Guest guest Posted November 28, 2004 Report Share Posted November 28, 2004 Just spicing things up a bit: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en & c2coff=1 & q=desmond+morris+breasts+secondary+s\ ex+characteristics & spell=1 " The evolution of desire may also determine why we look the way we do, and what turns us on. The human breast consists of fat, not milk glands, and breast size varies greatly among human females without affecting their ability to nurse. Thus, the explanation cannot be based on the need to nurse infants. Rather, human female breasts are secondary sexual characteristics that evolved to attract mates. According to Desmond (The Naked Ape, 1967), this took place along with the switch from dogstyle to missionary mating, the pendulous shape and cleavage of the breasts mimicking the previous attractiveness of the female buttocks. This also explains why men find other pendulous shapes (like ear lobes) and other cleavages (like toes in low-vamped shoes) such a turn-on. " B. On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 09:13:19 -0800, Blazey <teresa.blazey@...> wrote: > Yeah, but they look like a rump... > B. > > On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 08:53:52 -0800, Lenz Kim, Charlie and Riley > <lenz3@...> wrote: > > > > Somehow I managed to miss out on this thread... > > I am nursing my 47 mos old son. When he was under a year old everyone seemed to accept me pulling out my boob in public to nurse him. But, when that magical 1 yr mark came everyone seemed to freak out, family, friends, strangers. I am not really the kind of person who cares too much about what people think but by the time my son turned 2 people were insinuating I was some kind of child abuser, and that did kind of get to me. > > > > I tried to print out articles for people I knew but it didn't have much effect. Strangely, soon after people seemed to just give up. My mom still says once in a while " you're still nursing him right? " > > > > I have to agree with a previous poster that nursing gets much easier after 2 1/2 or 3. I think it just gets easier to communicate and negotiate with the little one. When my son was 2 and still wanting to nurse around the clock and I was getting so much social pressure to stop it was really difficult. I was glad to have the support of my LLL list. > > > > Luckily my husband is totally supportive. My sisters husband pressured her to wean at one year because he said he wanted her breasts back. Maybe if he would have been nursed by his own mother he wouldn't need his wife's boobies so much he felt he had to compete with his child. <giggle> > > > > This could get a whole new thread started as to the reason WHY our culture has such a sexual fascination with breasts. Hello! they are not anywhere near the genitals. > > > > Kim > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 28, 2004 Report Share Posted November 28, 2004 Aven, I think you have hit on something. Being one of those women who hardly has enough fat on her body to sustain life (and yes, I can out eat most men), I can personally attest to hard it is to " reproduce well " . I have always had to be extremely careful of what foods I consume, or I will start dropping weight like most people gain it. And I suffered a few miscarriages before I was blessed with healthy children. And I have always felt it was because of my health that I did lose the pregnancies. (Even though the doctors said I was " healthy as a horse " , and they couldn't understand what could have happened.) Perhaps fat (in a healthy sense) is more attractive because it is an indicator of how easily a male could produce his heir. Catz > Another thought: A truly FLAT-chested woman may be > lacking the body fat to reproduce well. And some of us > GO flat after nursing lots of babies. It seems to me that > men love young, firm breasts, whatever their size - > indicating a ripe young woman with enough fat to be > healthy. > Aven Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 28, 2004 Report Share Posted November 28, 2004 This is a better quote: http://www.niia.net/~alsman/fetching.html " In his book The Naked Ape, speculates that, as humans evolved from the other primates and began to walk upright, the human female breasts became fleshy and round. This was not due to a biological need to feed children. Females of other primate species are flat chested and have no problems feeding their offspring or attracting mates. But these other primates, as our ancestors most certainly did, use buttock presentation to indicate when they are ready to breed. Since the human female is almost always in a sexually capable condition, the breasts would seem to have become an ever-present sexual display and a form of " self mimicry " as they are intended to frontally duplicate the female's own round fleshy buttocks, a trait also not found in other primates and one to which the human male had already become conditioned (74-75). " On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 12:24:20 -0800, Blazey <teresa.blazey@...