Re: Ecological Nursing was Glucose... and relatives

[Guest guest]

>

>>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.

And I'm certainly not arguing against a genetic desire for breasts

either. Some folks ARE obsessed by them though, more so it

seems in our society. Desiring HUGE breasts though,

vs. normal size ones ... that seems more like a desire to nurse, to

be comforted.

> >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.

Right. I'm not arguing against the genetic side at all. Breasts are designed

to be desireable. Not to mention all those nice little pleasurable nerve

endings that happen to be placed there.

Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

Carol-

>~~~There is an, (I would think), obvious retort here, that has to do with

>the size of mens' organs, and what purpose they serve, since a small one

>gets the job done as well as a large one.......but which is generally

>preferred? (Rhetorical, of course.)

The fact that you consider this a " retort " strongly suggests that you are

taking this personally rather than discussing it dispassionately with an

interest in fact regardless of feeling (and I suspect you're not alone in

that) but what the heck, I'll speculate anyway.

Large male organs might be preferred for any number of biologically-based

reasons, including but not limited to the following example hypotheses:

- The preference might be a residue of the time when the species generally

procreated doggie-style. I have no idea whether larger was more important

back when our bodies were somewhat different and fit together differently,

but it's not blatantly implausible.

- Longer organs might yield a higher percentage of " successful " outcomes,

i.e. pregnancies.

- All else being equal, larger might be more enjoyable for women.

Aven's hypothesis also sounds solid, namely that organs might generally be

in proportion with the rest of the body, and that all else being equal,

being tall and well-built is desirable.

>Or, we can take that in another direction. Why are large eyes preferred

>in women over small eyes, or succulent full lips, as opposed to thin

>lips. You can take this to all sorts of extremes. There are simply

>features that are preferred, and almost universally preferred, that serve

>no practical purpose.

Who said anything about a practical purpose? Many things in biology serve

no " practical " purpose. A peacock's tail is a perfect example, yet in an

indirect sort of way it does indicate the fitness of a potential mate, in

that it shows whether a peacock is healthy and well enough nourished to

" waste " resources on shiny, beautiful tail plummage. The size and shape of

a woman's breasts may (or may not) serve no actual directly practical

purpose, but at the very least, it's equivalent to the peacock's tail.

>BTW, I don't know this as fact, but doesn't milk production have more to

>do with general health etc., than it does size of the breast? I believe

>sperm production has more to do with such things than with the size of the

>organ through which it exits the body.

Yes, but breast size (degree of fat deposition) is one indicator of general

health, and inasmuch as fatty tissues are proving to be biologically active

in the body, I expect the fat in breasts affects the function of the

breasts' milk glands.

Your sperm production comparison, though, relies on a false equivalence,

inasmuch as the organ you're talking about isn't involved in the production

of sperm.

-

[Guest guest]

Rhea-

>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.

I see, because I (evidently) disagree with you, I'm either a troll or very

closed-minded? I'm disappointed that you'd sink to ad hominem rhetoric.

>In my years of nursing and attending LLL meetings, I've met many women of

>all sizes nursing their babies and children just fine.

Have you assessed the nutritional quantity and actual quantity of the milk

they're producing? I find it a bit ironic that we'll discuss the

nutritional quality of cows' milk down to the last detail, but the idea

that overall health and other related physical factors could possibly have

an effect on human milk -- produced by another nursing mammal -- is

apparently taboo.

>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.

Ah, so we're talking statistical outliers, then? I.e. women with

abnormally large breasts?

>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?

I defy you to find a single sentence I've posted on the subject which

suggested that any of these factors are genetic. I've not even strayed

_near_ the topic, though if you'd like I could speculate.

>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. : )

So you've now gone further, and you're calling me names? How sad.

-

[Guest guest]

Suzanne-

>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.

Mutually exclusive? I'm not sure what you mean, but your logic doesn't follow.

First, supplemental sex hormones do not mimic home-grown (so to speak) sex

hormones -- they're often not even the same chemicals, and they're single

factors, whereas when home-grown they're part of and the result of many

complex factors.

