15Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks1) We don't need any. We don't breast feed.
2) We aren't like alligators. Our sex isn't determined in a half-growing feteus. Its determined already in the embryo.
3) It does not have any functional use.
March 18th, 2013, 08:06 PM
1) We don't need any. We don't breast feed.
2) We aren't like alligators. Our sex isn't determined in a half-growing feteus. Its determined already in the embryo.
3) It does not have any functional use.
Because God thought the blank chest looked funny.
It's inherent in our genes as humans to have them. Gender does not determine having them- it only determines breast development... and men can develop lactating breasts, by the way.
Originally Posted by Neverfly
EWWWWWWWW!!!!
I DIDNT KNOW THAT EVER BEFORE AT ALL!
and i wasn't expecting that as an answer..
ugh i feel uncomfortable being a man now.
what should i do?
If men do not have breasts, how does lactation happen?
Never use steroids to build body mass. After the age of fifty or so, try not to lose testosterone productivity by buying fancy sports cars, cool shades and oggling the ladies.
(Men do have breasts and the glands necessary to produce milk. We simply never develop - develop means grow and mature existing substance- them because we utilize testosterone, instead of estrogen. But start giving a man estrogen supplements and he will need a bikini top at the beach.)
Are the men of the African Aka tribe the best fathers in the world? | Society | The Guardian
It not say anything about men's lactation.
Male lactation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
its a wiki link, about male animal's (not human male) lactation.
so men dont lactate then..The term male lactation is not used in human medicine.
so where did your claim come from?
Men have breasts. They can get breast cancer. What are the key statistics about breast cancer in men?
The whole system is there, it just doesn't activate without some prompting. Just as women don't lactate unless the system is prompted to do so, normally by pregnancy and birth. But it's quite possible for adopting mothers to establish breastfeeding without ever having been pregnant.
Hey,
is
CHEST = BREAST
?
Excellent article, adelady. Thank you for posting this.
Yeah. men has nipples to let baby suck when mom's not around although they dont produce milk.
Are the men of the African Aka tribe the best fathers in the world? | Society | The Guardian
but it would feel wierd to have a baby sucking my nipple.
Would you find it less weird if a grown up did it?but it would feel wierd to have a baby sucking my nipple.
a grown up like this man right here?
a baby sucking his nipple lol
well, the baby would be crushsed by his arm pit. his nipples are under his armpit because his mushcles are too big
anyway: human men dont lactate, dont grow breasts, only have chests
then why do men get breast cancer?
If thy right nipple offend thee, pluck it off!
Goes for the other, too!
jocular
The best answer I can find quickly at the following link, complete with a 3 minute video explanation by a female nerdy type.
Apparently nipples develop at 5 1/2 weeks in the womb, followed by 'the manly bits' at 6 weeks, hence men end up with nipples because the males and females of our species share the traits of the X chromosome. Men are also 3 times more likely to develop supernumerary nipples.
Why Do Men Have Nipples?
supernumerary nipples?
Originally Posted by jocular
More than the two that are usual for our species, as explained in the video.
happens for women as well?
Originally Posted by jocular
Apparently Lily Allen has one which she flashed while hosting the Friday Night Project.happens for women as well?
Third Nipple | Health | Embarrassing | Channel4.com/bodiesA third nipple didn’t prevent Francisco Scaramanga from becoming the world’s top-paid assassin in the Bond movie ‘The Man with the Golden Gun’…and why should it? After all, it’s not as uncommon as you may think. Around 1 in 18 people in the UK may have a third or ‘supernumerary nipple’ and the only real problem may be the social stigma attached to them. They’re often mistaken for moles, as they are not properly formed like normal nipples and can usually be found on an imaginary ‘milk line’ between the armpit and inner thigh.
I started with this search result. https://www.google.com.au/search?q=m...hrome&ie=UTF-8so where did your claim come from?
Though in fact I was looking for a particular item, which I've still not found, about the Aka men. (I thought it was on Greg Laden's blog but can't seem to find it. He's probably got it indexed under African forest somethingorother. )
You reckon it doesn't feel weird for a woman? A lot of women find it strange - I reckon it's probably a good thing to get started while you're still stunned / happy / in pain immediately after childbirth - it's just one more weird thing.but it would feel wierd to have a baby sucking my nipple
then why do women have breasts -_-
Originally Posted by jocular
To make little boys (and grown ones too) ask questions, lol...
