Mercnbeth
Posts: 11766
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady quote:
ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote:
logic tells you that women with larger breasts (and hence more mammary glands) will have an above average risk simply based on the greater quality of tissue to be affected. quality of tissue? do larger breasts necessarily indicate more mammary glands are present or does it speak to more fat content or a variation in the overall density of the breast tissue, which varies from woman to woman? Oh crap. I meant to say "quantity" I was so tired when I typed that I didn't even check over it. I meant in the cases of women of "average" size with natural larger breasts, that there is a greater quantity of tissue to be affected. Kind of like there are more car accidents in areas where there are more cars, more pollution in areas with a lot of factories, less farms in cities, etc. While I still may be wrong in my theory, at no time did I ever mean to say "quality." I'm truly appalled by my own error since even though it was merely a typo, it does change the entire meaning of what I said, and even as I read it, it implied that I was saying bigger boobs are better or something and that was sooooo not what I meant. Thank you beth for noticing my error and giving me the chance to correct it. you are most welcome and thanks for the clarification. this slave hoped that perhaps by pointing that out, some folks might actually learn a thing or two about breasts---y'know, that there is a bit more to them than just "bigger" or "smaller". on that note, it has been this slave's experience that breast size and density can change with hormonal fluctuation...sometimes as much as two cup sizes...with or without a cup of joe every morning.
|