> wrote: > Just spicing things up a bit: > > http://www.google.com/search?hl=en & c2coff=1 & q=desmond+morris+breasts+secondary+s\ ex+characteristics & spell=1 > > " The evolution of desire may also determine why we look the way we do, > and what turns us on. The human breast consists of fat, not milk > glands, and breast size varies greatly among human females without > affecting their ability to nurse. Thus, the explanation cannot be > based on the need to nurse infants. Rather, human female breasts are > secondary sexual characteristics that evolved to attract mates. > According to Desmond (The Naked Ape, 1967), this took place > along with the switch from dogstyle to missionary mating, the > pendulous shape and cleavage of the breasts mimicking the previous > attractiveness of the female buttocks. This also explains why men find > other pendulous shapes (like ear lobes) and other cleavages (like toes > in low-vamped shoes) such a turn-on. " > > > > B. > > On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 09:13:19 -0800, Blazey > <teresa.blazey@...> wrote: > > Yeah, but they look like a rump... > > B. > > > > On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 08:53:52 -0800, Lenz Kim, Charlie and Riley > > <lenz3@...> wrote: > > > > > > Somehow I managed to miss out on this thread... > > > I am nursing my 47 mos old son. When he was under a year old everyone seemed to accept me pulling out my boob in public to nurse him. But, when that magical 1 yr mark came everyone seemed to freak out, family, friends, strangers. I am not really the kind of person who cares too much about what people think but by the time my son turned 2 people were insinuating I was some kind of child abuser, and that did kind of get to me. > > > > > > I tried to print out articles for people I knew but it didn't have much effect. Strangely, soon after people seemed to just give up. My mom still says once in a while " you're still nursing him right? " > > > > > > I have to agree with a previous poster that nursing gets much easier after 2 1/2 or 3. I think it just gets easier to communicate and negotiate with the little one. When my son was 2 and still wanting to nurse around the clock and I was getting so much social pressure to stop it was really difficult. I was glad to have the support of my LLL list. > > > > > > Luckily my husband is totally supportive. My sisters husband pressured her to wean at one year because he said he wanted her breasts back. Maybe if he would have been nursed by his own mother he wouldn't need his wife's boobies so much he felt he had to compete with his child. <giggle> > > > > > > This could get a whole new thread started as to the reason WHY our culture has such a sexual fascination with breasts. Hello! they are not anywhere near the genitals. > > > > > > Kim > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 28, 2004 Report Share Posted November 28, 2004 > Why else do you think the general preference is for larger rather than > smaller breasts? Gee , I don't even care to go there with you. For the first time I've read posts by you that seems like you are trolling, or else very closed minded. So while this will probably fall on deaf ears, here's a little bit of info about breast size and nursing babies. In my years of nursing and attending LLL meetings, I've met many women of all sizes nursing their babies and children just fine. The very large breasted women do have a harder time, as expressed to me by them, because they don't have that extra hand free. While I would have a hand free to caress my babe's face, brush back her hair, or hold the book I'm reading to her, large breasted women will be using that hand to hold the fat of their breast off the baby's face and away from the baby's nose. I can't wait to hear you explain that away. Are the very large and the flat chested both meant by nature to not pass on their genes? Or is it the diet they received as children? Hormones! That's it! Why it's amazing they even managed to find a mate, let alone get pregnant! As for myself, flat chested. Apparently my husband wasn't thinking about the survival of his line when he fell for me. With the first pregnancy more fat was stored in my breasts (along with other areas) and I became a very full C cup. With engorgement after the birth, even larger. Thankfully that didn't last forever and as I lost weight after the birth, the extra fat that had been stored in my breasts left too. My oldest recently turned 10. That means that I've been a nursing mama for a little over 10 years, the only break being the last 3 months of my last pregnancy. And when I say I nursed my babies, I don't mean they had nums and something else, my babies were exclusively breastfed until they showed an interest in mouthing food, usually around 8 months. Yeeha for small breasts! I'm currently barely an A cup and still nursing my 3 year old who thinks nums is the greatest food on the planet. And it is. There isn't any meal I could prepare her that would meet the needs of her growing body and brain the way mother's milk can. I'm reminded of using the students' hospital at Purdue once for a check-up and being told by the nurse that I'd be able to nurse babies just fine and not to listen to those who would tell me otherwise. This hit me