Re: brrrrritzkeee (another theory on breasts)

September 14, 2005

On 9/14/05, Mati Senerchia <senerchia@...> wrote:

> is that the first women with breasts would have been a) more frequently

> provisioned by their mates than other fertile women, as males were

> accustomed to provisioning mates who appeared pregnant or lactating; and

> not as confined by their mates as other fertile women, because they appeared

> nonfertile. So, they would have gottten more nutriment than other fertile

> females while being freer to sleep around - ie, pursue prime genetic

> material.

Where is the evidence that breasts would make women appear nonfertile?

If " a " is true, they make women appear pregnant or lactating, which

would seem to conflict with " b, " which holds they make women appear

infertile.

Also, does not the pursuance of " prime genetic material " imply that

they have access to the alpha males, who are supposed to prefer the

women *without* breasts?

> Having breasts could also help conceal fertility status - as would the lack

> of obvious estrus, which is unique among primates. Concealed

> fertility/infertility would encourage males to invest more (time, food) in

> individual females in order to assure conception.

This sounds reasonable, although how do breasts conceal fertility status?

> Early humans were reaching their limits in terms of bipedal pelvis v. infant

> skull; the conflict was resolved by birthing infants at progressively

> earlier developmental stages.

Yes! I've mentioned this on the list way back a couple times and you

appear to be the first other person who's familiar with it! Christie

are you there?

> Newborn humans are immature and incompetent

> relative to, say, chimp babies; they require more attention, and their hot

> little brains must be fed, fed, fed. They cannot hold on by themselves,

> which would reduce the food-gathering effectiveness of early human mothers,

> who presumably did not have Maya wraps.

>

> So continuous provisioning would be crucially important to human mothers.

> Any female able to elicit long-term male investment would be better able to

> assure survival of her offspring. Concealing fertility with " fake " breasts

> might be one way to keep mates guessing - and bringing home the bacon.

Hmm. Interesting. But I'm still lost on how breasts conceal fertility.

Chris

--

Statin Drugs Kill Your Brain

And Cause Transient Global Amnesia:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/Statin-Drugs-Side-Effects.html

September 14, 2005

Where is the evidence that breasts would make women appear nonfertile?

If " a " is true, they make women appear pregnant or lactating, which

would seem to conflict with " b, " which holds they make women appear

infertile.> Chris

> --

please don't confuse fertility with fecundity. A pregnant or

nursing mother (fecund female) is not available to produce the next

male's offspring as she is still not ovulating, i.e. fertile.

Connie H

September 14, 2005

On 9/14/05, Connie Hampton <connie@...> wrote:

> Where is the evidence that breasts would make women appear nonfertile?

> If " a " is true, they make women appear pregnant or lactating, which

> would seem to conflict with " b, " which holds they make women appear

> infertile.> Chris

> > --

>

> please don't confuse fertility with fecundity. A pregnant or

> nursing mother (fecund female) is not available to produce the next

> male's offspring as she is still not ovulating, i.e. fertile.

Oh I see. I didn't realize that " infertile " was being used in a

transient sense. This theory seems to rely on a very short-term

courtship... rape, perhaps?

Chris

--

Statin Drugs Kill Your Brain

And Cause Transient Global Amnesia:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/Statin-Drugs-Side-Effects.html

September 14, 2005

See, I can do this if I come to the website (which I only have time

to do at special moments like this, when my lunch meeting's

canceled). Unfortunately, the highlight + hit reply function just

doesn't work. I have SBC DSL.

Anyway, , inflammation is characteristic of pitta dosha (more or

less equivalent to the western choleric type). So is willful

obtuseness. Ayurveda recommends that you drink water stored in a

silver pitcher, wear silver jewelry and spend your free time doing

cool, calming things like gazing at the reflection of the full moon

in still water.

Back to breasts:

> > is that the first women with breasts would have been a) more

frequently

> > provisioned by their mates than other fertile women, as males

were

> > accustomed to provisioning mates who appeared pregnant or

lactating; and

> > not as confined by their mates as other fertile women, because

they appeared

> > nonfertile. So, they would have gotten more nutriment than

other fertile

> > females while being freer to sleep around - ie, pursue prime

genetic

> > material.

>

> Where is the evidence that breasts would make women appear

nonfertile?

> If " a " is true, they make women appear pregnant or lactating,

which

> would seem to conflict with " b, " which holds they make women appear

> infertile.

