Breasts of Almea

Questions or discussions about Almea or Verduria-- also the Incatena. Also good for postings in Almean languages.
User avatar
brandrinn
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 575
Joined: Sat Sep 18, 2004 10:59 pm
Location: Seoul
Contact:

Breasts of Almea

Post by brandrinn »

I wrote:full-color illustrations
of the two of us, you're the one with the drawing template, bub. get crackin'.
Last edited by brandrinn on Thu Feb 10, 2005 5:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
[quote="Nortaneous"]Is South Africa better off now than it was a few decades ago?[/quote]

zompist
Boardlord
Boardlord
Posts: 3368
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2002 8:26 pm
Location: In the den
Contact:

Post by zompist »

I like the idea that males wouldn't have nipples. Has anyone else used this idea?

-
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 485
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 2:13 am

Post by - »

zompist wrote:Has anyone else used this idea?
I've never seen it before.

It's a pretty cool idea. Actually, I almost wouldn't mind stealing it myself; it would be a nice wrinkle to add to the estrus-based reproductive system of Idarian hominids. How would you guys feel about that? (Of course, I'd be sure to credit brand -- and the context in which the idea came up -- if I ever get round to posting/publishing anything related to Idari.)
Oh THAT'S why I was on hiatus. Right. Hiatus Mode re-engaged.

User avatar
brandrinn
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 575
Joined: Sat Sep 18, 2004 10:59 pm
Location: Seoul
Contact:

Post by brandrinn »

its too basic an idea to need credit, but thanks anyway. do you have any Idarian langs worked out?
[quote="Nortaneous"]Is South Africa better off now than it was a few decades ago?[/quote]

-
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 485
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 2:13 am

Post by - »

brandrinn wrote:its too basic an idea to need credit, but thanks anyway. do you have any Idarian langs worked out?
At this stage, mostly just minimal naming languages with crude grammars. Dhumagwara, the vernacular tongue of an imperial polity called Beyran, is somewhat better-developed but still has a limited lexicon. I'll get around to posting some detail about it in C&C someday. Someday... :mrgreen:
Oh THAT'S why I was on hiatus. Right. Hiatus Mode re-engaged.

User avatar
Warmaster
Lebom
Lebom
Posts: 180
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2002 1:38 pm
Location: Somewhere far beyond your reality (Exeter, England)
Contact:

Post by Warmaster »

zompist wrote:I like the idea that males wouldn't have nipples. Has anyone else used this idea?
what was it Evil said on Time bandits when complaining about god? "God invented loads of pointless things, i mean, nipples on men!" :P
Don't worry Girls, Explosions fix everything!

He who is also known as Ben

User avatar
Ghost
Lebom
Lebom
Posts: 94
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2003 10:59 am
Location: Great Britannia
Contact:

Post by Ghost »

Somone without nipples would look very... incomplete to me. The same with eyebrows and fingernails, or the absence thereof.

Ghost :)
[url=http://www.emalaith.com/census.html]ZBB Census 2006[/url]

User avatar
King
Niš
Niš
Posts: 3
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2004 1:22 pm
Location: Vegas, not Texas :(

Post by King »

Ghost wrote:Somone without nipples would look very... incomplete to me. The same with eyebrows and fingernails, or the absence thereof.

Ghost :)
In "Papillon", Henri describes the Guajiros (the indian tribe he lived with for 6 months) as not growing beards or hair (except on their heads, and possibly some southern areas...) . The indians never had to shave. I think he said they were eyebrow-less, too. Also, their kiss was a "bite", although he didn't really describe what this meant. What way do the Almeans kiss?
3,4-methylenedioxymakeyafeelgood

zompist
Boardlord
Boardlord
Posts: 3368
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2002 8:26 pm
Location: In the den
Contact:

Post by zompist »

Probably not much different from ours. Iliu kisses are another story. Ilii can create and exchange flavors as part of lovemaking.

