Breasts: the secret history of boobs


16 Responses to “Breasts: the secret history of boobs”

  1. boobs are both a secret history and a secret present for me.

  2. tacochuck says:

    It occurred to me the other day that our entire biological Class is defined as Mammalia. Thats how important mammary glands are. Nature placed them at a very high level of classification. To obsess over them as simply sex objects fails to appreciate their very important role in our evolutionary history.

  3. Cowicide says:

    I see what they did there…

  4. relawson says:

    “and all over the world to interview more boob experts than you can shake a pasty at.”

    Flo, I present the “Winning of all teh internets this week” award to you.

    Sure, i’m a “breast man”, but not because i’m just a guy, its because of their function. Yes, the male may be needed to give life the first kickstarter backing, but its the female that does absolutely everything else. Where the actual conception takes place, gestation, birth, AND from their own breast, the nourishment for the newly minted mutant to actually survive.

    Our female population can MAKE PEOPLE! FFS!!! Worship them as such.

  5. pjcamp says:

    Her boobs are grassy.

    Shouldn’t that have the Grand Tetons on the cover? Or would that be too obvious?

  6. rtresco says:

    I never understood the classification of being a breast or thigh man. I always seem to get asked around Thanksgiving and I always have to go with, “but I’m a vagina man”.

  7. MarcVader says:

    Did you know a tit is a small bird? Tell her she has great pelicans.

    – Oglaf

  8. caprette says:

    Interesting.  I like how she points out that breast milk is full of the chemicals that we absorb in our everyday life.  I plan to use that argument when I argue why I do not intend to breastfeed my hypothetical future children.

    • IronEdithKidd says:

      The breast-feeding-only militants are immune to facts, just like any other flavor of wingnut.  Your best bet is to simply tell them to bugger-off, and feed your future hypothetical child however you think is best. 

      • Antinous / Moderator says:

        As long as you’re comfortable with your child not having a functional immune system, getting more infections, being allergy-prone, having a greater risk for SIDS and diabetes, etc.

        Why bother to have a child if you’re not willing to give it the most fundamental care?

        • Paul Cowan says:

          Just for the record, I think this is a completely jackass attitude to have. Your last sentence basically says “if you don’t breastfeed, you don’t care about your kid”. In the nicest possible way: get bent.

          I know not one, not two, not even three, but a _number_ of women who have had kids, and been unable to breastfeed: not ‘can’t be bothered’ as you seem to imply, but ravaged by mastitis, thrush, cracked nipples, etc. This isn’t a “oh just get over it” thing: I know people who have _actively hated their kids_ over this. To be a new mother, to know you’re supposed to love this kid, but to feel nothing but _resentment_ because of the perceived obligation to breastfeed and the effects it has on your own body? Not fun.

          Yes, breastfeeding’s best for health. Is it more important to the kid than having a mother who doesn’t feel love for them, who ends up in post-natal depression, who attempts (or commits) suicide? Exaggerating? I promise, none of those are hypotheticals. I’m not saying breastfeeding causes these of course, but having society treat you with nothing but contempt if you don’t really doesn’t help fragile new mothers.

          This is a simplistic attitude to “what’s best for babies”, and frankly it’s insensitive and insulting.

          • Antinous / Moderator says:

            Yes. I’m quite aware that many women have reasons why it’s not possible to breastfeed. Deciding in advance that you’re just not going to do it is a different story. If you’ve already decided that you don’t want to provide the best care for your baby, don’t have one.

        • IronEdithKidd says:

          Seriously?  “Not having a functional immune system”?  That’s got to be one of the most hyperbolic, unsupportable statements I’ve ever read. 

    • Brainspore says:

      Of course, everyday life is also full of the chemicals of everyday life. I’ll leave you and your hypothetical children to decide how to deal with that conundrum on your own though.

Leave a Reply