I used " nonfertile " in attempt to distinguish between women who are

temporarily unable to conceive due to pregnancy/lactation, and women

who are truly infertile or " barren. " A woman with breasts would

have the advantage of appearing competent to conceive and

breastfeed, while deceptively appearing temporarily nonfertile, thus

receiving extra provisioning with less supervision.

> Also, does not the pursuance of " prime genetic material " imply that

> they have access to the alpha males, who are supposed to prefer the

> women *without* breasts?

They're different theories, but don't necessarily conflict. The

lesser-male theory focuses on male choice - men with fewer

reproductive opportunities provisioning individual females in the

hopes of gaining access through their ongoing relationship. The

concealed-fertility theory focuses on the ability of women to

exploit provisioning males while still pursuing their preferred

genetic material.

The question seems to be, if the one theory says that women with

breasts are less likely to get the attentions of alpha males, while

the other suggests that they use their concealed fertility to cheat

with alpha males, aren't those in conflict? Do they get the alphas

or not?

I think to answer this you go back to male choice. We can't know

how early hominids handled sexual competition. We do know that for

many animals, including primates, lesser males really lose. They

have few or no reproductive opportunities - they get the leftovers,

the young untried pubescents and the less-healthy ones, if they get

anyone at all, and the dominant male may threaten their lives if

they attempt to access fertile-appearing females. Their *only*

choice may be approaching less-desirable, less-protected females

using other strategies unrelated to fighting/dominance - like

provisioning, supportive friendship, displays of other talents,

etc. (I'm not addressing territories and provisioning. I'm

assuming that lesser human males may have had to work harder or go

farther to provision, but that they would have been highly

motivated).

Fortunately, human females require provisioning and appreciate the

possibility of security, which they are more likely to get from men

who must strategize for access. Some human females may even *like*

men who are kind, of good humor, humble, and nice to be with; men

who appear to need and want them greatly. The strategy of building

a relationship to attain long-term access clearly works, or there

would be fewer puny males. And charm clearly works, or there would

be fewer puny males in our time who are successful with women

because they are funny, attentive, can sing, etc. Even today, puny,

*dull* males have little reproductive success unless they are good

provisioners - ie, accountants, computer programmers, etc. (no

offense to those who are not puny and dull)- or are fortunate enough

to find equally puny, dull females. There must be some compensation

for puniness, but that compensation can sometimes work and earn

access.

So, it's also worth asking whether permanent breasts would allow

females to cuckold alpha males with fewer repercussions to

themselves and their partners. A harem member does not get much

attention, and does not have the benefit of the alpha's full

provisioning effort. If the dominant male was lulled by her " fake "

breasts into treating her as a nonfertile female, why wouldn't she

take the opportunity to enjoy a little sumpin with a non-dominant

but otherwise attractive male? Folk narratives on this theme are

universal.

We know from DNA studies that cuckoldry is incredibly common, and

it's fair to assume it goes both ways (ie alpha to lesser, lesser to

alpha), because humans are complex. Just as sexual selection by

women encourages the perpetuation of supposedly stronger genes (as

well as fitter pairings, ie, women's greater attraction to men whose

immune systems complement theirs), strategies for access by lesser

males help insure continued genetic variety, which is much better

for the species in the long term. This is just solid Nash game

theory, right? All those non-dominant males using alternate

strategies to get some booty are doing the species a favor, as are

all those females looking for the best possible deal, and so

encouraging non-alphas to develop enticing features such as humor,

kindness, sexual sensitivity, goofy yet cute air guitar routines,

etc.

Humankind owes it unique characteristics to losers and ho's! Don't

you love it? It's just gotta be at least a little bit true.

So, back to why alpha males would *ever* bother with females who

don't appear fertile, under the lesser-male theory. The simple

answer, I think, is why not? Sperm is relatively cheap

biologically, human males have a steady supply, fresh sperm is

better (within reason). Purely recreational sex does not unduly

compromise male fertility, and these females would not be

approaching alphas in a demanding fashion or seeking to join their

harems. Why not have a bit on the side if it's " free " ? The pursuit

of uncomplicated booty is ensconced in the culture and literature,

from prostitution (in which conception is not the impregnating man's

problem) to debauched Frenchmen who prefer mistresses who've lost

their fertility to disease, to Ben lin's advice to seek out

older, even post-menopausal, women to reduce the chance of

conception. I've spent a lot of time questioning men about their

sexual behavior, and have heard many admissions from alpha types

that they have slept with women they find less attractive - reasons

include ease of rejecting the woman after sex and the appeal of a

sure thing when they are not in top courtin' form. Again, why not?

