Doesn't the mother's breast express love for her baby, when she cuddles it? --Ed Poor 19:04, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
- Of course. At the moment this article seems to me to be a little bit on the prurient side... Dpbsmith 19:13, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
- I can't consider myself qualified to write on the maternal aspects, perhaps somebody who is could add some appropriate remarks? --Jeremiah4-22 19:25, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
I notice that in the first ordinary dictionary I checked, the primary meaning is a single mammary gland and the secondary meaning is the upper chest, whereas in a 1981 medical dictionary, it is exactly the other way around... Dpbsmith 19:13, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
- Good idea. That way, it can all be deleted at once. --BobD 20:31, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
- No strong objection. Dpbsmith 20:52, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
Moving this here for discussion
This section makes me uncomfortable. The fact-to-surmise ratio is low, and it seems to be dwelling on the sexual aspects of breasts with just a bit too much enthusiasm. Dpbsmith 20:40, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
Evolution of the Breast
The disproportionately large size of human breasts, compared to those of most other mammals, has given rise to a supposition that they some function in addition to nourishing young, such as providing a social or sexual signal.
Evolutionists have suggested that the development of large breasts originally came about by men selecting mates whose breasts were slightly swollen to indicate their fertility; consequently large-breasted women were disproportionately popular as sexual partners, and their genes for large-breastedness were thus favoured for transmission to future generations. Today, many women undergo cosmetic surgery enhancing their breast size (and their imagined sex appeal) to unnatural levels.
Exposure of the breasts of men
In the United States, men were not permitted to wear topless bathing suits until, I think, the 1940s, but I don't want to go digging for references on this as I have an idea this section of the article may not last long. Horatio Greenough's 1840 statue of George Washington, with his upper half undraped, was controversial. Dpbsmith 21:13, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
The previous version had too much material from the Song of Solomon, I thought. What I've done—quote a specific use in reference to infant feeding, but no specific quotes or references to sensuality—is prudish, but seems to me like the better part of valor. Without any quotations at all, the flat assertion that the BIble refers to both infant feeding and sensuality doesn't seem worth making. The KJV certainly endorses the use of "breasts" in the plural, by the way...
By the way, what do you make of Job 21:22-4, "Shall any teach God knowledge? seeing he judgeth those that are high. One dieth in his full strength, being wholly at ease and quiet. His breasts are full of milk, and his bones are moistened with marrow." Dpbsmith 21:00, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
Ah. That was KJV. RSV has "his body is full of fat," and a note, "the meaning of the Hebrew word is uncertain." NIV, "his body well nourished, his bones rich with marrow" and a similar note about the meaning being uncertain. Dpbsmith 21:04, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
This article treats the breast as a purely human organ. However, breasts are present on all mammals. Not just human beings.
- Agree completely. (However there's a minor terminology issue issue in that nonhuman animals have "a breast" but do not have "breasts," which are called something else e.g. "teats.") Dpbsmith 06:02, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
- I understand, but I still think it falls under the scope of this article.--Elamdri 06:05, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
- I do, too. Probably won't have much of a chance to do anything about it today. Should the article be moved to "Mammary glands?" Probably not. Probably "Mammary" and "Mammary glands" should redirect to this article, and the opening should be rewritten to say something like "Mammary glands, referred to in humans as 'breasts.'" Dpbsmith 06:10, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
- Re the edit comment the one about "raised eyebrows," I agree with that too, and have excised what I call the "comparative ethnography," which seemed too vague, too non-expert, and almost seemed to me to have a tone of promoting a reduction of the U. S. taboo. The idea of European countries being "freer" in such things I think is a legacy of the situation in the 1950s (or even World War I). Dpbsmith 06:10, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
Hardly any readers would be old enough to recognize a reference to "the matronly ladies of the Helen Hokinson cartoons," would they? Too bad, they would be the perfect example of (overly) modest or "conservative" dress. Dpbsmith 06:02, 17 April 2007 (EDT)