Re: Bipedalism and theorizing... was Re: Morgan and creationists

Richard Foy (
Sat, 6 Jul 1996 02:15:45 GMT

In article <>,
Stephen Barnard <> wrote:
>Richard Foy wrote:
>> This is a very interesting speculation. It is the only speculation
>> about human breasts that I have heard that doesn't seem to be a
>> sexist.
>> --
>I'm wondering what you think qualifies speculation as "sexist". Is it
>impermissible and incorrect to speculate that humans might be subject
>to sexual selection, just like many other animals are? I'm not
>talking about "incorrect" in the sense of "factually wrong" -- I'm
>talking about "incorrect" in the sense of "politically incorrect".

Much of the speculation about the evolution of womens breasts seems
to be not much more than justified by thinking like, "I like womens
breasts, therefor womens breasts evolved by sexual selection."

There have been many discussions in this group clearly explaining why
womens breasts evolving as a result of sexual selection is highly
improbable, at least as improbable as the AAH and even less testable.

"Do you know why Moses wandered in the wilderness for fourty years."(pause)
He was a man and men don't ask directions." --Nun in the play Nunsense

URL Womens Quotations