Then do breasts grow for supernumerary nipples?
why or why not?
Originally Posted by jocular
I would suspect not since none of the other mechanics/genetic code is in place to properly grow a breast outside of the human area (I say properly because humans do carry long dormant genes for abdominal nipples left-over from early mammalian ancestry. It would take some radical gene alteration to allow those dormant genes to be active.)
In the majority of cases, no.
Polythelia refers to the presence of an additional nipple alone while polymastia denotes the much rarer presence of additional mammary glands.Accessory breast - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaAccessory breasts, also known as polymastia, supernumerary breasts, multiple breast syndrome, or mammae erraticae, is the condition of having an additional breast. Extra breasts may appear with or without nipples or areolae. It is a condition and a form of atavism which is most prevalent in male humans, and often goes untreated as it is mostly harmless. In recent years, many affected women have had a plastic surgery operation to remove the additional breasts, for purely aesthetic reasons.
A related condition, in which extra nipples form, is called "supernumerary nipple" or "polythelia".
Are you not having any luck in searching for these facts or this just a form of social engagement?
kinda bothAre you not having any luck in searching for these facts or this just a form of social engagement?
Originally Posted by jocular
Sex is not a strictly binary thing. Not everyone is 100% male or 100% female: Intersex - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Maybe no one is 100% male or female...)
Well, sex reassignment methods have gotten really good these days. I'm sure they will eventually be able to make a transexual able to reproduce as their newly assigned genders. You could be the first! How exciting!
EWWWWWWWW!!!!
I DIDNT KNOW THAT EVER BEFORE AT ALL!
and i wasn't expecting that as an answer..
ugh i feel uncomfortable being a man now.
what should i do?
I hate to burst your bubble, but humans are animals.Are the men of the African Aka tribe the best fathers in the world? | Society | The Guardian
It not say anything about men's lactation.
Male lactation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
its a wiki link, about male animal's (not human male) lactation.
so men dont lactate then..The term male lactation is not used in human medicine.
so where did your claim come from?
Human - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaScientific classification e
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Primates
Family: Hominidae
Tribe: Hominini
Genus: Homo
Species: H. sapiens
Hey, do male apes have nipples too?
or male monkeys/Chimpanzees?
if yes, What do they use nipples for? (male ones)
Originally Posted by jocular
Yes.
Acquiring dates on slow Saturday nights.
Thats all?
Originally Posted by jocular
Trust me... You don't want to know the rest...Thats all?
Once you know, you cannot unknow it.
I truly wish I could unknow it.
You have no idea how badly I wish I didn't know...
just tell me.
lol
Originally Posted by jocular
It has been reported that men who stimulate their own nipples enough, or play at breast feeding with a baby, can develop the ability to lactate and breastfeed.
Strange but True: Males Can Lactate: Scientific American
No doubt in my mind: this thread proves a general overly intense interest in breasts, in general, and their nipples, in particular.
I wait with bated breath, for it to slide further toward a variety of other anatomical preoccupations!
Let's go!
jocular
You are late to the party, good fellow. This was Neverfly's contribution, post #22. Nice to see that you are in accord though.
No harm done. Readers with good sense tend to skip over the drivel I slather on webpages.
Now you have me curious .... and concernedTrust me... You don't want to know the rest...Thats all?
Once you know, you cannot unknow it.
I truly wish I could unknow it.
You have no idea how badly I wish I didn't know...
Originally Posted by jocular
What's eww about a man breastfeeding??? I tell you, when I was trying to feed my two babies I would have LOVED it if DP could have taken on some of the responsibility. Breastfeeding can be the most difficult, challenging thing a woman does in her life. It can make giving birth a walk in the park!
There is such a thing as male lactation but it is extremely rare. Adoptive mothers are also able to breastfeed and I saw a case in the US where a transgender woman also breastfed thanks to hormone treatment. (It was an amazing case, before her gender change operation she froze her sperm. She is also lesbian. She provided the sperm to her partner who carried the baby and both mothers breastfed!)
My understanding is that it has to do with how an embryo forms. There is a period of time when an embryo is androgynous and this is when the nipples are formed. The reason men have nipples is because women do.
