I have small breasts. However, according to biology, I breastfed my daughter until she was 14 months old. As my Anglo-Saxon pals would say, that is way too much information. But! This personal info has a purpose. I have recently read an article written by Satoshi Kanazawa who admits that small breasts are as capable as big breasts when comes to offspring feeding. Super, we all know that breast size does not affect lactation, as this is luteotropic hormonally driven, and not size driven. If dissected, the breast is composed 90% of fat, tissue and mammary glands.
If men like big breasts, they like fat. If fat is present on the breasts, it is definitely present somewhere else, like hips, tummy or thighs. Women with big breasts and small hips are naturally rare because fat tends to be equally distributed (but than again, with liposuction and silicon implants we can artificially remediate that and lie to men).
Kanazawa insists that men could tell women’s age more accurately if they had larger breasts and that would be why men find women with large breasts more attractive (as they are evolutionary conditioned).
Yet, men prefer big breasted women, even if they (know they) are lied. Kanazawa bases his hypothesis on 1990 Frank Marlowe’s theory who said that big breasts are a woman’s real ID. In the '90s breast augmentation was not that fashionable, so Marlowe’s hypothesis made sense. But Kanazawa should know better in 2010. So, since a man cannot ask for a driver’s license or birth certificate on a first date, he has to rely his estimates of a woman’s age based on the (excuse my language gentlemen, and sorry for ruining your sexual appetite tonight) sagginess of her breasts. Meaning, a woman with small breasts can be 50 years old and her cup size can lie, implying she is, ahem, 35 years old, let’s say (maybe small size resonates with young age in men’s head).
While, if she has big breasts, you know for sure, based on the sagginess factor that she is 40 or 50. Or 60 (where I come from it is called gravitational law: what goes up, must come down). Hence, since men prefer the truth, they prefer the big breasts. But, for men’s info only: the 90-60-90 size actually means hip-waist-UNDER the bust- measure. Oh, and one more thing for those who evolutionary assess a woman’s bust by her size, eight out of ten women wear the wrong size bra (that is when they do not have breasts implants).
Now, a group of Yale scientists, led by Stephen Stearns (a Swiss evolutionary biologist), claim that the future woman will be shorter and plumper, but will have a healthier heart and longer reproductive windows. These changes are predicted by the strongest proof to date that humans are still evolving. Stearns believes that differences in survival may no longer select "fitter" humans and their genes, but differences in reproduction still can. The study was made on 14,000 individuals since 1948 and concluded that in 400 years women will be shorter, fatter, more fertile and will have healthier hearts. If these trends continue for 10 generations, Stearns calculates, "the average woman in 2409 will be 2 centimeters shorter and 1 kilogram heavier than she is today".
Super, let’s make this calculation: women will be 2 cm shorter and 1 kg heavier in 400 years. That means they might be 0, 05 mm shorter and 2, 5 g heavier already next year. In less than 10.000 years, women will be 50 cm shorter and 25 kg heavier on average, while men will probably develop in accordance with historical evolution by gaining an average height of 2, 20 m by then.
To our indignation, cohorts of die hard dieters, science insinuates that the future belongs to the rotund women and not to us, who shred our knees in gym clubs and eat an orange a day (that is not me, but I sympathize with my always-on-a-diet coworkers- by the way, women spend ten years of their lives on a diet, to no avail I might add).
According to this study, shorter and heavier women tend to have more children, on average, than taller, lighter ones. Yet, Kanazawa claims small-waisted women are to be priced. The good news is that such strong proportional breaches will definitely not encourage too much reproduction on the long term. Men will be forced to kneel down to the ground each time they feel like hugging their lady, hoping their arms will be long enough to make it all the way round. So meet the future woman: kneel, gentlemen!
1 comment:
Women putting on 1kg and shrinking 1-2 cm over time is not entirely shocking news. I was a little astonished, however, at the timescale being 400 years for such a change.
I definitely know women who achieve this in one day at work (lunch at McDonaldy provided). I am yet undetermined whether this simply renders the work of Stearns and collegues insignificant or whether it leads to serious considerations on fast food meddling with space-time *ponder*.
Whatever it may be, I feel quite prepared for the future (actually including excercise in kneeling in front of a woman to kiss her. But that's a different topic).
Post a Comment