>>14130387What, you want me to spell it out for you?
It's a question nobody actually knows the answer to. A handful of people started trying to keep track, what, a couple decades ago? maybe? The science is so muddled with opinion, desires, and other shit that you can make just about any argument you want. "Small breasts are better because the smaller area is less stress on the body, helping milk producing glands stay healthy for longer." "Big breasts are better because they store more, and indicate a level of fitness capable of supporting the extra mass." Make shit up - I can almost guarantee, if someone agrees, they'll buy it without question.
Does a woman with large breasts have a higher than average chance of developing back pain? Sure, maybe. Do I, a man, give a shit? Not a one. Some animals, like the bird pictured above, can be assumed to suffer plenty for the sake of sexual attractiveness. Some, like the Irish Elk, have even gone extinct for it. So it goes. Nobody ever said being hot was painless.
People used to spend time, effort, and resources to make carvings out of wood. Fertility symbols, or gods, in the hope of siring healthy children. Plenty of places still do, or else, pray to a god for the same. The attachment of breasts to fertility, whether that attachment is real or imagined, isn't the biggest "maybe" floating around, and such superstitions are hardly limited to men.