On reflection, I'll withdraw my dibs on the no-male-nipples idea. I wish I'd thought of it myself, though. :)

User avatar
brandrinn
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 575
Joined: Sat Sep 18, 2004 10:59 pm
Location: Seoul
Contact:

Post by brandrinn »

getting rid of unnecessary parts is fine, but adding useless vestigal bits is much more fun! you know that sort of proto-thumb cats have on their wrists? or the proto-toe some ungulates have several inches above the ground? those things look great on people, i'll bet. some left-over primate characteristics could be opposable toes! what fun!

of course, Uesti come from some non-primate thing... so whatever those things have that was lost in the Uesti might have a much reduced lingering form- or maybe one out of a few thousand babies is born with the feature. i suspect gills would be inkeeping with the Uesti's past. imagine, we have left-handed people and red-green color blindness, the Uesti have water-breathers!
[quote="Nortaneous"]Is South Africa better off now than it was a few decades ago?[/quote]

User avatar
So Haleza Grise
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 432
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2002 11:17 pm

Post by So Haleza Grise »

Warmaster wrote:
zompist wrote:I like the idea that males wouldn't have nipples. Has anyone else used this idea?
what was it Evil said on Time bandits when complaining about god? "God invented loads of pointless things, i mean, nipples on men!" :P
More fun than practical, I think.
Duxirti petivevoumu tinaya to tiei šuniš muruvax ulivatimi naya to šizeni.

User avatar
blank stare
Niš
Niš
Posts: 10
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2004 9:33 pm
Location: second to the right and straight on till morning
Contact:

Post by blank stare »

Ghost wrote:Somone without nipples would look very... incomplete to me. The same with eyebrows and fingernails, or the absence thereof.

Ghost :)
In the original Planet of the Apes movie, they didn't have eyebrows on any of the apes, except the one Taylor falls in love with. She had eyebrows, to make her more attractive by human standards.
[url=http://www.spreadfirefox.com/][img]http://images.kingsofchaos.com/safer.gif[/img][/url]

It's not very nice, being eaten by a cow.
- Curlyjimsam

dgoodmaniii
Niš
Niš
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2004 6:22 pm
Location: Martinsville, VA

Post by dgoodmaniii »

blank stare wrote:
Ghost wrote:Somone without nipples would look very... incomplete to me. The same with eyebrows and fingernails, or the absence thereof.

Ghost :)
In the original Planet of the Apes movie, they didn't have eyebrows on any of the apes, except the one Taylor falls in love with. She had eyebrows, to make her more attractive by human standards.
That's a little unfair, don't you think? He falls in love with Nova, the human (at least he's willing to drag her completely useless carcass all over the planet); he grows to like the ape woman (what was her name again?).

On topic, the apes didn't really have breasts, did they? Do real apes?

User avatar
So Haleza Grise
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 432
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2002 11:17 pm

Post by So Haleza Grise »

dgoodmaniii wrote:
blank stare wrote:
Ghost wrote:Somone without nipples would look very... incomplete to me. The same with eyebrows and fingernails, or the absence thereof.

Ghost :)
In the original Planet of the Apes movie, they didn't have eyebrows on any of the apes, except the one Taylor falls in love with. She had eyebrows, to make her more attractive by human standards.
That's a little unfair, don't you think? He falls in love with Nova, the human (at least he's willing to drag her completely useless carcass all over the planet); he grows to like the ape woman (what was her name again?).

On topic, the apes didn't really have breasts, did they? Do real apes?
Primate breasts are flat. I'm not really sure why human ones protrude.

I know that in the movie they attempted to flatten the apes' chests as much as possible.
Duxirti petivevoumu tinaya to tiei šuniš muruvax ulivatimi naya to šizeni.

User avatar
Aurora Rossa
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 1138
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2003 11:46 am
Location: The vendée of America
Contact:

Post by Aurora Rossa »

I've heard that it was because originally, humans and other primates liked big butts. When humans became bipedal and made the shift to front sex, the originally flat breasts became rounder to resemble buttocks to make up for it. If that sounds stupid, I should point out that I don't remember exactly how the theory went.
Image
"There was a particular car I soon came to think of as distinctly St. Louis-ish: a gigantic white S.U.V. with a W. bumper sticker on it for George W. Bush."

