@Morsealworth: Then I'll respond to each point individually.
1. Ignoring the subjectivity in this (that's what makes it fun, frankly), I assert that they are. They can't be well shaped because they haven't developed enough to take much shape in the first place. With such breasts, you get more ribcage than breast; the breasts themselves are, in such a case, an afterthought on the chest of such an ill-fated woman. Regarding sagging, don't think that it can't happen to small breasts as well--volume and mass are only two factors that contribute to the phenomenon. Such a thing is ultimately left up to genetics and age, with factors such as physical activity and weight fluctuation (as you said) being subordinate. Once it does happen, they end up no better than a sagging pair of large breasts--nothing you'd want to look at. Before that, however, there's much to see, make contact with (in various ways, and of course their natural movement. Speaking of which, indeed--it's that adipose tissue that gives breasts their characteristic bounciness and jiggle; small breasts have far less of it, and thus can only exhibit a poor imitation of the aforementioned characteristics--at best. Small breasts simply cannot move appreciably by virtue of having little free mass against the wider pectoral muscles with which to do so.
I will also easily admit that breasts can grow large but also be poorly formed--that happens. But in the case of small breasts, they don't have the opportunity to be well formed because their small size only reflects a lack of femininity; and no, I do not take seriously the claims of the Itty-Bitty-Titty Committee: large, well-developed breasts are an unmistakable symbol of femininity--they do not manifest normally on any body other than a woman's. Small breasts are closer to the flat chest that is common to men and women. Speaking of, the main reason why there have been so many arguments in favor of small breasts--and almost always concurrent with adamant arguments against big ones--is an ongoing campaign against traditional femininity and ideas thereof (hence why a "girl" who looks like Krusche gets so much attention, frequently with increased antipathy toward a character who looks like Aria).
2. That image is exactly what I was referring to before. Her breasts, canonically, are small enough to convince the MC that she is just a male with a butt he considers pleasing to the eyes (in other words, likely, feminine); enough so that she is living in a male dorm. If they're that small, there's no way they should protrude through an undergarment and outer garment, beyond the sides of her ribcage, and at that that level on her ribcage, they way they're shown to do on that page. She would need much more mass in order to pull that off, and with that much more mass would come a significant forward protrusion--which Krusche does not exhibit, or else she'd not be able to pass as a male in the story nor create doubt in the minds of so many readers. Once again, by page 18, the artist abandons the bait and switches back to a featureless (minus the hip width) body.
3. The appearance of that butt is feminine, yes--but the anatomical feature isn't inherently feminine at all: a butt is something both men and women have, while a pair of large breasts are something that only manifests normally on women. In abnormal cases (such as the case that the author and artist are pretending applies to Krusche), you can find a man afflicted by
Klinefelter syndrome, which can result in the development of a number of female traits--wide hips being one of them. That aside, the main reason for Krusche's butt to be depicted so prominently and exaggeratedly (for an alleged male) is to ensure the idea that "Krusche (possibly) is a girl". This can only be pulled off with that body part, not breasts, because the latter is inherently feminine.
4. I think, at this point, that it's the action of artists either attempting to project their own hidden homosexuality on those who view their art (in the case of male artists), or artists getting off on the idea of males looking lustfully upon actual other males (in the case of female artists/yaoi fans). It's gotten to the point at which a character can be drawn with every single patently female and feminine characteristic that exists, and the creator will turn around and say, "This is a male." It's not 100% relevant, but it's why I hate the BlazBlue character Mai Natsume: the form is perfectly attractive and adorable as far as females go, but the creator designed Natsume as originally male. Guilty Gear and BlazBlue always struck me as pretentiously countercultural/edgy, so I wouldn't be surprised if this was the author's dream of a perfectly successful MtF transsexual operation. Natsume's design is an absolute
waste.
Frankly speaking, my frustration isn't with women developing masculine traits (considerable muscle development--even to the loss of feminine curves, short hair, adopting masculine fashion,
attempting to adopt masculine behavior, et cetera) being considered androgynous, because that's what that is. My frustration comes from how a) properly feminine girls are somehow taking a backseat to these women that want to be something they are not and will never be (i.e., men), and b) if there is such a feminine girl, and she has large breasts, she will almost always play second fiddle either to a girl who's flat (the Shanaclone era was a blight upon anime/manga history, in retrospect), a girl who's androgynous as described above, or both--and the girl with diminished femininity will develop a considerable fanbase that will attempt to sacrifice the feminine girl on the altar of their lust for the mangirl. It even happens in stories in which the feminine girl is the main female character.
