Function of the Brea3t
-
It is commonly assumed by biologists that the real evolutionary purpose of women having br3asts is to attract the male of the species, that in other words, br3asts are secondary s3x characteristics. Some biologists believe that the shape of female br3asts evolved as a frontal counterpart to that of the buttocks.
Others believe that the human br3ast evolved in order to prevent infants from suffocating while feeding. Since human infants do not have a protruding jaw like our ancestors and the other primates, the infant's nose might be blocked by a flat female chest while feeding. According to this theory, as the human jaw became recessed, so the br3asts became larger to compensate.
A common misconception is that human female br3asts are shaped the way that they are so that they can feed babies by producing milk. The mammary glands that secrete the milk from the br3asts make up a relatively small fraction of the overall br3ast tissue. Most of the human female br3ast is actually adipose tissue (fat) and connective tissue. Br3ast size does not make any difference to a woman's ability to nurse a baby.
Because some cultures place a high value on symmetry of the female human form, and because women often identify their femininity and sense of self with their br3asts, many women in developed countries undergo br3ast reconstruction after mastectomy for br3ast cancer. -
Cultural status
A brassiere (from French, lit: arm-holder) or bra is an item of women's underwear consisting of two cups that totally or partially cover the br3asts for support and modesty. Topless is the state of having bare br3asts. For more on modesty regarding br3asts see Nudity.
There are many slang terms for the br3asts.
Because the br3asts are sexually sensitive in many cases, many cultures view them as private or 'dirty', or interpret their display as sexual (in some cases, even when they are being used for their primary purpose of nursing offspring) -- this has led, in the past, to such events as women being arrested for indecent exposure for br3astfeeding their children in public.
Opinions differ as to whether this sexual response on the part of others is the result of br3asts, in general, being covered or uncovered; in addition to the above references, see also Naturism.
In a different sort of response, women in some areas and cultures are approaching the issue as one of equality: men may bare their chests, but women are forbidden. In the United States, the Topfree equality movement seeks to redress this imbalance; this movement has won a decision in 1992 in a New York Court of Appeals which seems to substantially support their assertions. A similar movement succeeded in most parts of Canada in the 1990s, and in some countries women have never been forbidden to bare their chests.
Historically, br3asts were regarded as fertility symbols due to their association with life-giving milk. Ancient statues of goddesses — so-called Venus figurines — often emphasised the br3asts, as in the example of the Venus of Willendorf. In historic times, goddesses such as Ishtar were shown with multiple br3asts, alluding to their role as goddesses of childbirth. -
as always ...NPNT
-
informative...but wad do u realli wan to sae???Originally posted by crazy monkey:It is commonly assumed by biologists that the real evolutionary purpose of women having breasts is to attract the male of the species, that in other words, breasts are secondary sex characteristics. Some biologists believe that the shape of female breasts evolved as a frontal counterpart to that of the buttocks.
Others believe that the human breast evolved in order to prevent infants from suffocating while feeding. Since human infants do not have a protruding jaw like our ancestors and the other primates, the infant's nose might be blocked by a flat female chest while feeding. According to this theory, as the human jaw became recessed, so the breasts became larger to compensate.
A common misconception is that human female breasts are shaped the way that they are so that they can feed babies by producing milk. The mammary glands that secrete the milk from the breasts make up a relatively small fraction of the overall breast tissue. Most of the human female breast is actually adipose tissue (fat) and connective tissue. Breast size does not make any difference to a woman's ability to nurse a baby.
Because some cultures place a high value on symmetry of the female human form, and because women often identify their femininity and sense of self with their breasts, many women in developed countries undergo breast reconstruction after mastectomy for breast cancer.
don tell me u just turn biologist to post all tis just to enlighten all on the human brea*ts... -
eh...it's the brea*ts...u expect him to post and get banned???Originally posted by RaTtY81:as always ...NPNT -
he ban not me ban ma
-
yah hor....okie oei NPNT!!!!!Originally posted by RaTtY81:he ban not me ban ma -
What does a bra do?
You might think that to be an inane question. Most people know what a bra doesÂ… right? They hold br3asts in place! I wonder what happened to br3asts before we had brasÂ… did the br3asts fall off? We might find it worth our while to look back at the original intent of the bra, and then look at what the bra is used for now. Some experts are troubled by the possibility that wearing a bra might be detrimental to our health. We will address some of those concerns here.
Garments and various devices that led to the development of what is now referred to as a brassiere, date back into history. In 1893, Marie Tucek made a "br3ast supporter" that looked a lot like a modern brassiere. It had pockets for the br3asts and straps and closures like we use today. During the early part of the twentieth century, Mary Phelps Jacobs put together two handkerchiefs and a pink ribbon to wear under her dress instead of wearing a corset. Ms. Jacobs designed that garment to provide some control over the movement of her br3asts, by flattening them against her chest. It is not known whether this was a common concern by women in those days, or if she herself was concerned. Mary patented her idea in 1914, calling it a "brassiere", but sold the patent a short time later to a company named Warner Brothers Corset Company in Bridgport, Connecticut for $1,500. Ida Rosenthal grouped women into "cup sizes" and "stages of life". She formed the Maidenform Bra Company.
