Would breasts make human powered flight harder?

-2

I don’t have breasts. Ok, in all seriousness, when I look up how much breasts weigh all I get in answers like “30,000 bees per bong” and all my female friends don’t know the answer. Could removing breasts reduces someone’s weight enough to make human powered flight easier?

Also, would breasts limit the range of arm motion needed to produce a flight stroke?

One more thing, people in my story setting live on a world with a third Earth’s gravity and a super dense atmosphere so humans can fly with artificial wings.

299 Neandertal Variants

Posted 2018-12-24T23:33:38.903

Reputation: 468

7Do breasts make bat powered flight harder? – A. I. Breveleri – 2018-12-25T04:10:46.940

This is a bit of a mess! You're asking too many questions per query. Please edit and focus on one singe issue or problem within one focused query. Take a look at the [help] and [tour] so you can get an idea how SE works. Also: breasts do not weigh anything like what you seem to think they weigh. A whopper might be a couple kilos. All things being equal, you could whack em right off and the poor girl won't be able to get her totally unsuited for flight human body in the air! – elemtilas – 2018-12-25T05:56:00.830

6

To illuminate one of life's great mysteries for you: a human female breast usually weighs between 500 grams and 1 kilogram. Smaller and larger weights are no uncommon. And there is no indication whatsoever that human females have lower mobility in their arms than human males.

– AlexP – 2018-12-25T12:31:33.707

1Welcome to WB.SE. Please note that SE's basic model is one-specific-question/one-best answer. We're lenient with newcomers, but bear that in mind for the future. Please note that this question is silly because it could as easily be asked, "would the weight of the human make human flight more difficult?" The answer is, of course, "of course." Small breasts won't matter. Large breasts might. So would eating a lot of donuts. – JBH – 2018-12-25T17:41:06.740

1@299 Neandertal Variants You do too have breasts, they're just underdeveloped. – TheLeopard – 2018-12-26T00:05:48.723

1A good point to think about is that most females, even the ones with ample bosoms, usually weight less than average males. A proper suit to hold "stuff in place" would be far more useful than cutting the breasts off. – T. Sar – 2018-12-26T09:52:34.173

They are not breasts they are flight muscles. – John – 2018-12-26T15:09:07.057

They are not breasts they are in-flight refuelling systems for infant flyers. – TheLeopard – 2018-12-27T01:23:02.277

Answers

9

Actually, it's probably more accurate to say that men could only fly if they developed 'breasts'.

Not in the female sense of course, but the fact is that female breasts sit more or less neatly over the pectoral muscles of the chest. Assuming that your flight mechanism is similar to birds and that wings are formed from arms and hands like in birds, it's the pectoral muscles that are going to do all the real work.

Modern day birds are not evolved from pterasaurs; they're evolved from therapods, like velociraptor. This is because they used their front arms to grab, and developed very strong muscles in their chests to drive their claws at their prey. Eventually, those muscles were used not only to repeatedly strike at other creatures but to flap the arms, which become wings, and the therapods take flight.

This is also why breast meat on chickens and turkeys is the lowest fat but largest single body of muscle on the bird - it's the part of the bird that really powers flight.

It is further important to note that all other things being equal, women are in no way restricted from developing their pectoral muscles to the same extent as men just because of their breasts. Men or women capable of flight in the same manner as birds are would have greatly developed pectoral muscles, which (according to most commentators on the subject) would make both genders more attractive without reducing breast size in women at all.

Tim B II

Posted 2018-12-24T23:33:38.903

Reputation: 50 977

7

I don’t have breasts. Ok, in all seriousness, when I look up how much breasts weigh all I get in answers like “30,000 bees per bong” and all my female friends don’t know the answer. Could removing breasts reduces someone’s weight enough to make human powered flight easier?

The medical name for this is "bilateral mastectomy", and if you google that term you'll find plenty of information about the real-life consequences. They include:

  • Scarring. (Breast tissue is flexible, scar tissue ain't.)
  • Pain/nerve damage.
  • Reduced range of arm/shoulder movement.
  • Risk of infection.

As Tim B has already pointed out, the breasts are co-located with the pectoral muscles, so this is pretty much the last place on the body where you want those complications. Any benefits from losing a couple of pounds of tissue will be vastly outweighed by the damage done to the area where the flight muscles are concentrated, and lengthy recovery time before they get back to anywhere near their pre-surgery capability.

