Why do men have nipples?

[vortigen84]

Why do men have nipples?

I actually thought about this when discussing the topic of homosexuality with someone who made the claim that there is a "proper" way to use the anus for sex. I thought that was nonsense because obviously there's a proper function already associated with that body part. To use it for sex is about as proper as using it for eating food; there are already male and female parts that are proper for each other, just as there is a proper place to put food into your body.

But then I thought this line of reasoning through a bit further: if all body parts have their proper function, then what is the proper function of nipples of men?

Serious question. Women have breasts and nipples to suckle their children; one might argue that they are also for sex appeal in order to attract a mate. But men? Why do men have them? Why do women cover their larger breasts and nipples when they go to the beach while men typically do not their smaller equivalent? I guess it's because for women their exposure is considered inappropriate and sexual, whereas for men it is not.

Some argue that men have nipples primarily for pleasure, but it does seem weird to me that God would create nipples on men for this reason. For example, if you reason that God gave women a [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] to experience sexual pleasure, well then it seems like he put it in the corresponding place: with her sexual organs. But nipples on men just seem like a curious pair of concentrated nerve endings that are there out of place for no real reason except to be yanked by school bullies if you are a kid.

Anyway, share your opinion on this incredibly important question.

 

[Tomk80]

Why do men have nipples?

I actually thought about this when discussing the topic of homosexuality with someone who made the claim that there is a "proper" way to use the anus for sex. I thought that was nonsense because obviously there's a proper function already associated with that body part. To use it for sex is about as proper as using it for eating food; there are already male and female parts that are proper for each other, just as there is a proper place to put food into your body.

That's kind of a silly bit of reasoning. Why couldn't we adopt something with one function for use in another function? A sword has the function to cut off or pierce people's body parts. Yet, while the one I have in my house can be used as such, in my house it performs a purely decorative function. Why wouldn't this be a valid use of my sword?

Other example, women's breasts have the function of providing milk for their children. Yet my experience is that they have a perfectly fine secondary use in providing sexual pleasure. Why would that be wrong?

But then I thought this line of reasoning through a bit further: if all body parts have their proper function, then what is the proper function of nipples of men?

Serious question. Women have breasts and nipples to suckle their children; one might argue that they are also for sex appeal in order to attract a mate. But men? Why do men have them? Why do women cover their larger breasts and nipples when they go to the beach while men typically do not their smaller equivalent? I guess it's because for women their exposure is considered inappropriate and sexual, whereas for men it is not.


Some argue that men have nipples primarily for pleasure, but it does seem weird to me that God would create nipples on men for this reason. For example, if you reason that God gave women a [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] to experience sexual pleasure, well then it seems like he put it in the corresponding place: with her sexual organs. But nipples on men just seem like a curious pair of concentrated nerve endings that are there out of place for no real reason except to be yanked by school bullies if you are a kid.

Anyway, share your opinion on this incredibly important question.

Men's nipples don't have any real function. All humans develop nipples early in pregnancy. In women, female hormones subsequently develop the nipples to provide milk for the children, while in men the male hormones leave them underdeveloped. So crudely said, men have nipples because women have nipples. For an explanation, see here.

Of course, male nipples can also be recruited in assisting in certain pleasurable activities

 

[vortigen84]

That's kind of a silly bit of reasoning. Why couldn't we adopt something with one function for use in another function? A sword has the function to cut off or pierce people's body parts. Yet, while the one I have in my house can be used as such, in my house it performs a purely decorative function. Why wouldn't this be a valid use of my sword?

Other example, women's breasts have the function of providing milk for their children. Yet my experience is that they have a perfectly fine secondary use in providing sexual pleasure. Why would that be wrong?

I don't think it would be.

But approach from an intelligent design perspective.

For example, a cellphone may be designed to have one hole to put a power plug in, and another to put a headphone plug in. You don't put different plugs in different holes, because that is contrary to design and won't work.

Well, if you think about God and the human body like that, then it seems to me that there are likewise parts designed with specific functions.

But then that leads me to the question in the OP. What's the correct function of nipples on men?

I may be thinking in more utilitarian terms though and presuming every part of the body has a proper use associated with it.

Men's nipples don't have any real function. Crudely said, men have nipples because women have nipples. For an explanation, see here.

Of course, they can also be recruited in assisting in certain pleasurable activities

Not something I will ever understand. I hate anything being done to my nipples. Different strokes for different folks I guess.

 

[DaneaFL]

Well I can tell you that God has very little to do with it.

A baby inherits one copy of every gene from his father and one copy of every gene from his mother. Inherited traits of a boy should thus be a combination of traits from both his parents. So from a genetic perspective, the question should be turned around: why don't men look EXACTLY like women?

Well, that's because such differences can only evolve if the same trait in males and females has become "uncoupled" at the genetic level.

This happens if the trait is under control of genes located on sex chromosomes, or if gene expression has evolved to be dependent on whether genes find themselves within a male or a female genome.

