[eyelidlessness]

It would be, but that's not the signal.

Men conflate women's sexuality with child rearing to control women > men insist women cover voluptuous body parts > men exploit women's sexuality with modesty constraint for additional power and control > men decide women's nipples are hidden = modesty, and sexualize women's nipples > nipples somehow mean something different if they're attached to a woman

[thaumasiotes]

Your theory fails to explain why women have breasts.

(Compare monkeys, which don't.)

[Igelau]

If I had to guess, compared to other primates it takes human young too long to be any good for anything. Permanent breasts would make cross-nursing more feasible in the event that a mother died or couldn't produce enough during scarcity.

No sources or background, just throwing darts at a plausible "the ones who didn't died" scenario.

[thaumasiotes]

> Permanent breasts would make cross-nursing more feasible in the event that a mother died or couldn't produce enough during scarcity.

I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Most mammals do fine with nipples and no breasts, whether they're nursing or not. And women lactate after giving birth; they can't do it on command.

[ben_w]

On the other hand, it doesn’t seem to be “oh no nudity” if a woman wears a very skimpy bra that only covers their nipples and fully exposes the rest of their breasts.

[thaumasiotes]

Most people do consider that nudity. It's usually done to work around laws, not to "work around" public opinion.

[eyelidlessness]

Men have breasts. Also, my "theory" doesn't need to explain why women have breasts?