> > Having breasts could also help conceal fertility status - as

would the lack

> > of obvious estrus, which is unique among primates. Concealed

> > fertility/infertility would encourage males to invest more

(time, food) in

> > individual females in order to assure conception.

>

> This sounds reasonable, although how do breasts conceal fertility

status?

*Permanent* breats conceal fertility status. If breasts appear only

during preg/lac, the temporary non-fertility will be obvious. If

they are permanent, the female's condition is a bit more

mysterious. Mystery behooves the ladies, as it increases the

likelihood of male investment.

> > Early humans were reaching their limits in terms of bipedal

pelvis v. infant

> > skull; the conflict was resolved by birthing infants at

progressively

> > earlier developmental stages.

>

> Yes! I've mentioned this on the list way back a couple times and

you

> appear to be the first other person who's familiar with it!

Christie

> are you there?

This is such a basic concept, but you're right, it's not often

discussed. Tangentially, have you ever wondered why Genesis has

humans cursed with endless agricultural toil for the men, and

painful childbirth for the women? The times don't line up - 40K

years ago for modern humans, 10K for domestication of grain in the

middle crescent - but doesn't it make you wonder whether/how easy

access to grain changed the childbirth equation? We need meat and

fish to have human brains, but do we need grain to have restless,

energetic, creative, technological brains? Women eating too much

grain can have macrosomic babies - could there have been a

relatively sudden change in infant head or body size that made women

more dependent? Could this have been the advent of greater risk in

childbirth? How would womens' behavior change if there was greater

risk that they or their offspring might die?

Just wondering.

>

> > Newborn humans are immature and incompetent

> > relative to, say, chimp babies; they require more attention, and

their hot

> > little brains must be fed, fed, fed. They cannot hold on by

themselves,

> > which would reduce the food-gathering effectiveness of early

human mothers,

> > who presumably did not have Maya wraps.

> >

> > So continuous provisioning would be crucially important to human

mothers.

> > Any female able to elicit long-term male investment would be

better able to

> > assure survival of her offspring. Concealing fertility

with " fake " breasts

> > might be one way to keep mates guessing - and bringing home the

bacon.

>

> Hmm. Interesting. But I'm still lost on how breasts conceal

fertility.

Is that clearer now? I'm not saying that's their purpose in modern

times, as I think we're now totally in the realm of positive sexual

selection with breasts. But at some point they would have made it

less clear whether a particular female was fertile or nonfertile *at

that time.* When breasts were uncommon, they could have been

perceived as a guarantee of fertility, a sign that a woman *could*

conceive. A woman who could conceive, but was not currently drawing

the attention of other males, could be the ideal choice for a lesser

male, who could not afford to invest his limited provisions in

permanently infertile women.

Ooof. Work. Must write what being paid to write.

September 14, 2005

Connie! That's the word!

> Where is the evidence that breasts would make women appear

nonfertile?

> If " a " is true, they make women appear pregnant or lactating, which

> would seem to conflict with " b, " which holds they make women appear

> infertile.> Chris

> > --

>

> please don't confuse fertility with fecundity. A pregnant or

> nursing mother (fecund female) is not available to produce the next

> male's offspring as she is still not ovulating, i.e. fertile.

>

> Connie H

September 14, 2005

> Oh I see. I didn't realize that " infertile " was being used in a

> transient sense. This theory seems to rely on a very short-term

> courtship... rape, perhaps?

>

> Chris

No. As human babies became needier, nursing and breasts would last

longer. A male might expect to invest in a female for years before

gaining access (or expect only recreation, not reproductive success).

Breasts as a non-fertility indicator would argue *against* rape for

reproductive opportunity, although rape for recreation and dominance

would be less affected.

It's been posited that very young women are more likely to be raped

partially because they are less likely to already be pregnant, but I

think it's more likely that they're functioning as poison containers

for sexually immature men. But talking about it is making me ill.

September 14, 2005

>Breasts as a non-fertility indicator would argue *against* rape for

>reproductive opportunity, although rape for recreation and dominance

>would be less affected.

It's also important to remember the distinction between proximate and

ultimate causes. We have sex drives because of the reproductive

imperative. Those sex drives can demand satisfaction even when there's no

reproductive result.

-

September 14, 2005