Having said that, I would like to know more about what the real numbers are ? how many guys are self proclaimed ass men, and how many like the boobs better ? I have always assumed the boobs would win by a landslide, but ? ? Numbers Please ! I guess one thing I am trying to say is that I would guess at least 30 percent look at the other assets first. (foremost)

I would also like to know more about what women are interested in ? I pressed my (ex) girlfriend several times about what she liked physically about men, and she finally came back with arms! .

I agree, its a good thing male enhancement hasn’t worked/become popular. But what if it did work ? Mostly, maybe it was a little too hard, or johnny always looks so swollen and hard that he’s a little UNREAL! How would you feel if you found out your boyfriends huge cock cost 10,000 dollars ? and I dunno… maybe it was made out of some skin they got from under his arm…

A woman has every right to do whatever she wants with her body, but few plastic surgeons are going to tell you the truth about encapsulation, scar tissue, that lovely “rock hard” feeling your breasts will eventually get, rupture (in a recent study of questions asked of plastic surgeons, nearly ALL lied about the rupture percentage and encapsulation, hey, they know where their bread is buttered) migration (yeah, they can actually MOVE to other parts of your body……) and so on.

I advise any woman contemplating this procedure (unless, of course you have actual one sided glandular insufficiency (less than 1 in every several thousand women, however some plastic surgeons claim every woman with less than a perky C cup has this condition…..what does that tell you) or have lost a breast to disease, it is really something EVERY woman needs to educate themselves about.

And NO don’t go to the surgeon and expect him to be honest with you, cosmetic surgeons are the used car sales men of the medical world…..talk to OBGYN and L&D nurses and lactation consultants, they know breasts.

If you went from a “full” C to an A it was either due to one of two things, your last child has been weaned less than a year, and the fat deposits which SHOULD be in the breast haven’t regrown yet (OR you weaned too quickly, which can actually DAMAGE breast tissue. Slow weaning, usually at least 3 to 6 months or more, (preferably, not even started until after the baby’s first birthday) of the gradual weaning process will cause no damage to the breast.) 2) You lost too much weight too quickly and the fat in your breasts is gone (which makes up most of the size, the gladular tissue makes up little of the actual size.) If you were once a C you will be again, when you either reach your “set weight” or your body has regained the fat deposits used up during a proper LONG nursing (anything less than 6 months is “token” nursing and will usually NOT cause much loss of fat deposits at all, but the pregnancy factor is of course still there.) It takes between 3 months and a year to regain the fat deposits.

Most of the size in a breast is fat. When you breastfeed most of the “Growth” is gladular, and some fat, which is then used as the lactational process continues. Within a year after weaning (if weaning was done properly) the fat will redeposit, and the actual “Size” of the breast is nearly always the same.

I have worked with women who have NEVER been pregnant and induced lactation, for adopted babies, we see NO sagging in them, especially if they don’t lose a lot of weight. They were never pregnant, so the fibrin which causes the breast to be “perky” was never lost, as it is in pregnancy. Lactation has no effect on the fibrin in the breast, or the eventual glandular structure size. In some women the glands grow slightly, and stay that way, (usually in younger women and those with very small breasts) but we are talking about milligrams of weight, not enough to cause a breast to “sag.” (in fact the breasts are not considered completely developed until AFTER a full course of breastfeeding)

Breastfeeding is what the breasts were MEANT to do. It does not cause damage, size change (permanent) or sagging. However, pregnancy, genetics and improper weaning techniques can cause these three.

Only “cold turkey weaning” may have ANY impact on actual sagging. Some say even this brutal treatment doesn’t effect sagging, however. It should be done under NO circumstance. Cold Turkey weaning is simply “quitting” without gradually weaning, after the milk supply is regulated (after 6 weeks of total nursing) and this brutal procedure is damaging to the mother, the baby and the breasts. Even in the horrible circumstance where a woman loses her baby, we recommend pumping for a few months, and donating the milk, so that the breast isn’t damaged.

1) “Breastfeeding” does not make breasts sag. Pregnancy causes the loss of elastic tissue, as do genetics. A woman who chooses to feed her baby the artificial stuff my partner once referred to as “bong water in a can” (aka “formula”) and lets her breasts painfully involute too quickly is actually MORE likely to end up “floppy” than a woman who breastfed a mess of kids until they were all in preschool.

2)The hard, nearly untouchable implanted breast one posted touched (I am guessing a lot more than ONE poster has run into one of these) is not a “cheap” one. This is the result of “encapsulation.” The body doesn’t like the invasion of the implant, and makes a scar tissue “capsule” around the breast. The breast then feels like a stone under skin. No telling who will encapsulate, but it is VERY common, most women who get implants will encapsulate eventually. The implant does not have to “rupture” at all, the immune system causes the encapsulation. It can and does occur in otherwise completely intact implants. And, it can hurt, a LOT. No cure for it. Some get relief when the implants are removed (especially if the surgeon removes the scar tissue also) but sometimes it stays.

3) If a woman lies down, and her breasts stay at “attention” (Meaning they are still pointing up, firm, and look as though she is standing) chances are they are implants. REAL breasts obey gravity and fall to the side, as the woman lies down. Not many real women have cleavage while lying on their backs. Lying down cleavage is a good sign of “something” in the breast.

4) Even if the implant ruptures, you can still breastfeed. Silicone is inert (it does NOT cause “autoimmune disease”) and saline simply absorbs into the body. Rarely, today is the nipple completely removed for an implant to be implanted. (although it used to be, as it was easier, and most plastic surgeons couldn’t give a rat’s patootie about breastfeeding OR female sexual response.) The “best” (healthiest?) implants are saline, which are inserted, (get ready) through the woman’s navel. (they are put in DEFLATED, pushed through the body into place and THEN The saline is pumped into the implant.) Yep, NO danger of damaging the nipple structure, (which when it works properly IS a part of sexual response) no weird scars, no removing the nipple, and if it is placed UNDER the chest muscle wall, all the better.

As for saline being “floppy.” Yes, breasts are supposed to be soft…actually feeling a real one may let that poster know that….and after the age of 18 or so, most women have some variation of “floppiness” whether she has had a child or not. And, when a saline implant ruptures, nobody has to dig the stuff out of your chest wall, your abdominal wall, your neck, your back, your face, your arms and other various and sundry places….