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.