>> |
SMAP
>Larger breasts would also mean more milk for hungry babies Actually, the mammary glands' size is mostly independant of the size of the breast. The majority of the noticable bits are fat deposits.
Breasts are, of course, incredibly inconvenient from a survival standpoint (ask any woman who jogs, for example) but, like many such adaptations, may occur anyways if the increased chance of mating outweighs the detriments to activity, such as with the peacock. However, since dimorphism between the sexes is fairly minor in humans you'd never see XBOX hueg breasts occur in a natural environment.
It's worth noting that breast size correlates strongly to nutrition intake during childhood, which is why many countries are seeing fairly large leaps in average breast size lately (especially Asia, etc).
>>629021 Sexuality as a private, generally taboo, subject is pretty standard and a normal development as a result of sexual jealousy, etc. Which is not to say it's "good" in the sense of modern society et al, but from an evolutionary standpoint...
>But that's just the thing, see. We figured that women would evolve and adapt somewhat to the extra weight with stronger muscles and perhaps small changes in skeletal structure if it had been like that for a long time. Sad to say it wouldn't work that way. Frankly, the human spine is a kludge solution at best and adding a HUGE additional strain from even just 5 lbs of addional mass is pretty destructive to its integrity. (Remember, all that mass is positioned well off-center so the moment of inertia is much larger than, say, 5 lbs worn on the back.)
|