Why Do Men Have Nipples?

[Popeyesays]

Comes from men being mutated women!

(Don't believe me? Check the literature!)

Quite right, Mac.

Nipples develop before the fetus identifies itself as male and alters itself chemically in the womb.

Up to a certain point indevelopment every mammalian fetus is female, morphologically speaking.

Then we have the instances of genital ambiguity to consider. Then the real shocker to the self-possessed is the pseudo-hermaphrodite, a genetically male individual who's body was not affected by the flood of male hormones released in the fetus at that point of development.

They are born as obvious females, develop all the female secondary traits, but lack ovaries and wombs. Most will never know the truth until they come in with fertility problems or because of undiagnosable cancer.

In both cases the study of a chromosome smear will show the individual is male.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Snoopy]

im sure god in his infinite wisdom already knew that he was going to make a woman after man so used basically used a basic likeness with commonalities.

This is like the Gary Larson cartoon where god is rolling out snakes on a table and saying "This is easy!"

Except the Far Side cartoon was intentionally funny!

s.

 

[17th Angel]

ah phooey...

yes there is the scientific answer but wasn't mine appropriate...as wierd as it is we come with more than just the nipples, the whole factory is right back there in place just waiting for someone to sweep out the cobwebs...

lol when someone says nipples what's the first thing that comes to your mind wil... I am curious heh.

 

[wil]

lol when someone says nipples what's the first thing that comes to your mind wil... I am curious heh.

lol, I would guess you would guess correctly what the first thing that comes to my mind. It isn't male nipples, and it isn't breast feeding...

I'm a male, and not a doctor, name any part of the female anatomy and you can probably rightly guess what comes to mind...(elbow, ankle, cheek, they all cause the same reaction...)

 

[17th Angel]

lol, I would guess you would guess correctly what the first thing that comes to my mind. It isn't male nipples, and it isn't breast feeding...

I'm a male, and not a doctor, name any part of the female anatomy and you can probably rightly guess what comes to mind...(elbow, ankle, cheek, they all cause the same reaction...)

lol I understand your first answer now thanks.

 

[flowperson]

I thought that the wisdom gathered on this thread would like to know what the livescience website has to say on this issue,

Why Do Men Have Nipples?
November 27, 2006

Brace yourselves for a low blow, tough guy. Nipples remind us that gender is anything but clear-cut, especially in utero. Whatever your sex, everyone starts off as a woman in the womb.

For the first several weeks a developing embryo follows a "female blueprint," from reproductive organs to nipples. Only after about 60 days does the hormone testosterone kick in (for those of us with a Y chromosome), changing the genetic activity of cells in the genitals and brain. But by then those mammary papillae aren't going anywhere.

So the real question is: why do male nipples come equipped with nerves and blood vessels? In many male mammals nipple formation is stunted by hormones, but not in humans. Did prehistoric men nurse their young? The lack of evidence suggests not. More likely, full-grown nipples—being harmless—don't get weeded out by natural selection.

most humbly submitted by...flow....

 

[wil]

lol when someone says nipples what's the first thing that comes to your mind wil... I am curious heh.

Where?

I gotta be truthful, on a nude beach it wouldn't garner the same reaction. But in general...I have to say...first thing... Where?

After that first thing, I can safely go back to my previous answer.

 

[BeckyThatch]

I thought men's nipples are for biting

 

[wil]

I thought men's nipples are for biting

Yeah, what she said...I said it before...but I like the way she said it better..

Same reason women do... there is the pleasure thing...

Quote: Originally Posted by didymus
I started a thread on this same subject. Did you read mine or did you actually ponder this yourself? I'm just curious. Pretty wild that two different people would be contemplating nipples at the same time.

Actually I think that is quite common....oops wrong forum...thought I was in the lounge...

transparent I am, in any forum. Yes 17thAngel?

 

[Quahom1]

I thought men's nipples are for biting

I thought they were meant to be tended to by the gentler sex too...

which means they are not missing from men, because they are part of the courtship, the dance and consumation of intimacy. Just because they are not fully developed, doesn't mean they are not a zone of sensitivity, nor a cue to the partner that the other is in a state of excitement.

Never considered it to be man being a false start to being a woman.

Still don't.

