>but breasts in any culture are a sexual signpost specifically *because* they
>are related to procreation.

No, this is incorrect.  Breasts in most cultures are NOT a sexual signpost.
Breasts in most cultures are viewed in the same ways as elbows are in the
United States.  Just a functional body part -- no role in sexual attraction,
no role in sexual behavior.

>Has it not been shown that the rounded shape
>of the breast is also repeated in the shape of the buttocks, even so far as
>both having "clevage"?

No.  This is Desmond Morris' wild theory -- which he first proposed in "The
Naked Ape" and which has been repeated a number of times, but for which
there is no evidence.  Morris is a zoologist, not an anthropologist.  The
key components of this theory of Morris' are:
(1) all non-human animals have back-to-front sex (what we might call
doggie-style) so that males are attracted to the shape of the female's
buttocks as a visual stimulator
(2) all humans have front-to-front sex (Missionary style) so that males need
something on the front of the female to mimic the shape/appearance of the
buttocks as a visual stimulator
(3) only humans among animals have permanently enlarged breasts (even when
not pregnant/lactating), and all human females have large protuberant
breasts, and these facts are further proof of the role breasts play in
sexual attraction
(4) All human males find breasts sexually stimulating
(5) Sexual selection works on females (only females who are "attractive"
reproduce, or they reproduce more than unattractive females).

Let's look at each of these in turn.
(1) Turns out not to be true.  Several non-human animals have front-to-front
sex, including chimpanzees and orangutans (other members of the zoological
Order Primates, the Order to which humans also belong)
(2) Turns out not to be true.  Front-to-front sex is the most common
position in *some* human cultures, but cross-culturally, the most common
sexual position is back-to-front, though usually with both partners lying
down ("spooning" rather than doggie-style with the woman on all fours and
the man kneeling behind her).  The reason that the position most Americans
use, woman on her back, man on top, is called "Missionary style" is because
it was associated with western Missionaries, who introduced it to many
cultures around the world who had never used it before.
(3)  Turns out not to be true.  There are other animals besides humans that
have large protuberant breasts even when they are not pregnant/lactating,
and most human females do NOT have have large protuberant breasts when they
are not pregnant/lactating.  The typical protuberant breasts we see in the
west in nulliparous/non-lactating Western women are due to our excess
amounts of body fat.  Yes, there are skinny women who have large breasts in
Western populations.  That's not what I'm saying.  I'm saying that if you
look at cultures where women have very little body fat, you find that
typically breasts are very small and don't protrude very much and don't
attract much attention.
(4) Turns out not to be true.  Most males in the world have no sexual
feelings when they look at breasts.  Just think "American male looking at a
woman's elbow."  Nothing.  No particular notice.  Elbows are for bending
arms.  Breasts are for feeding children.
(5) Turns out not to be true.  Sexual selection in all sexually producing
species works primarily by female choice of males.  There is selection for
males that females find attractive -- whether they be taller, stronger,
smarter, nicer, more loyal, richer, or whatever.  There can be huge
differences in reproductive success between males, with some men having no
offspring, and others having as many as 500.  Sexual selection doesn't work
very well in terms of men selecting women based on what they find
attractive, because virtually every woman reproduces, whether she is
beautiful and sexy or dumpy and ugly, whether she has big breasts or small
breasts, a pretty face or not.  And there cannot be huge differences in the
reproductive success of different women, because the range is only from no
offspring to about 15-18 surviving children as the maximum for women.

So, not a single one of the logical arguments for Morris' theory of "breasts
on the chest mimicking buttocks" holds up to scientific scrutiny.  Morris'
theories have been popularized and spread through TV shows and books and
articles.  And they are popular in part in Western cultures because they
reinforce Western cultural beliefs.


Katherine A. Dettwyler, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Anthropology and Nutrition
Texas A&M University

             ***********************************************
The LACTNET mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software together with L-Soft's LSMTP(TM)
mailer for lightning fast mail delivery. For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html