God’s Original, and “Very Good”, Intent (Gen 2:18; 1:31a)

             In the course of this discussion about Ernie Knoll, the spurious claim was made here that in a then just released new study entitled “Dress for Today” [1]: ‘Knoll was moving towards a ‘lewdness/nudity’ direction by advocating, out of an (assumed to be canard) health concern, that women should not wear bras (pp. 4-8) or underwear (p. 9)’. However, as I pointed out in response here, that study is actually quite reliably and historically documented, including from valid counsel from the SOP. It indeed does not take much scientific knowledge to perceive that the various constant containment and/or artificial shaping “stresses” from both female and male undergarments can have adverse effects.[2] I personally have not seen a valid reason to disagree with the health concerns/reasons cited with the statement that, especially modern undergarments, are/can be detrimental to one’s health, -and really, the counsel to ‘not wear them as much as possible’, is only controversial today, as compared to, e.g., the pre-1863 days of EGW when that was the norm, because of how the “final layer” of dress has today become quite scanty, sheer and/or “fringed”...when not outrightly “lacunistic”. However, while I don’t disagree there, I actually disagree with a concluding opining claim made in that study, which I have variously heard echoed by others, including SDA’s, indeed along the following lines:

“Women’s breasts are not sexual objects; however, Satan has made them to appear that way. They are actually secondary sexual characteristics, defined as traits that

            distinguish the two sexes of a species, but that are not directly part of the reproductive

            system.” (p. 7)

and that is followed up by defining what “sexual” organs actually are:

            “Definition of sex organs:

            A sex organ, or primary sexual characteristic, as narrowly defined, is any of the

            anatomical parts of the body which are involved in sexual reproduction.”

            Okay, technically/“narrowly” thinking and speaking, female breasts clearly are not a “(primary) sexual” organ as it materially contributes nothing to the conception and birth of a child...but, and this is what I Theologically have issue with, does that really translate into: ‘men/people being, and that most normatively/naturally, sexually attracted with, and aroused by, them having fallen for a deception of Satan.’ That is really quite a dangerously loaded claim because if women’s breasts are, “by God’s own ideal intent/design” not and never to be ‘“sexually” viewed/considered’, then really there is no, and that “Biblical”, reason why women should not, like men, go top-free whenever and wherever they want to, as many special interest group actively advocate. Most sequiturly in accordance with the claim in that study, it would indeed be in God’s will that the female breast be completely desexualized and “freed”.

            Like I said, I have variously encountered such arguments and claims from others, including SDA’s (=here), in the form of statements that: ‘the female breast is (merely)’: ‘for the feeding of infants’; ‘just (effectively) a piece of meat’; ‘etc’. However a key, and readily observable, -being quite self-evident, notion is that one would be hard-pressed to cite anything which God has created that, (as cursorily stated here [and, importantly, see my subsequent correcting of my initial view on the distinct, wider “Pet in Heaven” context here]) is not jointly: Functional, Practical, (Appealingly) Beautiful, and also Durative (abbr.: “F-P-B-D”).[3]

