In response to Cecil who in 1984 made rather flippant remarks about female breast size inhibiting elite athletes, it is now of no concern.
Elite female athletes in 2012 don’t have them! The evolution is complete.
Does not matter if they are runners, or shotputters, triathletes or gymnasts… A world class female athlete will not register on the “boob scale”.
A great thing for womens’ equality!
Talk about a flippant remark. I son’t know what you mean by “boob scale”, but I have no trouble noticing the cleavage of female professional athletes. Since evolution doesn’t work that fast, are you implying steroids or somesuch?
not much to be flippant about.
the column discussed
just wanting to put things up front.
I don’t think steroids are necessary. Unusual amounts of exercise and muscle development will do it.
Not a Serena Williams fan, I guess.
Low body fat levels will rob a woman of her breast tissue as well.
I was going to post a series of images proving you grossly, egregiously wrong, but then I realized that perhaps that was exactly the thing for which you were fishing.
Powers &8^]
Your assumption is incorrect. It was an honest observation, but I can stand being grossly egregiously wrong if it is proved to me.
rustyrunner, welcome to the Straight Dope Message Boards, we’re glad you found us. You seem to have double-posted (posted the same opening thread twice), so I’ve merged the two threads and elimated the duplicate.
Also note that johnpost has (in post #3 in the thread) provided a link to the column in question. For future ref: we like having the link up front, keeps us on the same page and saves search time.
No problem, it happens, and, as I say, welcome!
I used to date a women’s hoops player. While far from zaftig, she was a solid A++. (Closer to a B now that she’s retired from regular playing.)
While I’ve certainly seen plenty of female athletes with curves (Serena Williams being a heavenly example), it is also undeniable that the average on the “boob scale” of televised individuals has been artificially curved to the right in the last couple of decades. Now that implants are ubiquitous among entertainers and much better designed, implanted, maintained than they were 30 years ago, I think our idea of “flat chested” is a bit more generous of breast than our idea of flat chested was in 1980.
For non-entertainer people, the rising rate of obesity has increased average breast size, as well. It’s a good decade to be a boob fan.
Unless you’re looking at women with less body fat than average who don’t have implants, of course…like, say, athletes in general.
No! You don’t get it. Nothing to do with steroids. “Evolution” was a loose term to describe a present fact. You will find no female competing in the olympics in track, (and probably field )that needs a bra.
My point being that an athletic female, gifted, talented, brilliant at 7, 9, 11 will have little chance compared to her opposite sex, unless genetics from there on in play a part.
If you are implying that a flat chested woman will be less likely to attract a mate and breed, you are mistaken. There are just as many men attracted to slim figures as curves. Also, if that is what you are getting at, we can infer that your prejudice and misconception arose because you prefer bigger breasts, and we just don’t need to know that about you.
Ah…I see. So now we’ve narrowed the playing field, as it were, from “athletes” to Olympic track runners. In other words, the most aggressively trained, thinnest, youngest women athletes out there.
And you’re still wrong, Google image search tells me. They’re probably not going to be cast is SuperJugzXXX, but there are breasts there.
What was your point again?
You know my point, but you refuse it in some sort of misrepresantation.
No, your point is demonstrably false, both for Olympic T&F athletes and other world class athletes. So it’s unclear what you are trying to say.
Take another look at my original statement and you will see the opposite of what you express. At least I hope so.
I think you have forgotten it!
At least four of us are confused by your point. You mind restating it?