Male nipples, like female ones, are an erogenous zone. Increasing sexual arousal is a pretty important evolutionary function, both for reproduction and for social bonding. Same reason women have clitorises.
If a woman stimulates her own nipples or ... etc.... will her breast grow larger?
Despite knowing that this is completely normal, the cultural bias inside of me finds this unmanly and disgusting. I know I'm wrong but that's my knee-jerk emotional reaction.
Only if she successfully initiates lactation.If a woman stimulates her own nipples or ... etc.... will her breast grow larger?
Even then, many breastfeeding women don't have breasts much larger than previously once she and the baby establish a good feeding regime. Her breasts will temporarily swell as it gets closer to feeding time, baby feeds, breasts back to normal size.
Do you mean a lactating woman or a non-lactating woman?If a woman stimulates her own nipples or ... etc.... will her breast grow larger?
If a non-lactating woman stimulated her own nipples her breasts might swell a little from pleasure but she's not going to start leaking milk. Women who have lactated in the past may be able to relactate but it depends how long ago she lactated and it can take a lot of nipple stimulation to get lactation re-started.
Most lactating women can manually express some milk but for some women they may be able to produce a lot of milk for their baby but can't express a drop. (A baby's suckling is quite aggressive and will extract more milk than manually expressing or expressing with a pump.) Some lactating women will have a let down (ie start to leak milk) if they hear a baby cry (not necessarily their own). Lactation and breastfeeding have a incredibly large spectrum of 'normal'.
I'm interested in exploring this (no judgement). Do you feel the same way about women breastfeeding?Despite knowing that this is completely normal, the cultural bias inside of me finds this unmanly and disgusting. I know I'm wrong but that's my knee-jerk emotional reaction.
***
I have a strong interest in promoting and supporting breastfeeding
Men can also get breast cancer. My friend, Maury, rest his soul, was about 89 when he got breast cancer, and had to have a total mastectomy. From then on, I called him my "One Nippled Friend". However, my point is, men, do check your breast and nipples also. *S* Why can't I get this site to let me post in proper paragraphs?
I had the same problem initially with this website not recognising my 'enter' key. I now use a different internet engine (Mozilla firefox) and the enter key is recognised.
As I understand it, all human foetuses are formed as female, and only after the basic body form is laid out and 'built' does it then convert to male, if that is what it is going to be. Hence male babies have nipples. In converting to the male form, the sex organs change, for example the ovaries descend and convert in early life to become the testes in male children.
Also, I've read that the brain is converted from female to male. Sometimes though, this latter step is not completely finished, or the brain is changed first and the body doesn't convert, which is why you get male bodies with female brains, (which can create gay men) and female bodies with male brains, (ditto gay women).
OB
Being facetious....that is why women are *cough*....better!! *L*
I have another, different problem with that. I can't not see breasts as sexual, so when women breastfeed in public I feel awkward and slightly aroused. This is why many men are against it; it confuses them...lol...Do you feel the same way about women breastfeeding?
If it's any consolation, many women can't stand they breasts to be touched by their partner when they are breastfeeding/lactating. They can become anti-sexual! There is nothing sexy or sexual about breastfeeding a baby. You just get on with it. Mostly you just want your baby to settle which they will when you feed them. I think most woman would want to punch you in the choppers if you hinted at any suggestion of it being anything arousing.
Also, many of our body parts are used for more than one purpose, one being functional, the other being sexual. There was a great line in a de Niro movie (can't remember which one) where his character justifies having a mistress because she was more sexually adventurous than his wife and he recognized that his wife's mouth was the same one that kissed his children good night.
Do you have children? If so did your partner breastfeed?
I think it's ok to feel awkward if you see a woman feeding in public, we are just not used to such images. The problem is if you expect her to hide, put a blanket over her, go in a corner or move anywhere for your comfort. Let me assure you that if you can see boob when a woman is feeding you're looking too closely. 99% of the time the baby's head will cover any boob.
(Apologies for the teeny thread hijack)
What if you lived in a hot place where women were bare breasted most, if not all, of the time? Even having been raised as you have been, how many weeks or months do you think it would take for you to simply take bare breasts for granted if you moved into such a community? I suspect it wouldn't take very long at all before you hardly noticed.I can't not see breasts as sexual, so when women breastfeed in public I feel awkward and slightly aroused. This is why many men are against it; it confuses them...lol...
