Ear Lobes

[Lindylou]

Why do humans have earlobes?? Is it just for earrings??

[mikewall01]

Earlobes, like breasts, appear to serve no real function but both have unusually high concentrations of nerve endings and it has been suggested that they both exist for the single purpose of increasing our pleasure by, for example, touching, sucking and nibbling.

[j2buttonsw]

LOL, mikewall01; But breasts having no function?? I read once that some races have no discernable ear lobes, whereas others are more apparent. I also seem to remember it was something to do with the cold as to how big your lobes were.

[comloulou]

I love that men think breasts exist for their pleaseure. Its very sweet.

[wildwood]

You mean breasts have another function, comloulou?? You have just disenchanted my whole purpose for living.
Earlobes are there for the sole reason of enabling parents/teachers to guide naughty children to where they don't want to go.

Then again.... it could be to detect the lower frequency sound and guide it to the ear channel.

[xyzzy@bok]

just for earrings; sames as we have ears just for holding our glasses on; you could hear quite well without the protusion bits - but you wouldn't see so good. :(|)

[brawburd]

comloulou, yours is one of the best answers ever - so low key, sarcastic and funny! Excellent!

[comloulou]

Thank you Brawburd. It was just a very 'man' thing to say that made me chuckle.

[Quizmonster]

Dear Comloulou and Brawburd...as mammals, women clearly need nipples, but why breasts? Gorrilas and gophers have no breasts and nor do cats or kangaroos, yet they all have to feed their young, too.

As a matter of interest, the famous anthropologist, Desmond Morris - who wrote 'The Naked Ape' etc - concluded that breasts, as such, did not start to appear in humans until face-to-face mating appeared on the scene. He concluded that they were quite possibly a mirror-image, so to speak, of the buttocks. These had been the centre of male attention until then, he felt, just as they still are in monkeys etc now. Breasts were just another two rounded and fondleable protuberances to attract prehistoric man. In other words, they really were for male pleasure!

These are his expert views, not mine, so I wonder what you two think the original function of breasts was, given that they are quite unnecessary for successful suckling of young.

[Squirrel]

Getting hastily back to the subject, ear lobes appear to be left over from whatever ear shape our distant ancestors had. Much like the toenail question, I would guess that toenails are left over from claws that snuffly, furry little beaver things needed to survive millions of years ago, but there was never any advantage to be had by not having them, so they would take longer than average to "evolve out" of existence. Or something.

[Think Deep]

I doubt they'd direct much sound into your ears (ear lobes, that is)? The whole outer ear, on the other hand, I think is pretty important for directing sound, especially higher frequencies, into your ears. Next time you're listening to music, cup your hands behind your ears and notice the imporvement in sound. Now imagine not having any outer ears at all.

[comloulou]

As the famous anthropologist Desmond Morris is a man and may or may not own a sizable pair of man breasts I think hes a tad blinkered. Could it not be the duality of purpose would be directed towards a) feeding babies and b) pleasure for the wearer of said breasts. And I dont know if youve ever tried to breast feed a baby with a flat chest and a pair of vertical nipples, I cant imagine its much fun for either feeder or receiver.

[Quizmonster]

Male 'breasts' are simply a mark of overweight/obesity and hence they are a result and have no purpose other than fat-storage. There is no comparison, in that sense, between male/female bodies, since even the slimmest of women will probably have 'true' breasts. Having said that, multitudes of flat-chested women have suckled their infants perfectly satisfactorily - and probably pleasurably - throughout history. So, offering feeding - your point 'a' - as a purpose is clearly applicable only to nipples, as already explained and as evidenced also throughout the animal kingdom.

Of course, breasts - as you say at 'b' - are a source of pleasure to their owner. Mikewall said as much in the very first answer here...I'm not sure why you assumed his use of the word 'our' somehow excluded women. I took it to mean "mankind's"....not just "the male's".

The fact remains that the only scientific explanation offered for the original appearance of human breasts, as such, that I have ever seen is Morris's. (There are no grounds to believe him to be 'blinkered', so far as I am aware.)

[comloulou]

And once again we go from pleasant vaguely amusing banter on an unusual question to a full on intellectual assult on someones answer. I was joking, now im irritated.

[Quizmonster]

Aw for heaven's sake, ma'am, are we all to tread gently around your answers in case you might get irritated if we don't agree with you? There simply is no intellectual assault here...you just don't respond to the actual points I made.

If you insist on referring to our earlier spat, let's remember that it was your assault on my answer that set it off! I had responded to a third party's question with a perfectly correct answer and you told everyone that you didn't like it.

This question and all its responses will be off the category's Page 1 shortly, so let's just leave it in oblivion, shall we? I'll try to remember in future not to answer anything you've already posted to. That way we can simply avoid each other. It would be nice if you were to extend me the same courtesy.

[comloulou]

It would be hard for me to avoid answering where youve been as you are one of the most prolific posters on this site. I think its worth understanding that no tone of voice or intention can be read on this site. Im not prepared to fight with you and only dislike having my answers re-butted point by point when they are my opinions not facts. It makes me reluctant to post for fear of being 'shouted down'. Im holding an olive branch because I dont want to ignore or antagonise anybody including quizmonster

[Quizmonster]

Dear Comloulou, Like most men of my generation, I would never wish to 'shout down' a woman, so if that's what my responses seemed to you to be doing, I apologise for it. As you say, 'tone' cannot be read into print too easily. I thought I was just asking you to develop a point made earlier, but you appeared to opt out of doing that. Fair enough - that's your prerogative - but your getting 'irritated' seemed a bit illogical, given that I was, apparently, not supposed to get irritated when the boot was on the other foot!

We've made peace once before, so let's do that again. I'll promise not to ask for explanations you're reluctant to provide, if you promise not to get annoyed...OK? Pax!