No, but many women do, don't they?

And implants have proven to be considerably more mediaclly dangerous than circumcisions, haven't they?

Here's the difference, I think: I would suggest that if there were a way of predicting in infancy which women would have abnormally small breasts in adulthood and there were a simple operation to change that and make the developed breats fall within the statistical norm later - one that was simpler and less dangerous than breast implants in adulthood - many parents would opt for it for their dauheters.

Just as they would opt for reducing the size of abnormally large ear lobes..

[/b][/quote]Ya think so?

As a parent, no. Would I be doing my child a disservice letting him/her run around with abnormally, large....lobes?

Why do women's breasts have to fall into the statistical norm?

Are you saying that "abnormally small breasts" are .."wholly unattractive"?

Could a man not find myself - as a woman - "attractive" with "abnormally, small breasts"?

I actually happen to have - by societal standards - a nice, rather large rack. Is this supposed to make me more sexually attractive to the male species than my small-busted counterparts? Warning, if you say yes, I am going to come completely unglued!

Women get implants because they want to conform to society's norms. But they make that choice in adulthood. If society deemed females to be more "attractive" as blondes, should all us brunettes artificially dye our hair? Yeah, some women do as a CHOICE. Why conform to a set of standards - JUST BECAUSE.

I'm really loving the guy right now who once said he fell in love with me because of the crinkle in my nose when I laughed. What if my parents had opted to have that FLAW removed at birth? What, with smooth rods, large perky breasts and perfectly sized earlobes, where do we draw the line of trying to create perfect looking people?