Stefan,
> When the whole planet faces an abnormal phenomen it's called normal.
> The same for you and your family.
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?
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?
> >We're rather proud of our large, very female breasts.
>
> 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."
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.
Anyhow, I wouldn't want to change my breasts in any way, and
certainly not "cure" them of their unique size and shape.
> >Other people seem to enjoy them, too.
>
> There's a whole society that thinks this way: the bigger the better.
Partly that's a result of the evil forces in society.
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.
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.
> The ambiguity is that if your breasts become floppy they aren't
> considered attractive any longer.
This is a funny discussion to be having so publically on our
WONDERFULWORLDWIDEWEB, 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.
> So on one side big is beautiful
> and on the other side: if they start hanging down, it's bad.
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?
> What
> do you choose in this game? You always lose.
> Better consider "small is beautiful" to be the solution.
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. There's no
decision or choice to be made here, as if one is better than the
other. That would be like trying to figure out which hair color is
the better one, and whether to try to cure it or not.
> How could you have
> run away when a bushfire came nearer in good old stoneage with those
> big things? How would you have jumped over a small river or did
> other quick movements in that time without a bra?
> The answer is, the fire got you and you didn't give your genes with
> those big breasts to children. You died out with that anomaly.
> Sorry to be so straight and clear here but that's the way evolution
> works.
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.
Maybe someone on the list knows something about this and will speak
up.
Until then, I go off into the new millenium with my Beautiful Sexy
Fully Female Extraordinarly Lovely Big Breasts.
Love Liza
|
