View Single Post
Old 02-14-2012, 04:25 PM
Scott's Avatar
Scott Scott is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: near Toronto, Canada -.-
Posts: 237

Originally Posted by NovemberRain View Post
I hadn't intended to participate here, but the ol' 'breasts are for sexual attraction' argument baits me every time.

For a perfectly rational, alternative explanation, check out Elaine Morgan's lovely book, _Descent of Woman_. She explores that theory that during the pleistocene, when the world was burning up, we survived by living in the water. Think on how difficult it would be for a baby to nurse from flat nipples if it were floating, face up, in the water.
I admit that I hadn't heard of her theory (not to mention this theory that we lived in some kind of waterworld in the pleistocene, unless perhaps we're speaking of the legend of Noah's arc and similar legends? I don't discount this legend out of hand, just wondering as to the source of her information), but the fact that there's another theory as to why many women have fairly large breasts doesn't mean that Sex at Dawn's theory is necessarily incorrect. I'm all for hearing more evidence on both of the theories though. It may be that Sex at Dawn includes more evidence for its theory, I've only read the first 50 pages or so at this point.

Originally Posted by NovemberRain View Post
She explains lots of things that make a hell of a lot more sense from an evolutionary standpoint than the explanation of 'sexual attraction.'
I see. What does she say about the poly sexuality by tribe nature of chimps? Or the length and girth of human male penises in comparison to other primates? And the reason for female copulatory vocalizations and capacity for orgasm after orgasm?

Last edited by Scott; 02-14-2012 at 04:29 PM.
Reply With Quote