            -To illustratively substantiate this notion, which has been, for idealistic ambitions, been four-foldly attemptingly replicated by man, take a car for example. It could be Functional, in that it “works” (i.e., it produces the passenger displacement action/work that it was intended to do...but if actually can only go 2 mph and/or have a fuel-efficiency of 3 mpg, then it certainly is not very Practical. Indeed a walking person, even pulling a passenger load as in human- or foot/pulled-powered vehicle, would overall (i.e, including economics) be much more “Practical”. Now if it “works”, and also has great performance (e.g, can transport a load of ca. 1500lbs at, up to, 160 mph, and/at 23 mpg), but esthetically, is, even if not clunkily, just mechanical parts on a wheel base/platform, then it certainly is not very appealing/attractive/beautiful. I.e., if given a choice to buy such a “rudimentary-ish” looking car as opposed to one with a sleek outer finish,   and an amenities-loaded and comfortable interior, most buyers will probably go for the that later production (especially is money is not at all a problem)...simply because it “Beautifully” looks and “feels” so much better. Indeed cars have long been “selling” themselves based on their inherent, couched [i.e., the “hot women & cars” stereotype] and/or “socially prospective” [i.e., attract a “hot date”] “sexiness/sex-appeal” (e.g, this 2013 “double-entendre” ad). Now, if that car has all of the three ideal aspects above...but, somehow, is just not “built to last”, and in 6 months of normative use is just a useless scrap heap (e.g., the internal combustion and system heating/cooling that are needed for it to “work” just cannot be “tamed”)...then it clearly is, for that lone, fourth aspect-failure, not an ideal, and thus not desirable investment. So clearly, all of those four aspects have to be found in virtually everything, whether natural (i.e, God-Created) or man-made, if it is going to be considered, as God repeatedly “good-ly” saw during all of Creation culminating in a summary, all-inclusive: “very good” observation (Gen 1:31a).

            And it is pertinently in that context that the issue here is, which is, did God actually create/design, the female breast to be “Beautiful”, even “Sexually Appealing/Beautiful”. It actually is hard to find a body part in a normal/healthy/genetically “gifted” that is actually not “beautiful”, (and fashion, particularly for females, has periodically tried to emphasize this actuality, such as in the stages when backless dress, open mid-rifts, mini-skirts, tong-sandals, etc), but take for example the forearm... (especially if not muscularly developed, as commonly/neededly done by e.g., Baseball players), it can be quite “benignly” unappealing...So, to the issue under consideration here, was the female breast “intended” to be as “benignly” unappealing, even/especially, sexually-wise, as a forearm. Actually, for the female breast, the distinguishing key, as mentioned for the forearm, lies in the “enhancement” aspect, (which is not necessarily in terms of (pointedly: “exaggerative”) breast implants). In fact, it comparatively/counterpartly is the muscular enhancing/development of a man’s chest which makes it variously “appealing”, and, I gather, sexually so for women.

            I would here, relatively, i.e. “lampoonishly”, “out-of-mindedly” say/quip that: ‘God really splurged in the beauty aspect when He created, (and, if the Bible is to be taken seriously, evidently: injunctively, if not also resolutely, “invented” =Gen 2:7ff, 15, 18ff {cf. in here [vid at 41:54-42:18]}), the female gender for (also, as for animals) His human Creation, but it rather inherently appears that it was because of the greater, necessary “complexity” that was required so that this female gender can bear children, as seen in the many (pointedly, physical/tangible) changes which occurs in a female from the time they reach their puberty, that God then had that much more “opportunities” to implement His preferably accompanying/included “Beautiful” aspect to these Functional, Practical and Durative “features” that He would be providing for women. Without formally going into specific scientific details, as cited in the “body” affectations here, in the fact that the female would physically require e.g.,:

-wider hips for a wider birthing canal;

-and manifestly, at least, (many) times: “s-eating for 2”;

-and, as typically seen in e.g. Olympic weightlifters who usually are not actually muscularly sculpted as bodybuilders are, but instead more “plumpily fat” in build, despite the common myth that fat can be converted into muscle’, I am inclined to observationally see that a little extra “fat” is quite conducive to these weightlifters to be able to perform better/well in their discipline. In other words, I have never seen either a definedly muscular and/or skinny (Olympic-class) weightlifters, but have seen plenty who are have tightly/firmly packed and toned “contour”/layer of fat. Ergo, the fact that females ‘add on ca. 6% more fat in their “thighs, upper arms, and pubis” from puberty’ manifestly “Practically” all is for the “Functional” work that they will be bore/handled by specifically these areas. I.e., since motherhood will often most likely involve the mother having to (also standingly/walkingly) carry around a 6-8-10+lbs baby and later increasingly heavier infant, what is indeed needed here for the woman is not actually muscular power bursts, as can be achieved by post-puberty men muscularly building up in those upper arms and thighs areas, but rather local fat that can more easily and abundantly store up lasting strength energy for that, indeed pertinent enough: also “durative”, carrying/bearing and/or moving task, -(and even when baby slings are used, the thigh muscles still need to bear that extra load). Added to that is the fact that fat can/does also store (calorific) energy, which also is helpful when having to provide such calorific energy for 2 or more, let alone adequate body heat.

