Jump to content

Recommended Posts

So did Desmond Morris and all these other clever people who ascribed some variety of "intelligent design" to the "true" purpose and modern shapes/designs of women's breasts also offer equally credible and slick explanations for the existence of male nipples then?? :)
Apparently the solid rounded shape suffocates the baby and causes it to fight for air . One only has to look at the design of the teats on babies bottles to see the kind of shape that works best, much closer in design to the feeding apparatus of the female chimpanzee, infant has no difficulty . In other words all nipple no tit . So the female breast is predominantly a sexual signalling device, rather than an expanded milk machine.

This is why!


SimonM Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> So did Desmond Morris and all these other clever

> people who ascribed some variety of "intelligent

> design" to the "true" purpose and modern

> shapes/designs of women's breasts also offer

> equally credible and slick explanations for the

> existence of male nipples then?? :)

>existence of male nipples

cause the embryo follows a female template for the first 6 weeks when the male sex chromosone kicks in for male embryos. The embryo then begin to develop it's male characteristics. However the nipples and some breasts tissue is left.

brum Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I may have got this wrong, but I recall Desmond

> Morris once suggesting that the breasts evolved

> once we started walking on two feet. Before then,

> females would attract males by simply sticking

> their bottoms in the air. Once we became bipeds,

> this obvious signal was not so.... well, obvious.

> So women, being very clever, grew their breasts

> larger and made them permanent (not exactly

> Desmond's words) to imitate a pair of bum

> cheeks... and when you think about it chaps, the

> view 'from behind' is not too dissimilar to the

> ladies' cleavage view from the front!

>

> Plausible?


Yeah I?ve heard that theory too. Because of it whenever I see cleavage I picture a little person bending over inside the lady?s blouse and sticking their bum out the top. Which is amusing but has also somewhat ruined it for me.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Girls In Your City - No Selfie - Anonymous Casual Dating https://SecreLocal.com [url=https://SecreLocal.com] Girls In Your City [/url] - Anonymous Casual Dating - No Selfie New Girls [url=https://secrelocal.com/girl/vanessa-100.html]Vanessa[/url] [url=https://secrelocal.com/girl/vanessa-100.html]Vanessa[/url] [url=https://secrelocal.com/girl/molly-15.html]Molly[/url] [url=https://secrelocal.com/girl/cheryl-blossom-48.html]Cheryl Blossom[/url] [url=https://secrelocal.com/girl/carola-conymegan-116.html]Carola Conymegan[/url] [url=https://secrelocal.com/girl/pupa-41.html]Pupa[/url] [url=https://secrelocal.com/girl/mia-candy-43.html]Mia Candy[/url]
    • This is a remarkable interpretation of history. Wikipedia (with more footnotes and citations than you could shake a shitty stick at sez: The austerity programme was initiated in 2010 by the Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition government. In his June 2010 budget speech, Osborne identified two goals. The first was that the structural current budget deficit would be eliminated to "achieve [a] cyclically-adjusted current balance by the end of the rolling, five-year forecast period". The second was that national debt as a percentage of GDP would fall. The government intended to achieve both of its goals through substantial reductions in public expenditure.[21] This was to be achieved by a combination of public spending cuts and tax increases amounting to £110 billion.[26] Between 2010 and 2013, the Coalition government said that it had reduced public spending by £14.3 billion compared with 2009–10.[27] Growth remained low, while unemployment rose. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_government_austerity_programme From memory, last time around they were against the LTNs and competing with the Tories to pick up backlash votes - both failed. They had no counterproposals or ideas about how to manage congestion or pollution. This time around they're simply silent on the matter: https://www.southwark-libdems.org.uk/your-local-lib-dem-team/goosegreen Also, as we have seen from Mr Barber's comments on the new development on the old Jewsons yard, "leading campaigns to protect the character of East Dulwich and Goose Green" is code for "blocking new housing".
    • @Insuflo NO, please no, please don't encourage him to post more often! 😒
    • Revealing of what, exactly? I resurrected this thread, after a year, to highlight the foolishness of the OP’s op. And how posturing would be sagacity is quickly undermined by events, dear boy, events. The thread is about Mandelson. I knew he was a wrong ‘un all along, we all did; the Epstein shit just proves it. In reality, Kinnock, Blair, Brown, Starmer et all knew as well but accepted it, because they found him useful. As did a large proportion of the 2024 intake of Labour MPs who were personally vetted and approved by Mandelson.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...