 

[flowperson]

Q :

Think of it as a template to create human beings. The great programmer in the sky made us all in His/Her image. Looking at the history of modern humans, it is a generally accepted scientific fact determined through analysis of mitochondrial DNA, which is only passed down in a matrilineal mode, that modern women preceeded modern men by several thousands of years. The embryological sequence in early human development is only reflective of that historical fact, Genesis stories notwithstanding.

In mathematical parlance, one of the most symmetrical and balanced forms is known as a rhomboid homotopy. It eerily resembles a female torso and suggests the form of those little venus statues dating back 20,000-30,000 years which were also some of the first works of art found in ancient habitation sites in caves across Europe.

It seems many stories in the good book were thinly veiled attempts to provide men with priority in the creation saga, even though it doesn't seem to be true based upon current findings.

And Ms. Becky...I sure like the way that you think. Welcome to CR.

flow....

 

[Quahom1]

Q :

Think of it as a template to create human beings. The great programmer in the sky made us all in His/Her image. Looking at the history of modern humans, it is a generally accepted scientific fact determined through analysis of mitochondrial DNA, which is only passed down in a matrilineal mode, that modern women preceeded modern men by several thousands of years. The embryological sequence in early human development is only reflective of that historical fact, Genesis stories notwithstanding.

In mathematical parlance, one of the most symmetrical and balanced forms is known as a rhomboid homotopy. It eerily resembles a female torso and suggests the form of those little venus statues dating back 20,000-30,000 years which were also some of the first works of art found in ancient habitation sites in caves across Europe.

It seems many stories in the good book were thinly veiled attempts to provide men with priority in the creation saga, even though it doesn't seem to be true based upon current findings.

And Ms. Becky...I sure like the way that you think. Welcome to CR.

flow....

Ah, flow, couldn't it simply be said that the human fetus is androgenous in the womb, until the dna switches start flipping on and off, in order to customize the new model about to come out of the shop's body bay?

 

[wil]

Ah, flow, couldn't it simply be said that the human fetus is androgenous in the womb, until the dna switches start flipping on and off, in order to customize the new model about to come out of the shop's body bay?

What is the issue here Q? I'm not understanding. This is akin to denying the earth is not the center of the universe....once new information is on the table we must move forward unless of course we have counter information which overshadows it.

My Uncle who had three daughters says it is easier to make a girl, you got the pattern right in front of you. Unscientifically, we have a pattern that is started with and then some modifications are made in the process.

Hmmm I've got to read the stories, is it possible that G-d started with Lillith?

 

[Quahom1]

What is the issue here Q? I'm not understanding. This is akin to denying the earth is not the center of the universe....once new information is on the table we must move forward unless of course we have counter information which overshadows it.

My Uncle who had three daughters says it is easier to make a girl, you got the pattern right in front of you. Unscientifically, we have a pattern that is started with and then some modifications are made in the process.

Hmmm I've got to read the stories, is it possible that G-d started with Lillith?

I was trying to keep it simple...

 

[flowperson]

Hi Guys:

I would like nothing better than to keep things simple. but science keeps screwing up the plan. Yes. I think it would make more sense philosophically if the androgyne approach were embraced, since that correlates with the beliefs of the ancients with regard to the nature of the Great Spirit, but then we have what science tells us. Let's just blame the hormones and enzymes... huh ?

flow....

 

[Quahom1]

Hi Guys:

I would like nothing better than to keep things simple. but science keeps screwing up the plan. Yes. I think it would make more sense philosophically if the androgyne approach were embraced, since that correlates with the beliefs of the ancients with regard to the nature of the Great Spirit, but then we have what science tells us. Let's just blame the hormones and enzymes... huh ?

flow....

Actually I was being serious. DNA determines who will be what, and "switches are actually thrown" in accordance with what the DNA (blueprint), determines. Horomones are after the fact. Once the zygote and spermatizoa combine, the sex is determined. The DNA is formed and the rest is history. I just like keeping the picture simple. I'm fully aware of how bodies and physical genders are formed, but then this isn't a biology lab either...

 

[flowperson]

Actually Q, DNA and RNA together determine final outcomes. Then there's a lot of repetitive copies of what is called junk DNA in the genome that seems to perform duplicative programming functions, kind of like a conductor in front of the musicians in an orchestra, and they seem to enable the timing, release, and flow of hormones and enzymes in order to execute the master plan determined at conception. Sort of "if , then " mechanisms.