            And it is in all of these new, but necessary, “opportunities” that God has not at all hesitated to also involve the “Beautiful” aspect in them, as seen by the normal/natural attraction in men with these post-puberty “plumper” parts. In fact, it is not merely because they are “plumper”, for if that was the case, then mere “plumper/fatter” figures would be “in” for all, but it is in the fact that though “plumber/fatter” God ideally made it that these increases would still be still toned/firm, shapely, curvaceous and “voluptuous”....indeed the more perfect for each of these, the better they are naturally deemed to be attractive/appealing/“beautiful”. In fact, just by the fact that God did not design for added fat to form (also) around the female mid-body, which would seem to be most natural in regards to child-bearing, but instead in the (hips), thighs and chest...then it is quite evident that He indeed is the one who designingly wanted a, relatively, “(healthily) symmetrical” (e.g., 3#-2#-3#) “hourglass” figure for the fully developed female. (cf. Songs 7:1b)....-all originally to have been fully covered up by, necessarily, i.e., for non-externally, naturally/normatively stimulating/tempting reasons, God’s own, well/modestly-covering, supplied “robe/shroud of light” (LDE 291.4-292.1)....[And it likely is, out of tangible reasons, in order to be able to non-deficitly be able to still supply necessary energy for other aspects which are required to keep this, a, upon the Fall, sinful, planet in continued/stable functionality and operation while a permitted, and initially/pre-planned|settled, ‘redemptively unescapable’ (=EW 149.2) Great Controversy, that God ceased to supply Divine-energy to humans for their robe of light covering, and instead, and in an inherent (pointedly, sensuality visual stimulation facilitating) tradeoff, used that energy for these extra and inherently costly sustaining purposes.].

            Now all of these observations demonstrating God’s “Beautiful”, and as naturally/normatively considered by people (even benignly by like women), Sexually appealing, design and intent for the post-puberty figure of the female gender, lead back to the this post’s pointed issue of whether or not the female breast was intended by God to “Beautifully” be “sexually appealing” or merely be “Functional”, thus for producing milk for infants, and, in terms of size, since breast-milk production in itself is actually completely independent of a woman’s breast size, “Practical”, thus for the storage of the produced milk.

            The study-out case will as succinctly and as formally as possible, be made here that, in/for the female breast, God also intended Beauty here, and that Sexually Appealing Beauty and it will also be further shown how not having that most counter-natural view is actually what is a ploy/plan, and that double-edgedly so, of Satan. (So no “lewdness at all intended”, The necessary/substantiating facts are just the facts.)

            First of all, a typical infant only needs ca. 25-35oz (739-1035 cc|ml) per day (=2-3 soda can 12oz/355cc|ml soda cans) to be healthily fed. Now a woman with a (factually considered: small) bra size of 32A [or 30B or 28C] (e.g, this TV actress) has, as seen in this charting, a total (i.e, both) breast volume capacity of 480 cc/ml (16oz). So, as stated in here, since ‘breast milk production/flow is more like a “river” than a “lake”’ meaning and involving that the nursing female body can/will constantly, adequately produce volumes of breast milk. I.e., as basically/normatively needed per feeding instance, a woman with a 32A breast size can produce and/or store enough breast milk to daily feed her child and in at least, (as for the food consumption a grown adults) 2-3 times per day. In fact, it can be “mathematically” said that this 32A cup woman would have an excess breast(-feeding) volume capacity of up to ca. 8oz (233cc|ml) = ca. +48%.