Nah, my hormones would still be raging.
are humans like that in the wild?
aren't humans hard wired to have relationships?
or is society and propaganda stripping the element of [QUOTE=mikepotter84;435782have sex repeatedly and with multiple partners.[/QUOTE] away from us?
in the wild would relationships be adulterous if they are done: "with multiple partners"?
hope you get what i meant, hope it makes sense
Originally Posted by jocular
I'm sorry but your post just sounds so neanderthal and I'm a bit gobsmacked. Whilst you say that many men would lie and say they don't just see women as sexual objects I think you'll find many men are indeed capable of seeing women not just as sexual objects. The sort of rationale you have expressed by saying this is in the same vein as that which is used to justify Muslim women covering their head/face. They are sexual objects and must be covered from the lustful gazes of men as protection to themselves.Nah, my hormones would still be raging.
I'm also going to guess you don't have a daughter.
You're obviously a woman. Women never understand and I don't expect them to. I am not justifying anything. I am just being honest with you. I said we are capable of keeping our impulses in check. I can respect a woman and still find her sexually appealing.
Not sure what you mean about "in the wild", though. (Has overtones of "Lord of the Flies" to me.)in the wild would relationships be adulterous if they are done: "with multiple partners"?
Cultures are driven by both their history and their circumstances, including how people organise their family lives. Polyandry in Tibet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia is one, but not the only, example of how circumstances can drive family arrangements that seem peculiar to outsiders.
You can also have particular, apparently strange, cultural behaviours and conventions when children are essential to a family being able to survive. Some groups used to insist that a woman wasn't eligible to marry until she'd proven her suitability by successfully bearing a child. It's certainly one way of avoiding the problems arising from the fact that a woman's first childbirth is more likely to kill her than later births, so a man isn't left with no wife but a child to raise. Having the first birth before marriage means that if the child survives though the mother dies (or is permanently injured by a fistula or other horrible consequence), that child is raised by her relatives.
Breastfed both of my children. In public and in private. Breastfeeding isn't "sexual" it is a very very special bonding which I don't think you can explain scientifically at all. It is looking at the little face and they smile then eat then smile then eat....etc...it is just a bonding that is not explainable. It is one of the most special moments in life between a mother and a chile in my humble opinion.
Believe it or not, that's actually quite an insightful question. The answer as to why is not known for sure, although there is plenty of speculation.
Ok then *S*....how would women feed their children w/o breasts in the OLDEN DAYS.Believe it or not, that's actually quite an insightful question. The answer as to why is not known for sure, although there is plenty of speculation.
To house the breast tissue which then makes milk for a baby once a placenta has been expelled. They are in the right spot for feeding a baby (not much use if they were on your back, legs, arms etc).
Wet nurse, possible lactating sister or other family member. In the absence of milk I'm guessing would have been given solutions of ground 'food' mixed with water. Formula has been around for a long time and I've heard of may older people getting evaporated milk when babies.
Often things in biology are not as straightforward as they seem.
The breast-feeding angle is the obvious "go to" answer - it's obviously true that this is a function of the female breast. However, permanent breasts present a bit of a conundrum. Other female primates do not have permanent breasts; they only grow when lactating and shrink away afterwards. I'm no zoologist, but I believe this is probably the case for most other mammals too.
So we have non-lactating female humans with breasts and females who have never given birth also with breasts, both features are not present in other primates. The reason why this is the case is something of a puzzle. The best ideas seem to revolve around fertility signaling with some kind of weird concealment/deception angle to it (I'm not sure of the details myself).
If humans were like other primates then females would be flat-chested at all times other than when rearing the very young. Hence the puzzle of why they have permanent breasts.
I wish!
Interesting post, I see the question now. As you say it might have something to do with fertility signally. I have no idea if breast size is linked to fertility but it's not linked to breastfeeding success (ie, being able to produce sufficient milk for your baby).
APPLAUSE and a bit of a chuckle ....great response.To house the breast tissue which then makes milk for a baby once a placenta has been expelled. They are in the right spot for feeding a baby (not much use if they were on your back, legs, arms etc).