Lots of research has shown that environmental factors outside of the zygote can and do profoundly affect its development, even at the very early stage. It was just shown this week that if a mother smokes regularly prior to conception, the chances of the baby that eventually is born will smoke are increased three fold. Just think of what the 60,000 unnatural chemicals present in our environment these days might be doing to our children before they are born over time, and these defects and/or enhancements through environmental exposure are becoming more intrusive each year.

Even though you would like there to be a simple answer to this, there really can't be one. Perhaps G-d made it more simple at the beginning, but we've sure made it more complicated and risky over the past 200 years or so. And it is my opinion that we are changing into something quite different than we have been and are used to fairly rapidly now because of the environmental factors that we have created and brought to bear on the reproductive process.

flow....

 

[Quahom1]

Actually Q, DNA and RNA together determine final outcomes. Then there's a lot of repetitive copies of what is called junk DNA in the genome that seems to perform duplicative programming functions, kind of like a conductor in front of the musicians in an orchestra, and they seem to enable the timing, release, and flow of hormones and enzymes in order to execute the master plan determined at conception. Sort of "if , then " mechanisms.

Lots of research has shown that environmental factors outside of the zygote can and do profoundly affect its development, even at the very early stage. It was just shown this week that if a mother smokes regularly prior to conception, the chances of the baby that eventually is born will smoke are increased three fold. Just think of what the 60,000 unnatural chemicals present in our environment these days might be doing to our children before they are born over time, and these defects and/or enhancements through environmental exposure are becoming more intrusive each year.

Even though you would like there to be a simple answer to this, there really can't be one. Perhaps G-d made it more simple at the beginning, but we've sure made it more complicated and risky over the past 200 years or so. And it is my opinion that we are changing into something quite different than we have been and are used to fairly rapidly now because of the environmental factors that we have created and brought to bear on the reproductive process.

flow....

RNA interprets DNA into proteins (a cousin if you will). The "junk" DNA is yet to be finalized as "junk". (a theory, not yet proven fact). Outside influences have nothing to do with the initial combination of genetic codes that make one male or female.

It is quite simple. Everyone starts out as a block of cells, with their "blueprints" established, once zygote and spermatizoa meld. The rest is simply steps in development. That is where your outside factors may or may not kick in.

Every cell in our bodies contain the entire set of blueprints (DNA) we were originally configured with. The collective result is what one sees in the mirror, albeit more or less damaged from the original due to outside factors, but none the less...

The androgenous form of man is static. The variations (genders) are not. Once the genetic sequences of the double helix are set, the sex is set. If male, then genitalia becomes exposed and outward, fat does not build up in the upper chest area between skin and muscle, glands do not mature and aureali remain dwarfed. Upper body expands and increases, pelvic area remains fixed. Fat layer between skin and muscle overall remains limited. Skeletal structure and musculature above the torso is enhanced, as is height. Brain design is divided between emotion and logic, with logic dominating the thought process. Sensory stimuli capacity is enhanced in the visual and aural sensory, yet diminished in the tactile, and olfactory.

If female, the converse is true.

There are exceptions to the rule, of course, both from within and without, but they are exceptions, not the norm.

Biology 101.

 

[sara[h]ng]

To be technical, flow's right on this one.

There are a lot of mechanisms of non-directly-genetic inheritance or development. For example, the way a snails shell curls, the arrangement of patches on a calico cat, or even the fact that an organism's head is at one end and it's tail (or lack of, in our case ) is at the other. Some of this is determined by the cytoplasm in the single-celled egg, or the genotype of the mother (as opposed to the organism's OWN genotype) or by chemicals released from the mother which affect which genes are turned on or off.

 

[Quahom1]

To be technical, flow's right on this one.

There are a lot of mechanisms of non-directly-genetic inheritance or development. For example, the way a snails shell curls, the arrangement of patches on a calico cat, or even the fact that an organism's head is at one end and it's tail (or lack of, in our case ) is at the other. Some of this is determined by the cytoplasm in the single-celled egg, or the genotype of the mother (as opposed to the organism's OWN genotype) or by chemicals released from the mother which affect which genes are turned on or off.

you mean flipping switches? (lol)

if so, I win.