Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Doomshifter]

Oh baby!

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Heh, I was expecting worse of that spoiler. As is, it just reminded me of MGS2...

I think we got a lil off topic here, I think the topic we are sposed to be talking about is pubic hair

This is what I get for frequenting you, FotF thread. Discussions about pubic hair. If there's anything I'd rather see less discussed than body hair is pubic hair.

Hot damn, you guys.

[MrWiggles]

Oh baby!

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Heh, I was expecting worse of that spoiler. As is, it just reminded me of MGS2...

I think we got a lil off topic here, I think the topic we are sposed to be talking about is pubic hair

This is what I get for frequenting you, FotF thread. Discussions about pubic hair. If there's anything I'd rather see less discussed than body hair is pubic hair.

Hot damn, you guys.

Weird. Its just hair. Though you seem to be against hair discussion in general. How we switch to mammary gland evolution? Your avatar is basically a bouncing pair of them.

Anybody else thin its odd that human are the only ape that grows mammary glands before birthing an offspring?

[G-Flex]

The glands are there regardless, really. Even human males have them, although they're a bit less developed, I guess.

I'm sure some of it is pre-enlarged mammary tissue, but a lot of it's just plain fat.


Granted, this doesn't have much to do with the real question. There are a few theories, I think. A sign of sexual selection would be one, and there's another theory that humans have small, flat jaws, which makes breastfeeding easier if the breasts are larger/rounder. It might also be a sign-of-fertility thing, sort of like the buttocks, but in front (which is important due to our bipedal nature).

[Neruz]

The glands are there regardless, really. Even human males have them, although they're a bit less developed, I guess.

They're pretty much entirely undeveloped, but yes, they are there. This is because by 'default' so to speak, humans are female. All fetuses are female up until a certain point (i forget when, 6 - 8 weeks i think, but i could be completely wrong about that number) at which point if there's a Y chromosone, Testosterone kicks in and starts converting various female body parts into male body parts. Parts like the mammary glands are already in place, but just don't develop without the required estrogen concentration.

In some cases men can end up with the wrong hormones and the mammary glands do develop. I imagine that causes more than a little embarrisment.

[G-Flex]

They're pretty much entirely undeveloped, but yes, they are there.

Don't confuse functional mammary glands with developed breasts, though. Given the right provocation, males can lactate. It even happens to infants sometimes (due to the mother's hormones before birth). Of course, the breasts almost certainly flatten out a bit over time, but you can say that about a pregnant woman's, to a degree.

[SmileyMan]

There used to be a theory (dunno whether it's been disproved now or not) that the humale female breast tissue (which is mostly fat and non-functional for feeding offspring) developed as a sort of fake pair of buttocks, since those traditional primate mate-attractors were less easy to appreciate once we all started standing upright.

[Neruz]

They're pretty much entirely undeveloped, but yes, they are there.

Don't confuse functional mammary glands with developed breasts, though. Given the right provocation, males can lactate. It even happens to infants sometimes (due to the mother's hormones before birth). Of course, the breasts almost certainly flatten out a bit over time, but you can say that about a pregnant woman's, to a degree.

Of course not, the part of the breast we recognise as the breast is actually just fat deposits surrounding the mammary glands.


There's lots of hypothesis as to why breast tissue develops, we still don't know which (if any) is correct.

[AbacusWizard]

Of course the real important question is: do female dwarves have breasts? And if so, do they act as damage absorption to the chest area? This could potentially make females much more effective in combat.

[Flaede]

Of course the real important question is: do female dwarves have breasts?

no. they got removed along with their beards.

 

And if so, do they act as damage absorption to the chest area? This could potentially make females much more effective in combat.

Except no.

[Rafal99]

Of course the real important question is: do female dwarves have breasts? And if so, do they act as damage absorption to the chest area? This could potentially make females much more effective in combat.

No, they use babies for damage absorption in combat. That is enough.

[Ranzear]

I wonder if its possible for Toady to host a DFTerm server of the new version for outsiders to test and scrutinize. Would be a wonderful way of getting outside testing help without worrying about version control in the least.

Worst that could happen is some unauthorized screenshots.

[Sean Mirrsen]

Worst that could happen is spoilers. We don't like spoilers.

[Bunny]

Of course the real important question is: do female dwarves have breasts? And if so, do they act as damage absorption to the chest area? This could potentially make females much more effective in combat.

No.  Ow.  Imagine your testes as "damage absorption" for your penis.

Back to mammary glands as a whole, I expect the evolution of relatively enlarged breasts occurred as a signal of fertility.  Females which have already given birth are visibly fertile, having swollen mammaries for milk production.  Since humans no longer have a defined period of being in heat, and since a human female can birth more offspring even whilst breastfeeding fairly new young, it makes sense that we would evolve a constant, more general, signal of fertility.

Personally I found the pubic hair discussion more interesting, though.  Given that pubic hair evolved for friction reduction but is also an indicator of sexual maturity and fertility, what do you make of the current trend for pubic hair in the genital and armpit area to be seen as sexually unappealing?

I know that the whole thing about women shaving came about in the early 20th Century, when razor manufacturers tried to increase sales by marketing smooth legs as appealing for the first time (I think the pressure of WWII and the lack of available tights for women, resulting in gravy browning, helped this).  But why has the expectation spread across the rest of the body?  The number of women I know who shave their arms as well as everything else...

[MrWiggles]

ow. I really thought that rolling for anal circumference was an exaggeration. But no no, it breaks it down...

ow...

I am going to bed now. 

[Doomshifter]

Weird. Its just hair. Though you seem to be against hair discussion in general. How we switch to mammary gland evolution? Your avatar is basically a bouncing pair of them.

Anybody else thin its odd that human are the only ape that grows mammary glands before birthing an offspring?

To be perfectly honest, I'd be absolutely okay with you guys talking about boobs. I guess I'm just one of those weird sorta girls that hates all that hair all over everything.