Ok, I’m not sure if I’m in the right forum, but this didn’t seem to belong in General Questions since there is no definite answer and I’m notrealling expression an opinion for IMHO. So it was either here or MPSIMS and I thougt the subject matter might spark a debate so here goes.
[quote]
In the Bible man was created first in God’s image and then woman was created from man. So then why do males have nipples if they only have a purpose on females? Does this point to evidence that women was first and then man? Or since man was created in the image of God - biblically at least - is this an argument that God is a woman? Or could this be used as an argument for evolution that males evolved from females who may have reproduced hermaphriditically (sp?) and the nipple is simply a side effect that has not evolved its way off the male body yet?
That wouldn’t explain why all mammalian species have males with nipples, now would it?
There are many other characteristics of either sex that are found in a “degenerated” form on the other. The clitoris is probably the most well-known example (it’s a proto-penis). Micro-photography deep inside the male urethra reveals a structure that bears a striking resemblance to a tiny uterus.
Furthermore, if you give a male large doses of female hormones (estrogen and progesterone), he will eventually start to develop breasts. Male-to-female transsexuals take advantage of this to “feminize” their bodies prior to sex-reassignment surgery.
So then does this constitute an argument for evolution over creation? And the idea that female versions of animals evolved before males? Maybe this is why men have such a hard time understanding women - they are more evolved.
I’m afraid I can’t answer any of the questions posed, but I would like to take this time to say that Religious Nipple Question would be a really good name for a band. Thank you.
Females are not “more evolved” than males. Nothing currently alive is any more evolved than anything else currently alive. But males and females aren’t very different genetically, just XX or XY, one chromosome difference. So its easier to code for nipples in both and just have female hormones trigger growth. Female does seem to be the human default though, single X leads to a female (sort of, without hormone therapy they never develop so they look pretty gender neutral, no female-shaped hips, no breasts). But if you are religious, it does lead to some amusing issues. I’d go with God and angels having nipples that serve no apparent purpose.
It’s an economy of design. Male and female mammals basically have all the same parts, but the hormones trigger certain ones to grow if the organism is male, and others to grow if the organism is female. (A slight exaggeration–but close.) Of course, this leaves a possibility of having both male and female parts develop, or neither, but it actually cuts down on the likelihood of really problematic flukes like women without nipples or men without testicles.
Male nipples are like female orgasm. Not absolutely necessary to the reproductive system, but
A) By having it programmed to appear in both sexes, it keeps it from failing–in certain irregularities of embryonic development–to appear in the sex that requires it.
and
B) It has a delightful erotic potential–only fair, after all, for a wsoman to have orgasm, & a man to have nipples, too.
The actual sex of a developing mammal is not established until the embryo is firmly established as a viable entity. I don’t recall in what week this occurs, but until that point, all embryos are the same and could develop into a male, female, or combination thereof.
I don’t think that’s correct. I believe that the gender is determined right off the bat. Yes, at the initial stages it is rather androgynous, but just because WE can’t tell which way it’ll develop doesn’t mean that the conclusion is in doubt.
Yer pal,
Satan
TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
Three months, 18 hours, 13 minutes and 26 seconds.
3670 cigarettes not smoked, saving $458.80.
Life saved: 1 week, 5 days, 17 hours, 50 minutes.
Then foolsgunea’s ‘economy of design’ argument, which is correct, doesn’t make sense. Every embryo is the same until either testosterone or estrogen takes control and gender develops. Cecil may have covered this so I defer to Manhattan.
whether sex is determined right off the bat… nobody knows [yet at least.] but there are people born physically male who nevertheless have XX, and physically born females that posses XY. there are also babies born with genitalia that is indeterminate. the medical field has been just arbitarily decided this will be male this one will be female and perfoming surgery. [going to female has been easier–for the doctors] and providing “appropriate” sex hormones at the onset of puberty.
additionally there are people running around with XXY, XXXY and other combinations. science hasn’t done a good job of dealing with these people that don’t fit into their XY==male and XX==female theory.
then there are those that are born physically male [or female], yet know that they are actually female [or male].
As dixiechiq pointed out, there are a couple of people out there who don’t match the genetic predisposition for their sex (i.e. a couple of males with XX and a couple of females with XY), and there are a few “in betweeners” such as the two hermaphrodites I dated 5 or 6 years ago.
More importantly, though, I believe it has been demonstrated on non-human mammalian species that deliberately changing the hormonal mix in the developing embryo will direct its development into a male or a female, regardless of the embryo’s genes. (The only reason this has not yet been demonstrated on humans is because it would be unethical, not because humans have any different kind of biology.)
I know that in GREAT DEBATES, no one wants to be bothered with facts or outside ideas, but… You might sometimes try searching the ARCHIVES to see whether Cecil has addressed a topic such as: Why do men have nipples?
CK don’t be bothering us GDers with facts and such, how can we debate if we bring in the ultimate answer from the master.
As to the OP, I am with Dave, obviously God created nipples so that women could play with them and suck on them during sex. After all why should they have all the fun?
