Why do men have nipples?

[seattlegal]

Because for humans, the "mold" appears to be gender neutral, until certain internal ingredients are added.

Actually, the "default," "empty," or "lack of hormone" state is female, instead of gender neutral. There are quite a few XY females who are genetically male, but there was a problem with the hormone telling the embryo to develop into a male at the proper time, so they developed into a female. {I think this was referred to in the movie, "Jurassic Park."}

[taijasi]

In the human being, there are 7 major energy centers (Tibetan khorlos, Sanskrit chakras - meaning `wheels'), and 21 minor ones. Skip down below, if you want to cut to the chase ...

These energy centers, which can be observed by anyone with developed clairvoyance, exist within the etheric matter of the physical plane (the energy we "feel," as sensation, often between two people), as well as upon the astral/emotional plane, the various levels of the mental plane, and within the subtler spiritual worlds. As such, they are both gateways, or points of contact between the various worlds - inlets & outlets for various types of energy ... as well as psycho-spiritual organs.

Case in point: On the physical plane, the seven centers include the crown, Ajna/"third eye," throat, heart, solar plexus, sacral-sexual, and base of spine ... to use English equivalents rather than Sanskrit terminology. As such, these centers correspond to the endocrine system, this direct relationship including the pineal, pituitary, and thyroid gland, the thymus, adrenal gland/pancreas, and ovaries/testes, respectively (with no correspondence listed for the center at the base of the spine).

Why do men have nipples? Simple. For the same reason women do. We must look at things evolutionarily, not forgetting that Evolution proceeds according to spiritual Plan primarily, with material evolution being a parallel, since the form is a necessary vehicle for the Spirit (if the latter is to express itself outwardly, thereby evolving to perfection). Skip my commentary if you like, but do your own research - and you will find that of the 21 "minor" chakras, there are two that correspond to the nipples - or breasts. This applies to both women, and men. They are minor because they are subsidiary, in one sense, to the "major" heart chakra, or Anahata in Sanskrit. Note also, that a second heart chakra exists, sometimes called "the cave of the heart," and esoterically this is the more important of the two, although still considered a minor center.

Anyway, the chakras beneath (or corresponding to) the nipples/breasts have to do (err, obviously) with the giving, dispersal, or expression of the heart's energy ... in simple terms, loving. What more basic expression of Love as a literally sustaining, nourishing lifeforce could there be than that of a mother suckling her newborn child? No small wonder this message appears in Christian artwork, depicting Madonna and child. And yet, do we really believe that men are less capable of loving - whether this be infant, wife/mate, friend, teacher, God - just because they do not serve the same role in childbearing and in raising children, as women? I hope not!

Further info on chakras can be found at Crystalinks, while this page (midway down) gives the location of the twenty-one minor chakras. An excellent glimpse of the major centers is here (closeup here) on Alex Grey's Sacred Mirrors pages, if anyone is interested.

Namaskar,

andrew

[Lightkeeper]

I have asked this same question. If you Google "male lactation" you will find that some men can lactate. I have wondered if males have nipples, because in earlier times females died giving childbirth. Maybe the males could nurse the children in the event the female died.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Lightkeeper

I have asked this same question. If you Google "male lactation" you will find that some men can lactate. I have wondered if males have nipples, because in earlier times females died giving childbirth. Maybe the males could nurse the children in the event the female died.

Possibly, but normally in a tribal society there was a female "nurse maid", who of course, received extra benefits from the father, by way of extra meat, and grain...

Just a thought.

v/r

Q

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Lightkeeper

I have asked this same question. If you Google "male lactation" you will find that some men can lactate. I have wondered if males have nipples, because in earlier times females died giving childbirth. Maybe the males could nurse the children in the event the female died.

In males, the ability to lactate is "latent", however that does not mean "he" can't stimulate milk flow in a desperate situation. But there will be certain nutrient's missing...

