yes but size is something, shape an other one: the phenotype is always the interaction of genotype and environment (climate, diet, physical activity
Warning : this thread is more sensitive than sensible ! Based on scattered observations because in France you cannot do surveys upon that kind of features (Frenchies are not Scandinavians)... the types I'll speak about here are the most common observable ones, but intermediate types occur of course -
I say also that as a rule the males areolas and nipples tend to follow the females shapes of their phénotype, no surprise there -
I saw again one of the numerous fertility statues of Danubian neolithic period: and this one was particularly well sculpted: big breast, long heavy "goat udder" breast and very fat large hips and thighs, steatopygic...
surely exaggerated (magnified) but inspired by reality...
In Europe and around we can see, more or less according to the region, well breasted women: as a rule, the ones I saw (a lot in magazins that were not the Bible, but on life too) with the "goat udder form" tendancy had very large areolas, big but flat nipples – they can be more or less voluminous according to regions but rather to age and children births number – what I see is that they can be found often enough in N-W. Europe (Britain) and in S. Romance countries, and among North Africans – in Europe they have the tendancy by growth to take a « pear » shape rather than a « goat udder shape » – the skin pigmentation varies BUT the same tendancy to modeste overpigmentation of the areola compared to remaining chest colour exists everytime, whatever the skin colour : almost the same colour but the external circular line and the nipple – the result is for the most very pale pink in Britain and very light cream brown for Iberian and Italian women THAT HAVE this kind of breast - like on the fertility statues, the women with this feature have very often well developped hips and thighs, tendancy to cellulitic condition, even when young and more slim, and what I call « drowned knees », where the rotula is not easy to distinguish among fet – I suppose this type is ancient enough and even if found pictured among neolithic people, it is not only of neolithic origin in Europe – hard to say (skeletons don't give too much indications upon that question, not as for muscles) – I suppose a possible mesolithic origin in western Europe, linked to proto-mediterranean types of 'eurafrican' extraction and 'chancelade' and 'combe-capelle' types too –
I thought into 'cro-magnon' types but if a take the present day 'alpine' types as 'cro-magnon' products it don't fit very much : their women are fleshy, not to fat, have a long trunk not too broad but thick of round section, little breasts planted low enough (well separated aside also, but very firm, well rounded, with very very small areolas but big erected nipples (I believe, based on few examples it 's true, that they take volume when their are pregnants and give perhaps more milk than the heavier breasted females) – this type has a yellowish skin that goes dark enough under sun expositions but never as swarthy as the 'olive' mediterranean skin – so not too pigmented, but their small areolas and nipples are very very pigmented as a rule, having a dark brown colour – the hips are not very broad but thighs are solid, but not very fatty -
in what I feel as a 'nordic' genuine type, where body is short and broad trunked, long legged, the breasts are of middle size, closer to a « egg fried in the pan » shape, with high enough large basis, and the areola is of middle-weak surface, and the nipples small enough but with a well conic shape and easily erected – the areola an nipple colours are almost the same, a light brown pigmentation darkened by strong enough blood capillar irrigation – as a whole, this areolas are more distinguishable for colour than the ones of the « goat udder » or akin « pear » forms, without reach the strong contrast of 'alpine' types – I think that a southern more pigmented type, with the same body features but smaller, exists with same shape and same colour contrast, but upon a swarthy skin colour environment – (some of the Near-Eastern and Mediterranean people, not all of them) -
for so called 'est-baltic' and 'borreby' types I have very scarce information : I believe I remarked, among Scandinavians and some Germans, and Finns too, that someones, very light skinned, presented middle size areolas but very dark, surprisingly ! As a whole, with the mixture that is their one, the Scandinavians present few very pale areolas for a so light skinned population compared to British people, only the ones that have the « pear » shapes, but they are just a minority in Scandinavia - we find more in Britain –
for dominant 'dinarid' regions, I have no source -
according to Americans, french women are small breasted as a whole : it depends of people and also of regions : but it is true that in the french mixture dominating in a lot of regions, the 'alpine' type is the first element and it explains that – Spanish, Portuguese and South Italian females are have the reputation of big breasted women – it 's true for a small majority, but far from being a general rule -
As a whole too, whatever the type, some food habits can augment or diminish the breasts size in some proportions, I don't speak about age, it 's too evident … -
I 'll not speak here about the American or Brasilian or … ? 'pin up' girls of today : they are in danger to take off in the air by too much helium effect !
all the way this thread is not a scientific one, so we can stay cool
here under some of my divagations:
&: for a lot ot african ethnic, the problem is very complicated for their breasts shape change in an impressive way when they have given breast to a lot of babies - I have not sufficient examples about mongolid women to speak about...
have a good Sunday !