Second, your assumption of a genetic disposition to a particular size is

much like the assumption that fat people are " genetically disposed " to be

fat. In fact the most that probably should be said is that fat people are

genetically disposed to become fat _in certain environmental conditions_,

e.g. on certain diets. Stopping the supplementation of sex hormones and

seeing a return to prior breast size and deciding size is purely genetic

would be analogous to stopping a weight-loss drug and seeing a person

return to his former weight (without any change in diet from the diet which

made him fat in the first place) and concluding that the fat person is just

genetically fat.

-

[Guest guest]

-

>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.

You shouldn't be afraid to say something that's patently obvious.

-

[Guest guest]

Deanna-

>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.

In the sense that implants are not biological and that breasts with

implants are kind of " not exactly as advertised " , I guess so, but really

they're just an example of gaming perception -- IOW it's founded on a

biological argument.

-

[Guest guest]

Heidi-

>Desiring HUGE breasts though,

>vs. normal size ones ... that seems more like a desire to nurse, to

>be comforted.

Yeah, if we're talking abnormally large breasts and a preference for same,

sure. I never meant to imply that " bigger is better " is a rule with no

upper limit. I would've though that'd be obvious, but maybe not.

-

[Guest guest]

>>The fact that you consider this a " retort " strongly suggests that you are

taking this personally rather than discussing it dispassionately with an

interest in fact regardless of feeling (and I suspect you're not alone in

that) but what the heck, I'll speculate anyway.<<

~~~On the contrary, the word 'retort' to me is a very silly sounding word, and I

was speaking with a smile on my face, and an impish attitude. This is the

trouble with email, there is SO much room for misunderstanding when we can't see

other peoples' body language and/or playfulness, nor hear their voices etc.

- All else being equal, larger might be more enjoyable for women.

~~~Yes, it was the womens' pleasure part of the size that I was thinking the

reason bigger was better, as opposed to it being a necessity for creating

babies.

Aven's hypothesis also sounds solid, namely that organs might generally be

in proportion with the rest of the body, and that all else being equal,

being tall and well-built is desirable.

~~~I haven't found that to be necessarily true. :-)

Who said anything about a practical purpose? Many things in biology serve

no " practical " purpose.

~~~But that was your argument - that bigger breasts were better for producing

more milk, which is the most practical way to look at it, albeit in error. I'm

saying that bigger serves no practical purpose.......practical as far as baby

creating is concerned........same with bigger male organs.

A peacock's tail is a perfect example, yet in an

indirect sort of way it does indicate the fitness of a potential mate, in

that it shows whether a peacock is healthy and well enough nourished to

" waste " resources on shiny, beautiful tail plummage. The size and shape of

a woman's breasts may (or may not) serve no actual directly practical

purpose, but at the very least, it's equivalent to the peacock's tail.

~~~Yes, I guess you've come over to the other side of the debate, feeling that

big breasts serve no practical purpose, which is what a lot of us have been

saying all along. :-)

>>Yes, but breast size (degree of fat deposition) is one indicator of general

health, and inasmuch as fatty tissues are proving to be biologically active

in the body, I expect the fat in breasts affects the function of the

breasts' milk glands.<<

~~~Well, I can't say I agree with the idea that big breasts mean a person has

better health. Some of the healthiest women I know do not have big breasts, and

some of the more ill women I know DO have big breasts. To tell you the truth, I

imagine breast size is more a matter of genetics than anything else. (Combined

with body fat, of course.) As far as fat in the breasts in concerned, I

wouldn't be surprised to find that all that fat causes strictures on the ducts.

I'm not pulling for one side or the other, because I have a very average breast

size, by the way. I'm only trying to be logical here.

Your sperm production comparison, though, relies on a false equivalence,

inasmuch as the organ you're talking about isn't involved in the production

of sperm.

~~~That's exactly what I was saying. The size of the organ has nothing to do

with the production of sperm. (The planets must be at right angles with me

right now, because I can't seem to write much of anything that people don't

totally misunderstand. :-) My point was that, penis size has no more bearing

on sperm production, than breast size has a bearing on milk production.

(Because the penis doesn't produce the sperm, any more than the breast produces

the milk.)

Carol

-

[Guest guest]

>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.)