However, the evolutionary default is for males and females to share characters through "genetic correlations".

For these divergences to occur there must be a selection pressure that would cause these traits to affect the reproductive success of men and women.

Obviously the selection pressure would cause larger breasts to evolve on woman because they have an obvious use.

On the other hand, men have nipples simply because there hasn't been a selection pressure to cause them to disappear or grow any larger. They are just THERE neutrally.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-do-men-have-nipples

 

[vortigen84]

Well I can tell you that God has very little to do with it.

A baby inherits one copy of every gene from his father and one copy of every gene from his mother. Inherited traits of a boy should thus be a combination of traits from both his parents. So from a genetic perspective, the question should be turned around: why don't men look EXACTLY like women?

Well, that's because such differences can only evolve if the same trait in males and females has become "uncoupled" at the genetic level.

This happens if the trait is under control of genes located on sex chromosomes, or if gene expression has evolved to be dependent on whether genes find themselves within a male or a female genome.

However, the evolutionary default is for males and females to share characters through "genetic correlations".

For these divergences to occur there must be a selection pressure that would cause these traits to affect the reproductive success of men and women.

Obviously the selection pressure would cause larger breasts to evolve on woman because they have an obvious use.

On the other hand, men have nipples simply because there hasn't been a selection pressure to cause them to disappear or grow any larger. They are just THERE neutrally.

Why do men have nipples?: Scientific American

OK.

I would like to hear the creationist answer and see how much it differs, if at all.

Especially with regards to your last sentence, "They are just THERE neutrally."

Do creationists believe anything just exists neutrally?

 

[DaneaFL]

OK.

I would like to hear the creationist answer and see how much it differs, if at all.

Especially with regards to your last sentence, "They are just THERE neutrally."

Do creationists believe anything just exists neutrally?

No they don't. They believe everything is there because it has a specifically designed purpose.

They need to stop thinking in these terms... We have plenty of evidence showing that nature is responsible for these "illusions of design" as Richard Dawkins puts it.

One example would be nipples. Why would God "design" men with them? Makes no sense if you ignore natural selection.

But if you accept how genetics works then it's easy to see why nipples haven't evolved much on men. Nipples are neutral on men (not advantageous or detrimental) So there's no reason why men WOULDN'T have nipples.

These creationists are wracking their brains trying to come up with an excuse as to why God would give men nipples... It's kind of funny.

 

[vortigen84]

From Answers in Genesis. (Probably should have checked there first):

A frequently promoted evolutionary view of male nipples is that they are leftovers from our evolutionary past. They are often considered to be vestigial organs. The vestigial idea suggests they were functional in the past, but as the evolution of man progressed, their function was lost. Upon close examination, this view does not make sense. In fact, this is a very poor evidence for evolution.

If male nipples are, in fact, vestigial, they must have had a more robust function in the past. Does the evolutionist actually suggest that our male evolutionary ancestors breast-fed newborns, and that somehow as evolution progressed, this ability was lost? Alternatively, would the evolutionist argue that our ancestors were all females, that modern males diverged from this all female population, and that in this process they lost the ability to lactate?
Actually, evolution posits that mammals evolved from reptiles and that the divergence of male and female took place first in reptiles. Why then would another divergence occur as humans began to evolve? In reality, if evolution were true, then it could be argued that male nipples are still developing and that men should be able to breast-feed in the future!

The creation model provides a much better explanation for the presence of nipples in males. Male nipples are not a vestige of evolution but are instead a vestige of embryology. They in no way diminish the abilities of the creator God, but are actually another example of His wisdom. Nipples in males are actually an evidence of “design economy.”

Very early in their maturation, male and female human embryos are essentially the same. All these embryos have structures that will ultimately form the defining physical characteristics of male and female. In the early stages of development, all embryos have both the Wolffian duct and the Mullerian ducts, for instance. Under the influence of a Y chromosome, the Wolffian system develops into the internal and external structures of male anatomy, and the Mullerian ducts regress. Conversely, in the absence of a Y chromosome, the Wolffian system regresses considerably, and the Mullerian system develops to its full potentials, forming many of the female anatomical structures.

Creationism teaches an "embryological vestige." The same article says they are for sexual stimulation.

Glad to know. Not something that gets me off, but if that's what they're for, so be it.

 

[Tomk80]

I don't think it would be.

But approach from an intelligent design perspective.

For example, a cellphone may be designed to have one hole to put a power plug in, and another to put a headphone plug in. You don't put different plugs in different holes, because that is contrary to design and won't work.

Well, if you think about God and the human body like that, then it seems to me that there are likewise parts designed with specific functions.

But your examples do not make sense. Eating though your anus won't work, you can't chew, for one thing. But for a group of people, anal sex obviously works. It brings them pleasure, it doesn't blow their fuses (well, it does in some obvious way ), doesn't damage them. So why would it be wrong? Perhaps it has been designed with multiple uses in mind? Just as I designed the bookshelves I made with both a utilitarian (hold books) and pleasurable (please my eyes) goal in mind.