That wasn't my point! My point is that women without breasts could NOT have lactated. I was speaking of mothers...though women who did not wish to breastfeed did have wet nurses.Wet nurse, possible lactating sister or other family member. In the absence of milk I'm guessing would have been given solutions of ground 'food' mixed with water. Formula has been around for a long time and I've heard of may older people getting evaporated milk when babies.
I had enough milk to feed a village....not being facetious....however, my breasts were not LARGE! My breasts became large when I turned 40. Nothing to do with fertilityI wish!
Interesting post, I see the question now. As you say it might have something to do with fertility signally. I have no idea if breast size is linked to fertility but it's not linked to breastfeeding success (ie, being able to produce sufficient milk for your baby).
when i say 'in the wild', i meant 'without propaganda, or social impacts or religious teachings affecting they way choices are made'...
bunch a group of 1000 human babies, put them in a 2km cube white exitless box. feed them food and water everyday until they grow up into adults. see how relationships form, and how interaction happens.
observe:
1) do the men (by nature) breast feed? (why or why not?<if yes, why don't men grow breasts? if no, why do women breastfeed?.>)
2) do humans (by nature) form longterm and/or committed romantic-relationships to a specific-other?
3) do humans (by nature) associate sex with relationships?
4) how do humans (by nature) communicate?
5) (if 2 and 3 are true) do humans (by nature) stay with a mated partner till death? (if not, how long?)
6) do humans (by nature) kill each other?
7) do humans (by nature) abandon children after certain age like other animals?
8) do humans (by nature) mourn/feel-sad after another human's death?
9) are humans (by nature) in search for a god or immaterial over-being?
10) do humans (by nature) gain pleasures and constantly consume things that kill/reduce lifespan? e.g. tobacco/drugs (if yes, why didn't survival selection remove cravings of the consumption of consumables that reduces lifespan, if it kills?)
11) do men (by nature) take women's breasts as a sexual gratification element?
i doubt anyone would do this experiment anyways, so we wouldn't get any answers?
final question in this reply, Did the mammal male sex ever had breasts for breast feeding before? if yes, why did males choose to stop breastfeeding, and how would this decision cause male-breast-growth to be removed from the genepool, and not cause male-infant-nipple-formation to be removed from genepool?
Last edited by RamenNoodles; July 1st, 2013 at 07:16 AM.
Originally Posted by jocular
Then how could males lactate?
now im confused?
one question here: Can a women that was never, and not to-be, a mother (and are not on drugs), lactate?
Originally Posted by jocular
Theoretically, regardless of gender or ability to carry a child, if a person has breast tissue then they can lactate. It would most likely take hormonal treatment though.Then how could males lactate?
now im confused?
one question here: Can a women that was never, and not to-be, a mother (and are not on drugs), lactate?
In my opinion...few men breast feed and use their nipples as more as a sexual gratification element.when i say 'in the wild', i meant 'without propaganda, or social impacts or religious teachings affecting they way choices are made'...
bunch a group of 1000 human babies, put them in a 2km cube white exitless box. feed them food and water everyday until they grow up into adults. see how relationships form, and how interaction happens.
observe:
1) do the men (by nature) breast feed? (why or why not?<if yes, why don't men grow breasts? if no, why do women breastfeed?.>)
2) do humans (by nature) form longterm and/or committed romantic-relationships to a specific-other?
3) do humans (by nature) associate sex with relationships?
4) how do humans (by nature) communicate?
5) (if 2 and 3 are true) do humans (by nature) stay with a mated partner till death? (if not, how long?)
6) do humans (by nature) kill each other?
7) do humans (by nature) abandon children after certain age like other animals?
8) do humans (by nature) mourn/feel-sad after another human's death?
9) are humans (by nature) in search for a god or immaterial over-being?
10) do humans (by nature) gain pleasures and constantly consume things that kill/reduce lifespan? e.g. tobacco/drugs (if yes, why didn't survival selection remove cravings of the consumption of consumables that reduces lifespan, if it kills?)
i doubt anyone would do this experiment anyways, so we wouldn't get any answers?
final question in this reply, Did the mammal male sex ever had breasts for breast feeding before? if yes, why did males choose to stop breastfeeding, and how would this decision cause male-breast-growth to be removed from the genepool, and not cause male-infant-nipple-formation to be removed from genepool?
oh yeah, i have put a new 'observe:' in the test, number 11)
about nipples as a sexual gratification element.
