Pugs with breathing problems due to the results of breeding, and woman with large breasts unable to run pain-free without a bra are the result of effectively the same process.

So why is one immoral and not the other? Why do people vocally discourage people from breeding pugs or other dogs with breeding issues but you'd never hear anyone claim women with large breasts shouldn't have children?

I'm not suggesting anything here myself either way. I'm simply posing the question and would like to hear the reasoning each of you might apply to rationalizing this discongruity.

@freemo breeding incolves 2 sets of genetics. Tour argument might be better to say that large breasted women should be discouraged from procreation with men with big breasts, or more correctly men from families where the women are larger breasted.

Of course, some large breasted women, are not genetically so but done so by surgery, no?

@Absinthe If a particular gene is harmful then you are better off eliminating it entierly (make sure you dont have even one set) so as to ensure the harmful expression of the gene doesnt crop up later.

@freemo true enough, but if large breasts were harmful, wouldn't such fall out of attractiveness? If men didn't find them attractive they wouldn't breed with them in the same way they don't breed with nonsymetric faced and those wirh other features that perhaps signal genetic or social weakness?

Are we better at marketing and changing the internal instincts? Perhaps in the way we can tap into the instinctual desire of sweet energy rich and nutrient dense fruit with less nutrient dense candies and processed products etc?

Certainly we are not actively breeding persons? Not match making those from the breast rich families with those of other breast rich families to create superbreasted offspring?

@Absinthe Just because something is harmful doesnt garuntee it would be unattractive, no.

But you are right that the breeding isnt forced, it happens naturally, but it can still be harmful despite this.

@freemo I have thought about this. I think the attractiveness of breasts probably come as indication of nubileness or fertility. Perhaps if a little is good a lot can be better, or perhaps an increase in size shows additional health or nutrient based strength. So someone with developed breasts could be fertile and with additional size perhaps more likely to successfully bring a child to term. This works in nature, but in our current reality it is easy to provide an abundance to calories.

We have evolved to a point where we have overcome our instinctual pointers. The benefits of our instincts is broken. Perhaps those instincts need to be curbed (evolved to newer ones). How do we evolved new instincts?

@Absinthe Yet humans are the only speciesa that have engorged breasts prior to bearing a baby, not even chimps have that.

@freemo i have seen it argued that the shape mimics the buttocks, though most humans I've met don't present with inflamed red buttocks to signal estrus either. Too bad though, might have made high school dating less confusing.

@Absinthe Butts arent equivelant because they serve a functional need. Unlike breasts which do not have a function need prior to child birth.

@freemo to have color change serves no other purpose than to signal receptiveness that I can tell

@Absinthe Yes, but again the color change has no negative impact, therefore it is not unusual nor comparable to women with large breasts to the point of back problems.

@freemo one might argue that large breasts to the result of back problem may have more to do with artificially supporting them, as gravity would change their shape more quickly over time otherwise. Look at some of the other non-braziered cultures' images 'cultural nudity'. Other aspect of the back problems do come from social shame of the early bloomer modifying posture in youth to minimize the appearance.