Usborne Puberty Book tells children that breasts exist to make milk and to make girls look grown up and attractive

[AssignedPerfectAtBirth]

www.theguardian.com/books/2017/aug/29/usborne-apologises-puberty-book-childrens-publisher?CMP=share_btn_tw

Breasts are there for 1) milk 2) to make girls look grown up and attractive

Nice to know that our children are being taught that breasts are there to look at

Is it common for other mammals tandem feed offspring of varying ages? I genuinely don't know.

I'm a human being. I don't go on heat like other mammals thank you very much.

If I choose as a human with the brain of a human to do breast feeding all my reproductive life then that's a choice (though I'd probably be best tending the fields and letting others feed my children).

I bet the best and most productive societies were those who had equality in all measures. No big houses, all working together for the better good of the community.

We just don't read or have knowledge of them (I wonder why?)

Ah sorry elen! I get you now.

Common characteristics (legs, mammary glands) can take disparate evolutionary paths for all sorts of reasons. The fact that some men find breasts attractive doesn't mean that sex is the reason for obvious breasts.
No, but there is usually some evolutionary advantage to a new characteristic for it to persist once it has appeared largely by chance, I think that is accepted widely. Obviois external breasts can be cumbersome when running, and could be vulnerable when you are attacked, so there is very likely something in their favour, or they would have tended to fade out over generations.

Women may well have spent more time lactating in the past, but many animals spend a high proportion of their lives feeding young too, so if that was the reason we have them, many animals would also tend to have breasts from puberty.
The most common theory on why they persisted, is that they were attractive to men - in fact I cannot find any other theories on why they evolved that way. Would be interested if there are other theories, but even then, this is considered the most likely reason currently.
As I said, I don't think the wording in the book is particularly a good idea for small boys, but that doesn't make it true that breasts are there, sticking out on women's chests, just to feed babies.

The most common theory on why they persisted, is that they were attractive to men - in fact I cannot find any other theories on why they evolved that way. Would be interested if there are other theories, but even then, this is considered the most likely reason currently.

Theory on breasts being attractive to men is the most common? Is this serious scientific research or just I love those that stick out?

Some men like long legs and couldn't care less about breasts. Why haven't women evolved to have long legs?

The fact that some men like breasts is a side effect, not a reason for breasts existing. It's a preference, in the same way some people prefer red hair over brown etc.

As a woman I resent the notion that I grew breasts for the gratification of men.

'Breast man', 'leg man', 'bum man'. Did women grow all these things for men? Or just boobs - cos, you know, it's the only different one.

Despite many men preferring bums?

Theory on breasts being attractive to men is the most common? Is this serious scientific research or just I love those that stick out?
Not sure what the second part even means, but take a look at the research, please, it really isn't my personal view! As I said, I can't find any evolutionary biology sources online with a different view, but would be interested to hear of them.
This is a Guardian article, but references several academic sources:

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/science/2010/may/14/breast-size-evolution

To be clear I do not agree with what newdaddie is saying.

Oh.

Just when I thought I'd found my Dame in shining armour.

NewDaddie

Lol. For what it's worth, I don't think you are a hundred percent, 24 carat gold sterling prat. Just misguided. And too wanton with your non feminist wording.

I think newdaddie is just a bit immature and will learn a lot from his DD.

She's a future leader dontcha know.

Obviois external breasts can be cumbersome when running, and could be vulnerable when you are attacked

Am I wrong in thinking that the norkage we associate with women is unlikely to have been what was normal thousands of years ago?

We weigh much more, eat more and we have more sedentary lives, women today spend much of their lives on hormonal birth control and in many countries the milk we drink is full of hormones. Other foods soya etc work as synthetic oestrogen. I'm sure I've read the average cup size has increased over just the past couple of generations. Visible breasts were probably not that big.

Blee. I'm so relieved my Dad is not newdaddie. Old Daddy was not given to making uncalled for remarks about my body or what he imagined to be the purpose or intention of any of its constituent parts.

If he's ever given my breasts a moment's thought, I am blissfully unaware of it.

Also, he has never allowed himself to speculate, in my hearing at least, about which of my bits are most likely to draw the appreciation of men.

*not factually accurate

@traffordtimes

Yes. (Ish)

I've read one of the authors Singh, and about 10 years ago he was the most 'popular' going by citations and I think he still is in ethology.

But I'm guessing he loses credibility in this thread for having a penis and I'll refrain from putting that in a pa strikethrough since I'm already Billy no mates here.

Those authors are not the most popular writing about this since they are writing for ethology (study of animals in general) and evolutionary psychology (evopsych) is far more popular with citation numbers in the thousands compared with hundreds for ethology.

But Ethology literature is generally more credible with natural sciences since it tries to get close to the scientific method. Note I said close.

There is NO proven fact about breast's origin.

The accepted truth at the moment is based on parsimony or Occam's razor. Basically the simplest answer is the most likely truth. Ethnology views are that in the absence of other solid evidence it is likely that our anomalies including fatty breasts, fatty hips, fatty bums, pubic hair, beards and broadening shoulders are signals of sexual maturity and desirability.

I guess prehistoric Harry needed a clue not to hump Sam instead of Samantha. Silly man.

Ironically given the dislike of evopsych, on this board it is evopsych that actually supports the radfem positions in this debate. Because evopsych allows an epistemological approach. Basically the stance that 'I am a feminist, that is my truth, I will pick arguments that support my ideology, and I will search for evidence that will support my argument. That is what is happening here** on this thread.

Epistemically is not wrong, but it's not the scientific method.

Tldr: yeah the guardian article is most likely right... blah blah mansplaining blah blah

There is NO proven fact about breast's origin

Quite so newdaddie, and I have only ever mentioned theory.

But I prefer to lean toward the theories of people studying an area, rather than be told by people that something different is a fact, just because they say so .

Am I wrong in thinking that the norkage we associate with women is unlikely to have been what was normal thousands of years ago?

No, you're not wrong. And it's only since the advent of ubiquitous porn that large breasts have been thought of as particularly attractive or positive.

I think that apes have babies less frequently than humans.
Do they continue to lactate and feed their young while pregnant as women do?

Personally I lean towards the fat storage theory which is a pretty established theory, I think. It's the aquatic ape one.

And the fact that woman need greater fat storage in order to survive pregnancy and lactation - therefore only women need the characteristic - is not the same as it evolving because men like it.

I've looked in the girls' book. It does emphasise that breasts are attractive. Also not to worry about size as someone out there will like them.

No mention of attractiveness in the chapter about boys though.

Also not to worry about size as someone out there will like them.

Bloody hell. Comforting though that might be for certain girls, I still think that's entirely the wrong message.

It hasn't even crossed my dds mind that the size of her breasts might ever be a factor in ANYTHING. She's 11 and probably the right age for this book which I will avoid like the plague.

How depressing 😩

According to the spiel Griswald 1 mill years bc is

'Imaginative realism'

so there!

I've looked in the girls' book. It does emphasise that breasts are attractive. Also not to worry about size as someone out there will like them.