Originally Posted by jocular
chuckle
Or unless they're not attractive. Or unless they're not attracted to them (but they aren't ugly either.)
I think internet porn is doing quite a lot to help us men to see women as people. Ironically. It's like it's easier to understand that real life women aren't going to be that way. (And that maybe we don't want them to, either.)
Besides, by appealing only to the beauty standard, that standard begins to appear less rare. Once it's no longer rare, it's no longer exceptional, and then women who look normal seem more attractive.
Presumably 'in the wild' referes to more "primitive" hunter/gatherer/tribal societies.
There is a lot of data from anthropologists about that. Human cultures vary a lot, and sexual practices also vary a lot. However, polygamy is a lot, lot more common than polyandry. Some tribal societies indulge in inter-tribal warfare to a great extent with male on male killings being the primary cause of adult male deaths. In those situations, there is a surplus of women and polygamous relationships are common. In one Amazon tribe, anthropologists have shown that the males who kill other males have more wives and more children than those who have not killed anyone.
Lethal violence is much less common as a percentage of the total population in more 'civilised' societies. In fact, a low rate of lethal violence could be used as a quantitative measure of how 'civilised' a society is.
The Hawai'ian culture....women had many lovers.
piriorty question do men in the wild use nipples as a sexual gratification element?
wild i meant without social propaganda
Originally Posted by jocular
Haven't heard of any that do. I have heard that many see women's breasts mainly as utilitarian child feeding body parts, (which are not especially interesting anyway because they're a routine part of the everyday visual landscape). But you'd need to find an anthropologist who's taken an interest in the area to find out for certain.piriorty question do men in the wild use nipples as a sexual gratification element?
Female humans having "relatively" developed breasts when not pregnant/breast feeding is rather unique among mammals, it appears to be a sexual differentiation feature among humans,piriorty question do men in the wild use nipples as a sexual gratification element?
such features are usually amplified by mating selection, as being a recognizable feature of the opposite sex it increases the attention and likelihood of attracting a mate and is a self-reinforcing cycle.
This indicates to me that breasts (or developed breasts if you prefer) would be something that would be noticed/pleasing/attractive to most men in general (even if there are various tastes and preferences).
Attractive and Arousal are different however. The arousal would not be as great however, when one gets used to it.
If you go to a topless beach, the first day you will be walking on clouds of paradise, and by the next day you'll get used to it a bit, then it will be nothing unusual. The same way you might be very pleased to see an attrative(to you) woman a in bikini but not aroused (assuming one can go to the beach or public pool without a massive erection).
Speaking of differentiation, breasts and the ability to appear female, I confess that I can occasionally spot a female over a few hundred meters away on a sunny day when the figure is little more than a pattern of colors by the "shadow" (darker color) on a white or light colored t-shirt in the torso area of the quasi-imperceptible color pattern in the distance.
But what Im wondering, is how the very first pseudo-reptilian proto-mammals developed the nipples in the first place?
Last edited by icewendigo; July 4th, 2013 at 12:57 PM.
If you look at a not-quite-mammal like an echidna, you see that the milk is supplied to the puggle (baby echidnas are called puggles) not by a nipple within the pouch but by skin secretions. The puggle just noses into the skin and milk seeps out, so puggles don't suckle, they just sip.But what Im wondering, is how the very first pseudo-reptilian proto-mammals developed the nipples in the first place?
It's not hard to envisage these specialised skin areas becoming more and more specialised, and the milk secreting glands within and behind the skin becoming functionally separated from the other skin functions. So we get marsupials with nipples within the pouch and mammals without pouches having nipples at convenient places for suckling infants held (or not) by other means.
as far as i know, why do only the female sex for mammals grow breasts?
Originally Posted by jocular
It can distinguish between front and back of the body
haa....just s joke
I think it is used to adjust the malebody of estrogen.
Last edited by luna247; July 4th, 2013 at 10:17 PM.
