Some women have very small breasts. There is the old saying that “they are as flat as a ironing board.”
That doesn’t seem to have any effect on their reproductive capabilities (which is OK by me, I’m not being judgemental). Even though the hormonal effects of pregnancy will increase the size of the female breasts, in some cases it is hard to believe that the lactation capability would be significant enough to sustain an infant.
If it is the case that some women cannot lactate enough to sustain an infant wouldn’t “natural selection” have prevented such a condition from existing in the first place?
BTW, I don’t mind warming up the bottle. I’m just asking a question.
Most of what you see as a breast is composed of adipose tissue–fat. The milk-producing mammary glands themselves are just a small part of it, although they enlarge considerably during lactation. Milk production is dependent upon hormone levels and is uncorrolated to breast size, AFAIK.
Not having children myself I don’t know for sure, but I don’t believe the size of a woman’s breasts determine her nursing capability. A very good friend of mine is extremely large breasted but was unable to breastfeed any of her children.
Most small-breasted women don’t lack mammary tissue, they lack the adipose (fatty) tissue that usually accompanies the mammary glands. When it’s time to nurse, the mammary tissue of all women expands, makes plenty of milk, feeds the kid until weaning time. Then it shrinks again.
I’ve seen as many large-breasted women fail to produce adequate milk as I’ve seen smaller-breasted women do likewise. IME. YMMV.
I don’t think we really know why women develope breasts. One theory is that they are sexually attractive to men, actually simulating her ass. For some reason we needed this stimulation when we went from doggie style to variuos forms of face to face sex.
That sounds very Desmond Morris-ish (author of the naked ape, he tosses out lots of fascinating hypotheses dressed up too much like “facts” for my taste). Granted, it’s interesting speculation, but is there any evidence to back it up?
Besides the similarity in shape, I personally don’t have any evidence hidden away in my sock draw, I got this from another SDMB thread which I don’t have time to search for. It was along the lines is does breast size indicate the amount of milk, which the conclusion is no (IIRC).
Some poster threw this theory in the mix back then. If even a flat chested woman can lactate just fine, and Jr. does not mind the nipple position, it does seem kind of silly to carry around a set of D cups, which could cause back problems.
You’ve nailed my objection to Morris’s speculation. If the male appreciation of the female breast is hard-wired due to their similarity to buttocks, how does this explain Chinese foot binding, lip plates for some African women, Burmese neck rings, classical erotic paintings that emphasized a woman’s hips, Victorian fascination for legs and ankles, and for narrow waists, etc.?
The fact that Morris lives in a society where cleavage is considered sexy colors his assumptions.
I don’t think there’s any dispute that large breasts (that is to say, larger than a man’s) are one of the many sexual signals in humans (that is, they distinguish females from males, and mature females from immature ones), but Desmond Morris’ idea that they simulate buttocks is far from universally accepted, and I don’t think that even Morris argues that they’re the only or primary sexual signal in human females. Small female breasts haven’t yet evolved away because humans have a number of other sexual signals, and different men value them differently.
Yes this is true. The other day while surfing for special pictures online I clicked on a close-up photo of what I thought was going to be a nice ass, but they turned out to be breasts. So the breasts fooled me into thinking they were actually an ass when they weren’t.
What women do to themselves (including high heal shoes), or to other younger women, in a society to make themselves more attractive I see as totally unrelated. Perhaps you can clarify the connection you see?
I’ve explained my take on this many times on the Board before. Although I frequently find Morris infuriating, I think he nailed this one properly. Anthropologist Marvin Harris also thought so.
First, regarding other exagherrated female traits people bring up, like Chinese Foot Binding, “Ubangi” lip plugs, and those elongated necks through adding rings to lengthen the neck – all those are restricted yo one culture apiece, and I don’t know anyone elswe who finds them attractive. Doubtless there’s an explanation somewhere, but contrast these with attractions to bgreasts, which are practically universal. I can show you Indian erotic sculpture, prehistoric carvings, African and Australian artwork, Amerindian legend, and Shakespreaean quotes that agree on the attractivebness of a well-rounded breast.
Second, the fatty breast tissue doesn’t really serve any practical purpose. Not only “breadboard/Ironing Board” women, but also flat-chested primates have no problems nursing. As noted above, the breast isn’t a Big Bag of Milk. Morris asserts that the breast can even get in the way of a nursing infant.
Third, human beings are not onlt The Naked Ape, we’re the Ape with an Ass. The human buttock is practically unique. Other bipedal creatures generally have a tail as a counterweight (that’s how dinosaurs did it) or move the legs closer to the body’s center of weight (birds). Apes are knuckle-walkers. They may occasionally walk on two legs, but they are virtually four-footed in their reliance on the arms to support part of their weight as the amble along on their knckles. Only people have that large gluteus maximus to exert immense force to pull us upright, allowing us to walk upright all the time.
Apes approach sexually from the rear, and often have sexual signalling there. Mandrills are colored brightly. Chim,ps, in heat, develop a very red and swollen backside. We’re predisposed to sexual signaling from the rear. Female pelvises are shaped differently in order to allow birth through them, but I suspect sexual signalling also helped shape a more rounded rear as a sexual signal.
This set the stage for the echoing of the sexual signalling to the front, with the breasts as a buttock-mimic (As MOrris points out, it’s not strictly a buttock/breast thing, either. We seem predisposed to rounded contours, with shoulders and knees also being sensuous.)
We’rer not the only primatesd with sexual signals on the chest echoing those on the buttocks – the Gelada Baboon (sometimes just Gelada) has a characteristic “necklace” of skin blips forming a sort of heart shape around the female rear, and on the chest. These become particularly pronounced when the fenmale is in heat. Males have a similar “heart” pattern, but not as pronounced (as human males have nipples, to no purpose). Here you have a case of a chest pattern, totally unlike human hemispherical breasts, but echoing a similar pattern on the (non-hemispherical) gelada hindquatrters.
Why do geladas have such a pattern? It’s been noted that geladas, unlike most other apes, spend an inordinate amount of time sitting and feeding. The chest is more visible more of the time, just as it is for us upright-walking apes.
