Yes, women can regularly have herniation of their areolas without breastfeeding or breast engorgement, but I'd assume it'd be more commonplace with some type of factor (lactation or feeding) rather than a naturally occurring incidence with any regular frequency.
Life experiences are limited pools to draw from, but if we're going for "realistic" like people brought up with the previous post, then I'd wager the right picture are far, far more "realistic".
Just my opinion of course.
Realism doesn't dabble in chance. If there is a 1/100 chance that a person would have nippels like that, and Jenny has those, it's still as realistic as it is now. So "more" realistic doesn't mean anything in this case.
Someone doesn't understand genetics at all.
I do, and I'm sorry, because I see my writing wasn't as nuanced and clear as I wanted it to be. I didn't mean to say there is no relation, I meant to say there it doesn't need to be so because of their shared genetics. I know plenty of women who have a completely different body type from their mother's. Not jus because of age difference, but also in general. The father's genetics also play a role in it. Even grandpa's and grandma's genes have an effect. It could determine nipple size and shape as much as the mother's, no? I mean, statistically the chances might be smaller, but that doesn't matter for this case. It's art, with a semblencce in realism, and if the desinger says it is so, and it could be like that in real life, it works.
If the grandfather was very autistic, the grandmother not at all, the mother not, and the father not, but the third generation daughter is, then yeah, the chances may be small, but she obviously got it the same genetic code as her grandfather had.
Regardless. I like the old one better : ) Even in families you see diversity, and to me this looks too similar. Not per se for realism sake, but for enjoyment sake : ) Doesn't mean I don't like the art.
