| Powered by phpBay Pro |
why do you think that human females..............?
are the only mammalian species with adornments to attract males?
Seriously. In every other species, the MALE is the one with decorations - peafowl, wood ducks, bower birds, lions, you name it - but human females have non-functional adornments, namely breasts, attractively cantilevered butt flab, etc.
Yeah, I know, all mammals have breasts, but they don't amount to anything in any non-human species unless they are filled with milk. Human women are the only ones that have developed them for show. Same with butts. It's been proven (insofar as it's possible to prove these things, that the SINGLE greatest turn-on for a male is a large differential between the size of a woman's waist and the size of her hips. Yeah, I know they have to have wider pelvises for the childbearing duties, but the cheerleader bubble butt owes more to form following function in terms of attracting a mate than it does to facilitating squirting kids into the world.
Just wondered what you folks think.
Why did you put this question in the most social science of the social science section? Not in every other species, though. Sexual dimorphism is not as marked in many mammalians, as secondary sexual characteristics rarely equal that of the lion, except in size dimorphism. It just so happens, that in our species, women have this secondary dimorphism that is so noticeable. The male not having either a mane or wattles or that superior of size differential. I see you have garnered the usual crop of social science nonsense answers.
Items Recently Purchased From This Site:
| Powered by phpBay Pro |