... buttocks are secondary sex characteristics? (ignoring the whole discussion about the "purpose" of breasts because .. I mean. Yeah... not interested in that one.)
-
-
Replying to @polerin
I'm not attached to the evo psych explanation for "when" and "why" breasts developed in Homo sapiens but they obviously are a secondary sexual characteristic specific to our species and people trying to deny this obvious fact are hilarious
1 reply 1 retweet 30 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @polerin
"Breasts exist because you NEED ROOM for the glandular tissue and if there wasn't something for the baby to latch onto then breastfeeding wouldn't work!" Uhhhh *glances at all the flat chested women in history who've breastfed*
2 replies 3 retweets 49 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @polerin
Jfc come the fuck on look at a picture of a female gorilla or chimp and try to find one that's any bigger than an A-cup JFC it's like looking at a proboscis monkey and going "Only a sicko would sexualize that poor monkey's face, they need noses to BREATHE"
1 reply 1 retweet 24 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @polerin
"Only someone with a porn-addled patriarchal mind would think a peacock's tail has anything to do with SEX Birds NEED tails in order to keep their BALANCE, if that tail were any smaller they would FALL OVER"
1 reply 3 retweets 28 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect
yeah I'm not arguing about breasts in that way XD I was more thinking "uh... butts are not secondary sexual characteristics." Hips maybe, but butts in and of themselves are mostly prime movers. Yeah shape can change based on hormone backing, but most of that is fat distribution
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @polerin @arthur_affect
And the bit that isn't fat distribution is mostly related to hip structure, and uh.. even cis women can have a slim hip structure.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @polerin @arthur_affect
This. And even cis women can be virtually flat-chested. I'm not a biologist by any stretch of the imagination, but the biologists I read spend a lot of time tearing their hair out over the common assumption that every characteristic has a purpose/function. Somet
3 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @sarisataka @polerin
In fact it's the fact that breast size is so variable in our species that's the strongest evidence that it's a "sex thing" (a result of sexual selection) The people yelling at OP about this don't really seem to understand this idea
3 replies 2 retweets 10 likes -
No one is saying that it's a built in law of nature that breasts are "objectively attractive" In fact it's the exact opposite of that Sexual selection happens when there's random variation in a characteristic that doesn't directly matter for anything
2 replies 1 retweet 14 likes
And as a result of that, if you want to get all judgey and anthropomorphic about it, it gets (sigh) "fetishized" That's WHY there's such a vast range of breast size in humans that comes with a vast difference of opinion on what the sexiest size for them to be is
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
tbh I'm in agreement with
@sarisataka, I'm really over the "why" and "what for" arguments when not *directly* talking about biology. It's reductive and a bit gross when paired with the rest of our societies' fascination with objectifying women's bodies.0 replies 0 retweets 4 likes
End of conversation
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.