4,994
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 22:
Line 22: + + + + +
→Moving this here for discussion
[[Evolution]]ists 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.{{fact}} Today, many women undergo [[cosmetic surgery]] enhancing their breast size (and their imagined [[sex appeal]]) to unnatural levels.
[[Evolution]]ists 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.{{fact}} Today, many women undergo [[cosmetic surgery]] enhancing their breast size (and their imagined [[sex appeal]]) to unnatural levels.
==Bible==
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." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:00, 16 April 2007 (EDT)