Usborne Puberty Book tells children that breasts exist to make milk and to make girls look grown up and attractive

[AssignedPerfectAtBirth]

www.theguardian.com/books/2017/aug/29/usborne-apologises-puberty-book-childrens-publisher?CMP=share_btn_tw

Breasts are there for 1) milk 2) to make girls look grown up and attractive

Nice to know that our children are being taught that breasts are there to look at

I think there was another thread on here about this (or on a Facebook group I'm in)

Happily Usborne have apologised:

www.google.ie/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/books/2017/aug/29/usborne-apologises-puberty-book-childrens-publisher

That's an empty apology. Clearly, they expected this to fly under the radar and that no one would notice. Cannot imagine that it is a genuine mistake. Books are read so many time before publication, how could they have missed this? It is not like a small typo, it is a whole sentence.

You could almost think they beleive this is true!

Yes but "no matter the size both things are true" so even if you have small breasts, don't despair, some boy out there will fancy you.

But, it was a book for boys, telling them what breasts are for

And they haven't withdrawn it - just stopped printing any more.

From a book called "Growing up for Boys". For Boys. I cry.

The Usbourne book of Growing up used to be so full of sensible information and pictures (even if the labia were colour-coded zones)

I think the apology was swift and adequate.

Also the description of breasts in the book is actually correct with regard to physiology and anthropology. I think the revision for future prints will be a good thing overall for political reasons but it will technically be inaccurate.

If my dd (or future dc) ask me why women have breasts (as opposed to just nipples like men) I will tell them the truth about sexual selection or to put it simply women have breasts because men like them.

breasts are there to be looked at though, otherwise men who like breasts are vilified and it's quite normal.
They aren't only there for milk, and they gave milk as the first example.

I will tell them the truth about sexual selection or to put it simply women have breasts because men like them.

Women do not have breasts because men like them. Do they have bums for the same reason? Or inner thighs? Or lips?

Dear God.

Women have breasts so they can feed children.

If you want to find out what women think of men in the UK who can't help but go OMG boobies, boobies, pop over to the thread about the topless sunbather.

And for the love of God, do not tell any daughter that the reason she has breasts is because of men.

Ffs.

I despair at how far we still have to go.

I think 'NewDaddie' was taking the piss. Surely!

It's technically correct insofar as they're highly visible throughout the entire reproductive cycle and not just when needed so they're probably evolved as a form of sexual display. However, not all things that are biologically correct are appropriate for a book aimed at this age group, especially in this highly simplified form which sends a whole host of dodgy messages. It's also heteronormative as hell.

But other primates feed their children and do not have permanently prominent breasts. It is unusual to humans and it is often speculated that the purpose is to be sexually attractive to males.

To be clear, their constant visibility is probably the result of sexual selection, obviously women would have to have breasts at some periods, because we're mammals.

Do your husbands never play with your breasts then?
Do you not enjoy it? Do they not enjoy it?
FFS tell your daughters the truth.
Stop making men out to be weird baddies all the time.

Women do have breasts to feed children. But, in caveman terms, the mate a man looks for is one to feed his babies so the breasts are attractive to him. (Ditto for the curvy hips). Not sure why we are denying basic evolutionary facts. My dc are both at that age (girl and boy) and I'm happy for both to read that.

Anthropologically men do find breasts attractive.

That's not why the female of the human race developed breasts though.

Their purpose is for milk production.

The fact that they are pretty Is irrelevant to their purpose.

Actually the shape of the female human breast seems to have a lot to do with the mechanics of sucking, and very little to do with daddy enjoying himself:
Bentley, Gillian R. (2001). "The Evolution of the Human Breast". American Journal of Physical Anthropology. 32 (38): 30–50. doi:10.1002/ajpa.1033.

Breasts are the shape they are so that infants don't suffocate. Sexual selection doesn't make much sense when the whole population doesn't have big boobs.

Yes nipples are an erogenous zone. As they are on many men.

But telling girl children their breasts are there because of men is just more sexual objectification. Men might like them, but that's not their purpose.

Isn't it more that women evolved breasts appropriate for a biped mammal to feed their young effectively, and men then evolved to find potentially successful mothers attractive? They've inverted cause and effect, surely?

' to make girls look grown up and attractive'

Sorry, hit post too early and have forgotten exactly what scathing comment I was going to add.

Errol

But how is it that any size or shape of breast can be attractive? And certain cultures have quite definite ideas about how ones areola should look, whilst others don't.

There isn't a 'correct' type of breast in terms of feeding.

It's a terrible way to put it regardless of truth. If you said "vaginas exist to have penises stuck in them", or "penises exist to be stuck in vaginas" then there's a sense in which those statements are correct. It's still not what you want to put in a book for primary children for a huge range of reasons.

Errol has it.