out of the blue being as I was A) 19 and not planning to have babies any time soon and What kind of an idiot would think that a woman's breast size had anything to do with nursing babies, let alone speak such stupid information out loud? Well now I know. : ) If there are any flat or small chested women reading this, know that your body is beautifully designed to grow that baby, birth that baby, and nurture that baby. Hold to that truth, and ignore those who would tell you otherwise. Rhea Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 28, 2004 Report Share Posted November 28, 2004 ----- Original Message ----- From: " Idol " > Suzanne- > > >Size is merely degrees of fat > >tissue. > > It's not a random variation, though, even if all women have about the same > number of milk-producing ducts. It's due to factors like the prevalence of > sex hormones, diet, and so on. Right, but we're talking about whether big breasted women are biologically more desireable candidates from a reproductive standpoint. And it still doesn't change that size and function are two separate characteristics that are mutually exclusive. Environmental influences can affect menarche and onset of puberty, but even sex hormones imposed externally can't change the genetic predisposed size. Once the external hormones subside, so does the breast tissue resume the size it was genetically disposed to be. Environmentally, milk sufficiency is more related to the environment in which a woman labors and delivers and the support and/or interference with the nursing diad postpartum than with breast size. (There is the exception that large breasts can be difficult to manage while teaching an infant to nurse effectively. There small breasted women have the advantage.) Size is fat tissue, function is glandular. --s Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 28, 2004 Report Share Posted November 28, 2004 Right, but we're talking about whether big breasted women are biologically > more desireable candidates from a reproductive standpoint. Oh, I'm so afraid to say this, but... the female with the attractively-perceived breasts is, in theory, better able to keep her male around for support in raising the offspring. B. On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 16:08:39 -0500, Suzanne Noakes <snoakes@...> wrote: > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: " Idol " > > > Suzanne- > > > > >Size is merely degrees of fat > > >tissue. > > > > It's not a random variation, though, even if all women have about the same > > number of milk-producing ducts. It's due to factors like the prevalence > of > > sex hormones, diet, and so on. > > Right, but we're talking about whether big breasted women are biologically > more desireable candidates from a reproductive standpoint. And it still > doesn't change that size and function are two separate characteristics that > are mutually exclusive. Environmental influences can affect menarche and > onset of puberty, but even sex hormones imposed externally can't change the > genetic predisposed size. Once the external hormones subside, so does the > breast tissue resume the size it was genetically disposed to be. > Environmentally, milk sufficiency is more related to the environment in > which a woman labors and delivers and the support and/or interference with > the nursing diad postpartum than with breast size. (There is the exception > that large breasts can be difficult to manage while teaching an infant to > nurse effectively. There small breasted women have the advantage.) > > Size is fat tissue, function is glandular. > > --s > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 28, 2004 Report Share Posted November 28, 2004 Yes, maybe, but let's face it, much of what men are looking at at least in this age of implants - is not a biological attribute. So at least for those gals with augmentation, all biological arguments fly out the window. Deanna Blazey wrote: > Right, but we're talking about whether big breasted women are biologically > > more desireable candidates from a reproductive standpoint. > > Oh, I'm so afraid to say this, but... > the female with the attractively-perceived breasts is, in theory, > better able to keep her male around for support in raising the > offspring. > B. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 28, 2004 Report Share Posted November 28, 2004 You Go Girl... On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 11:58:23 -0900, Rhea Richmond <honeysuckles@...