~~~Maybe if you had breasts it would be obvious to you, as it is to me. It's

difficult to even hold a bably on ones lap with something large already on ones

chest. :-) I hope my smiley faces are telling you that this has become quite a

hilarious conversation in my opinion.

Carol

-

[Guest guest]

Carol-

>~~~Yes, it was the womens' pleasure part of the size that I was thinking

>the reason bigger was better, as opposed to it being a necessity for

>creating babies.

If a particular size or range is more pleasurable for women and therefore

results in more babies, then it's an adaptation which aids reproduction

even if it doesn't directly contribute to reproduction by, say, giving

sperm less distance to cover.

>~~~But that was your argument - that bigger breasts were better for

>producing more milk, which is the most practical way to look at it, albeit

>in error. I'm saying that bigger serves no practical

>purpose.......practical as far as baby creating is concerned........same

>with bigger male organs.

Well, that's what my initial speculation was (and BTW, I never stated

anything as absolute fact) but the topic rapidly metastasized, with people

objecting to the idea that breasts in any way, shape or form could be

related to reproductive fitness and me disagreeing.

>~~~Yes, I guess you've come over to the other side of the debate, feeling

>that big breasts serve no practical purpose, which is what a lot of us

>have been saying all along. :-)

Uh, no. To neatly summarize my position:

I suspect that breast size in a certain range is a factor in reproductive

fitness, though whether directly, by somehow affecting the immediate

environment of the milk-producing glands, or indirectly, by being an

indicator of health and hormonal status, both of which do directly affect

lactation ability, I don't know. And breasts are also indirect indicators

of desirability, similar to peacock's tails _in that one respect_.

I could of course be wrong, but I think I'm pretty close to the mark. I

don't remember seeing lots of flat-chested healthy natives. I suspect it's

at least partly an artifact of our modern diet.

>~~~Well, I can't say I agree with the idea that big breasts mean a person

>has better health. Some of the healthiest women I know do not have big

>breasts, and some of the more ill women I know DO have big breasts.

Like any other indicator of health, it's not green-light/red-light single

factor determinant of overall health, but you're also conflating " healthy "

with " reproductively ideal " . I suspect that in both sexes, individuals can

be in pretty robust health without necessarily being in _reproductively_

robust health. IOW a man might be in great shape with terrific expected

longevity without, perhaps, producing tons of highly motile sperm.

-

[Guest guest]

>Yeah, if we're talking abnormally large breasts and a preference for same,

>sure. I never meant to imply that " bigger is better " is a rule with no

>upper limit. I would've though that'd be obvious, but maybe not.

>

>-

No upper limit? Nah, not at all obvious, from the guy magazines anyway.

Which goes for the size of the male member also. It's really ironic

that the internal ideals of people really just do not match any

generally attainable reality. No wonder folks seem always dissatisfied!

Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

Idol wrote:

but the topic rapidly metastasized ...

-------------------

Bwaaa haaahaaa ha, heee heee!

Hey, does breast size matter in breast cancer rates? I am wondering

because men get it too now. And it seems that they tend to be obese, as

obesity increases most cancer rates. But still. Hmm.

Deanna

[Guest guest]

I don't know, , but I think we're saying the same things, so maybe we need

to agree to agree! :-)

Carol

Carol-

>~~~Yes, it was the womens' pleasure part of the size that I was thinking

>the reason bigger was better, as opposed to it being a necessity for

>creating babies.

If a particular size or range is more pleasurable for women and therefore

results in more babies, then it's an adaptation which aids reproduction

even if it doesn't directly contribute to reproduction by, say, giving

sperm less distance to cover.

>~~~But that was your argument - that bigger breasts were better for

>producing more milk, which is the most practical way to look at it, albeit

>in error. I'm saying that bigger serves no practical

>purpose.......practical as far as baby creating is concerned........same

>with bigger male organs.

Well, that's what my initial speculation was (and BTW, I never stated

anything as absolute fact) but the topic rapidly metastasized, with people

objecting to the idea that breasts in any way, shape or form could be

related to reproductive fitness and me disagreeing.