But then that leads me to the question in the OP. What's the correct function of nipples on men?

I may be thinking in more utilitarian terms though and presuming every part of the body has a proper use associated with it.

Not something I will ever understand. I hate anything being done to my nipples. Different strokes for different folks I guess.

Why would every body part have to have a "proper" (whatever that is) use?

 

[vortigen84]

Why would every body part have to have a "proper" (whatever that is) use?

No idea.

 

[DaneaFL]

From Answers in Genesis. (Probably should have checked there first):





Creationism teaches an "embryological vestige." The same article says they are for sexual stimulation.

Glad to know. Not something that gets me off, but if that's what they're for, so be it.

That Answers in Genesis article is just wrong... Just like everything else from Answers in Genesis.

No one ever said that men's nipples are "vestigal" or had a previous use.

strawmen... strawmen... strawmen... that's all those AiG quacks can come up with.

Nipples NEVER had a previous function on men. I JUST told you why men have nipples and linked you to the scientific american article about it.

Men have nipples because that trait is NEUTRAL. It never was useful! That AiG article keeps rambling on about how it's silly to assume that "men would have breed-fed at one time".

That is absurd. No evolutionist thinks that! Men have nipples simply because nipples are a genetic correlation between males and females that never had a reason to diverge as a sexual dimorphism... nothing more.

 

[CabVet]

LOL, so you made that elaborate question fishing for an evolutionary response, you got the response, and 9 minutes later you "found" a whole page on AiG about the exact same topic? Very interesting...

And I don't buy the "embryological vestige" explanation for one second. Why are male/female embryos identical at the start of development? From a design standpoint it would make much more sense if structures started off different from the first cell. No "design" reason for male/female to be identical for a few weeks and start differentiating only after that.

 

[vortigen84]

LOL, so you made that elaborate question fishing for an evolutionary response, you got the response, and 9 minutes later you "found" a whole page on AiG about the exact same topic? Very interesting...

I am an incredibly interesting person, I know.

And I don't buy the "embryological vestige" explanation for one second. Why are male/female embryos identical at the start of development? From a design standpoint it would make much more sense if structures started off different from the first cell. No "design" reason for male/female to be identical for a few weeks and start differentiating only after that.

OK. Thank you for your contribution.

 

[CabVet]

I am an incredibly interesting person, I know.

I didn't say that, but you can interpret it whichever way you want I guess.

OK. Thank you for your contribution.

And thank you for your lack thereof.

I was merely following the reasoning of the article you posted. According to that, everything that was designed has a "purpose", and the design is "perfect". So the question becomes obvious, why start with identical male/female embryos only to have them differentiate later?

 

[TheOtherHockeyMom]

Then there's this: Strange but True: Males Can Lactate: Scientific American

 

[CabVet]

Then there's this: Strange but True: Males Can Lactate: Scientific American

Haha, nice! How did AiG miss that? Men have nipples because they can breast feed, perfect design! No need for women to be submissive and men to be head of households anymore!

 

[Darkhorse]

If I may, I'd like to stand in the awkward position of one leg in the Creation camp, and one in the molecular biology camp...

My understanding is, all embryos start their formation by following the "female" template, but the presence of a Y chromasome causes testicles to develop instead of ovaries. The testicles begin forming testosterone, which alters the remaining development of male embryos, giving them (among other things) male genitals. However, by the time the testosterone comes along, the nipples have already been formed (following the female template), and they aren't "erased", so they (and the associated mammary glands) remain on the male body.

There's nothing "unGodly" about following a template; simplicity prevents many errors, and God is no fool.

As for why male nipples are socially acceptable and female nipples aren't, this is purely cultural. Before 1935, men at city beaches were legally required to cover their chests, and could be arrested if they didn't. Likewise, female nipples and breasts are acceptable in many cultures today, and have been for thousands of years.

Of course, this doesn't answer the "Did Adam have nipples?" question, but I'll leave that to you all...

Have fun!

 

[Jamin4422]

Why do men have nipples?

You may want to do a study on the HOX gene. This could shine new light on an old question. Also the first 6 weeks of development the embryo is neither male nor female. They do not start to develop one way or the other until that point in time. Also there are a few rare cases where the doctors are not able to determine if the person is a male or a female. This can happen when your dealing with downs syndrome.

 

[Jamin4422]

Of course, this doesn't answer the "Did Adam have nipples?" question, but I'll leave that to you all...

Have fun!

The question is did Adam have a belly button. As far as Science is concerned YES he did. Eve came from Adam, so Adam had to contain all of the female stuff. Although Adam would have had to pass his mothers MtDNA onto Eve.

 

[RickG]

Why do men have nipples?

All mammals have nipples, both male & female. Why? Because that is part of the definition of a mammal. The all have mammary glands.

 

[DaneaFL]

Lol adam and eve... People still think that they were actual historic people?

I see a trend here of completely ignoring certain fields of science like molecular biology specifically genetics and most of anthropology...