It seems to me that no other feature (nose, ears, head, penis, etc) has such a size variation from human to human as female breasts.
Some women have essentially non-existent breasts (mass-wise) while others have breasts the size of watermelons. And these are not low probablity occurances; a decent percent of women occupy the two extremes.
If you exclude extremely rare events, like someone who has a 3-foot long penis, I think that the ratio of the largest breast to the smallest breast easily eclipses the corresponding ratio for any other human feature.
Is this true, and if so, do you guys have any idea why?
I think we can count body hair, and you may have a point here.
Interestingly, one aspect breasts and body hair have in common is that they are both secondary sexual characteristics.
I think there is one difference in their size variation: breast size varies a lot within a homogenous population (e.g. among Italian women), whereas the amount of body hair varies across populations (e.g. between Italian and Swedish men) but within any given population (e.g. Swedes) there is not that much variation.
Hmmm…well, you may have something there, but you have to factor in the fact that it’s a feature (unlike penises or noses or…what have you) that is corrolated to overall body mass. Now, of course there are skinny woman with watermelon sized breast and fat women who’s tits don’t get any bigger, but generally your tits gain or lose weight when you do.
So if we’re talking about genetic variation, you have to take circumstancial variation in first.
What about hips (you can include upper thigh in that as well)? Butts?
Just using women as an example: there are women of all shapes and sizes. There are women with no more than 30 inch hips (models, women with “a body like a teenage boy,” etc.) and there are women who can have a flat stomach but still have 45+ inch hips (then, of course, there are women who are even bigger naturally- just wide hips). The same goes for butts: totally flat to a huuuge, Jlo aint got nothing on this booty.
One of the greatest ironies I ever witnessed was a woman with what amounted to enlarged nipples saying that women shouldn’t bind their breasts. :smack: I told this to my DDD roommate, who just rolled her eyes.
Seriously now. If one can measure ratio differences of 100:1 in breast mass, I am gonna admit that the example stands alone. Find me an adult with a size 5 shoe and a size 500 shoe. Heck, find me an adult with a size 3 shoes and a size 32 shoe- in the same percentages per capita. Ain’t gonna happen.
If. Are there ZZZZ bras out there? Unless we’re talking about comparing the breasts of an anorexic woman to those of an 800lb woman, I can’t see the 1 to 100 being possible.