> wrote: > > > Why else do you think the general preference is for larger rather than > > smaller breasts? > > Gee , I don't even care to go there with you. > > For the first time I've read posts by you that seems like you are trolling, > or else very closed minded. So while this will probably fall on deaf ears, > here's a little bit of info about breast size and nursing babies. > > In my years of nursing and attending LLL meetings, I've met many women of > all sizes nursing their babies and children just fine. The very large > breasted women do have a harder time, as expressed to me by them, because > they don't have that extra hand free. While I would have a hand free to > caress my babe's face, brush back her hair, or hold the book I'm reading to > her, large breasted women will be using that hand to hold the fat of their > breast off the baby's face and away from the baby's nose. I can't wait to > hear you explain that away. Are the very large and the flat chested both > meant by nature to not pass on their genes? Or is it the diet they received > as children? Hormones! That's it! Why it's amazing they even managed to > find a mate, let alone get pregnant! > > As for myself, flat chested. Apparently my husband wasn't thinking about > the survival of his line when he fell for me. > > With the first pregnancy more fat was stored in my breasts (along with other > areas) and I became a very full C cup. With engorgement after the birth, > even larger. Thankfully that didn't last forever and as I lost weight after > the birth, the extra fat that had been stored in my breasts left too. > > My oldest recently turned 10. That means that I've been a nursing mama for > a little over 10 years, the only break being the last 3 months of my last > pregnancy. And when I say I nursed my babies, I don't mean they had nums > and something else, my babies were exclusively breastfed until they showed > an interest in mouthing food, usually around 8 months. Yeeha for small > breasts! I'm currently barely an A cup and still nursing my 3 year old who > thinks nums is the greatest food on the planet. And it is. There isn't any > meal I could prepare her that would meet the needs of her growing body and > brain the way mother's milk can. > > I'm reminded of using the students' hospital at Purdue once for a check-up > and being told by the nurse that I'd be able to nurse babies just fine and > not to listen to those who would tell me otherwise. This hit me out of the > blue being as I was A) 19 and not planning to have babies any time soon and > What kind of an idiot would think that a woman's breast size had anything > to do with nursing babies, let alone speak such stupid information out loud? > > Well now I know. : ) > > If there are any flat or small chested women reading this, know that your > body is beautifully designed to grow that baby, birth that baby, and nurture > that baby. Hold to that truth, and ignore those who would tell you > otherwise. > > > > Rhea > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 28, 2004 Report Share Posted November 28, 2004 ----- Original Message ----- From: " Blazey " > Right, but we're talking about whether big breasted women are biologically > > more desireable candidates from a reproductive standpoint. > > Oh, I'm so afraid to say this, but... > the female with the attractively-perceived breasts is, in theory, > better able to keep her male around for support in raising the > offspring. > B. Eeew. Pity the woman who settled for him. Glad we're talking about theory, that way I won't offend anyone when I say that her male's sticktoitiveness wrt her breast size has more to do with *his* character....or lack thereof....than her anatomy. After all, if larger curves are so important to him, why would he chose otherwise? --s Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 28, 2004 Report Share Posted November 28, 2004 >>Oh, I'm so afraid to say this, but... the female with the attractively-perceived breasts is, in theory, better able to keep her male around for support in raising the offspring. B.<< ~~~, I think you're correct, but what is attractive to men is variable to say the least, from my experience. I've known men who really don't like large breasts on women. (And, I'm not saying that because I am flat chested, because I'm not. ) Carol On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 16:08:39 -0500, Suzanne Noakes <snoakes@...> wrote: > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: " Idol " > > > Suzanne- > > > > >Size is merely degrees of fat > > >tissue. > > > > It's not a random variation, though, even if all women have about the same > > number of milk-producing ducts. It's due to factors like the prevalence > of > > sex hormones, diet, and so on. > > Right, but we're talking about whether big breasted women are biologically > more desireable candidates from a reproductive standpoint. And it still > doesn't change that size and function are two separate characteristics that > are mutually exclusive. Environmental influences can affect menarche and > onset of puberty, but even sex hormones imposed externally can't change the > genetic predisposed size. Once the external hormones subside, so does the > breast tissue resume the size it was genetically disposed to be. > Environmentally, milk sufficiency is more related to the environment in > which a woman labors and delivers and the support and/or interference with > the nursing diad postpartum than with breast size. (There is the exception > that large breasts can be difficult to manage while teaching an infant to > nurse effectively. There small breasted women have the advantage.) > > Size is fat tissue, function is glandular. > > --s > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 28, 2004 Report Share Posted November 28, 2004 Carol, I didn't mean to imply any particular " size " . B. On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 15:48:13 -0800, Carol <cah@...