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