2
$\begingroup$

Some time ago there was a hypothesis published,suggesting evolution made breasts mimic buttocks for either primitive men being attracted to women when they started to walk on two legs, or to discourage sexual intercourse from behind for other reasons I can’t remember. I can find many posts about this online, but I can’t find any reference to the original idea. Can anyone provide information about this?

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Do breast ressemble buttocks so much?! You can use google scholar for example to search for papers. Among the first results I got there are Furnham and Viren 2007 and Anderson 1988. Note by the way that you are confounding the term theory with hypothesis. $\endgroup$ – Remi.b Apr 21 '17 at 12:37
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ What is the difference between theory and hypothesis? arent they both unconfirmed? $\endgroup$ – Pablo Apr 21 '17 at 12:49
  • $\begingroup$ @Remi.b those researchs you linked are interesting, but they arent the one I'm looking for. The one I'm looking for states the opposite to the second one. $\endgroup$ – Pablo Apr 21 '17 at 12:50
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ In science, a theory is a set of hypotheses that are highly supported by many evidences (e.g. theory of gravity, theory of evolution, ...). The definitions of these terms are up the the field of philosophy of science but we have one post on Biology.SE that explain them brielfy (here). $\endgroup$ – Remi.b Apr 21 '17 at 12:56
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ We use a different meaning for theory in my country. In the universities I attend, in subjects like research methodology or philosophy of science, theories are unconfirmed or unvalidated statements, which might have support, but not conclusive evidence. I dont think we are the only ones who uses the term this way, because I've seen the term being used in this way amongst american Psychologists for example. What is different to a hypothesis or a theory is a scientific law. I didnt mean theory as a synonymous of scientific law, if that's what you understood from what I wrote $\endgroup$ – Pablo Apr 21 '17 at 13:05
-1
$\begingroup$

Eventually, I found it, here it is:

In considering the human animal, zoologists proposed that the human female is the only primate that possesses permanent, full-form breasts when not pregnant. Other mammal females develop full breasts only when pregnant. The zoologist Desmond Morris proposed that the rounded shape of a woman's breasts evolved as frontal, secondary sex characteristic that is a sexual-attraction counterpart to the buttocks, and so encouraged frontal copulation, the reason being that while other primates mate by means of the rear-entry position, the upright, bipedal human being was likelier to successfully copulate face to face in the missionary position.

https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/uflgy/why_are_breasts_so_attractive_after_all_theyre/

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Pan paniscus (bonobo) also copulates face-to-face. $\endgroup$ – user24284 Jun 27 '17 at 4:46
  • $\begingroup$ I said I was looking for a hypothesis which refered to that. That's the hypothesis I was looking for, I didnt say the hypothesis was confirmed or denied as being "right" or "wrong". $\endgroup$ – Pablo Jun 27 '17 at 10:42

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.