Well, if this is going to keep on, then I think that despite being asked to shut up for this conversation I should interject on this. Of the two citations our day-of-google expert has given, let’s take a moment to look at what the second one actually says.
I mean, yes, LDoBe is very right that they had an extremely small and non-representative sample of humans to draw conclusions about evolution from. But at least they recognize the result – small breasts being key for attractiveness – is opposite other studies and so don’t take it at face value. Instead they argue:
Overall, the evidence suggests that are no stable preferences for female breast size. This variability need not be viewed as inexplicable. For example, because breast size is a sexually dimorphic characteristic, it may be the case that breasts per se are considered attractive in women but not in men. Such a hypothesis would predict a preference for a differently sized female chest in comparison with men, and not a preference for a specific breast size or shape. In other words, there need not be a preference for a specific breast size, only that it signals a sex difference from males.So while the study itself isn't great, I think they make a reasonable argument that maybe breast size and shape *aren't* all about serving as a reliable indicator of reproduction whatever. Maybe their only relation to attraction was just in marking a silhouette as female.
In other words, it concludes just the opposite of what kaibeezytentroy presented it as evidence for. That should say something about how much he actually understood the results of his search, and put his insistence that the rest of us haven’t provided any papers or knowledge into perspective.