> wrote: > > > >>Oh, I'm so afraid to say this, but... > the female with the attractively-perceived breasts is, in theory, > better able to keep her male around for support in raising the > offspring. > B.<< > > ~~~, > I think you're correct, but what is attractive to men is variable to say the least, from my experience. I've known men who really don't like large breasts on women. (And, I'm not saying that because I am flat chested, because I'm not. ) > Carol > > > > > On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 16:08:39 -0500, Suzanne Noakes <snoakes@...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: " Idol " > > > > > Suzanne- > > > > > > >Size is merely degrees of fat > > > >tissue. > > > > > > It's not a random variation, though, even if all women have about the same > > > number of milk-producing ducts. It's due to factors like the prevalence > > of > > > sex hormones, diet, and so on. > > > > Right, but we're talking about whether big breasted women are biologically > > more desireable candidates from a reproductive standpoint. And it still > > doesn't change that size and function are two separate characteristics that > > are mutually exclusive. Environmental influences can affect menarche and > > onset of puberty, but even sex hormones imposed externally can't change the > > genetic predisposed size. Once the external hormones subside, so does the > > breast tissue resume the size it was genetically disposed to be. > > Environmentally, milk sufficiency is more related to the environment in > > which a woman labors and delivers and the support and/or interference with > > the nursing diad postpartum than with breast size. (There is the exception > > that large breasts can be difficult to manage while teaching an infant to > > nurse effectively. There small breasted women have the advantage.) > > > > Size is fat tissue, function is glandular. > > > > --s > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 28, 2004 Report Share Posted November 28, 2004 >>Wit and intelligence are bigger factors for me. And that is not just some politically correct cliche. Some guys don't care about that kind of stuff but just as Holy Writ says love covers a multitude of sins, so intelligence and humor can cover many supposed physical limitations. More, at least for me, it is a downright turn on.<< ~~~How refreshing! I feel the same way about men, but it seems to be more rare for a man to feel that way about women. I was never attracted to the men who most women found attractive and have never been excited by leading men celebrities. I've always felt that I had no way of knowing if they were attractive or not, because I didn't know them. Carol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 28, 2004 Report Share Posted November 28, 2004 >>Carol, I didn't mean to imply any particular " size " . B.<< ~~~I also didn't mean to infer that you did! :-) I was just adding my 2 cents, which today has been more like many dollars! So, with that, I think I'll go figure out what to have for dinner! Carol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 28, 2004 Report Share Posted November 28, 2004 > > >>Oh, I'm so afraid to say this, but... > the female with the attractively-perceived breasts is, in theory, > better able to keep her male around for support in raising the > offspring. > B.<< > > ~~~, > I think you're correct, but what is attractive to men is variable to say the least, from my experience. I've known men who really don't like large breasts on women. (And, I'm not saying that because I am flat chested, because I'm not. ) > Carol > But whatever kind they like, let's hope that's not the only thing that keeps them around! BTW, my husband likes large breasts, but they *must* be natural. Natural A's are much more attractive than implants, in his opinion. Aven > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 28, 2004 Report Share Posted November 28, 2004 , You obviously don't know much about breastfeeding a baby. I don't hold this against you either. Before I nursed my child I also held many prejudiced and erroneous views. We could have a whole thread on myths about breastfeeding with the size/amount of milk myth at the top. There is not much awareness in this area because women's breast are so mired in the sexual. I thought nursing would be gross. After all, my entire life I was taught that my breasts were meant to attract males and to be part of the sex act. How could they do something so strange as to nourish a child? One thing that may be hard for you to understand is that most women in this culture grow up learning to hate their bodies. Why? Because scantily clad women with airbrushed bodies appear everywhere to make even a beautiful young girl feel inadequate. And young men grow up associating sex with these ubiquitous images. Even though I have average size breasts and a decent figure I always felt ambivalent toward my breasts because they could never measure up to this ridiculous " standard. " It wasn't until I started nursing my child that I finally started