Why Do Men Have Nipples

Great Debates
1

Since this site is dedicated to fighting ignorance, I’d like to update this site’s article called “Why Do men Have Nipples?”

Male nipples are not an accident. They are not left over “vestigial” organs. They are not useless. They have a specific function. They are part of the male’s erogenous zone system. There is a direct nerve and sensory system which connects the male’s nipples to his brain and genitals. Nearly all men have sexually sensitive nipples (and many men can be aroused and even ejaculate merely by nipple stimulation), but unfortunately, the brain-dead machoism of Western society seems to have made men believe that nipple stimulation is for females only, and that “real men” should not associate sex with their nipples. A great deal of men think that it feminizes and degrades them to allow their sexual partner to touch or suck on their nipples. Not only is this totally ignorant (and just plain stupid), but they are missing out on an incredible aspect of their sexuallity. Is it any wonder - after we obliterate the most sexually sensitive parts of a male’s body through circumcision, and then de-erogenize the male’s nipples through machoism - that men in Western society always seem to be addicted to sex? The greatest areas of male sexual stimulation are totally disregarded and therefore never fulfilled, and men are then never satisfied and constantly need more. To ignore the nipples during sex is like having an itch on your arm but scratching your leg to make it go away. There is never satisfaction. Male nipples are there for a reason - to enjoy sexual arousal somewhere other than just your crotch.

2

Welcome to the SDMB, upndownon1.

When you are making a comment on one of Cecil’s columns, providing a link to the online column is appreciated. Doing so can be as simple as pasting the URL into your post, making sure to leave a blank space on either side of it. Like so: http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1_093.html

3

Except, of course, for the fact that there is no demonstrable reason why a male with nipples that are an effective errogenous zone would be more likely to have surviving grandchildren than one who didn’t have such nipples. If you can’t show that, you can’t ascribe “purpose” to the situation, rather, you have to accept it as a happy happenstance.

4

I thought men had nipples because embryos start out gender-neutral, then go female or male (with some exceptions, causing intersexed people). The bits can become either ovaries or testicles, penis or clitoris, etc. Nipples are the default on, and either sit on breasts or remain on chests.

5

You know, if I’d read the Cecil column, I wouldn’t have needed to post. Silly me. He said it so much better than I did.

6

In other words, it’s not a bug, it’s a feature.

7

Since females have the same “direct nerve” it still could very easily be vestigial or a result of all males having “been female” early in their development, it would seem to me.

Furthermore, most of my partners have openly enjoyed nipple stimulation.

8

LORINADA SAID:
“Since females have the same “direct nerve” it still could very easily be vestigial or a result of all males having “been female” early in their development, it would seem to me.”

If this is true, then we could say that ANY matching characteristics between males and females are “vestigial”. However, I think this merely proves that males and females simply have the same Designer.

BIBLIOPHAGE SAID:*
“When you are making a comment on one of Cecil’s columns, providing a link to the online column is appreciated.”

Sorry, hadn’t thought of that.

RUFUS XAVIER SAID:
“In other words, it’s not a bug, it’s a feature.”

EXACTLY!!
SAVANNAH SAID:
“I thought men had nipples because embryos start out gender-neutral, then go female or male (with some exceptions, causing intersexed people). The bits can become either ovaries or testicles, penis or clitoris, etc. Nipples are the default on, and either sit on breasts or remain on chests.”
True, for the most part. The very fact that nipples are formed before sex ORGANS are formed show that they are meant to be common to both males and females. Erogenous zones are present in the embryo before gender has been determined and therefore they exist whether a penis or vagina forms at all.

DSYOUNGESQ:
“Except, of course, for the fact that there is no demonstrable reason why a male with nipples that are an effective errogenous zone would be more likely to have surviving grandchildren than one who didn’t have such nipples. If you can’t show that, you can’t ascribe “purpose” to the situation, rather, you have to accept it as a happy happenstance.”

I’m sorry but I didn’t understand what your point is. Having nipples doesn’t effect childbirthing anymore than having a foot will effect childbirthing. However, bear in mind the PURPOSE for sex is NOT childbirthing, but for “making the two ONE” through companionship in marriage (as the Bible teaches).

9

Or did you mean “the FUNCTION of sex is…?”

How is it’s function anything but for reproduction?

10

His point is that humans (and every other life form) are the result of a couple of billion years of evolution.

The physical traits we have now are the ones that either helped on average to survive and/or have children with the same traits, or at least didn’t hinder surviving longer or having children and passing around those physical traits.