            Now given the (arguable) fact that, as stated in here, the normative (combined) breast weight/size for a woman, (manifestly a size that can be comfortably supported by the woman’s body and also be symmetrically congruent and esthetically “cogent”), is at (just) 3% of total body weight, -which of course is to fundamentally be according to a healthy BMI (i.e., 18.5-25) body weight; (with anything larger/heavier considered as the abnormal developmental condition termed “macromastia”) then, e.g., the 36E|F “bust” of e.g., this (5ft4) singer/performer/model who reportedly weighs 115 (=BMI 19.7), and thus, as seen from that cup size charting, whose breasts thus (most likely) weigh combined 3.45 lbs, are well within the normal/ideal weight for a 36E|F bra size, which is 3.3-4.0 lbs.[4] However, that “normal” breast size/weight would also have a volumetric capacity, which is actually designedly/naturally “filled in” by, moreover (ideally, symmetrically-)shaping, subcutaneous adipose fat/tissue), of: 57-68oz (1700-2000cc|ml)!!...which of course is at least 1.6x-2.3x more the, merely “storage”, capacity that is daily needed for one child.[5] So, also from what was said in that last note, it can be seen that the “ideal” breast size for a woman is clearly “more than enough”...and that, evidently by God’s intent and design, which indeed is way beyond Function and Practical Need....Hence all things considered, i.e., that such a size and extra size is not actually disproportionate, nor deformed, but, through such a “voluptuousness” actually, for most, quite normatively/naturally, most (sexually) appealing/arousing, then it can be said/seen that God gladly provided that “extra”, shapedly fitting pointedly for that “extra” sensory/sensual/sexual intent...of course, to be, lust-wise, only wholly (i.e., all typical “peeping/showcasing” sides & angles) enjoyed all within the context of a solemnly blessed marital relationship. (=Gen 3:24; Matt 19:4-6).[6]

            Confirmingly enough, as stated on this website, the capacity of the female breast to store breast milk is actually independent of its non-nursing size, meaning that larger breasts do not actually mean a correspondingly larger capacity to store more produced breast milk, with the average storage capacity being said to be from around [ounces (cc|ml)]: 3 (88)-4 (117) to 6 (177) 8 (239). So all that achievable extra, yet still ideal/normative, volume/size is evidently for an entire different purpose/intent than with actually anything to do with breast-feeding.

            Moreover, consider on one hand, the fact that, given the unfilled cavity inside the upper chest area in (also) females, and the small volume that a basic “1 of 3 daily serving” of a combined ca. 11.7oz (345 cc/ml) would require inside the chest around each of the female chest/nipple area (thus ca. 5.8oz (172.5 cc/ml) per), that the female breast did not at all have to protrude on the outside of the chest. Indeed as with many other mammals, e.g., cats, these milk-feeding glands could be mostly interiorly contained...if really ‘their “only” intent was for producing and adequately storing milk for infants’.

            And on the other hand, at best, protruding wise, as seen with how a male body builder can develop quite bulgy/bulky pectoral muscles, that developed volume itself would, if likewise naturally effectuated in a child-bearing woman, be more than adequate to “exteriorly” store milk produced for feeding. Furthermore, the shape of the female breast itself did not at all have to be esthetically conically, lobely, roundedly shaped, and even, (given the actual and ever-present hazard of a mother inadvertently smothering or suffocating her infant with her breast mass during even awake feeding), (ideally, fully matured/developed), (self-)lifted non-drooping/sagging/a-ptosis overhangingly (vs. merely ‘bump-ly’) protruding, but could instead have been merely “squaredly shaped and protruding...if ‘God’s only intent for them was to“functionally” produce and “practically” store milk.’

