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

No I understood your point perfectly, Larry.

Then why create a false dichotomy?

Agree with everyone who has said it's a disgusting, sexist way of explaining breasts to young boys.

To the biology - there are several other theories entirely unrelated to the incredibly western-centric, and male-centric idea that breasts are to attract men.

Screenshots taken from here

Larry you do realise that nipples become erect to allow babies to feed from them?

I didn't.

So tell me, do you think the phrasing in the book, which is after all the actual topic, is appropriate?

All that needed to be said is that breasts signify that a female is, or is about to be sexually mature. "Attractive" is far too loaded a term, and while you could use it in a strictly biological sense, as in "attracting a mate", that is not how that sentence reads in the book.

The penis doesn't exist to pleasure or attract females.

Over time penises and vaginas have become well suited, mutual pleasure often results from sex etc.

But that doesn't mean the penis is for the woman's sexual pleasure. It also doesn't mean the point of an erection is to signal to a female that a man is aroused, or to turn her on.

There is a fair variation in penis size, within limits, in humans because the size doesn't affect the actual function (within certain limits). So the point of a large penis is not to arouse a female. The existence of large penises is a side effect of the mechanism of sexual reproduction making a penis necessary.

If you can't accept this kind of thing you tend to fall into a rabbit hole of wondering what all sorts of chareteristics are for and the evolutionary 'point'. In reality lots of characteristics don't have a point. They just aren't disadvantageous enough to cause early death of all possessors of the characteristic.

It seems odd to take the trouble to tell boys something they will almost certainly find out for themselves (given they are not gay/bi/whatever).
They could just have left it at feeding.

I've been googling. There are several contradictory theories. From mate attraction, to positioning and size of breasts as a counterbalance to the vaginal tilt/walking upright. But they're all theories.

No-one is denying that men aren't attracted to breasts. (Although, they are hugely over sexualised in the west).

But to provide sex education that states the purpose of a girl's body is to be attractive to men is the height of objectification. And wholly unnecessary.

Focus on the fact that women's breasts are sensitive and nipples are an erogenous zone. That she can become aroused. If that's a turn on for the male, then great. Asserting that this is the whole purpose, is damaging.

The fuck?????

In other cultures where women's breasts aren't sexualised the children are actually fed longer. Getting more nutrition, it would be a total biological fuck up to make men desperate to get a hold of them when they're being used for their actual purpose.

Some societies like tiny bound feet, some like extended necks, or tattoos...

We live in a society with a breast fetish, that hides breast from society then tells men how great they are so it can sell them porn... western men have a completely fucked up view of women's breasts that we don't actually need to teach.

And even if it is true that some men are attracted to tits, many also like bums, hips, eyes, lips are all those there for men?

Are we going to tell little girls who haven't reached puberty their lips are for blow jobs?

I hope new dad's wife pops down to the relationships section soon. No doubt she'll need to

We live in a society with a breast fetish, that hides breast from society then tells men how great they are so it can sell them porn... western men have a completely fucked up view of women's breasts that we don't actually need to teach.

Exactly. It's so back to front.

Wow these men are so entitled that they think women's bodies are literally designed for them. No wonder rape culture.

FFS tell your daughters the truth

Usborne rewrite:

Breasts are there for 1) milk 2) to make girls look grown up and attractive. Girls should know that this makes it just fine for men to gawp at and speak to women's breasts and to look a numerous pictures of women's breasts because women are secondary citizens primarily designed for reproduction and to be an object for men to look at and abuse. Men think breasts have evolved just for them because they are special.

That truth? Or this one; Breasts are there to make milk for their young, They are another way for people to tell the difference between men and women at a distance (using Jigglytuff's phrasing.)

Coupled maybe with something that reinforces a boundary for other people's privacy rather than making it seem that women are put on the earth to be bloody decorative. Lets face it the truth is objectifying women is an example of male power over them, an idea that this is their purpose to be used by women. If this wasn't a prevalent view we wouldn't have quite the problems we do with rape and sexual assaults.

Oh and new daddy I second that fuck off - you aren't even worth the effort of a more detailed response.

Anyway aren't all the above definitions terribly transphobic.

What really irritates me, is that no woman would write that. However hard they try, men will ever understand what it's like to be a woman. Even if they support women and try their hardest, it always comes across as an intellectual concept. Understandably, right?

I see the author has also written books about science, chemistry, dinosaurs, trains, the universe and maths. And the one about boys.

I'm going to hazard a guess and say his view of the world is very male centric.

It's no coincidence that the only other poster who fully endorses it, is also male.

Anyway aren't all the above definitions terribly transphobic

I'm not sure you need to duck after saying that. Its definitely not a helpful message for any gender-confused kids of either sex.

Actually, the concept of breasts as being something entirely for the purpose of the male gaze is very much part of the trans ideology.

Whether they word it like that or not.

According to 2yo DD, the main purpose of breasts is to chestbump with random people whilst hollering 'cheers breasts!'.

Anyhow, Usborne books now firmly crossed off list.

I have literally never ever heard of the evolutionary concept that women have breasts to make them attractive to men. And I have a science degree. It sounds like something from the transagenda - diminishing breastfeeding because they can't do it.

We women as humans and mammals are at the top of the tree. Breasts develop primarily to feed babies, because human babies are born helpless for many years.

No way were breasts evolved to attract males and not all female humans like their breasts to be touched and nor do all male humans either.

One could ask why the penis evolved in the way it did. It's always there. It never recedes into a pouch. Is it there to attract females?

Well obvs chest bumping. Goes without saying

I'm in my 50s and no longer attractive in terms of mating and reproduction (I have some money so this might mitigate that).

However, my nipples do still get erect. It's due to climatic conditions and maybe because I'm aroused.

Evopsych out evopsych's itself.

Breasts exist to feed babies - biological fact
Atributing any sort of intention to the existence? Evopsych, and purely speculative.

arent they just simplifying what it means. They are a secondary sexual characteristic to signify sexual maturity, unlike in other female mammals who have flat mammary glands unless they are actually feeding babies at the time and in use.
Same as pubic hair is supposed to be attractive and signify sexual maturity too, even though most people seem to hate it these days