Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Nipples
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 16 of 64 (503573)
03-20-2009 9:01 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by rueh
03-20-2009 8:14 AM


rueh writes:
But wether or not your nipples become erect during sex, doesn't hinder copulation so that is iffy and the point about stimulation could hold true for any part of the body. Rubbing someones feet could arouse them. Does that mean that feet are related to sex?
Yes, Even toes can get pleasure during sex...human sex makes no sense really
there seems to be more pleasure involved then is necessary for procreation to take place.
Now that is well designed!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by rueh, posted 03-20-2009 8:14 AM rueh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Phage0070, posted 03-20-2009 11:17 AM Peg has replied
 Message 20 by rueh, posted 03-20-2009 11:27 AM Peg has not replied

  
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 64 (503592)
03-20-2009 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Peg
03-20-2009 9:01 AM


quote:
Yes, Even toes can get pleasure during sex...human sex makes no sense really there seems to be more pleasure involved then is necessary for procreation to take place. Now that is well designed!
Except that there are numerous limits placed on sex through religion; no sex with two unmarried people, no sex with someone else's married partner, no sex with anyone else than your marriage partner, no sex with the same sex, so sex with any other orifice, etc. Making sex so pleasurable as it is is unnecessary and even detrimental to the behavior required through religion. That is poor design, or at least unhelpful design. It actually makes sense through evolution where we want the maximum amount of sex that we can possibly attain.
How about another process of life, such as death? Death is inevitable and according to your views is not the end of the road, but it often seems needlessly painful to fulfill its required function. Did God just decide to get one last torture session in before you get pampered in heaven? After all you cannot really argue that you are supposed to learn some life lesson from the agonizing pain before death; you are going to die moments later!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Peg, posted 03-20-2009 9:01 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Huntard, posted 03-20-2009 11:20 AM Phage0070 has not replied
 Message 22 by Peg, posted 03-21-2009 2:21 AM Phage0070 has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 18 of 64 (503593)
03-20-2009 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Phage0070
03-20-2009 11:17 AM


Phage0070 writes:
Except that there are numerous limits placed on sex through religion; no sex with two unmarried people, no sex with someone else's married partner, no sex with anyone else than your marriage partner, no sex with the same sex, so sex with any other orifice, etc. Making sex so pleasurable as it is is unnecessary and even detrimental to the behavior required through religion. That is poor design, or at least unhelpful design. It actually makes sense through evolution where we want the maximum amount of sex that we can possibly attain.
How about another process of life, such as death? Death is inevitable and according to your views is not the end of the road, but it often seems needlessly painful to fulfill its required function. Did God just decide to get one last torture session in before you get pampered in heaven? After all you cannot really argue that you are supposed to learn some life lesson from the agonizing pain before death; you are going to die moments later!
But who says that the designer is behind religion?

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Phage0070, posted 03-20-2009 11:17 AM Phage0070 has not replied

  
rueh
Member (Idle past 3661 days)
Posts: 382
From: universal city tx
Joined: 03-03-2008


Message 19 of 64 (503594)
03-20-2009 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by caffeine
03-20-2009 8:48 AM


Re: something about "in His image"
So monotremes are an earlier branch of the mammalian tree. Very interesting. I learn something new every day. Thank you for the correction caffeine. Still doesn't answer why a creator would design some pacental males with nipples however.

'Qui non intelligit, aut taceat, aut discat'
The mind is like a parachute. It only works when it is open.-FZ
The industrial revolution, flipped a bitch on evolution.-NOFX

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by caffeine, posted 03-20-2009 8:48 AM caffeine has not replied

  
rueh
Member (Idle past 3661 days)
Posts: 382
From: universal city tx
Joined: 03-03-2008


Message 20 of 64 (503595)
03-20-2009 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Peg
03-20-2009 9:01 AM


LOL I don't know if I necessarily agree but I have to admit that's funny.

