot less sure about. The idea is that while the demand for booty increased due to rap, that would be meaningless without a corresponding increase in the supply. And thus, girls squatting at the gym was born. This thesis relies on the fact that white girl ass has gotten fatter over time which feels morally true, but I'm not sure is actually borne out in the data. Topic for a follow-up paper perhaps?
Article needs to include more photos
Thank God that someone is finally doing this essential research. But what about legs? In a recent survey 10% of men preferred the right leg and 10% preferred the left leg. But most men preferred something in between.
Very funny. Essential research? No. But racial realist views are still taboo, so expanding the preponderance of the evidence can be beneficial to advancing these views. When I was in high school, the black kids would sometimes ask me in a slightly disparaging tone, “Why white girls ain’t got no ass?”.
Yes, "tote that barge, lift that bale" and shift that Overton window.
This settled the boobs VS ass debate
One might consider a scenario of divergent evolution of the main non-visceral site for fat storage, such that for reasons unknown, African women evolved to be more steatopygic and Eurasian women evolved toward fat storage in breasts. When searching for porn, modern men of the two regions would then be seeking the supranormal stimulus appropriate to the genetics of their group, as genetically programmed in the men. Under this scenario, geographic variation in male preference would not shed light on the origin of permanent breasts.
It could be that large breasts were selected for as supranormal stimuli. But for the actual origin of permanent breasts, explaining the initial stage of enlargement seems more relevant than focusing on hypertrophied breasts. A mystery as great as the origin of permanent breasts is why there remains so much variation in size in an organ presumably selected for; there must be unrecognized tradeoffs.
It's to prevent pedophilia. Homo Sapien girls are very neotenous, and thus men need to be attracted to a sign of successful puberty: steatopygia in the lowest-brain volume Africans & fat storage in the mammae in the countries with the highest verbal intelligence (and thus a high brain volume). (Full article: https://open.substack.com/pub/pdumo/p/the-evolution-of-human-physical-traits?r=323ij0&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web)
I read your linked post, rather too fast probably. One problem with the anti-pedophilia hypothesis for the origin of permanent breasts is that other secondary sexual characteristics, specifically widened hips and pubic hair, can function to mark the end of girlhood and the beginning of fertile years. Why add permanent breasts to these signals?
Beyond that criticism, evolutionary biology long ago (in 1966 in George C. Williams' book, "Adaptation and Natural Selection") discarded the idea that evolution was driven by species survival or any advantage to the species. Since Williams, adaptive hypotheses are framed in terms of advantage to individuals possessing the trait of interest.
A wider pelvic girdle is clearly an adaption to a birth canal large enough for a large-headed infant. Pubic hair is believed to disseminate pheromones for intra- or inter-sexual communication. Both are adaptive at the level of the individual. Evolutionists would start consideration of the origin of permanent breasts with the presumption that they are advantageous to the individual female as well, perhaps simply as an ornament demonstrating vigor. Or to suggest to the potential mate that milk production will be prodigious.
> We might also wonder why the old books from the 1800s had a relatively higher rate of mentioning these topics than modern books pre-1980.
(1) Usage of ass to refer to the animal was much more prevalent in 19C I would guess.
(2) Probably greater share of technical books across time.
(3) Hypothetical: Victorian prudery, 18C was more "freewheeling".
> ... as the big spike in "ass" in American English books dates back only to the 1990s, not to the 1960s cultural revolution.
Another hypothesis I have had for some time is that the growing interest in butts relative to boobs in the past couple of decades also has to do with many women starting to go to the gym and work out, which AFAIK was a marginal phenomenon a generation ago and earlier. Although the average female ass has gotten much fatter during this period, the top butts today are toned bubble butts that look much better than the top butts in 1974, whereas no such improvement could happen with boobs. This made butts relatively more attractive all else equal.
I guess I'll try to start liking breasts more so that I can become smarter.
Breasts>buttocks
it is worth understanding here that the sexual revolution was not a quick event of the 1960s. Public sentiment changed gradually and the revolution finally ended just around the 1990s.
Desmond Morris floated the theory that big breasts evolved to simiulated buttocks to encourage sex after man (woman) started walking upright.
Emil, I believe I am going to solve the evolutionary mystery of human female permanently protruding breasts. As we all know, women developed wider hips for a wider birth canal as human heads increased in size. In turn, men who felt attraction to the resulting roundness of the hips, would more likely reproduce. This attraction to roundness was so important that women also became round in other areas, like the chest.
My theory is that the increased interest in buttocks results from the increased frequency of breast augmentation. Straight men (and some women) are trying to answer the question, "Is she really hot, or is she fake?" Large breasts have become suspect; buttocks may appear a more reliable guide.
But have you heard of BBL?
I'd never seen the acronym, but I've read the term without knowing exactly what result the procedure effects. (Please leave me ignorant.) Perplexity tells me that in the US it's become more common as breast augmentation has become less common, so if my theory holds, we may see a reversal in which searches on breasts increase as searches on buttocks decrease.
It's equivalent to breast (I don't have data). It's all about bigger, doesn't matter where, but best if behind, boobs, and lips are as big as possible. Not sure how your theory holds up to that.
Science.
I have a theory why women have breasts. It builds on the assumption that we had an ancestor with detectable estrus.
https://woodfromeden.substack.com/p/why-do-women-have-breasts
You know, the preference of rappers and their relatives for large buttocks has been well documented (Mix-a-Lot et al. 1992), but I'm wondering if there there's a large source of information on Asians' proclivities. Gee, if only we had an area of popular culture with substantial East Asian influence... ;)
https://tropedia.fandom.com/wiki/Breasts_in_Anime_and_Manga
If I had to speculate why the rise of ass happened in the 90s, I would say that there were two contributing factors.
One factor is the cultural impact of hiphop. Black people (due to being on average on faster life history trajectories) like junk in the trunk. With hiphop being exported from black people to the broader world, this resulted in preference for ass over boobs also being exported. (See: "Baby Got Back" by Sir Mix A Lot)
A second factor might be the rise of weightlifting? This I feel a lot less sure about. The idea is that while the demand for booty increased due to rap, that would be meaningless without a corresponding increase in the supply. And thus, girls squatting at the gym was born. This thesis relies on the fact that white girl ass has gotten fatter over time which feels morally true, but I'm not sure is actually borne out in the data. Topic for a follow-up paper perhaps?
Internet sounds like the most obvious explanation, even if it's hard to say exactly how.
There seems to be a stronger correlation between attraction to fat outside of breasts and buttocks and IQ or slower life history across countries.
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=bbw,big%20ass