From Wikipedia
Add evolution/natural selection and it may provide some clues to the answer.Some researchers in the United Kingdom have speculated that a preference for larger breasts may have developed in Western societies because women with larger breasts tend to have higher levels of the hormones estradiol and progesterone, which both promote fertility.[117]
The other thing to consider is that the breast as we know it in well-fed modern societies is not the same as the breast in a stressed woman's metabolism. Just look at the lack of breast tissue in ballet dancers, gymnasts and many athletes whose bodies are constantly stressed. We can talk about breasts in this way because all but a very few of the women we know have enough to eat that the full potential of what might otherwise be fairly smallish, flattish breasts is realised.
When you look at the bosoms and bottoms of ancient fertility symbols you see that big breasts and other body fat was a positive sign of fertility. And remember the mention of a nice rich fat wife in the words of Tevye's sad complaint in Fiddler On The Roof.
If I Were A Rich Man :
"Dear God, you made many, many poor people.
I realize, of course, that it's no shame to be poor.
But it's no great honor either!
So, what would have been so terrible if I had a small fortune?"
If I were a rich man,
Ya ha deedle deedle, bubba bubba deedle deedle dum.
All day long I'd biddy biddy bum.
If I were a wealthy man.I wouldn't have to work hard.
Ya ha deedle deedle, bubba bubba deedle deedle dum.
If I were a biddy biddy rich,
Yidle-diddle-didle-didle man.
I'd build a big tall house with rooms by the dozen,
Right in the middle of the town.
A fine tin roof with real wooden floors below.
There would be one long staircase just going up,
And one even longer coming down,
And one more leading nowhere, just for show.
I'd fill my yard with chicks and turkeys and geese and ducks
For the town to see and hear.
And each loud "cheep" and "swaqwk" and "honk" and "quack"
Would land like a trumpet on the ear,
As if to say "Here lives a wealthy man."
If I were a rich man,
Ya ha deedle deedle, bubba bubba deedle deedle dum.
All day long I'd biddy biddy bum.
If I were a wealthy man.
I wouldn't have to work hard.
Ya ha deedle deedle, bubba bubba deedle deedle dum.
If I were a biddy biddy rich,
Yidle-diddle-didle-didle man.
I see my wife, my Golde, looking like a rich man's wife
With a proper double-chin.
Supervising meals to her heart's delight.
I see her putting on airs and strutting like a peacock.
Oy, what a happy mood she's in.
Screaming at the servants, day and night.
The most important men in town would come to fawn on me!
They would ask me to advise them,
Like a Solomon the Wise.
"If you please, Reb Tevye..."
"Pardon me, Reb Tevye..."
Posing problems that would cross a rabbi's eyes!
And it won't make one bit of difference if i answer right or wrong.
When you're rich, they think you really know!
If I were rich, I'd have the time that I lack
To sit in the synagogue and pray.
And maybe have a seat by the Eastern wall.
And I'd discuss the holy books with the learned men, several hours every day.
That would be the sweetest thing of all.
If I were a rich man,
Ya ha deedle deedle, bubba bubba deedle deedle dum.
All day long I'd biddy biddy bum.
If I were a wealthy man.
I wouldn't have to work hard.
Ya ha deedle deedle, bubba bubba deedle deedle dum.
If I were a biddy biddy rich,
Yidle-diddle-didle-didle man.
A wonderful song!!! *S*....
Why, did, when I turn 40 my breasts "blossom" my weight didn't but my breasts like tripled!! Any ideas. Has this happened to anyone. Seems to happen in my family.
Nuh. 40 is the signal for boobs to start battling gravity in earnest in most women I know.
Well mine don't have gravitational issues just growth issues!! I went from a AA to a DD in 10 years. I still weight 95-100 pounds at 5'3. My sister same thing.
Sorry, but we do. Although as Mikepotter says; 99.99999% of us can control it. I would not agree with 'sexual object' though, it's just that we subconsciously assess most females as potential sexual partners, unless it is inappropriate, for example, our female relatives or too young/too old. This is something women cannot get their heads around - but they do not have such a strong sexual drive as men - understandable really because if women have sex and get pregnant, the next 9 months are going to be a pain, and a big physical commitment which is not the same for males.I'm sorry but your post just sounds so neanderthal and I'm a bit gobsmacked. Whilst you say that many men would lie and say they don't just see women as sexual objects I think you'll find many men are indeed capable of seeing women not just as sexual objects. The sort of rationale you have expressed by saying this is in the same vein as that which is used to justify Muslim women covering their head/face. They are sexual objects and must be covered from the lustful gazes of men as protection to themselves
I don't agree with women having to wear 'tents' though, that is ridiculous.