respecting my body and loving it for the amazing thing that it is. I have a whole new respect for my breasts. And once I started seeing them in a different light (yes my husband still enjoys them) it made me wonder - why all the hoopla? If you peruse the anthropological record you will find that associating sexuality with breast size is not universal. In fact, over the millions of years that we have been evolving as a species, breast size has probably not been a factor at all. One theory I studied says that the females of our species only developed breasts to fool the males into staying with them. The apes that humans descended from only had engorged breasts while nursing their young. This signaled to the males that the female was not fertile (or had lowered fertility) and he tended to abandon her and his young. By evolving to be appear to be permanently engorged, human females hid the timing of their fertility and along with hidden ovulation, the males were utterly/udderly confused (pun intended.) They found that their best chance for passing on genetic material was to hang around and take care of the female and mate as often as possible. This is just a theory and of course there are many. And it is only theorizing about why females of our species have breasts at all - I think we are the only species that does. I can't see why bigger would be better in this instance. The reason I think this discussion is important and relevant to this list is that it gives us another chance to inspect our beliefs and question where they came from. Every single person who grows up in a society believes that what they learned through acculturation is the one and only truth. Heck we're taught all kinds of nonsense about nutrition. You certainly know about that. Just because you learned that big breasted women are " more sexy " doesn't mean that it is so, that it is a universal truth. You have been fed this idea through advertising and other cultural means. In most parts of Europe big breasts aren't considered that great. Paradis is one of the most popular and sexiest movie stars there and she is flat as a pancake. That said, I certainly don't think any less of you for being into boobs. There are all kinds of fetishes. Our culture just seems to be predominantly into the breasts. Whatever floats your boat. I've know different guys who were into different things. Just don't try to blame it on evolution. With all respect to you, Kim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 29, 2004 Report Share Posted November 29, 2004 Heidi- >I do suspect >a lot of it is as others have said: Western males AND females never >got enough of breasts when they were babies. Granted, this is only anecdotal, but as I've already said, I was nursed up until about 4, and though I wouldn't call myself obsessive, I certainly enjoy breasts. >That and we are programmed >from birth to look for the " bull's eye " with our weak little newborn eyes >so we can get some good food. Unless you're suggesting that the " programming " is somehow environmental and has no genetic seed, this is actually an argument in favor of the genetic side. >I think it may be true that women with larger breasts and hips produce >more estrogen though ... they seem to be more the " womanly " types in their >speech and mannerisms too, from my observations. Quite so. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 29, 2004 Report Share Posted November 29, 2004 Aven- >In fact, I think that >big-breasted women may have more problems >breastfeeding than small-breasted ones. Do you have any documentation for that rather startling claim? (And I'm not talking about statistical outliers, here.) - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 29, 2004 Report Share Posted November 29, 2004 Aven- >Another thought: A truly FLAT-chested woman may be >lacking the body fat to reproduce well. And some of us >GO flat after nursing lots of babies. It seems to me that >men love young, firm breasts, whatever their size - >indicating a ripe young woman with enough fat to be >healthy. In general (hormonal imbalances and obesity aside) women's breasts seem to roughly track the curviness and shapeliness, the " femininity " if you will, to borrow Heidi's construction, of the woman. (This isn't any kind of value judgement, BTW, just an observation. My personal preference, in fact, is more in the medium-sized region, though many men seem to be hard-wired to feel that bigger is better almost without limit.) Inasmuch as reduced bodyfat interferes with reproduction, lactation and sex hormones, I don't see why it should sound so outrageous to suggest that breast size, at least in certain rough distinctions, correlates with nursing ability. