Hi Liza,

you said:
>I don't think you're saying that there's some body type - of
>specified sizes of body-parts, and shapes, and colors, and textures,
>- that is some sort of human prototype - a standard somehow - and
>that others in comparison are "abnormal." You're not saying that,
>are you?

No, there's certainly no specific normal body color or hair color
or certain sizes of this and that (although I wonder if you would
consider blue to be a normal skin color... :-)  ).
But what there is, is certain   p r o p o r t i o n s ! So if you
got long legs but a short upper body you look disproportioned.
And if a man has a big muscular upper body and thin chicken legs
he's disproportioned.
That's perhaps difficult to express in numbers but every human being
can tell you. Good proportions just look good.

>If not (and, knowing you, I think not) then why would it be that
>breasts are somehow all supposed to be the same size and shape? Why
>are breasts different than noses? Or eyes? Or digestive tracts?

Well of course breast like arms or legs aren't supposed to be a
certain size or shape. But looking at the proportions of the whole
body methinks that a slim woman with big breasts doesn't look so
good because it's wrong. The whole body is slim and then there are
two big breasts? No, sorry, the proportions are wrong here.
Fat women may have big breasts - ok for them. But obesity is an
anomaly in itself and I'm not talking about it here.

>>Of course. If you can't cure it, be proud of it. But to call big
>> boops "female" is, eh, just a little bit overboard I think. :-)
>
>Maybe because you've got to write in a foreign language you've
>perhaps incorrectly chosen the word "cure," but just in case you
>haven't, or for native English speakers who might be lurking or
>reading this sometime in the future: "Cure" is not something one
>would do with one's beautiful, big breasts. They are not a "disease"
>or "disorder" to be "cured."

Well, no, "cure" was intended here, but "boobs" I intended to write
with two "b"s and made a typo. <g>
Wrong proportions are something you can cure. To come back to the
example of the muscular upper body of a man, he could do a special
leg training to get his legs muscular too. For disproportioned
breasts it's much more difficult I readily admit. But not impossible.

>And in any case, nothing outside of the body can "cure" ANY disease
>or disorder - it's the body's own innate ability to fix itself
>that's responsible for restoring health.

Of course. You just could give it the best opportunities to do this.
And one of the best opportunities is raw organic food, IMNSHO!

>Anyhow, I wouldn't want to change my breasts in any way, and
>certainly not "cure" them of their unique size and shape.

That's perfectly okay.

>But partly, in my opinion, it's a result of certain hard-wiring that
>makes physical expressions of fertility and the ability to be a good
>mother highly sexually attractive.

Concerning wide hips I agree. Big breasts? No. It suffices that
they become larger after pregnancy which happens frequently.

>There are lots and lots of neat studies on what characteristics
>humans find sexually attractive, and how these relate to
>procreation. And how they correspond with similar studies of other
>animals.

In the case of breast size I distrust these studies since the whole
society believes in "bigger is better". You get it hammered in in
your teeny years already. Women even have surgery to enlarge them.
Totally crazy! Women aren't cows so why do they need a big udder?

>This is a funny discussion to be having so publically on our
>WONDERFULWORLDWIDEWEB,

Of course! And it is even related to raw foods!! :-)

>but for the good of humanity and future
>generations, I will now proudly divulge that my breasts are not only
>NOT floppy, but in fact they are considered supremely attractive -
>judging from the amount of approving attention and comments their
>owner receives.

Hey, great! Can we add this to the proclamation of independence? ;-)

>I guess when (or if) they "hang down" their owner is perhaps less
>fertile? Or not as well-equipped to nurse more offspring? Which
>makes her less attractive?

This has already been answered by someone else.

>What I choose is to like my body, and be proud of it, exactly the
>way it is. If I had small breasts I'd like those, too.

That's a wise way of thinking. I love the way you expressed it here.

>I am not an anthropologist so I don't know what size breasts early
>females had, (neither do you, I'll bet), and I haven't ever paid
>much attention to this when I've read about modern day
>hunter/gatherer cultures, or other primitive or healthier cultures
>and their female body shapes.

I find it somewhat obvious that mother nature didn't equip you with
attributes that hinder you from running and jumping (if you don't
wear a bra - which you certainly could not do in millions of years
of evolution).

>Until then, I go off into the new millenium with my Beautiful Sexy
>Fully Female Extraordinarly Lovely Big Breasts.

LOL, Liza at her best, not to say very Pollyanna-like. :-)

Have a good raw time,

Stefan