Re: Summer 2005 Wise Traditions--a complaint

[Guest guest]

> wrote:

>The irony that strikes me,

>though, is that creationism aside, people who maintain that breasts

>have no innate attractiveness function are arguing, whether they realize

>it or not,that breast size must have non-attractiveness physical

>functions!

Wouldn't size be somewhat related to the size of the person? That's kind of

like saying a woman can't nurse because her breast are so small the baby

would starve. Size has nothing to do with function in this case...or am I

totally missing your point? or did I just validate your point?

Carli

[Guest guest]

Carli-

>Wouldn't size be somewhat related to the size of the person? That's kind of

>like saying a woman can't nurse because her breast are so small the baby

>would starve. Size has nothing to do with function in this case...or am I

>totally missing your point? or did I just validate your point?

I believe cup size controls for body size, no? As to function, I don't

think anyone's done any actual research on the question of whether breast

size has any impact on the quality or quantity of milk. However, my

argument is that breasts as we know them wouldn't have evolved without a

reason. That reason could be directly functional -- IOW involved with

lactation. It could be that they evolved as a secondary sexual

characteristic meant to attract mates, which is also functional, but in a

different way. Or it could be a combination of both.

Since there has to have been a reason, though, and since lactation and

sexual attractiveness are the only likely reasons, those who argue that

breasts have no innate sexual attractiveness and our " obsession " with or

attraction to them is entirely culturally created are also arguing, whether

they realize it or not, that breasts must have evolved to be present at all

times for lactation-related reasons.

-