            Indeed since the typical woman will comparatively only nurse children for a relative fractional part of her entire adult/post-puberty, thus for a woman who has had 2 children at age 20 and 22 and lives into her 80's, for only 4-6 out of those 60+ years (=up to only 10%), then it would be that such permanent, pronounced features, (indeed non-“disposable”, as is the pregnancy belly and also the increased general body fat during pregnancy beyond what had been strategically “added” by female puberty), would be an ill-conceived designed by God... if ‘He only intended the Female breast to be milk storage sacs’, akin to a cow’s, only/mostly-shaped-by-its-contained milk, udders. And that empirical fact alone actually turns on its head the claim in that Knoll ministry study that ‘the female breast, at best, has a “secondary” sexual characteristic.’  So it is most logical, even evident, that God “blessingly/pleasingly” had much more in mind for the human female milk producing gland. Indeed God could instead have made it that the female breast could easily have been, as it at times becomes the case post-pregnancies and/or breast-feeding, a mere, normatively flat sack, like that of a rubber hot water “bottle” needing to be fill with a liquid to get any shape....let alone the esthetically pleasing/appealing shape that God effected through including naturally gelatic, fat to shape the female breast...and that throughout duration of the life, and any number of birthings/feedings, of that woman/mother. Clearly the mature/adult child-bearing female body was intended by God to be, literally from head to toe, to be, much much more than men, sensual and sexual, evidently, as presented here, all out of God’s also involved functional/practical ideal and need, even for a sinless world and planet, to be able to ‘fill, and thus subdue (i.e., meticulously care for) this planet. (Gen 1:28a)[7]

            A couple of related points: Pertinently, but succinctly stated here, in regards to public breast-feeding while it indeed is most natural for a woman to breast-feed, doing it in the open and/or in public is not “natural”, pointedly for the above stated reasons that the female breast is most inherently, and also, merely in terms of lifetime “use”, actually paramountly and predominantly so, meant to be sensual and sexual....even a pre-puberty, post-nursing age (male) child will, albeit quasi-platonicly, most naturally/innately have such a “pleased” reaction/attraction to this female body part if/when “exposed” to it.[8] But, especially by our advanced day and age, when, timely enough, with much more people populating the earth, and most in the tight quarters of densely-packed cities, on top of women/mothers being an equal half for the workforce, there exist enough assisting and facilitating technology, such as breast-pumps and freshness maintaining storages/containers, that public breast-feeding, especially, given the availability of various covering up and discreeting clothing wear, is not at all a “necessity”. In fact, pre-pumping and storing of breast milk seems to be much more efficient in terms of feeding the infant than the natural way, and really, given also the availability of extended maternity leaves, an “artificial feeding of the infant” should/would/could at most only be for only one meal, even per day, of the child, unless that mother actually (necessarily) spends her whole, and all, (maternity leave) day(s) ‘outside in public’. Again, lest I be misconstrued, I am not at all against the natural feeding of a nursing infant...but there innately is something not actually natural in one/others (males) having to, indeed “unnaturally” suppress their natural reactions and feelings, and especially because a mother thinks she has the right to “naturally” “whip’em out” anywhere she wants, e.g., (just from disturbing personal exposures/encounters), Church [beyond a “mother’s room” which ideally would better be served with, optimally, one-way glass], prayer meeting, funeral parlor, etc (Cf. this instance (public comments & poll).[9] Frankly, given that sexuality is actually also most natural in/for post-puberty youth and adults, having to suppress when arouse it what is not natural (~Songs 2:7; 3:5; 8:4).

            Which leads me to my second relatable related point, that should really go without saying, and will thus be tersely, succinctly said, there is likewise, and much more so, nothing “natural” in “toplessness” and/or “naturism”, even if at a beach....