'Qui non intelligit, aut taceat, aut discat'
The mind is like a parachute. It only works when it is open.-FZ
The industrial revolution, flipped a bitch on evolution.-NOFX

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Peg, posted 03-20-2009 9:01 AM Peg has not replied

  
Rascaduanok
Junior Member (Idle past 5268 days)
Posts: 21
From: Save Warp
Joined: 05-02-2007


Message 21 of 64 (503602)
03-20-2009 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by rueh
03-20-2009 8:14 AM


quote:
Originally posted by rueh:
Rubbing someones feet could arouse them. Does that mean that feet are related to sex?
For me, when it comes to women’s feet, HELL YES!

$_=q{$_=q{Q};s/Q/$_/;print};s/Q/$_/;print

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by rueh, posted 03-20-2009 8:14 AM rueh has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 22 of 64 (503666)
03-21-2009 2:21 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Phage0070
03-20-2009 11:17 AM


Phage0070 writes:
Except that there are numerous limits placed on sex through religion; no sex with two unmarried people, no sex with someone else's married partner, no sex with anyone else than your marriage partner, no sex with the same sex, so sex with any other orifice, etc. Making sex so pleasurable as it is is unnecessary and even detrimental to the behavior required through religion. That is poor design, or at least unhelpful design. It actually makes sense through evolution where we want the maximum amount of sex that we can possibly attain
im not sure i agree with you on that.
sex outside of the bounds set by religion causes huge problems for society. Families do not prosper if both parents are not unified, single parent families rarely prosper at all, kids go hungry, there is less education because the single parent cannot afford it, these families are more prone to abuse .
sex with muliple partners creates problems with STD's and unwanted pregnancies most often leading to abortion which in turn can cause reproductive issues later on. Some STD's can cause cancer such as the Herpe's virus which can lead to cervical cancer in females.
sex in any orifice such as anal sex is unhygienic because excrement contains some very nasty bacteria... same goes with sex with animals.
Pleasurable sex is not detrimental to religion. Its simple, if you dont want to follow religious laws, you dont have to. Pleasurable sex is more likely to be a divine gift then an error in design.
And on evolution terms, all the problems associated with erratic sexual behavior is detrimental to society rather then beneficial.
Phage0070 writes:
How about another process of life, such as death? Death is inevitable and according to your views is not the end of the road,but it often seems needlessly painful to fulfill its required function. Did God just decide to get one last torture session in before you get pampered in heaven?
that is not my view of death. I DO view death as the end of the road and i do NOT believe the bible teach's immortality of the soul. Rather it teaches that " the wages sin pays is death " as opposed to "the gift God gives is everlasting life"
so death and life are opposites according to the bible, death is not moving onto another aspect of life...if that were the case, why would God and Jesus be talking about correcting our situation and giving us eternal 'life'?
Death was never part of the design or master plan...it was a result of Adam's rebelling and choosing independance from God. Since that happened we have been like fans unplugged from our source of power.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Phage0070, posted 03-20-2009 11:17 AM Phage0070 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Phage0070, posted 03-21-2009 5:40 AM Peg has replied

  
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 64 (503676)
03-21-2009 5:40 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Peg
03-21-2009 2:21 AM