Is the reason for large breasts these days that many women are on the pill? This works by 'fooling' the body it is pregnant, and so it prepares for the birth by increasing the breast size ready for feeding the baby?
Or it could be that modern 'food' and 'drink' is awash with hidden sugar in the form of high fructose corn syrup etc. etc. Sugar that is not needed is converted to fat in the human body, and many races that have evolved to survive on very little food find that their bodies store such sugar as fat very efficiently? I mean no offence here.
OB
Last edited by One beer; July 8th, 2013 at 06:40 AM.
I can only speak for myself. I am not on the pill. I have very little sugar in my diet.
I cook everything from scratch, so that I know all of what goes into what I eat.
When I was on the pill, I never had an increase in breast size. I did when I nursed, both of my children, but my breasts reverted when I stopped.
I will never wear a tent.
Fair enough, glad to hear it.
I only ask because when I was a kid in the 60's/70's, women's breast size was generally much smaller than it is today. And girls also seem to be developing breasts at a much younger age than they did then.
So what is different between then and now to cause such a change?
Perhaps clothing 'hid' more than it does today? Maybe there is some diet or environmental influence? Or is it the fact that many more women are on the pill now than they were then? Not for you, obviously.
What other factors could affect this, I wonder?
For example, in the UK we didn't all have centrally heated homes until around the 70's, and many houses were very cold - I remember ice being on the INSIDE of the windows in the mornings. Could this have meant that more body fat was burned internally as protection against the cold than there is now?.
OB
Last edited by One beer; July 8th, 2013 at 06:45 AM.
To One Beer
Gals are passing through puberty at an earlier age. That is the main change noted since the 1960's. The reason appears to be extra fat in the diet. This is because sex hormones are made using fat as a vital raw material. More fat means more sex hormone, earlier.
One Beer Never have a heater on at night when growing up. Mornings were COLD!! In Hawai'i don't have a heater! Nor do I use AC. I prefer using the trades and if I get desperate, I get into my unheated pool and shake for 5 minutes, but I cool off. Genetics, I think is a part of it, as it seems to run in my family. Clothing probably played a role also. I certainly don't dress with high collars or nigh necklines. You have a valid point there, in my humble OPINION!
Diet maybe? We ate food cooked from scratch and mom grew some of our vege's and fruit trees. We didn't eat MacD's etc., so in this instance (my family) that wouldn't have been a factor. babe
Fair doos, Babe.
Skeptic; ah right, that is kind of what I suspected - that it may be to do with more fat in our diet.
OB
There are also claims that hormones are used a lot in the meat and dairy industry. I don't know the details of the claims but if we are ingesting hormones intended to increase milk production, then it would be reasonable to consider that it may be getting passed to humans causing men to become less masculine and women's feminine attributes to become more pronounced.
And dress sizes then were also smaller than they are today.I only ask because when I was a kid in the 60's/70's, women's breast size was generally much smaller than it is today. And girls also seem to be developing breasts at a much younger age than they did then.
Part of the reason, but only part, for larger breast sizes is simply attributable to increased weight/size generally. The other major contributor is dietary components regardless of weight - and they promote, or actually contain, the hormones that contribute to earlier puberty.
It is unlikely that hormones given to cattle cause hormonal effects in humans. There are two reasons for this.
1. Cattle homeostasis. There is a target hormone level inside a cow's body that its metabolism is 'designed' to achieve. When hormones are added, there is a bit of an increase for a time - a spike. But it is reduced quickly by normal metabolism to that which nature via evolution required. Thus, when we eat meat or milk products, the hormone levels are not much different to that from cattle never given hormones. Milk has been tested numerous times, and appears not to have much difference in hormone levels, and cattle are not slaughtered for meat straight after hormones are added. There is time for hormone levels to return to normal.
2. Human digestion. Even without hormone addition to food animals, we consume animal hormones all the time, because they are naturally present in meat. We digest those hormones, and they do not enter the blood in unchanged form. The break down of the hormone molecule is sufficiently complete to make it very unlikely that it could affect us in the way that our own sex hormones do.
| « Can anything but death exist outside of life? | Could all humans be predispositioned genetically to die due to a natural population control? » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