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Actually, the "default," "empty," or "lack of hormone" state is female, instead of gender neutral. There are quite a few XY females who are genetically male, but there was a problem with the hormone telling the embryo to develop into a male at the proper time, so they developed into a female. {I think this was referred to in the movie, "Jurassic Park."}

Not so sure I would consider the female state, as empty of horomones. (perhaps, empty of male horomone). Females can bear children without males...(always a female identical in genetic structure to the parent). XX is a genetic sequence, after all.

XY is simply a varient, with an addenum, or replacement, resulting in a different type of Homo Sapien. (aka...the "guy").

v/r

Q

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Not so sure I would consider the female state, as empty of horomones. (perhaps, empty of male horomone). Females can bear children without males...(always a female identical in genetic structure to the parent). XX is a genetic sequence, after all.

XY is simply a varient, with an addenum, or replacement, resulting in a different type of Homo Sapien. (aka...the "guy").

v/r

Q

Well, perhaps some further distinctions should be made: girl, woman, boy, man. The default state, empty of hormones, would be girl, irregardless of what the genetic code says. All the other states would require the addition of specific hormones at specific times in order to develop. {Gee, might that be why men have nipples? The pre-hormonal default setting, girl, has nipples...}

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Well, perhaps some further distinctions should be made: girl, woman, boy, man. The default state, empty of hormones, would be girl, irregardless of what the genetic code says. All the other states would require the addition of specific hormones at specific times in order to develop. {Gee, might that be why men have nipples? The pre-hormonal default setting, girl, has nipples...}

So, in other words...guys are girls gone...awry? (lol)

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

So, in other words...guys are girls gone...awry? (lol)

Nasty ol' hormones!

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

So, in other words...guys are girls gone...awry? (lol)

Hmm, maybe not, on further reflection. If you look at bees, fertilized eggs will develop into female worker girls, {which will need additional hormonal support via royal jelly in order to become a fully mature queen,} whereas unfertilized eggs will develop into drones, or the male bees...
-Source-

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Hmm, maybe not, on further reflection. If you look at bees, fertilized eggs will develop into female worker girls, {which will need additional hormonal support via royal jelly in order to become a fully mature queen,} whereas unfertilized eggs will develop into drones, or the male bees...
-Source-

Ah, hence the term "Woman is life, Man is the willing servant of life..."

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Not so sure I would consider the female state, as empty of horomones. (perhaps, empty of male horomone). Females can bear children without males...(always a female identical in genetic structure to the parent). XX is a genetic sequence, after all.

XY is simply a varient, with an addenum, or replacement, resulting in a different type of Homo Sapien. (aka...the "guy").

v/r

Q

Isn't it curious that in bees, it's the other way around? (Offspring born from a mature female without the imput of a male will be a male?) Hmm...

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Isn't it curious that in bees, it's the other way around? (Offspring born from a mature female without the imput of a male will be a male?) Hmm...

Doesn't do much to advance the concept of natural "evolution"...

[gwenwifar23]

Originally Posted by didymus

So according to that theory, women are the human prototype and we men are similar to them in nature.

Looking at the chromosomes, yes, Adam was created from the rib of Eve. A mamal becomes male if some male chromosome bind to the egg. This chromosome is much smaller than the female chromosome.

Besides this: In the beginning there was a giant female egg and a very small sperm-cell. The contribution of the father is quite small compared with the contribution of the mother.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by gwenwifar23

Looking at the chromosomes, yes, Adam was created from the rib of Eve. A mamal becomes male if some male chromosome bind to the egg. This chromosome is much smaller than the female chromosome.

Besides this: In the beginning there was a giant female egg and a very small sperm-cell. The contribution of the father is quite small compared with the contribution of the mother.

LOL. Ok. The majority of that egg is "food" It is also the beginnings of the placenta, and the umbilical chord. All that egg, houses a very tiny genetic "half" blue print, that unless is mated with another half, or somehow "mirrors" itself, will never develope to anything. We understand this fact by what is called the menstrual cycle...

And without the little wiggle of the father, most of the time there is no "daughter", let alone son.

You really don't believe that man was taken from woman's rib any more than you believe woman was taken from man's rib...

v/r

Q