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 29, 2004 Report Share Posted November 29, 2004 - >>The human breast consists of fat, not milk >>glands, and breast size varies greatly among human females without >>affecting their ability to nurse. The boolean ability to nurse (able/not-able) is one thing. The quality of the milk produced, however, is most likely something else entirely, and it wouldn't surprise me in the least if women with insufficient body fat produce lesser milk. (And yes, I expect I'm calling down the maelstrom for saying that! <g>) - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 29, 2004 Report Share Posted November 29, 2004 - >Perhaps fat (in a healthy sense) is more attractive because it is an >indicator of how easily a male could produce his heir. I don't think there's any " perhaps " in it. Of course it's also true that human attitudes are, at least in some respects, more amenable to cultural variation than those of most or all other species, but there are still starting points. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 29, 2004 Report Share Posted November 29, 2004 - >Since the human >female is almost always in a sexually capable condition, the breasts >would seem to have become an ever-present sexual display and a form of > " self mimicry " as they are intended to frontally duplicate the >female's own round fleshy buttocks, a trait also not found in other >primates and one to which the human male had already become >conditioned This is quite possibly the ultimate cause, but that doesn't mean it's the proximate cause. IOW, I don't think most men are walking around thinking " Mmmm, butts! Well, OK, I'll accept these boobs as a substitute. " <g> - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 29, 2004 Report Share Posted November 29, 2004 -------------- Original message -------------- > > - > > >Since the human > >female is almost always in a sexually capable condition, the breasts > >would seem to have become an ever-present sexual display and a form of > > " self mimicry " as they are intended to frontally duplicate the > >female's own round fleshy buttocks, a trait also not found in other > >primates and one to which the human male had already become > >conditioned > > This is quite possibly the ultimate cause, but that doesn't mean it's the > proximate cause. IOW, I don't think most men are walking around thinking > " Mmmm, butts! Well, OK, I'll accept these boobs as a substitute. " > Perhaps the ultimate point in their evolution is that they will be able to mimic any part of the body at any time, depending on circumstances. > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 29, 2004 Report Share Posted November 29, 2004 --- In , Idol <Idol@c...> wrote: > - > > >Since the human > >female is almost always in a sexually capable condition, the breasts > >would seem to have become an ever-present sexual display and a form of > > " self mimicry " as they are intended to frontally duplicate the > >female's own round fleshy buttocks, a trait also not found in other > >primates and one to which the human male had already become > >conditioned > > This is quite possibly the ultimate cause, but that doesn't mean it's the > proximate cause. IOW, I don't think most men are walking around thinking > " Mmmm, butts! Well, OK, I'll accept these boobs as a substitute. " <g> > > > > > - I think the fact that the face is relatively close to the boobies is one of the tip-offs as to their purpose. If the male goes around ogling butts, he's pretty much doing a Lone Ranger thing. How would he know if the female was interested or not without spending a lot of time with her? But he's not generally allowed to follow all the attractive butts around long enough to learn whether the interest is mutual. But if the male is attracted by a nice set of boobies and can see immediately whether the owner is similarly interested in him (because he can see her eyes and face in a split second if he chooses to), then the sorting-out process can proceed much more quickly. IMHO, mutual interest can stay mutual much longer if the parties are facing each other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 29, 2004 Report Share Posted November 29, 2004 It's mostly based on my experience and that of others I know, but I'm pretty sure I've seen it in print somewhere, too. Maybe the lactation consultants notebook that I read cover to cover because I had every problem in it!? Larger breasts tend to have flatter nipples, and babies can have trouble latching on, which then leads to low milk supply and other problems. If I had a dime for every guy who told me, " Well I guess YOU won't have any trouble breast-feeding, " I would have had enough for my breast pump rental! Aven > Aven- > > >In fact, I think that > >big-breasted women may have more problems > >breastfeeding than small-breasted ones. > > Do you have any documentation for that rather startling claim? (And I'm > not talking about statistical outliers, here.) > > > > > - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 29, 2004 Report Share Posted November 29, 2004 Assuming he can take his eyes *off* the boobies long enough to look at her eyes and face. Aven > But if the male is attracted by a nice set of boobies and can see > immediately whether the owner is similarly interested in him (because > he can see her eyes and face in a split second if he chooses to), > then the sorting-out process can proceed much more quickly. > > IMHO, mutual interest can stay mutual much longer if the parties are > facing each other. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.