Hi, Leslie,

>Good question, Linda. It makes sense to me that if breasts get floppy from
>lactating and breast fullness, then there might be some problem for the guys
>experiencing all that engorgement and disgorgement through throughout their
>mature lives <g>. Maybe there's cosmetic surgery for this--anyone want to
>ask the MD in question? (I know the process is quite different, but it IS an
>interesting way to turn this about and look at it a little differently).

What do you think "flaccid" means?  The difference is that no guy I've heard of
would buy into the idea that it should be any other way.  Seriously, who
sets the
standard for beauty for the female body?  Some doctor who's probably fixated
because he wasn't nursed?  For a contrasting opinion, look at the new calendar
from the Victoria's Secret model (whose name I forget at the moment).  Do her
breasts stand straight out?  No.  Have you ever seen a woman whose breasts
did (without mechanical assistance)?  I haven't.  If they did, could you
nurse with
them?  Picture your baby trying to latch on to a firm, unyielding breast!
So what
(or who) makes such an unnatural shape desireable?  From a husband's point of
view, what most makes my wife's breasts beautiful is the job they did nourishing
our son.  For the unmarried male, what makes the breast a sex object is it's
potential for nourishing his future children.  Why, then, buy into the
nonsensical
idea that they should look like something else, or be shaped by underwires or
conical cups to appear different?  Let them be what they are!  By any objective
standard, their beauty is in their function.  Any other standard is only
fabricated
by Madison Avenue to sell appliances for misshaping them!

Jonathan