So scientifically, we can speak of some physical trait having a “purpose” only in regards to that trait’s evolutionary effect over time. In other words, how did it help (or at least not hurt) survival or childbearing, on average, over the millions of generations?

So unless you can show that the male nipples either increased survivability in some way, or increased the ability to produce more children, then the fact that they are an erogenous zone for many men* is, as DSYoungEsq has already pointed out, just a happy accident and not a specific purpose in any real sense.

One last note: having a foot most certainly has had an effect on childbearing. In times past, a person born missing one or both feet through some kind of genetic problem would have been very unlikely to survive very long. And if they did survive to childbearing age, they might well have been shunned as sexual partners.

Both of these lead to the fact that on average they would have been less likely to have children, and that particular genetic problem would be mostly removed from the gene pool over the generations. So today we virtually all have two legs, arms, etc.

*Nipples are not an erogenous zone for all men, just as they are not for all women.

11

To the extent that a feature exists in human physiology, it exists because evolution hasn’t gotten rid of it. To the extent that any feature can be said to have a “purpose,” the only purpose it can have is the promotion of the ability to have surviving grandchildren, because if it doesn’t make surviving grandchildren more likely, then it won’t be selected for in the evolutionary process.

So, at some point in time a genetic variation occurs that creates sexually errogenous nipples. Because most things are the same in males and females (except for those things that having XY makes different from having XX), men have errogenous nipples. You may be able to establish that errogenous nipples advance the ability to procreate, and for the children to procreate, in which case, you have to ask if that is true for men only, for women only, or for both. If you cannot point to some reason why it is true that male errogenous nipples make the likelihood of surviving grandchildren more likely, then you can’t say that male errogenous nipples have any “purpose.”

12

sex does not need to feel good, but it does. Why? To increase likelihood that we engage in sex. In a sense, it’s an added incentive. Same applies for the male nipples as errogoneous zones: If it helps secure a tradition of sexual intercourse by virtue of increased stimulation (to any degree), it will survive the evolutionary “hurdle.”

13

This is a misconception about evolution. A thing need have no positive value to survive evolution. Little toes in humans are classic examples. To survive evolution’s inevitable march forward, a trait simply needs to have no negative impact upon the ability of surviving grandchildren to exist. So the fact that some miniscule positive value exists will be of no importance if a more important negative value exists. Similarly, the trait can exist even if it has no positive value at all.

But the OP was talking about “purpose.” Now, that word, when used in terms of physical traits of biological entities is always a suspect choice of vocabulary. In evolutionary terms, of course, nothing has a “purpose.” A trait may facilitate something occuring (e.g.: your stomache helping digest food), but that is a different issue than “purpose.” Still, the concept of “purpose” can best be expressed as the idea that certain traits give the owners of those traits a competitive advantage in the evolutionary dog-eat-dog world, which theoretically enable those with the advantage to win out over those without it, making certain the trait survives. For this to be true of male errogenous nipples, one would have to assert and prove that men with such nipples would be at a competitive advantage over those without such nipples when it comes to producing grandkids. I challenge this assertion, and still challenge it. I don’t see that there is some tremendous added burst of sexual prowess among those who routinely practice male nipple stimulation.

14

As you will note when rereading my message, I did not say that nipples are erogenous zones for “all” men, but for “most” men.

As far as Evolution, I do not believe in it but rather I believe it to be one of the grossest hoaxes ever perpetrated on mankind. Your argument is a case in point. Evolution assumes that nothing exists purely for the pleasure it can offer. I believe nipples are designed specifically for human pleasure, not merely survival (i.e. breastfeeding). The concept of Evolution would imply that everything is chance and accident, and I suppose Evolution would argue that the thrilling pleasure of orgasm is merely an evolutionary “accident” to cause living creatures to desire to reproduce. However, if evolution is true, it has no consciousness and therefore would not know to program creations with a need to reproduce. Evolution and chance does not KNOW that a penis and vagina (along with sperm and ovaries) are needed for reproduction, and it would not have the wisdom to create two different beings (males/females) with the capacity and KNOWLEDGE to unite sexually. Humans particularly do not mate by an instinct to reproduce, as animals do, and I find it utterly laughable if anyone would contend that mankind engages in sex for the chief purpose of procreation. Humans engage in sex due to a unique desire to be intimate, which builds bonds of love between two people. If sex were merely for procreation, humans would behave just as animals do. And if the purpose of sex was only for procreation, then all infertile or enderly people should remain celebate and not partake of the joys of marriage and sex.