>~~~Yes, I guess you've come over to the other side of the debate, feeling

>that big breasts serve no practical purpose, which is what a lot of us

>have been saying all along. :-)

Uh, no. To neatly summarize my position:

I suspect that breast size in a certain range is a factor in reproductive

fitness, though whether directly, by somehow affecting the immediate

environment of the milk-producing glands, or indirectly, by being an

indicator of health and hormonal status, both of which do directly affect

lactation ability, I don't know. And breasts are also indirect indicators

of desirability, similar to peacock's tails _in that one respect_.

I could of course be wrong, but I think I'm pretty close to the mark. I

don't remember seeing lots of flat-chested healthy natives. I suspect it's

at least partly an artifact of our modern diet.

>~~~Well, I can't say I agree with the idea that big breasts mean a person

>has better health. Some of the healthiest women I know do not have big

>breasts, and some of the more ill women I know DO have big breasts.

Like any other indicator of health, it's not green-light/red-light single

factor determinant of overall health, but you're also conflating " healthy "

with " reproductively ideal " . I suspect that in both sexes, individuals can

be in pretty robust health without necessarily being in _reproductively_

robust health. IOW a man might be in great shape with terrific expected

longevity without, perhaps, producing tons of highly motile sperm.

-

[Guest guest]

----- Original Message -----

From: " Idol "

> 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.)

>

I don't think that LLL collects actual statistics for that, but the

discussion on attachment mothering lists, lactnet, birthing lists and the

like reflect a representative sample of women's nursing experiences and

almost without exception, large breasted women remark about the challenges

of negotiating that amount of tissue and an infant. For babies that need

extra teaching for latch, that can make things even more challenging.

In societies where exposed breasts for nursing moms is the norm, it might

not be as daunting, but in our culture where women are frequently directed

to the toilet to nurse their children, it can be discouraging. It's a

physical logistical question. It's easier to deal with less tissue in a

" discrete " manner than more tissue.

--s

[Guest guest]

Suzanne-

>In societies where exposed breasts for nursing moms is the norm, it might

>not be as daunting, but in our culture where women are frequently directed

>to the toilet to nurse their children, it can be discouraging. It's a

>physical logistical question. It's easier to deal with less tissue in a

> " discrete " manner than more tissue.

So really, the difficulty you're speaking of is a cultural artifact, at

least assuming we're not talking about women with really gargantuan breasts

-- the statistical outliers I've mentioned already.

-

[Guest guest]

Kim-

>You obviously don't know much about breastfeeding a baby.

That's quite possible.

>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?

That's certainly not one of my misconceptions, though. I'm quite aware

that one of the prime functions of breasts is to feed babies (and toddlers

and whatever you call kids up to the age of three or four).

>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.

I'm also quite aware of that.

>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.

I'm glad nursing helped you feel better about yourself (honestly) but I

fail to see what this has to do with the topic at hand.

>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.

" Associating sexuality with breast size " isn't an especially accurate

description of what I was doing, but over the course of our recorded

evolution, I think you will in fact find that fertility has in fact been

associated with desirability, and breast size has often been one measure of

fertility.

>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.

Even if this theory is correct, it also has little to do with the topic at

hand that I can see, unless your assumption is that permanent breasts

evolved as a _purely_ cosmetic adaptation and _stayed_ purely cosmetic, a

pair of assumptions which I'm not inclined to make.

>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.

I agree. That's why I haven't tried to shut the discussion down.

>Every single person who grows up in a society believes that what they

>learned through acculturation is the one and only truth.

Every single person? I hope you'll agree that's an exaggeration.

>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.

The mistake you're making is in assuming that I'm equating my personal

preferences with some sort of universal genetic truth.

>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.

There are always exceptions to any rule, and since human preferences are

more adjustable by culture than those of most or all other species, it's

not surprising in the least that ideals will appear to satisfy all ranges

of the curve of desire.

>That said, I certainly don't think any less of you for being into boobs.

I'm actually not as into boobs as I gather you think I am. I'm not one of

those (many) men for whom a particular physical attribute (boobs, butt,

legs, whatever) is _the_ overriding factor in desirability. Not even

close. Nor am I one of those larger-is-better-but-enormous-is-best men.

>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.

