Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watmath.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!saquigley
From: saquigley@watmath.UUCP (Sophie Quigley)
Newsgroups: net.singles
Subject: Re: Big Breasts
Message-ID: <10357@watmath.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 12-Dec-84 14:08:13 EST
Article-I.D.: watmath.10357
Posted: Wed Dec 12 14:08:13 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 13-Dec-84 01:00:40 EST
References: <1464@ihuxl.UUCP> <199@ahuta.UUCP>
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 26

> there are those who feel that almost all of unexplainable human nature
> deals with the instinct to get ones genes into the next generation.
> The build that we consider most sexy is pretty much the build most
> capable of giving birth to and raising healthy children.  Our
> forebearers who liked large breasts, mated with women who had large
> breasts, and added lots of more people to the population with an
> acquired (by genetics or environmental imitation of parents)
> taste for large breasts.  Those who liked small breasts mated and had
> less nourished children, fewer children, and passed on the interest in
> sex with small-breasted women to fewer in the next generation.  Even
> Twiggy has her fans, but not as many as Raquel Welch does.  Those
> forebearers who had a taste for oak trees didn't pass any genes to the
> next generation.

I might agree with your explanation if it wasn't for the fact that the size
of breasts of non-lactating women is actually uncorrelated to their potential
for feeding babies.  There are women with large breasts who have very little
milk and women with minuscule breasts who can feed triplets and still give milk
away to other babies.
> 
> 					(Evelyn C. Leeper for)
> 					Mark R. Leeper
> 					...ihnp4!lznv!mrl

Sophie Quigley
...!{clyde,ihnp4,decvax}!watmath!saquigley