zompist bboard

I wrote:full-color illustrations

of the two of us, you're the one with the drawing template, bub. get crackin'.

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

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.)

its too basic an idea to need credit, but thanks anyway. do you have any Idarian langs worked out?

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...

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!"

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

Ghost

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?

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.

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!

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!"

More fun than practical, I think.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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. 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. 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??

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.

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. 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. 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.

Alaunpaya wrote:Geez...that's one of the most bizarre and implausible evolutionary adaptations I've ever heard, but still quite funny though. 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.

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.

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. 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.

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.

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. 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.

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.

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).

Amazing alliteration there, Zomp.

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? I say this as a man of course, a man who has a definite picture of his type of girl.

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.