The oversexualization of breasts.

Wow, I am ~*~SOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!~*~ sick of hearing this! It is the upmost proof of how uneducated, and propaganda fed our society is!!!!!

The size of ones breast has NOTHING to do with producing milk! It never has, and it never will!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Sorry, but it makes me sick how mislead most people are on this. ugh.

 

In fact, to go totally off topic here (and no, I am not trying to discuss this in and of itself,) Men are as fully equiped to produce milk and nurse a baby as women are. A man can lactate as easily as a women can when she is relactating, or lactating for a baby that she did not give birth too. Men just don't have the hormone from giving birth to help.

 

I never said that small breasted women couldn't produce as much milk as a large breasted women.

So calm down. If you are going to say I am wrong atleast explain the truth to us so that you are helpful and not just being bitchy.

-CB

 

I'm sorry, your right, I was a little harsh. I didn't mean to direct it towards you, I am just so tired of people instisting this is the case. Let me explain why size has nothing to do with being able breast feed a child:

Everyone has milk ducts (even men.) You do not have any more of anything other than fat when your breasts are large. A women who is completely flat chested is no less able to nurish a child through breast feeding than a women who's breasts are much larger. We're all fully euiped, regardless of the amount of fat that surrounds the equipment!

If you didn't mean that a small breasted women would not have the same "baby raising possibilities," than what did you mean?

 

Right, which leads one to wonder whether there is an alterior purpose for the breast, then. Why is it that human female breasts are often so large and rounded, while breasts of other mammals consist little more of a nipple??? Well, one theory is that when humans began walking upright, the ability for males to determine the desirability of the mate was diminished, as he was now less able to see the rump; therefore, human females began to evolve biologically, thus breasts increased in size, becoming alternatives to the rump.

Continually insisting that breasts are made simply for nursing doesn't make this a fact. The people who espouse your line of argument are not experts in biology: they're feminist "theorists" and simple-minded proponents of breast-feeding.

 

Yeah you are right lunar forest.., I get your point.

 

man, I do not have the time to argue this point anymore. I don't see that it is doing anyone any good. It seems that no one will ever be able to actually "prove" anything here,a nd certainly not to jiimaan's satisfaction! I'm going to go take my breasts and ese them for whatever the hell I want to, and I sugest the rest of you do the same

 

RIGHT. And in 60,000 years or more of human evolution, men would have figured this out, and it would have NO impact on instict or attraction. Why do womyn have rounded breasts when most other mammals do not, unless they are lactating. It is not known, as are a LOT of physical characteristics particular to humans. Some womyn have non lactating breasts which are not much bigger than those of other primates. But the main theory is fat storage. When humans left the Savanna for the North, the spectre of starvation was more evident. Human womyn may store fat in their breasts and hips and buttocks to ward off starvation. Men have more muscle tissue to break down. Womyn have more fat tissue, the breast is just one good place for nature to place it. Nuthin to do with attracting males, if it was, MOST males in the world would find breasts sexually attractive, and has already been established this is simply NOT the truth.

Ford and Beach's study, 1953. 190 societies, only thirteen of these societies found breasts sexually attractive or used them in exclusion to other body parts as part of the sex act. The rest didn't. This is conclusive that breasts are NOT universally attractive to men, and in fact societies who do find them related to sex are in the minority, as well as the unhealthy.

When anthropologist Katherine Detwyller went to live with societies in Africa to study attitudes toward lactation, both the womyn and the men in these traditional societies were appauled and disgusted that Americans found breasts sexually arousing. When Detwyller told the people that men often mouthed breasts during sex, the people replied "Like a small child would during feeding? What is wrong with them?" When Katherine told them the abysmal rates of succesful breastfeeding in our society, the people gave her knowing nods. "No wonder."

 

looks like Maggie Sugar knows her shit.

 

Thank you, water. Some would disagree with you, but when it comes to babies and breasts, I do know my shit.

Blessings.

 

Thank you for the compliment-

Peace&Love

 

indeed she does.

