Why are human beings the only mammals with permanently swollen breasts? All other mammals have breasts AFTER pregnancy. Why is this different with human beings?
Why are human beings the only mammals with permanently swollen breasts? All other mammals have breasts AFTER pregnancy. Why is this different with human beings?
I honestly don't hope you're getting a problem, but the size of female human breasts really changes (sometimes a lot) in the following states:If that happened, that would be a serious problem.
I meant cuz I'm a dudeI honestly don't hope you're getting a problem, but the size of female human breasts really changes (sometimes a lot) in the following states:
shortly before birth -> bigger
after breastfeeding -> same as before, or even smaller
This is just a personal observation from the mother of my children and two of her friends. Your mileage may vary ...
I meant cuz I'm a dude
I don't think cows can rightly be said to have breasts. From wikipedia:ke1985
Ever seen a cow?
By "swollen", I think the OP means prominant and portruding. Only human female breasts are like that prior to pregnancy.If you're going to compare human breasts to other species, primates would be the best example, since the comparison contains part of the answer. Primate females have swollen breasts only during their ovulation period, making it an excellent sign that the female is ready to reproduce. Thus, large breasts = lots of male attention, and those males that are attracted to them will have more children.
This doesn't make sense. Why would breasts ensure "care" from males, at "all times"? From an evolutionary point of view, I would think breasts only serve a sexual purpose for adult for adult, being a visual sign of sexual maturity, as well maternal potential.The answer is that human children take a massive amount more time to mature then primate children; this means that they take support and care from both parents. Permanently swollen breasts is one of many things that help ensure that human females get attention and care from their males at all times. This helps build a stronger pair relationship that's in turn good for the children.
That's what I meant, I was using the same terms as the op.By "swollen", I think the OP means prominant and portruding. Only human female breasts are like that prior to pregnancy.
They don't "ensure" it, as much as encourage it. The more time any given male spends with any given female, the more likely it is they will form a pair bond capable of nurturing a child. That's why prominent breasts are only one of many adaptations geared toward creating this sort of bond. The lack of an erectile bone in the male is another one. Other, more subtle emotional, and psychological variations are hypothesized, although these are far less certain in the anthropological community.*This doesn't make sense. Why would breasts ensure "care" from males, at "all times"? From an evolutionary point of view, I would think breasts only serve a sexual purpose for adult for adult, being a visual sign of sexual maturity, as well maternal potential.
That's not entirely true... just look at the breasts of women before and after birth ...
[edit] and then look at the same bodily feature after breast feeding [/edit]
CowsWhy is this not seen in any other mammal including primates?
Cows
Female Cows
During the first 3 months of life the mammary glands on a heifer grow at approximately the same rate as the rest of the body.
From circa 3 months to about 10 months, the mammary glands develop grow and develop faster than the rest of the body.
Like I said...
... Cows.
ETA- I guess your question should be "Why do certain mammals develop 'full' mammary glands relatively early in life?"
Which, of course, is a different direction of questioning altogether.