The human ethology of natural and augmented breasts

Following on from my recent post, here is a paper from James Doyle and a colleague:

“Natural and augmented breasts: Is what is not natural most attractive?”

James Doyle has commented previously at my blog, on a post on “Human female proceptive behaviour“.

James Doyle’s page is here.

These are my posts at this blog that touch on human ethology, even tangentially.



4 responses to this post.

  1. One might do well to see whether the characteristics of “inflated” breasts are similar to those of nursing breasts. It strikes me that my wife’s had a few of those characteristics when she was nursing our children, and I half wonder if the attraction to the silicone queens has something to do with a subconscious desire to be with an obviously fertile woman.


    • Posted by Julian O'Dea on February 24, 2016 at 9:08 pm

      That is an interesting point.

      I have wondered if the appeal (to me at least) of young women with children (or even the “MILF”) may be her obvious fertility and femininity. Of course – as was pointed out to me once – the children are not yours and she is clearly “taken”. On the other hand, there is the seduction option and so on (immoral but perhaps instinctive.)


    • Posted by Julian O'Dea on February 24, 2016 at 9:18 pm

      I have wondered too if the adaptive purpose of the hymen is to be an “honest signal” of youth and availability for a pair bond.


  2. Posted by JamesWatchman on November 29, 2016 at 3:51 pm

    Utterly repulsed by those that aren’t natural


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: