163
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 11 Apr 2024
163 points (96.0% liked)
No Stupid Questions
35822 readers
239 users here now
No such thing. Ask away!
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Why? You're disappointed with the explanation? Disagree with it? Or you don't like its somewhat informal tone? I thought it was well written, enjoyed the information / humor, and can respect the explanation.
Literally the only thing this comment manages to say is that its writer views women as objects, that women exist a status symbol for men, like bro he literally compares women to a gold bar in a glass box what the fuck do you mean hahahahaha. The most discouraging part out of all of this is that people here are agreeing with it.
He's saying that HISTORICALLY women were viewed as such. That's his guess at what logic prehistoric humans went through, not his own.
Are we really out here ignoring the fact that mans said that breasts were evolved for men??? Like come on, don't make excuses for this guy
Humans have evolved, and sexual selection is a big part of evolution in sexual species. Whether his hypothesis is correct or not, it's not offensive to speculate how things got to where they are now.
You also seem to be making the naturalism fallacy. Just because things are or were a certain way in nature doesn't mean they ought to be that way in human society.
That's not what they said though
Evolution doesn't have a preconceived goal it goes for. There can be pressures of all different kinds. I did not intend to convey that sexual pressure was the sole factor on the evolution of breasts. Clearly they have other functions. I only make the observation that it is a sexual signal for males in the vast majority of mammals. I believe humans are the only mammal with breasts that doesn't shrink when they are ready, as it were. But I am a proponent of the hypothesis that it was evolved as a trait of sexual secrecy, to confuse males, so the female can attract the favour of more males.
It's alright to disagree with the premise that there were sexual pressure on the evolution of breasts. You would probably be in the minority in the scientific community on that one though.
For the record; I fancy myself an egalitarianist. I believe in women's rights. I do not believe slavery is good for any kind of society. I really believe males and females are very similar. Small differences in our physiological makeup. That is all.
Okay this is gonna be the last thing I say on this - a lot of the struggle that women today face comes from the idea that women only exist in relation to something or someone else, like children or a partner. Eg, your role is to start a family, wear makeup and take care of your appearance so that you are perceived as attractive and therefore valued. Making arguments that women have larger breasts as an evolutionary trait because of men wanting to procreate with them is an extension of that sentiment. Whether it's true or not and to what degree - it doesn't matter, it doesn't fit into the conversation and it completely detracts from the point of women being hyper sexualized in today's culture.
I support you if your say you're egalitarian or feminist or what have you, but please consider the different perspectives and examine your arguments within the wider context. We are more than just our biology lmao.
Men only exist in relation to women. We're just talking about the reproductive context here, so of course one sex is described in terms of the other. The same holds vice versa, each sex needs the other in an evolutionary system
We are past the point where any of this matters in modern society, and I completely agree with your points about sexism, feminism, etc. I think you're just letting a scientific/evolutionary perspective and discussion transfer over and project too much onto the problems you see in society today. However, I think (hope) that many of the people in this thread talking about evolution share your thoughts and feelings about modern society, it's just, we're talking about a specific, ancient, evolutionary system here is all. It's very intently sexist I guess if you think about it. We're lucky to live in modern times.
This coming from someone with a username derived from a sexist term. Maybe someone who thinks science and history need to bend over backwards not to offend our sensibilities should start with themselves.
The thing is, in so many ways we all only exist in relation to each other. So you're on to something, not necessarily exclusive to sex or gender, but yes that part is hard. And much worse because it also means that others are going to try and shape that relation and the power is barely ever balanced. It does help to realize that not all people are like that, but these things are really knowable, and everyone's situation is unique.
Honestly, that part is infuriating to me as well. and I hate what it does to women. My personal feelings about what makes a woman attractive / free are my own, but I find it somewhat offensive how boldly people make assumptions about it and even start to normalize or ostracize others for following standards.
Not sure if we can do about it in general, but I do appreciate people who don't just bow down to the masses.
Sexual selection pressure is massive in evolutionary systems. You're forgetting that fitness is an indirect result of what is ultimately sexual selection pressure. A lot of people think it's fitness first, sex second, but it's actually the other way around, sexual selection plays a larger part, and is supposed to imply fitness, but doesn't always. Without sex there is no reproduction, and therefore no mutations. Anyways, just remember, in evolutionary systems, they are not directly selecting for traits, they are selecting traits through the abstraction of sex and sexual selection. Sex is king here. IDK it's weird but it is what it is.
Sexual selection is a theory thrown around but afaik the work hasn't been done to show this is the sole cause. Enlarged breasts may have some reason to exist beyond sexual identification - there's not a lot of mostly bald mammals that walk on two legs so theres not a lot of good opportunities to spot convergence in features.
sure but why is it relevant? OP isn't saying that it is the sole cause.
careful with the straw, you might accidently build a straw man out of it :)
Ah yes, I remember how the birds of paradise evolved such complicated dance routines and brilliant colours for the sole purpose of self expression. Or the brilliant peacock that evolved a huge unwieldy display just to feel good about themselves
Hysterika, i think that may have hit the nail