Tupu
Niš
Niš
Posts: 6
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2003 12:24 am

Post by Tupu »

Eddy the Great wrote:I've heard that it was because originally, humans and other primates liked big butts. When humans became bipedal and made the shift to front sex, the originally flat breasts became rounder to resemble buttocks to make up for it. If that sounds stupid, I should point out that I don't remember exactly how the theory went.
Geez...that's one of the most bizarre and implausible evolutionary adaptations I've ever heard, but still quite funny though. :D I seriously don't know how frontal sex would dramatically and mysteriously cause the DNA of female primates to mutate such that their breasts would start growing. :roll: But I'd hypothesise that female humans have breasts or visible ones at least because of the effects various female sex hormones such as oestrogen. Whereas modern day apes such as chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans may lack them. So breasts aren't visible on them.

But actually I thought that apes do have breasts because I've seen documentaries on chimpanzees where the mothers would be feeding their babies, and the breasts are quite visible. I mean how else would they breast feed their youngs if they didn't have them??

User avatar
Dewrad
Sanno
Sanno
Posts: 1040
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 9:02 pm

Post by Dewrad »

Eddy the Great wrote:I've heard that it was because originally, humans and other primates liked big butts. When humans became bipedal and made the shift to front sex, the originally flat breasts became rounder to resemble buttocks to make up for it. If that sounds stupid, I should point out that I don't remember exactly how the theory went.
Thus quoth Eddy, our resident steatopygophile.
Some useful Dravian links: Grammar - Lexicon - Ask a Dravian
Salmoneus wrote:(NB Dewrad is behaving like an adult - a petty, sarcastic and uncharitable adult, admittedly, but none the less note the infinitely higher quality of flame)

User avatar
So Haleza Grise
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 432
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2002 11:17 pm

Post by So Haleza Grise »

Alaunpaya wrote:
Eddy the Great wrote:I've heard that it was because originally, humans and other primates liked big butts. When humans became bipedal and made the shift to front sex, the originally flat breasts became rounder to resemble buttocks to make up for it. If that sounds stupid, I should point out that I don't remember exactly how the theory went.
Geez...that's one of the most bizarre and implausible evolutionary adaptations I've ever heard, but still quite funny though. :D I seriously don't know how frontal sex would dramatically and mysteriously cause the DNA of female primates to mutate such that their breasts would start growing. :roll: But I'd hypothesise that female humans have breasts or visible ones at least because of the effects various female sex hormones such as oestrogen. Whereas modern day apes such as chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans may lack them. So breasts aren't visible on them.
Isn't that begging the question a bit?
But actually I thought that apes do have breasts because I've seen documentaries on chimpanzees where the mothers would be feeding their babies, and the breasts are quite visible. I mean how else would they breast feed their youngs if they didn't have them??
They do have them; they just don't protrude like on humans.
Duxirti petivevoumu tinaya to tiei šuniš muruvax ulivatimi naya to šizeni.

User avatar
Nishikokumarugarasu
Sanci
Sanci
Posts: 17
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 12:35 pm
Location: Where there be otters

Post by Nishikokumarugarasu »

Alaunpaya wrote:Geez...that's one of the most bizarre and implausible evolutionary adaptations I've ever heard, but still quite funny though. :D I seriously don't know how frontal sex would dramatically and mysteriously cause the DNA of female primates to mutate such that their breasts would start growing. :roll:
Well, if two round things next to each other tend to cause arousal in a male, of course females with two round things on them in a convenient location were more likely to cause arousal than ones whose round things were less round or whose only round things were in the wrong place, right? Sexual selection is what it's called.
[url=http://www.spinnoff.com/zbb/viewtopic.php?t=6486][img]http://www.kutjara.com/wiki/images/0/08/Longmustelid_scaled2.png[/img][/url]

User avatar
vlad
Sanci
Sanci
Posts: 21
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2004 4:28 am
Location: Central Coast, NSW, Australia

Post by vlad »

Nishikokumarugarasu wrote:
Alaunpaya wrote:Geez...that's one of the most bizarre and implausible evolutionary adaptations I've ever heard, but still quite funny though. :D I seriously don't know how frontal sex would dramatically and mysteriously cause the DNA of female primates to mutate such that their breasts would start growing. :roll:
Well, if two round things next to each other tend to cause arousal in a male, of course females with two round things on them in a convenient location were more likely to cause arousal than ones whose round things were less round or whose only round things were in the wrong place, right? Sexual selection is what it's called.
True, but it has no evolutionary advantage (does it?). A male who's attracted to females with some feature that aids survival will probably have more survivng offspring than a male who is attracted to some arbitrary feature.

