I guess I don't understand, since there doesn't really seem to be a "normal" for breasts, and every pair of actual, real live breasts I've ever seen have looked different from one another in shape, size, nipple size, etc, why having this particular shape--which many women have--is a deformity. And I think it also begs the question, is there an epidemic of this deformity in Africa? Because if you pick up a National Geographic Magazine, widely spaced tubular breasts with big nipples (which seems to be the definition of tubular breasts) are all over the place. It...well, it kind of sounds like something made up by plastic surgeons. It seems no different to me than saying gay people have a sexual disorder. Are most people gay? No. But it's an acceptable (or should be) way to be. To classify breasts that for all intents and purposes, function as other breasts do as a deformity is not empowering. It implies that it should be corrected. It implies that they are not acceptable.
So why are these breasts a deformity, but not breasts with nipples that point different directions? Or breasts with overly extended nipples? Or breasts with very large aereola? Or breasts with pinprick aareola? Or breasts that are pointy? Or breasts that sag? Or breasts that sit up high? Or on and on and on of the endless variations of breasts?
Comment Reply
I guess I don't understand, since there doesn't really seem to be a "normal" for breasts, and every pair of actual, real live breasts I've ever seen have looked different from one another in shape, size, nipple size, etc, why having this particular shape--which many women have--is a deformity. And I think it also begs the question, is there an epidemic of this deformity in Africa? Because if you pick up a National Geographic Magazine, widely spaced tubular breasts with big nipples (which seems to be the definition of tubular breasts) are all over the place. It...well, it kind of sounds like something made up by plastic surgeons. It seems no different to me than saying gay people have a sexual disorder. Are most people gay? No. But it's an acceptable (or should be) way to be. To classify breasts that for all intents and purposes, function as other breasts do as a deformity is not empowering. It implies that it should be corrected. It implies that they are not acceptable.
So why are these breasts a deformity, but not breasts with nipples that point different directions? Or breasts with overly extended nipples? Or breasts with very large aereola? Or breasts with pinprick aareola? Or breasts that are pointy? Or breasts that sag? Or breasts that sit up high? Or on and on and on of the endless variations of breasts?
September 2, 2010 - 1:45pmThis Comment
Reply