would that be a scientific question? wink!

@Lukian hahaha... Probably not!

Don't feel bad. A lot of men, including myself, don't like big boobs. I like symmetry in general and larger boobs are more prone to losing symmetry.

Get on that right away, will you?

@BeeHappy

Yep..but because I'm a respecter of Science and empirical methodology.. It would be a reasonable approach to investigate a wide range of sample breasts to capture data to reflect a decent range of the female population.

Ok you got me I'm a fraud and I love boobies!

???

@Hitchens LMAO! I'm sure you have plenty of company. ?

@BeeHappy

Yep..we are legion....?

we are the only animal that has breasts without nursing or procreation. Actually the presence of breasts in mammals usually means the are not fertile at that moment.

@Lukian I didn't know that. I know other apes got some boobies, but didn't know they don't develop without nursing. Still, at some point in our history.. one of our females probably had a random mutation that allowed them to hang around and was found more intriguing.

Thinking about it too, could have been a development that allowed our ancestors to wet nurse and is would be why it stuck around. Even way back in our precivilization time, we kind of side stepped the whole "survival of the fittest". With other animals, a female usually won't take up a baby that lost its mother unless they were already nursing. With humans, a baby can stimulate lactation in another female to act as a wet nurse.

So yeah, the wet nursing thing sounds more likely to have been the trigger rather than just appearance.

@TheAstroChuck The random mutation is kind of important as it's the first step. You can't pass on a trait without first having the mutation for the trait. Once the first individual has the mutation and passes it along, then it becomes a range. While many traits evolve convergently in different species, a trait in a specific species usually starts with one individual. Like blue eyes in humans and dogs, if we could trace it, we would more than likely find that there was one individual responsible for the genetics of blue eyes.

@FatherOfNyx watch the video.

@Lukian I just did. They really only covered sexual appeal, which I don't disagree with.. but after thinking about it, I don't think that's the original cause anymore. After some thought, I feel like wet nursing would be the most prevalent factor. We are a social species, and when we domesticated ourselves, we needed to stick together as much as possible. We formed close knit communities and tribes and the ability to be able to wet nurse was probably a highly beneficial adaptation. It would help for the child to form bonds with the entire group, help free up a mother who was more skilled and efficient at a certain task that other women weren't, and help to keep a baby alive if they ever lost their mother. With today's medical advances, child birth is much more safer.. but I have a feeling that we lost many mothers and babies to child birth in our early ages. The mutation that allowed human breasts to stick around was more than likely a beneficial mutation that allowed women to nurse babies that weren't their own.

Got to also think about "primitive" people alive today. Many don't see breasts as a sex symbol. To them, their there for a function. That's why many leave their breasts exposed while covering up their reproductive organs. Viewing them as a sex symbol is a more recent development in terms of our evolution. I think the conversion from business to pleasure though is the root of the variety in breasts today.

But yeah, human boobs are what they are today most likely cause it was a very beneficial adaptation for our survival as a species at first.