Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 8/28/84; site lll-crg.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!sdcsvax!dcdwest!ittvax!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!godot!harvard!seismo!ut-sally!ut-ngp!lll-crg!muffy
From: muffy@lll-crg.ARPA (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: net.singles
Subject: Re: Re: Big Breasts
Message-ID: <334@lll-crg.ARPA>
Date: Sun, 16-Dec-84 05:49:59 EST
Article-I.D.: lll-crg.334
Posted: Sun Dec 16 05:49:59 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 23-Dec-84 01:37:36 EST
Organization: Lawrence Livermore Labs, CRG group
Lines: 20

> >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.  

It has yet to be proved that small breasts are less capable of
nourishing a child.  Certainly, large ones are more easily accessible,
but that is only a trivial amount of convenience.  I don't believe
that the equipment necessary for producing milk needs a C cup or better
to all fit.  And regardless of the apparent societal bias, more is not
always better.  A baby can only drink so much.  

Can someone here cite references that say that large breasts are more
nourishing for a child?

Also, large breasts can be something of a liability, since they tend
to bounce around uncomfortably.  This is intensified during pregnancy,
and while nursing, because they get somewhat larger and heavier (which
may actually be an argument that large ones are necessary...*grin*) at
that time.  I would say that having such things in the way all the time
is not a survival trait.