peg writes:
sex outside of the bounds set by religion causes huge problems for society.
...
And on evolution terms, all the problems associated with erratic sexual behavior is detrimental to society rather then beneficial.
Therein lies your problem. Religion assumes that human society is included in the overall plan, and the fact that human urges run contrary to what society expects of us is at the very least unhelpful design.
The evolutionary perspective on the other hand does not have anything *in mind* when it does its thing; even if the rampant sexual exploits of a human cause huge problems for the society, if those problems can be overcome without resulting in the death of the offspring, such traits will tend to proliferate. You are still trying to apply the misguided notion that there is a designing intelligence behind even the evolutionary perspective. The fact is that the organism most fit to reproduce will proliferate directly results in our inherent desire to bonk anything that moves.
peg writes:
sex with muliple partners creates problems with STD's and unwanted pregnancies most often leading to abortion which in turn...
This is ridiculous, so I shall. STDs come with the territory, and with suitable screening they are a small price to pay for access to a wide array of booty. From an evolutionary perspective there *are* no unwanted pregnancies otherwise you would not have hit it in the first place. Besides, you are again assuming that there is some hidden designer that is sitting in our testicles and adjusting the next generation to fit with societal norms. Aborted pregnancies have no affect on evolutionary progression, the sperm don't pull their punches because the previous batch didn't make it.
peg writes:
that is not my view of death. I DO view death as the end of the road and i do NOT believe the bible teach's immortality of the soul. Rather it teaches that " the wages sin pays is death " as opposed to "the gift God gives is everlasting life"
so death and life are opposites according to the bible, death is not moving onto another aspect of life...if that were the case, why would God and Jesus be talking about correcting our situation and giving us eternal 'life'?
So you are either:
A) Asserting that through your belief you will not die. (Boy are you in for a surprise!)
B) Asserting that nobody in the history of the world ever got a payoff from your religion. (Chances don't look good for you, eh?)
or C) Quibbling pointlessly over intentionally twisted semantics.
I am actually leaning toward option B from your post, which is certainly an interesting take on the situation. Not only is your deity fallible but also apparently wholly incapable of rectifying the situation its incompetence caused, and you are depending on the unlikely prospect that it will get its act together during your lifetime as opposed to the thousands of years predating it. God and Jesus are also frikkin' liars since everyone they ever met or preached to ultimately died; the deity and its son never even managed to save one person! Thief on the cross: You are forgiven... but you die anyways!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Peg, posted 03-21-2009 2:21 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Peg, posted 03-21-2009 6:18 AM Phage0070 has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 24 of 64 (503682)
03-21-2009 6:18 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Phage0070
03-21-2009 5:40 AM


Phage0070 writes:
The fact is that the organism most fit to reproduce will proliferate directly results in our inherent desire to bonk anything that moves.
if all mankind behaved in such a way, then you might have a point, but the fact is that many people are very restrained in their sexual activity and its not religion that dictates this.
many people establish life long partnerships and not everyone is willing to bonk anything that moves.
Phage0070 writes:
This is ridiculous, so I shall. STDs come with the territory, and with suitable screening they are a small price to pay for access to a wide array of booty. From an evolutionary perspective there *are* no unwanted pregnancies otherwise you would not have hit it in the first place. Besides, you are again assuming that there is some hidden designer that is sitting in our testicles and adjusting the next generation to fit with societal norms. Aborted pregnancies have no affect on evolutionary progression, the sperm don't pull their punches because the previous batch didn't make it.
thats just putrid
Phage0070 writes:
So you are either:
A) Asserting that through your belief you will not die. (Boy are you in for a surprise!)
B) Asserting that nobody in the history of the world ever got a payoff from your religion. (Chances don't look good for you, eh?)
or C) Quibbling pointlessly over intentionally twisted semantics.
I am actually leaning toward option B from your post, which is certainly an interesting take on the situation. Not only is your deity fallible but also apparently wholly incapable of rectifying the situation its incompetence caused, and you are depending on the unlikely prospect that it will get its act together during your lifetime as opposed to the thousands of years predating it. God and Jesus are also frikkin' liars since everyone they ever met or preached to ultimately died; the deity and its son never even managed to save one person! Thief on the cross: You are forgiven... but you die anyways!
i am neither A, B or C.
I acknowledge that things will happen in Gods own time and if thats after im dead then so be it...it makes no difference because i'm as good as dead anyway.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Phage0070, posted 03-21-2009 5:40 AM Phage0070 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Phage0070, posted 03-21-2009 11:31 AM Peg has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 25 of 64 (503686)
03-21-2009 6:47 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Peg
03-20-2009 7:12 AM


