Breasts- the peacock’s tail?

Sometimes I can’t help but wonder the most bizarre questions; why do we have pubic hair (to give French ladies a mysterious edge)? Why do Jews have big noses (because air is free)? Why do men actually look me in the eye?!

Today, as I was staring in the mirror and identifying hundreds more things I dislike about myself, I began to wonder: What is the point of breasts? No other species in the animal kingdom develops breasts prior to lactation and most of our breasts is compromised of fat, not glandular tissue.

Big breasts do not increase offspring survival rate: women with small breasts are as capable of producing milk as women with big breasts. In majority of mammals, breasts do not develop until they are needed. So why are men fascinated with big womanly extremities? I raked my head (and the internet) in search for some evolutionary reason as to why my small (medium!) breasts made it on my list of "134678642 things I would like to change about myself."

Explanations as to why the female breast became conspicuous range from preference by offspring to preference by males. The preference by offspring theory, developed by feminists, is rather weak. This theory claims that because human babies have flat faces (flat faces evolved to accommodate increasing brain size) the baby suckling on a flat breast would suffocate. The major flaw in this theory is that the breast increases in size as the woman begins to lactate and would thus be able to accommodate our flat-faced babies.

Numerous other theories are based on sexual selection. Lets preface by examining the reason for the peacock’s tail. The tail is not a product of natural selection, for it does not benefit the male peacock. In evolutionary sense the tail is a huge waste of “energy” . Rather, the peacock’s tail is a product of female preference.

The conspicuous breast evolved as a product of male preference. But how did this preference come about? One hypothesis I found, and the one I liked most, was proposed by Edward Miller, a Finance and Economics professor at the University of New Orleans.

Early humanoids lived in tribes. Such tribes included dominant men, who held harems and non-dominant men who desperately lacked action. Dominant men were not fond of big breasts, it signaled a lactating female who was unable to be impregnated. Non-dominant men, in hopes of securing a female once she is again fertile, would provide for her. This had a two-fold effect: non-dominant men looked for females who were unattractive to dominant men and women with big breasts benefited by being provided for. Females who were provided for had higher offspring survival rates and thus passed on the genes and preference for big breasts.

Other theories include the preference for symmetry. Symmetry often signals fitness (many diseases often disturb the symmetrical balance) and it is easier to identify symmetry in bigger breasts.

Still, none of these explanations lead to comfort. I’m again in one of those phases where I desperately seek to change something about myself. Last time this occurred, I came across a pair of scissors and 10 inches of my hair were gone within minutes ("fatal" error). The time before, I got bangs. And prior to that my hair was auburn. I’m trying to control my impulses, but I’m really tempted to just do something. Lets pray scissors don’t make it into my line of vision.

In any case, I am currently debating bangs again. So in an effort to help me decide, I made a survey (see below). For those who lack visual memory, pictures of how I looked like with bangs and without, are included below.

Ida's future
	She bangs, she bangs..
	Leave your hair alone, moron!
pollcode.com free polls

Oh, and PS, I’m bad for a man's health.