User avatar
So Haleza Grise
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 432
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2002 11:17 pm

Post by So Haleza Grise »

Nishikokumarugarasu wrote:
Alaunpaya wrote:Geez...that's one of the most bizarre and implausible evolutionary adaptations I've ever heard, but still quite funny though. :D I seriously don't know how frontal sex would dramatically and mysteriously cause the DNA of female primates to mutate such that their breasts would start growing. :roll:
Well, if two round things next to each other tend to cause arousal in a male, of course females with two round things on them in a convenient location were more likely to cause arousal than ones whose round things were less round or whose only round things were in the wrong place, right? Sexual selection is what it's called.
Hmm, but why only in humans? And of course, sexual arousal from breast size is quite culturally-specific.
Duxirti petivevoumu tinaya to tiei šuniš muruvax ulivatimi naya to šizeni.

zompist
Boardlord
Boardlord
Posts: 3368
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2002 8:26 pm
Location: In the den
Contact:

Post by zompist »

vlad wrote:True, but it has no evolutionary advantage (does it?). A male who's attracted to females with some feature that aids survival will probably have more survivng offspring than a male who is attracted to some arbitrary feature.
Sexual selection is a special case, in that it doesn't work by making the holders of the more fit genes survive; it works by making them reproduce better.

Take it to an extreme: imagine that men will only mate with women with huge porn-sized breasts. Which women will reproduce? Only women with ginormous gazongas will reproduce, passing on their massive-mammary genes.

In practice it's not quite so dramatic, since not everyone has the same tastes, and there can be tradeoffs involved (e.g., it may be energy-inefficient to produce really humongous hummadingas).

User avatar
Cypress
Sanci
Sanci
Posts: 18
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 9:12 pm
Location: A lonely barricade...

Post by Cypress »

Amazing alliteration there, Zomp. :P
I KNOW NOTHING ABOUT LANGUAGES!!! ^_^

Enjolras for President!

User avatar
JT_the_Ninja
Sanci
Sanci
Posts: 50
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2002 1:54 pm
Location: Nowhere
Contact:

Post by JT_the_Ninja »

zompist wrote:
vlad wrote:True, but it has no evolutionary advantage (does it?). A male who's attracted to females with some feature that aids survival will probably have more survivng offspring than a male who is attracted to some arbitrary feature.
Sexual selection is a special case, in that it doesn't work by making the holders of the more fit genes survive; it works by making them reproduce better.

Take it to an extreme: imagine that men will only mate with women with huge porn-sized breasts. Which women will reproduce? Only women with ginormous gazongas will reproduce, passing on their massive-mammary genes.

In practice it's not quite so dramatic, since not everyone has the same tastes, and there can be tradeoffs involved (e.g., it may be energy-inefficient to produce really humongous hummadingas).
And anyway, as to the opposition to an arbitrary feature, since when have men been anything but arbitrary? :mrgreen: I say this as a man of course, a man who has a definite picture of his type of girl.

User avatar
Salmoneus
Sanno
Sanno
Posts: 3197
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 5:00 pm
Location: One of the dark places of the world

Post by Salmoneus »

In fact, many of the things produced by sexual selection are positively deleterious for the species' survival. The cassic example is the massive set of antlers that some ungulates are equipped with, particularly Megaloceros. It was at one time thought that the huge size of its antlers was the reason for its extinction; that now seems a bit simplistic, but certainly it would have given the thing a lot of problems when trying to walk between trees, and probably required stupidly large neck muscles to allow it to lift its head off the ground.

See also the brightly coloured males of bird species, which can make them an easier meal for predators.


Eddy, if by "frontal sex" you mean "having sex facing one another", I should point out that this is, in the West at least, a rather recent invention.
Blog: [url]http://vacuouswastrel.wordpress.com/[/url]

But the river tripped on her by and by, lapping
as though her heart was brook: Why, why, why! Weh, O weh
I'se so silly to be flowing but I no canna stay!

Post Reply