Peg writes:
quote:
they dont have anything to do with sex do they?
Biologically? Not really. The reason men have nipples is because women have nipples.
The human is hermaphroditic during gestation up until about day 53 when various hormones start kicking in. The common thing you may have heard is that "everybody starts female," but that isn't true. Everybody starts hermaphroditic.
Now, it is true that in the absence of the the male hormones that XY fetuses normally secrete, the fetus will develop along female lines, that doesn't mean the fetus is female. A human fetus has all structures for both male and female sexual characteristics. The vas deferens is not simply a different version of a Fallopian tube. Instead, the fetus has structures for both the vas deferens (Wolfram ducts) and Fallopian tubes (Mullerian ducts). As the fetus develops along male or female lines, the other structures regress. A male fetus will secrete Mullerian regression hormone which causes the Mullerian ducts to regress.
This carries over to other structures in the body. Males have mammary glands just like females do. It's just that in males, the body never gets enough estrogen to make them develop. This is why male athletes who are on steroids often get what is colloquially called "bitch tits": Testosterone is processed by the body into estradiol, which is a female hormone. This can cause gynecomastia, or development of the mammary tissue.
Why don't male nipples regress the way their proto-uterus and -Fallopian tubes do? Because there is no disadvantage in having nipples on a male.
You will note that there are some people who have extra nipples. They follow what is called the "milk line." You will notice that other mammals have more than two nipples, unlike humans. Mark Wahlberg (yes...that Mark Wahlberg) has an extra nipple.
Biologically, this isn't that bizarre. There is a body plan to how the fetus develops from a single cell into a multi-cellular organism. We should not be surprised if every now and again, some cells get "duplicated," as it were.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Peg, posted 03-20-2009 7:12 AM Peg has not replied

  
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 64 (503716)
03-21-2009 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Peg
03-21-2009 6:18 AM


peg writes:
if all mankind behaved in such a way, then you might have a point, but the fact is that many people are very restrained in their sexual activity and its not religion that dictates this.
many people establish life long partnerships and not everyone is willing to bonk anything that moves.
You can distinguish between desire and behavior, so don't pretend that you cannot. Even beyond that the argument is weak; much of humanity wears a tie on a daily basis without being genetically predisposed toward doing so. It is a learned behavior just like restraining yourself from straying from a monogamous relationship.
peg writes:
thats just putrid
I think I missed the "Argument from Hygiene" chapter in logic class. Besides, it was you who suggested that sperm were somehow getting scared straight by societal norms, and I don't even want to know how you thought that functioned.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Peg, posted 03-21-2009 6:18 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Peg, posted 03-23-2009 5:11 AM Phage0070 has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 27 of 64 (503883)
03-23-2009 5:11 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Phage0070
03-21-2009 11:31 AM


Phage0070 writes:
It is a learned behavior just like restraining yourself from straying from a monogamous relationship.
right, and it didnt take religion to steer people in this direction.
I know many people who are not religious in the slightest, yet they have been with the one partner for most of their lives.
So, lets say evolution is the answer, then for some reason evolution has pushed humans toward monogamy and it very likely is because its more beneficial then the opposite.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Phage0070, posted 03-21-2009 11:31 AM Phage0070 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Perdition, posted 03-23-2009 4:57 PM Peg has not replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3238 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 28 of 64 (503951)
03-23-2009 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Peg
03-23-2009 5:11 AM


Evolution didn't push us towards monogamy, reason did. Evolution just pushed us toward reason.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Peg, posted 03-23-2009 5:11 AM Peg has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Rrhain, posted 03-24-2009 11:34 PM Perdition has not replied
 Message 35 by caffeine, posted 03-25-2009 9:34 AM Perdition has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 29 of 64 (504175)
03-24-2009 11:34 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Perdition
03-23-2009 4:57 PM


Perdition writes:
quote:
Evolution didn't push us towards monogamy
Why not? Lots of species pairbond. Evolution affects behaviour. Why wouldn't evolution affect the behaviour of humans?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Perdition, posted 03-23-2009 4:57 PM Perdition has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Phage0070, posted 03-25-2009 2:20 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 64 (504186)
03-25-2009 2:20 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Rrhain
03-24-2009 11:34 PM


Rrhain writes:
Evolution affects behaviour. Why wouldn't evolution affect the behaviour of humans?
An excellent point. Evolution can even lead to contradictory situations, such as leading to pair bonding but also a persistent biological urge to mate outside the pair. In evolution this is normal, but if we were to assume design it would make little sense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Rrhain, posted 03-24-2009 11:34 PM Rrhain has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Peg, posted 03-25-2009 5:03 AM Phage0070 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024