I am reading a book that challenges the Standard Social Science Model. The book is written in question and answer format. I am curious to how some of you will respond to some of these questions.
Why do men like blond bombshells? (and why do women want to look like them?) What causes the "idea" image of a woman to exist?
Note: By bombshell, I mean women who "define" the definition of beauty such as Marilyn Monroe and Jessica Simpson.
Interpret the question however you want, but be serious in explaining your answer.
You mean that blonde hair is reccesive? Yes, but when 2 blondes have a kid, that kid is blonde normally. And when natural selection seems to favor blondes, then they really aren't that rare then are they.
But I'm saying maybe there weren't that many when we were developing, so now we have an attraction for something that was once a rarity, and now common.
But I'm saying maybe there weren't that many when we were developing, so now we have an attraction for something that was once a rarity, and now common.
But I'm saying maybe there weren't that many when we were developing, so now we have an attraction for something that was once a rarity, and now common.
Unlikely, in some places blonde hair is still considered rare.
On the breasts topic. I have my own theory that the Ice age played a roll in the development of permanent and larger breasts.
permanent breast would have developed as an indicator to the opposite sex that the female was mature enough to reproduce.
If we look at prime apes we see the female doesn't develop permanent breasts but has them only during child rearing.
So why would there be a need for humans to develop a permanent set? We wear clothes. Particularly during a time like the ice age having something obvious like large breasts that could be easily seen through layers of clothes would be a good indicator to to show the female could reproduce. Also since it was something that already develops naturally for child rearing just a small tweak to have them pop up all the time wouldn't be a very large step to take.
Though bigger doesn't always mean better. Women even with large breasts report that the larger the breast the hare it is to nurse a child. So while having large breasts would be an advantage to show maturity and be more likely to be picked go to large and it becomes a disadvantage to reproduction, thus preventing in most cases overly large breasts from developing.
you were good on the breast thing up until the end, where you confused half the people on here.
through what you're proposing, we wouldn't know that larger breasts are worse for reproduction, we simply know they symbolize fertility and the larger they are the more fertility there is, so there is selection for them.
through what you're proposing, we wouldn't know that larger breasts are worse for reproduction
As I said women with bigger breasts have reported having a harder time breast feeding children then women with smaller breasts. This could lead to a disadvantage in reproduction if the mother can't properly feed her child after it was born.
also, ^size^ = ^milk^ (theory)
No breast size has nothing to do with milk production. A women with an A cup can produce just as much milk as a woman with a D cup.
I have my own theory that the Ice age played a roll in the development of permanent and larger breasts.
I helped a friend study for her "Psychology of Gender" class, and I remember her saying that one of theories that breasts have developed in homo sapiens is that when primates stood up, the entire interaction of sexual intercourse changed.
Since we were no longer on all fours, the butt was no longer the most prominent feature to draw the attention of the male gender. Face to face interaction became key, and even changed the way sex was carried out. The vagina moved lower in order to accommodate a face to face version of intercourse, and breasts began to develop in order to attract attention from the male gender.
As I said women with bigger breasts have reported having a harder time breast feeding children then women with smaller breasts. This could lead to a disadvantage in reproduction if the mother can't properly feed her child after it was born.
even if so, large breasts would still be selected for due to our mental connection between breasts and fertility.
OK you guys, pretty much all the answers to these questions are found on the show MANswers if you just take the time to provide your television with some tender lovin' care, we'll be laughing about boobies in no time.
even if so, large breasts would still be selected for due to our mental connection between breasts and fertility.
Yes however breasts aren't the only thing that would be playing a roll in choosing a mate.
Girl with overly large breasts might be regarded as hot at first glance but a closer look would reveal health problems associated with people who have breast that are to large so that would become ingrained that to large is not good. Also even if this person did get picked as a mate the offspring would be less likely to survive another indicator to others that if you go to large it's not good.
So early thoughts on the matter might have been, to big= Not really desirable. to small= not really noticeable.
Of course this isn't going to always bee the case as we can see the genetics for both very large and very small are still present this did however help establish an average size range.
