I’m attracted to Asian women, and I have a theory as to why they are usually small busted: Their indigenous diet is primarily fish and rice, both low fat foods, and since breasts are primarily fat, littel fat in diet, littel fat in body, ergo, small boobs.
And your General Question is…?
Thought it was obvious, but Oh well. My ? is: is my logic sound or flawed?
What logic?
Sorry, not meaning to sound pissy…
First, you have to prove the following assumptions:
- Asian women are small-busted.
- Asian women’s primary diet is fish and rice.
- Bust size is directly tied to diet.
- Breasts are primarily fat.
I can think of quibbles with three of those assumptions, and number 4 is wrong. Breasts are mainly made of milk-producing glands, not fat.
What breasts are made out of. http://imaginis.com/breasthealth/breast_anatomy.asp#breast_composition
I still don’t get it. I understand the words, but all together in a phrase, it still doesn’t make sense to me. Is this really anthropology you’re shooting for? That’s the title, but the op goes on about dietary issues. In your second post you’re wondering if your logic is sound or flawed. What logic? That you propose that a womens cup size has to do with what she eats? And what has that to do with your attraction? Do you have a causasian girlfriend and you want to reduce her breast size by getting her on a fish and rice diet?
BTW, I guess they are low on fish in Mongolia and Tibet.
The fact that there is a wide variation in breast size is primary evidence that some men actually consider female traits which may very well be located above the female cleavage line.
Sometimes I wonder what those guys think about…
Well, maybe . . . but sadly, it’s more likely that they’re looking for traits below the cleavage.
Neo-Lamarckianism is comin’ on strong!
Your post assumes that women’s physiognomies across racial/ethnic/national etc. groups are all more of less the same when this is manifestly not the case. As a example women of primarly European descent and women of primarily African descent often (not always) have very distinct differences in the way their leg and buttock muscles “ride” on their frames. These differences are genetically mediated and will not morph from one to the other based on diet. The same is true of the frames of women of primarlily Asiatic descent and how their breasts “ride” on their bodies, and to some extent how large the breast itself is. Over feeding an Asian woman with small breasts will generally get a you a fat asian woman with small breasts.
It’s not all diet.
Some of your logic is correct. I read an article a year or so ago (sorry no cite) saying that as japanese diets were getting more western the breast size was increasing. It doesn’t have to be just down to the amount of fat in the food, certain foods which are being consumed contain hormones and such. I would definatly agree that diet effects breast size. I’m off to do some hands on research.
I can’t wait to get slammed for this but what the hell…
Ill take a shot at the question begged by the subject of your post. It presupposes that a good deal of breast size (not altered by food additives) is determined by genes.
In “The Naked Ape” Desmond Morris theorized that women’s breasts served another purpose besides merely providing babies with something to drink and hold on to. Their size and shape was also a form of sexual display. The atavistic attraction to the cleavage of the butt (when we did nothing but doggy) was displaced to the cleavage of the breasts. So to extrapolate from that…
The larger the breasts, the more likely that there’s cleavage. The more the cleavage the randier men get. The randier we get, the more we shag. The more we shag…
And of course following from what I said above, Asian women are actually extinct.