It is a fallacy to presume that everything that exists must exist for survival purposes. Many things exist purely for the purpose of enjoying them - else there would be no such thing as beauty and pleasure or even the concept of beauty and pleasure. We would not have a desire for art, music, books, friendship, love, because those things exist among humans (and NOT animals) purely to give pleasure and beauty to we the sentient species on this planet. i enjoy my nipples for exactly their purpose - pleasure.

15

We’re getting a little off the track, to answer this at all would turn into a full blown debate about creationism vs. evolution, which isn’t appropriate in this forum.

All I will say is that your comments indicate that you have some huge misconceptions about what evolution and the theory of evolution are (and note that they are two different things). No shame there, many people don’t understand them very well. I have only a layman’s understanding myself, but there are a few folks around here who are extremely knowledgeable.

If you’d like to find out something about what they actually are, we can start a new thread in one of the other forums. If you just want some information about evolution, we can go to General Questions, or if you want to really get into creationism vs. science, we can go over to Great Debates.

Either way or neither, welcome to the boards. Hang around, this can be a great place.

16

Ah, you are a Creationist. Then there is no point in debating you on your views; they are held not out of logic and reason but out of faith and belief.

Head on over to Great Debates; your positions on male sexuality in a religious context would be likely to provoke some interesting commentary. :wink:

17

First, I am a doctor of theology and world religion, and a master of world history, and know full well the doctrines of Evolution inside and out. Secondly, my partner is a Ph.D. from Tulane University and confirmed the accuracy of my statements before I posted them. Thirdly, I wasn’t aware that I was required to be a heathen or atheist to post on this site. I was under the impression that the theme of this site is “fighting ignorance”. Evolution is the height of ignorance, and I believed this to be so long before I had any creationist belief. Evolution defies logic, is completely without so much as shred of empirical evidence, contradicts well known and established scientific laws and principles.

Make note that it was not I who brought up either the subject of the religions of Evolution or Creationism. I merely explained the function of nipples. My statements were THEN attacked by people who think that beauty and pleasure has no function or purpose based on the religious dictums of Evolution. To me, this is as absurd and ignorant as saying that the world is flat. Declaring themselves to be wise, they became fools. And I don’t consort with fools. If there is no God but only cold and unfeeling and unreasoning Evolution, why then do you fight so hard against something you don’t believe exists? I believe nipples are a gift from God to contribute to Man’s enjoyment of sexual unity with his partner. And since the extreme majority of this planet’s population believes in a deity, it is not I who am in the minority on this issue. If you folks want to believe that you are an accident and that neither you nor anything else has purpose beyond survival of the fittest, that’s your own look out because it is just that same mindset that keeps this planet in the thrawls of war and anarchy and corruption and poverty and disease and disaster. So maybe you should just go ahead and slice your nipples off, since apparently they serve no function.

While your at it, please do the same with your genitals so that the ignorance is not able to propagate.

18

Well, two or three of the things you posted about what “evolutionists” believe are simply wrong.

If you’d like to explore that, we can in one of the other forums, I’m thinking that debate is off topic in this one. But you might enjoy the dialog, and I think the subject of what role sexual characteristics play in the development of mankind could be interesting.

Ah, so you do believe in evolution. :wink:

Seriously, I’m not a mod here, but this kind of comment could be seen as inappropriate for this forum.

Again, hang around if you want to debate these issues, this really is one of the places on the net with the highest signal to noise ratio. There are some very intelligent folks here.

19

Creationists are perfectly welcome to participate here at the SDMB. However, in this thread we seem to be getting far afield of commenting on Cecil’s answer and entering into a general debate on the merits and demerits of evolution. So I’ll move this thread to the Great Debates forum, always the appropriate venue for disabusing the unbelievers of their misconceptions.

This thread marks my first experience with a Th.D. who recommends genital mutilation as a treatment for his wayward critics. Let’s not go there, shall we? Irrespective of degree, courteous disagreement is appreciated but exhortation to self-disfigurement is not.

bibliophage
moderator CCC

20

Emphasis added.

This looks like a plain ol’ strawman argument to me. I’ve never heard that “western society” frowns on male nipple stimulation. What is the source of this statement that you are presenting as fact?

BTW, if you think this is going to be the first time Creationism vs Evolution has been debated here you are sorely mistaken. But, just so we can calibrate things, are you a Young Earth Creationist?