            Frankly, and this is where I see is the crafty, “double-edged” ploy and plan of the Devil, having to repress what God literally rigged to be automatically triggered when aroused, gradually, actually reduces man to, even lower life forms than mammal animals, which I gather [I could be wrong] also involve sensual attraction and arousal, than mere dutiful, instinctual “perfunction”, as in lower “life” forms”, to indeed a level of vapid, perfunctory quasi-automates. In other words, this “forced” suppression of what is sensually) natural, (and/yet the full sexual act is itself not natural), is most unhuman....and thus also is the arousal-causing from the female side...which all leads into God’s reason and purpose for “dress-reform”...and why He Himself had taken on the task of adequately clothing/veiling naked humans with a “robe of light” (PP 45.3-as I relatedly state here, even when all, including morally wise, all is Edenicly restored, the redeem will still wear “robes” which in Heaven may then not be “artificial garments” made of “linen” material) which perhaps only a married couple could “see through”, however if/when they wanted to....lest they otherwise not be able to focus on any other work they also had to do.[10] The most manifest fact is that Satan, and that from the start, has vexatiously, “sabotagingly”, trying to destroy all of the “good’ things that God (only) created, and one way, through various perversion, or another, through effected apathy, he is working to totally do this in man. Given the comparative degeneracy in the original physical perfection of man, (which manifestly is only tracely and rarely, if anything close, observable today with some natural “specimen” and/or artificially approximated through cosmetic interventions), it is actually that, originally, unlike as common today, even familiarity with a spouse’s unclothed body would ever result in not being most automatically sexually aroused by it, which relatedly is why visual and/or physical promiscuity today is so rampantly “popular”. So, in God’s original perfect world, it would not at all be the case that ‘people would come to get platonically used to adult nudity’, All this to say, that Satan is wanting to literally snuff out, through either overexposure, including “mere” scanty/sensual exposure, and that to today’s generally much less “tittilatingly”-attractive forms, whatever is left of that original pleasure that God had provide for man (and that, also preservingly so, for a married couple relationship). And it also equally works for him, from the other angle, to get human to think that they are not to find anything sexual with the nude human body.

            Most relatedly and comprehensionly, crucially significant, as it was said before, man now comes to its decisions on what is morally right or wrong, pointedly here in the area of human sexuality, based upon a relative comparison with what the state of things now is...some 6000 years after the Fall and its increasing degeneratings. And it, tellingly is also through that same “relative deeming” that people today, including Christians, claim that homosexuality, which in our day, is most likely precipitated and fueled by various sinful affectations in familial and societal circles, is both normal and acceptable. Succinctly wrapped up here, as Jesus said: “it is an enemy who has done this’ (Matt 13:28)...including this desexualization of what is actually sexual, this call, as done in that Knoll Ministry study. This whole scheming intent of Satan most pointedly is like him having convinced man that the way to survive an activated and ticking (sensual/sexual) bomb is to “naturally”, not even “close your eyes” or “look elsewhere”, but actually to do look but, an inevitably, at least at first, until ‘mind-lessness over matter’ “mastered”, “think other and/or suppressing thought”, and that for all of these (sexual) bombs that one may encounter...While the truth is, as he actually knows, that bomb is still going to detrimentally explode.

Conclusion

            The claim that the female breast was solely/merely and/or primarily meant to be for functional and practical purposes is neither a scientific one, nor is it Theological true or right. God intended them for quite “leisure” sensory enjoyment for the married couple...quite literally, given the fact that they are indeed technically not sexual organ...as His marriage gift.. that, as originally perfectly and “amply” designed, quite welcomedly, more readily, variously (also) “keeps on giving”... to the solemnly loving married couple!! (cf. Songs 4:5; 7:3, 7-8)

Notes

[1] Which was manifestly actually not prepared/written by Knoll himself, but is inherently fully endorsed by him being released on his website, and contains (undocumented/unsubstantiated) claims that Knoll had dreams which corroborated some points made in that study.

