sozobe wrote:No, it was just the first cite I found that had anything about preferences. Would be interested in seeing your cite. It is profoundly counterintuitive to me, but if there are studies, there are studies.
I can't comment on the counter intuitive factor but the studies theorized that the preference was based on younger women issues with sexuality and older women's preference for a more understanding doctor.
I do not remember if it was cultural. I do know that one of the studies was Brazilian.
sozobe wrote:
You made rather a big deal about not looking back there a ways:
Craven de Kere wrote:Sorry, modestly makes me stare at the ceiling. I know some women get angered at this attitude ("it's the most beautiful thing in the world!" "yeah but there's a baby attached to it!") but I feel like a voyeur and yes I know breasts are for babies first and foremost but I can't help it.
I know this doesn't preclude you noticing anyway -- it's not the same as saying "I have never ever seen a breastfeeding baby" -- but it hardly suggests rigorous collection of data.
I never intended for it to suggest that. I take issue with your use of it to suggest otherwise though.
sozobe wrote:
Of course you can have your opinion. Duh. I just have been saying why your opinion doesn't make sense,
No you are not "just saying" why my opinions don't make sense. You were trying to use a comment I made to suggest that I do not observe such activities.
I do not assail your collation. You say you have observed different data and I do not contest that. I find it low to try to go at the source rather than the data.
sozobe wrote:Do you dispute that babies who want milk are at least as likely to make side-to-side movements as up-and-down movements?
Depends on how the question is phrased. In the way you phrased it right now the elements I hold as crucial are wide open.
i.e. The side to side movement might be more pronnounced but might relate more to the procuring and not the indication of desire.