[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: way off topic



Michael wrote:
      
> 
> I agree that many organisms sacrifice function for display, but I think
> that human female mammary glands are primarily functional.  I do not at
> all dispute the fact that they have secondary attributes of great
> importance.  With the appropriate hormones human males can also have
> breasts.  Genetically, males may have gynecomastia anyway.
> 
> Michael Teuton

That point I was trying to make (and that several others have made
before me) is that humans are the only primate species (and one of
the few mammalian species) where the female has permanently swollen
breasts. Most mammals only have noticable breasts when they are
actually feed young. Sure they are functional, but in most cases
only when they actually have a function to perform. If human
breasts were like those of most primates they would be greatly reduced
flacid bags for most of the time. Talking personally I am glad
that they're not, and I suspect that it was exactly this response in
males over the millenia that has selected for the modern display
functions of said structures.  :)

Well, at least there is the word 'dinosaur' in my signature file!
-- 
____________________________________________________
        Dann Pigdon
        Melbourne, Australia

        Dinosaur Reconstructions:
        http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/4459/
        Australian Dinosaurs:
        http://www.alphalink.com.au/~dannj
____________________________________________________