 

In some cultures men with larger penises are seen as being more fertile even though penis size does not affected sperm production. Same with large breasts.
When I said that the liked big breasts back in cave man days all I was thinking of these figures of women that my archaeology prof showed my class one day. They were small carvings of women with enlarged breasts, and asses. These were prevelant in several different unrelated cultures. It is thought that these figures were carried by men to promote fertility among other things that I won't get into.

-CB

 

Well, what are they then. You keep harping on this study, yet you can't seem to remember what the thirteen societies were.

Also, one study doesn't mean much; no academic basis their theories and opinions on the results of one study. The fact that you continue to refer to this study alone seems to suggest that you've gleaned "your" opinion from some feminist tract, or that you just haven't researched the topic all that much. Either way, you're credibility is tenuous.

What's your source for this??? Who is Katherine Detwyller, and what is her agenda???

I find your little anecdote to be quite dubious. Do you expect anyone to believe this? I'm sure they sat there and gave "knowing nods" and immediately equated the use of the breast in sex-play with low breast-feeding rates. Give me a break. I guess she didn't bother telling these people in Africa about how large multi-national corporations have developed breast-milk substitutes and brainwashed women into believing that they're better than the real thing.

Maggie, just admit it, you have an AGENDA--you don't speak the truth, you speak what you believe, which is essentially what you've been led to believe through all the feminist propaganda that you've read.

 

Obviously Jiimaan doesn't want to hear anyone's opnions, or even information that differs from his own. He can just discount any study that doesn't reinforce HIS agenda. We could easily say the same things about him, that he has said about MS.

Actually, it is quite likely that she did tell them that, most anthropologists do.

CckBlocking, that is interesting. What cultures are these?

It is so irritating when people assume things about historical cultures when there is no way to know whether they are right or not. Who says that these people were less intellegent than we are now? How can we assume that they were less in tune with nature and themselves? I'd venture to say it was likely the opposite! I mean, they lived so close to the earth, they must have been very aware of thigns that we overlook. No?

 

HELLO...I do believe that Maggie Sugar is a Lactation Consultant. She works with breasts all day long. She has studied them, at great lengths, I'm sure. So when she says something related to breasts or breastfeeding, I for one am going to be inclined to believe her. She has already given you the name of the study, the name of the book that it was in, etc. What more do you need? Should she buy the book and mail it to you? What evidence do you have to counter it? Simply saying "it's dubious" is not a credible argument. She has presented facts...where are yours?

 

Just about every pre-historic civilization.

It's interesting that you would claim that it is "irritating when people assume things about historical cultures" and then you go on to "venture... it was likely the opposite." How do you know? It's most likely that they were more attuned to their environment, because that was their reality--but I doubt that they really had some sort of cosmic connection that so many of these New Agers like to believe, and they certainly weren't intelligent by our standards, but then again, not many of us could survive as they did, so I guess you could say that we're not intelligent by their standards. Still, this is simply conjecture, so who knows.

 

Like I said before, none of us will ever know. But it seems egotistical of us to presume that we know so much, and are so smart, but these people were so stupid, and so childish and nieve.

 

First of all, I'm not sure what the huge problem here is with me simply asking for a run-down of these thirteen supposed societies. If it's so hard for her to remember them, what else has she forgotten? Right there her credibility is called into question.

Second of all, the fact that she refers to just one study also should make one think as to the validity of her argument.

Third, you do have to look at the person who is making the argument--in this case she has demonstrated on numerous occasions that she is a radical feminist. This means that she has subjected herself to much feminist propaganda. Seeing tha radical feminist "literature" is widely held to have dubious academic merit, one is therefore left with no other option but to be extrememly leary of what ever "facts" or arguments she presents.

Sorry if this doesn't seem legitimate to you, but I think that this is something that is just plain common sense. If there are significant indicators that her argument is false or fabricated, why should I even bother trying to refute it?

 

You still haven't given us any proof the your arguement has any validity at all, jiimaan, if I am not mistaken.