(March 17, 2012 at 11:38 am)Stimbo Wrote:

(March 17, 2012 at 10:48 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote: SMP = Sex Money and Power....

Well, so far I'm batting 0 for 3. Might as well turn it in. No flowers, please.

Just for you Stimbo

How very thoughtful! Though I shudder to think the sort of reputation I'm creating for myself... however deserved.

(March 17, 2012 at 11:52 am)Stimbo Wrote: How very thoughtful! Though I shudder to think the sort of reputation I'm creating for myself... however deserved.

No worse than any other male anywhere in the world darlin

you might like this one too...






Yeah I do get romantic every now and then...much to Zen's pleasure

Quote:the girl with the massive knockers gets noticed.

Um...guilty.

(March 17, 2012 at 10:39 am)Rhythm Wrote: Many things make decisions with their eyes (or their noses..whatever that would mean for any given species). The bigger, brighter, more fragrant flower gets noticed, the girl with the massive knockers gets noticed.

Thanks Insanity x that was an interesting video. Indeed I had tried to convey that I do see reasons for a flower.

Rhythm, I agree for the most part, but I'd like to bring particular attention to this part of the quote:
"If it be urged by some dreary person that these things are done to encourage reproduction, this is only putting the argument back by one notch. For why should these ornaments be attractive, sexually or otherwise."
Indeed, it'd seem more beneficial that we find structural marvels attractive (as women often do in generally finding athletic men attractive), as opposed to the over-sized breast that is particularly exaggerated in us humans.

I'd beg of others to refrain from digressing from my original post unless they have fully read and appreciated what is there. If I haven't made it clear enough, I'd be more than happy to explain.

Extra Note: Some seem to have become incredibly defensive and seen this quote as an attack on evolution. It is not, evolution is almost completely proven; but perhaps this constitutes an interesting quirk.

I guess I don't understand why attractive ornaments put the argument back a notch.

(March 17, 2012 at 1:14 pm)mannaka Wrote: "If it be urged by some dreary person that these things are done to encourage reproduction, this is only putting the argument back by one notch. For why should these ornaments be attractive, sexually or otherwise."
Indeed, it'd seem more beneficial that we find structural marvels attractive (as women often do in generally finding athletic men attractive), as opposed to the over-sized breast that is particularly exaggerated in us humans.

There is no should or shouldn't. You might note that not everyone likes a big breasted girl, for example. If you inject things like should or shouldn't into discussions of evolution you end up getting strange results. There's a wonderful reason to have the very well developed mammary glands (and associated structure) that we do, it's definitional to our entire branch of life, it's not an issue of whether or not we should, but that we do. Further, many cultures (though not all-another important distinction) have valued breasts positively for wide number of reasons....not always to do with "physically attractive"..sometimes they just mean "well fed" ergo, "wealthy".

Used to be we liked women with big breasts, a big ass, and big hips. What happened to that? Why shouldn't we like that anymore? (hint: human beings are not so easily pinned down to should or shouldn't with regards to the opposite sex)

To make a long story short- should and shouldn't are value judgements, not biological markers or metrics.

Faith No More: Effectively as I read it, it is to say that it is not wholly logical to find something that is not particularly useful, attractive.

Rhythm: That's an interesting viewpoint. The use of the terms should/shouldn't are certainly logic markers defined by humans (and indeed it is subjective even amongst us). Therefore, as I understand it, you're effectively saying that evolution isn't necessarily logical (by human standards). I can appreciate that viewpoint, though despite this, it leaves me a little unsatisfied.

As far as human breasts are concerned, they could indeed signify healthy stores of fat, but as any engineer will testify, having a lower center of gravity by storing fat lower down (i.e. thighs, bottom etc.) would provide for better manoeuvrability amongst other benefits.

Our own constantly changing concept of beauty is perhaps a testament to how we've out-manoeuvred evolution. Humans are unquestionably at the top of the food-chain; other species cannot equip themselves fast enough to defend themselves from our ingenuity.

(March 17, 2012 at 6:49 pm)mannaka Wrote: As far as human breasts are concerned, they could indeed signify healthy stores of fat, but as any engineer will testify, having a lower center of gravity by storing fat lower down (i.e. thighs, bottom etc.) would provide for better manoeuvrability amongst other benefits.

Which ought to indicate that the human body wasn't designed by an engineer. Or if it was, certainly not an engineer with much design sense.

(March 17, 2012 at 6:49 pm)mannaka Wrote: Humans are unquestionably at the top of the food-chain; other species cannot equip themselves fast enough to defend themselves from our ingenuity.

That depends on the environment. Here in our nice regulated cities we sit at the top of the food chain (actually more of a food web). Take a trip to somewhere like the Amazon, where huge carnivorous spiders are king, and you'll learn rather quickly your place on the menu.

(March 17, 2012 at 6:49 pm)mannaka Wrote: Rhythm: That's an interesting viewpoint. The use of the terms should/shouldn't are certainly logic markers defined by humans (and indeed it is subjective even amongst us). Therefore, as I understand it, you're effectively saying that evolution isn't necessarily logical (by human standards). I can appreciate that viewpoint, though despite this, it leaves me a little unsatisfied.

Nature isn't looking to satisfy anyone, so that's unsurprising. Another musing on breasts. Why not 3 (and we don't see many 3 legged creatures either, do we, or 3 eyed creatures for that matter)? There's a logical reason for that, but the situation itself wasn't reached by employing any logic. A subtle but important distinction. As Stimbo has pointed out, if nature were a designer, and if the purpose of breasts were to increase balance, then nature failed horribly in that regard. Good thing it isn't, and it has no such obligations or intentions (or, more accurately, any intentions at all). There are a great many things that could increase our performance in a great number of areas, but that's not the path we took.