Before brassieres were made commercially available, some women wore corsets that literally bound the body very tightly, compressing the internal organs and forcing them into new positions. They created an unnaturally small waist, which brought about the term "hourglass figure". Some women even resorted to the removal of the two lowest ribs to provide a slimmer waist. Serious medical consequences resulted from wearing corsets and other garments that bound, contorted and restricted the body, including fainting, which commonly occurred. The br3asts were not considered as very important then, as far as fashion designers were concerned, but they inadvertently became emphasized by the use of corsets, which forced excess skin and fat from the torso upwards. The br3asts literally lay on a "shelf" like "eggs in a nest". Separation and shape was of no concern at that time. Many societies, from early history forward, have allowed fashions to be worn that partially displayed the br3asts (i.e. the "Peasant Blouse") or completely displayed them (i.e. Ladies of the Court). -
Society's concept of the "ideal" br3asts are br3asts that would remain in their firm, uplifted attitude, on their own, for our entire lives. Advertising and messages in today's media have done a good job of convincing us of that myth, and the myth that br3asts will sag unless we "properly support" them.
The point to remember is that they will assume a more relaxed, adult position whether they are supported OR NOT! Some br3asts never seem to reach that lower, relaxed position, even into a woman's sixth decade of life. This phenomenon is not a result of constant bra usage. Bras will not prevent that from happening. (1), (2), (6). We are still looking for any research that has been done to actually prove that the bra will prevent the br3asts from sagging. If you know of any, please drop a line to [email protected], telling us about it. We suspect that you will find no supporting scientific arguments that prove bras will prevent sagging. If bras actually do what media claim they will do, why do many young, nuliparous (no children) women that are in their 20's, who have worn bras faithfully since they had the first signs of nipple enlargement, have pendulous br3asts? -
Just what is a bra supposed to do for us? Let us consider the stated purposes for wearing bras that have been told to us.
COMFORT from support is given as one purpose for wearing a bra. We are told that "unsupported br3asts will pull on internal components and that it will be painful." Actually, the truth of the matter is that the support from a bra will relieve the internal tension from the suspensory (Cooper's) ligaments that pull inward from the inside of the skin of the br3ast, but that is not necessarily good. Some ligaments are actually formed like a basket (or like a brassiere) inside of the br3ast, to cradle the br3ast and support it. Constant, unnatural, external support from the bra will allow the ligaments to atrophy. If the ligaments are allowed to weaken from the lack of use, they will become sore when they are later required to fulfill their designed purpose of supporting the br3ast.
In our society today, most br3asts are bound in bras, and thus are supported from their earliest signs of development, which prevents their ligaments from developing (from puberty onward) and enabling them to do their natural job. If you have ever decided to get back into running after a long hiatus, have you ever noticed that ligaments and muscles in your legs and feet are weak and become tired quickly? What would you have if you artificially supported the weight of your body during that time of not running, so that the ligaments and muscles in your legs and back would not have had to support you? You could not have done that and still be able to run now. Your ligaments and muscles would have atrophied. If you had continually used those ligaments and muscles in your legsÂ… if you had ALLOWED them to do their jobÂ… the tension and weight bearing derived from running would have caused the ligaments to get stronger and to stop giving pain. Women that do not wear a bra daily have ligaments that become stronger through use, therefore minimizing the pain and usually providing more natural lift. -
A woman's intentions are often misunderstood by how she dresses. Women that elect to not wear a bra might be considered by some immature individuals to be signaling many things, including sexual desire, a lack of good taste, a lack of moral fiber, or just plain being "out of style".
By designing, merchandising, buying and wearing the fashions of today, we are all telegraphing a mixed message. The glamorous awards shows on television are considered by many to be strong predictors of the fashions we will be seeing in the near future. The 2000 Grammy Awards telecast will be remembered by many people that saw Jennifer Lopez wear a wrap that only closed in front of the pubic bone, clearly showing that she was wearing no bra. The February 2000 issues of several magazines had images of women that were wearing very fashionable clothing (not counting sportswear or bathing suits) and they were very obviously not wearing a bra of any sort. ELLE had eighteen, including the cover shot. VOGUE had a few more with twenty-nine. HARPER'S BAZAAR was the winner with fifty-three. We are assuming that most of the readers of those magazines viewed those women and their fashions to be socially acceptable. Those images did not convey the message that the women were desirous of sexual pleasure, or that they were deficient in "good taste", or lacked moral fiber, and they certainly were not "out of style". We truly send mixed messages to everyone.
Does society want us to wear a bra or not? How can the average woman ever know? -
to foxwalk :
