(3 hours ago)JustAnotherTheory Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I would argue, like our friend Jimmy here, that the VMS illustrator did not actually see real breasts at the time of drawing.
This deserves an adult discussion.
The shape of real breasts vary greatly. They are not all round or large; many can be smaller or pointier, saggier or something else. Without straying into NSFW, there are communities online that celebrate and promote specifically those types of features. So what are we basing "normal" on here?
I'll be the one to break the image deadlock. Take this example on You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. :
I find it difficult to believe that this was drawn by someone that had never seen a naked woman. It is an actually very accurate depiction of a slightly larger bodied woman (or of a pregnant woman). The breasts moving to the sides + the pubic hair demonstrates knowledge of how many women look in reality. I do not believe a young man or child who had never seen a naked woman would have been able to portray this.
As for the side views, yes many are pointy (but that
can be normal) but many are relatively "normal" too. These examples, to show a couple, do not look particularly "wrong" to me at all:
And although it's a potentially controversial subject, some of them could also be depictions of younger women undergoing puberty before they are fully developed adults. It
was the 1400s.