[2] In a (not anatomically) related example, in my younger days when I was practicing hard to become a Baseball pitcher, I, in one period, overworked my pitching arm/elbow. Well I had the bright, self-conceived idea that if I would go to sleep with a lightly-tightly strapped elbow pad where it hurt, (and I don’t even recall that I placed ice in it), that I should be fine the next day. Well I woke up with a scary giant tender swollen lump on the other side of the elbow pad. That swelling eventually and soon, returned to normal (with some ice), and without causing any sequels.

            So, just as there are medical warnings that always placing a laptop on ones lap can have adverse health effects, I can easily see that the warming, pressuring, compacting, etc stresses from male or female underwear can accruedly not be ideal health-wise....(which relatedly is one of the reasons why, e.g., for some men, boxers are much more preferred than briefs).

[3] That last “durative” notion, just added here, from the “strength/firmness” observation made in this Sabbath School presentation [10:33-12:05] quoting 1st Century BC Roman architect Marcus Vitruvius Pollio, would actually go without saying due to the fact that God originally did create and expect things to last eternally, but there is the widely observed “elastic”/bouncing back aspect in Creation, as well as in Humans, where these God created things can experience much strain, stress and stretch but still be able to, in comparatively quick time, regain, (of course especially in a sinless world) their original “perfect” form/state. The case of post-natural childbirth recovery in women is probably (natural/normal-affectations wise) the prime example, added to the fact that God actually had planned for child birth to be virtually, if not completely, painless (Gen 3:16a), -(as it evidently is the case with all animals). Perhaps/Manifestly, God (menopause-like-ly) removed/suppressed the “Epidural”-like hormone/secretion capability in women.

[4] Also illustratingly, slightly conversely, the reported: 34DDD (=34F) (enhanced) bust size of this 107-115lbs (5ft3-4.5) glamour model (=BMI at 5ft3: 19.0-20.4 or at 5ft4.5: 18.1-19.4) [now, after enhancements reduction, a fitness model] would, if above 111 lbs, fall just beyond the normal size for such higher weights as her “3%” combined breast weight from a potential range of 3.21-3.45 lbs would then would exceed the charted “cutoff” weight of 3.3 lbs. [And all, though, size-wise substantively inconsequentially, breast enhancement implant material, as also involved here, probably has a slightly different weight/density than natural breast fat].

[5] Perhaps God anticipatedly provided simultaneous|duplicative conceptions (i.e., twins), -though I would actually consider such conceptions to be a not-ideal/intended, sin-damage-caused anomaly, particularly from the fact, as seen in God’s creation, that He actually does not dully aim at “exact copies” in His Creation, as it can easily “identically” happen in twins+. And given the low frequency of such simultaneous conceptions, i.e., being most extremely at ca. 100 per 1000 births (=as high as 10%), that would be quite an anticipatory provision given to women, which, as seen in today’s (pop) culture, most would probably readily welcome....pointedly at that underlying “ideal size” for that 115lbs frame of 36E|F.

[6] To me, it is indeed quite telling that many of the same people who, either for religious, cultural or “natural”, advocate and/or tacitly accept anything from partial/selective/“strategic” to full/toplessness breast exposure in some related way react differently depending on the breast size and/or shape perfection of a woman, as if this is perfectly acceptable for small chested woman, but woman with larger and more pronounced and defined bust “cross an unacceptable/“trashy” line”...Yeah that “line” is the fact that the more ideal and perfect the woman’s breast is, the, most naturally/normatively so, is its sexual appeal. E.g., (and no approval for either subject is being conveyed here by me), that 32A bust size actress was/would probably not be criticized, or even explicitly noticed at all, for her “opened up” outfit, (and probably, actually given a, pun intended, “A” for daring/trying), but, another woman with a much larger bust size,* typically get some sort of, at least knee-jerkedly, (however much less so now than in the earlier days of this increased “fashionable” exposures), disapproving/reprimanding/chastising remark (e.g., as in here).