The fact that sexual fetishes exist at all is due to evolution, though not

in the direct " fetish x evolved for reason y " way that most people would

probably interpret that statement to mean. Physical attractiveness is not

a cultural invention, though it is quite culturally variable, and inasmuch

as it has biological, evolutionary origins, its standards are not purely

random.

-

[Guest guest]

> -

>

> >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>

>

>

>

>

> -

,

Wow, it seems I only get a fraction of these messages at my gmail

account. Hmm. It's not that I think men accept the breasts as a

substitute, but that the sight of eye-pleasing breasts on the female

prompts a, uh, what do you call it, an urge (a thrill?) a *response*

in the males. What proceeds is up to the--mutually

consenting--parties involved.

So I've read <coughs>

B.

[Guest guest]

> -

>

> >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.

>

> You shouldn't be afraid to say something that's patently obvious.

>

>

>

>

> -

,

you are far more evolved than I--I'm still sporting a vestigial need

for approval.

B.

[Guest guest]

>

> 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

>

> --- In , Idol <Idol@c...>

wrote:

> > Aven-

Aven,

Another part of the Desmond argument that breasts are secondary

sex charicteristics as opposed to just baby-feeding mechanisms is that

IIRC, the nipple shape of the human female is actually rather

inefficient at milk delivery. If the nipples evolved to feed an

infant, they would be more along the shape of the other primates'

nipples or even the shape of a bottle nipple or pacifier.

B.

> >

> > >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.)

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > -

[Guest guest]

<<<Deanna wrote:

Hey, does breast size matter in breast cancer rates? I am wondering

because men get it too now. And it seems that they tend to be obese, as

obesity increases most cancer rates. But still. Hmm.>>>

Breast Ca. occurs at higher rates among those who are overweight and obese.

Also a few other types of Ca.

Connie Bernard

http://www.PandoraPads.com

Organic Cotton Feminine Pads, Tampons, Nursing Pads,

Natural Progesterone Cream, and Children's Supplements. 

On-line Discount Voucher:NN242G223

[Guest guest]

Heidi-

>No upper limit? Nah, not at all obvious, from the guy magazines anyway.

Well, I could be wrong, but I don't think most men prefer FFF-sized breasts

(if that size even exists -- I just made it up -- but I'm sure you get the

point).

>Which goes for the size of the male member also. It's really ironic

>that the internal ideals of people really just do not match any

>generally attainable reality. No wonder folks seem always dissatisfied!

Well, female preferences in male size are a field I know less about than

male preferences in female boobs, but I always assumed there were practical

limits there too. I mean, past a certain point, wouldn't matters become

rather impractical? <g>

-

[Guest guest]

I never found the size of my breasts per se to be a

problem - it was the nipples and the latching on

that was a problem, and I think that has some

relation to breast size.

People who want to send nursing mothers to the

restroom should be sent there to eat *their* dinner

on the toilet!

Aven

> Suzanne-

>

> >In societies where exposed breasts for nursing moms is the norm, it might

> >not be as daunting, but in our culture where women are frequently directed

> >to the toilet to nurse their children, it can be discouraging. It's a

> >physical logistical question. It's easier to deal with less tissue in a

> > " discrete " manner than more tissue.

>

> So really, the difficulty you're speaking of is a cultural artifact, at

> least assuming we're not talking about women with really gargantuan

breasts

> -- the statistical outliers I've mentioned already.

>

>

>

>

> -

[Guest guest]

Well ,

I think we will just say that I probably am a Holstein and not a Jersey! LOL

Catz

>

> 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>)

>

>

>

>

> -

[Guest guest]

>Heidi-

>No upper limit? Nah, not at all obvious, from the guy magazines anyway.

>Well, I could be wrong, but I don't think most men prefer FFF-sized breasts

(if that size even exists -- I just made it up -- but I'm sure you get the

point).

>Which goes for the size of the male member also. It's really ironic

>that the internal ideals of people really just do not match any

>generally attainable reality. No wonder folks seem always dissatisfied!

>Well, female preferences in male size are a field I know less about than

male preferences in female boobs, but I always assumed there were practical

limits there too. I mean, past a certain point, wouldn't matters become

>rather impractical? <g>

~~~Hey, aren't we getting into the realm of fantasy now?!

:-)

Carol