Beth writes: >I'm almost 100% in agreement with breasts being nonsexual. >However, I do have this one nagging doubt in the back of my head. The >voice says, "why are they there when we don't need them?" I'm >admittedly not the poster child for my own question, but why do we only >need to look at the chest to tell man from woman? Other than >artifically manipulated dairy cows I'm not aware of any other mammal >that has obvious breasts while not lactating (and indeed, even before >pregnancy). Is it due to a lack of adjacent structures? Beth raises a common argument for breasts as being something different in humans than they are in other mammals and therefore, perhaps, having a unique function in humans. The above argument rests on two basic assumptions: (1) All human females have protuberant breasts all the time, whether lactating or not (2) Other female mammals have protuberant breasts only when lactating, if at all Assumption #1 is not true. Protuberant -- obvious, noticeable -- breasts depend on having adequate fat reserves. Human females do store fat in their breasts, as well as their abdomens, thighs, and buttocks. Most of us on LactNet have our primary experience of female bodies in cultures where most women are adequately or over-nourished, where women have plenty of fat stores, and most women (and some overnourished men) have protuberant breasts. If you spend time in a culture where women are marginally nourished or frankly undernourished, you will find that many of them do not have protuberant breasts. The same is true for places like nursing homes, where many of the elderly women do not eat very well and are very frail and thin. They don't have protuberant breasts. Nor do many female athletes and bodybuilders. Thus, it is not the case that all human females have protuberant breasts all the time -- rather it is primarily a function of the percentage of body fat. If most women in your area have plenty of body fat, it will seem as though all human females have protuberant breasts. If most women in your area have little or no body fat, it will seem as though few human females have protuberant breasts. Assumption #2 is not true. There are other mammals that have visible/noticeable breasts whether or not they are lactating. These include bonobos (pygmy chimpanzees), horses, elephants, goats, sheep, zebras, asses, and probably a lot more. They aren't perhaps *as noticeable* as human breasts because humans are bipedal -- we walk on our hind legs, so our mammary glands are easily visible from the front. Bonobos often walk bipedally, as well as lounge around on their backs and sides, so even though they are usually quadrupedal, it is fairly easy to see their protuberant breasts. Frans de Waal's and Frans Lanting's book Bonobo: The Forgotten Ape has many beautiful photographs of bonobos, and the protuberant breasts are easily seen. Finally, remember that without cultural impediments to fertility, adult women would be either pregnant or breastfeeding for most of their adult lives. Kathy Dettwyler _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com *********************************************** The LACTNET mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned LISTSERV(R) list management software together with L-Soft's LSMTP(TM) mailer for lightning fast mail delivery. For more information, go to: http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html