Also, would breasts limit the range of arm motion needed to produce a flight stroke?

Mastectomy is more likely to reduce range of mobility than to increase it.

Geoffrey Brent

Posted 2018-12-24T23:33:38.903

Reputation: 572

3

The short answer to your question is breasts would have an insignificant effect on human powered flight in your setting.

Greater bodyweight in general would make muscle-powered flight harder, but even full breasts only weigh about 2 to 5 pounds each. People would just go on a diet for a month to achieve the same effect. Random website about boob weight

Of course a female flyer's breasts would move along with her arm movements, so there wouldn't be a problem there.

A flyer being as lean as possible with a low BMI would be ideal. Since flying is no doubt a very physically demanding aerobic task, your female flyers would probably be slim and muscular anyway, like female Olympic swimmers.

EDIT:

This explanatory chart provides clarification.

TheLeopard

Posted 2018-12-24T23:33:38.903

Reputation: 826

-3

Required reading, Titan is the most interesting here: https://what-if.xkcd.com/30/.

The question seems redundant. If you make somethig lighter it is easier to fly so removing breasts would help.

With the exception of small boobs (which theoretically also have a tiny negative effect on ROM) all boobs would impede flight movement. It would depend on the wings and exact wing motion how much it would be in the way.

Demigan

Posted 2018-12-24T23:33:38.903

Reputation: 18 149

5If breasts don't interfere with Olympic level athletes doing the butterfly stroke in competitive swimming, then there's no way they'd interfere with flying. If you want to say "all boobs would impede flight movement" then be prepared to back it up with references or examples. – Cyn says make Monica whole – 2018-12-25T00:45:21.613

@Cyn and why wouldnt breasts interfere with the butterfly stroke? I'm not saying "it massively impedes the movement", I'm saying it will have a negative effect, even if it might be a small one. – Demigan – 2018-12-25T16:38:06.433

4Prove it. Just because you think it ought to doesn't make it so. Your claim is all breasts impede this type of motion (not just abnormally huge aka porn breasts). That's a striking claim that goes against what any woman knows and what anyone can see with their own eyes. I'm not interested in your guesses. Find studies and provide evidence. – Cyn says make Monica whole – 2018-12-25T16:41:11.883

@Cyn why not work together on it? You try to find proof that breast size has no impact on performance and I'll try to find proof that it has. Thats better than trying to insult each other on the basis of "what any woman knows or anyone can see". I'm really interested in what exactly anyone would be able to see, equal performance unrelated to breast size? How would that work? And yes, breast size vs performance would be what you should look for as it would also tell us something about small breasts vs no breasts. – Demigan – 2018-12-25T18:22:44.293

4You're the one making a claim contrary to information already there. It is your job to provide evidence for your claim. So far I haven't seen any. Men claiming that women are unable to perform certain tasks because of their breasts is a very old method of dismissing women's accomplishments. This is where we get the myth of Amazon warriors cutting off one breast in order to be better archers in battle. Hopefully you can see why your claims are ones that feed into these sexist notions even if you had no such intention. Do some research first if you want me to weigh in on it. – Cyn says make Monica whole – 2018-12-25T18:28:57.930

@Cyn what information is supposed to be already there? So far you've claimed it based on "what we know and what we see", which is hypocritical considering I base it on more or less similar reasons thus far. Also you seem to be barking up the wrong tree. I'm not saying women are incapable of certain things just because they have breasts, I'm saying that having breasts reduces their performance in this case. This is accurate, just like its accurate to say that men are fully incapable of carrying a child until its born (without medicine that is). Its not negative to men, its just how it is. – Demigan – 2018-12-25T19:10:03.650

5This is my last response. It is not "just how it is," it's something you're making up. The fact that others before you have made up similar claims doesn't make it real. I've asked you several times to provide evidence and you just argue with me and don't do any research. It's possible to say sexist things by accident or in ignorance, but you no longer have this excuse. Do the research or just cut it out. – Cyn says make Monica whole – 2018-12-25T19:32:28.663

1

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

– Demigan – 2018-12-25T19:39:02.307

When you say "theoretically", is there in fact published theory to support this assertion, or is that shorthand for "I believe that it would"? – Geoffrey Brent – 2018-12-26T11:18:21.780