* And whether or not she is the (“Jezebel” -1 Kgs 18:4a|Rev 2:20 -i.e., in regards to the SOP’s clear, “Elijah Message” (3T 62.1), counsels on also Dress Reform (e.g., PH123 58.2)) wife of an SDA[who, i.e. he, actually is not a “pastor” {though he does quasi-preaches and ad hocly-minister} -Do see this “exposing”|critiquing|rebuking|exhorting of him and his views/work.]...no matter how she spuriously tries to rationalize it (cf. here; then here). {See this pointedly addressing sermon.} -Pertinently/ironically enough here, she sounds exactly like the heretical ‘scandalous clothing counsel’ (see here) that Knoll had initially thought was from God about: ‘women going braless and also wearing tight, revealing clothing, all to attract non-believers’).

            And, pertinently stated here, this is the invalidating, typical, “relativity” consideration in this issue. Fact is, this issue is not relative. It is only this Satan-borne concept that right or wrong must be “relatively” viewed according to the degrading damages of sin, vs. God’s constant “absolute” standard, that is behind, even the religious claim that breast are not to be sexual. Frankly, it is, seriously stated from repeated/typical observation: married men who have seen/experienced the (not-originally-supposed-to-be) detrimental affectation that breast-feeding has had on their wife, who also had not started out with a ideal and perfect breast size, image and/or shape to start with, who are subjectively “gung ho” about dismissively claiming that: ‘the female breast was not/never supposed to be sexual anyways’. Fact is, it not only was...but God actually “Duratively” design both them and the rest of the child-bearing female body to most elastically “snap back” into its ideal, perfect and sensual/sexual shape...as it can relatively be still seen today in/with particularly wealthy people, such as Hollywood actresses who are able to both afford the physical consultation and training services and wellness aids, as well as dispose of whatever time is necessary, to be able to regain their previous “Star” figure.

[7] All relatedly, just as in the fact that God also deliberately made the sexual act to likewise be jointly appealing, enjoyable and pleasing as it instead could have mostly easily beyond, the initiating arousal stage, (which like most bodily functions, could easily just require mere volitional thought), could be as functionarily perfunctory and platonic as, relatedly enough, urinating....Certainly, indeed no assistive stimulating at all would be necessary for either secretion or release. Combined that with the fact that, unlike mammal animals whose male and female physical distinction is quite unpronounced, if anything nakedly observable at all, to the point that it is in many cases merely a released scent that alerts/arouses the animal male, the sexual/gender distinctions in humans is, comparatively, up to infinitely more pronounced. All these are indications that God indeed deliberately did something most special for His (most) intelligently created, image-reflecting, beings: humans....and do animals actually even mate for “fun” (i.e., not only when they think there is a chance/need/duty to (at least try to) reproduce????...
            Which leads to the point that any entity which teaches, as “Biblical” that (marital) human sexuality is merely for reproduction purposes, is actually completely off the mark, because therein too God included his F-P-B-D aspects, by, although having that need to “fill the Earth to subdue/control it’ (Gen 1:28a), He still incorporated a “Pleasurable” (=“Beautiful”) aspect in/with it....And as, -though perversely, seen today, healthy (including aging-wise), and, particularly “happy” and/or (relatively) care-free, humans, sure, {despite what (#23-#25)[58:45-01:02:05-01:06:07] a "dark/black|insult|blue" comedian futilely (also) tried to, relatedly, "solve" (#2.13)[52:21-53:53-58:47]}, just can’t get enough!!!!

[8] If, even if it was for nothing more, God probably intended the (initially normatively voluptuous) female breast to a “sensual” (thus pre-sexual) readily noticeable attracting/bonding/arousing “candy” for the married couple, while in their private setting.

[9] Which relatedly reminds me: If men tennis players wear shorts...why (else?) do the women [and ditto for women cheerleaders] insist on wearing crotch-high, flimsy “skirts”??!!!

[10] Which is all why, to me, it is most head shakingly comical to hear/read about ‘it not being “etiquette” for a male to be “visually, sexually aroused” if/when at one of those various “naturism” places....