The purpose of boobs.

Perfectly plausible explanations as to why most races of Felarya have breasts, in opposition to the 'lactation' theory.

(All in good fun. : P)

-Succubi possess breasts because they are a healthy sign of fertility and allow them to better stimulate sources of sexual energy to feed on.

-An angel's divine bosom keeps the righteous distracted from evil.

-Dridders' breasts house venom-producing organs and storage sacs, which deliver the compound to their fangs when needed.

-Naga breasts may have venom sacs in them as well, or simply give off high levels of mamma-rays* to stun prey as the naga Vivian has demonstrated.

*Mamma-rays are a naturally occurring radiation given off by the mammary organs. They most strongly affect male specimens, and all females seem to be able to utilize it to an extent. Some have proposed classifying it as a magical ability.

-Dryads grow large, healthy coconuts. Nothing abnormal here.

-Fairies have secondary magic reserves located on their chests, though they have to carefully aim at the target with them to cast a spell.

-Mermaids have two air bladders on their torso's chest to control their buoyancy in water. Whale mermaids have been known to use their breasts to amplify sonar to locate prey with.

Chlaenas: This may be where ink is produced.

-Harpy breasts serve as surprisingly efficient airfoils. Human technology has yet to catch up with their advanced design. A secondary use may be to attract mates.

-Slug-girls store sticky slime inside their breasts, which they can then draw up from their throats and into their mouths to have a ready supply of slime loogies at the ready.

-Sphinx breasts can cause people to muddle their answers to riddles, therefore denying them rite of passage and are promptly eaten.

-Miaxi can gather pollen on their chest's larger surface area.

-Mantoids use their breasts to put their otherwise easily frightened mates at ease and lower their guard before eating them.

In actuality, males are rare in Felarya simply because they lack this vast array of adaptionary benefits.

-Razias are the only race to devolve breasts. Their future is uncertain.

/Fish/ wrote:

Mamma-rays are a naturally occurring radiation given off by the mammary organs. They most strongly affect male specimens, and all females seem to be able to utilize it to an extent. Some have proposed classifying it as a magical ability.

love that part best.

....Or evolution had little to do with the origin of any of these races. Because so many are partly human looking for the top half convergent evolution makes little to no sense.

Simple as this, humans have boobies, female giant preds have boobies.

/Fish/ wrote:

-An angel's divine bosom keeps the righteous distracted from evil.

Considering Lust is a sin, I'd say quite the opposite.

Quote :

-Fairies have secondary magic reserves located on their chests, though they have to carefully aim at the target with them to cast a spell.

Don't Fairies give live birth, and being mostly human have a pretty good excuse to feed their young through their bosom?

Quote :

-Mermaids have two air bladders on their torso's chest to control their buoyancy in water.

Does that mean that deeper sea mermaids would have a deflated look to them?

come on malahite, you have to admit, some of those were pretty good XD

oh most were a good laugh

/Fish/ wrote:

-Naga breasts may have venom sacs in them as well, or simply give off high levels of mamma-rays* to stun prey as the naga Vivian has demonstrated.

*Mamma-rays are a naturally occurring radiation given off by the mammary organs. They most strongly affect male specimens, and all females seem to be able to utilize it to an extent. Some have proposed classifying it as a magical ability.

Unfortunately, an effective shield against Mamma-rays has yet to be devised. Although Useful Survival Tools Inc has reported some progress in this area.

/Fish/ wrote:

-Dryads grow large, healthy coconuts. Nothing abnormal here.

It could be said that the size of said coconuts is a sign of how healthy the dryad is and therefore how good the soil is.

/Fish/ wrote:

In actuality, males are rare in Felarya simply because they lack this vast array of adaptionary benefits.

Finally, a decent explanation!

Archmage_Bael wrote:

come on malahite, you have to admit, some of those were pretty good XD

Why do you think I only addressed some / gave a " " after the Angel comment?

The claim:

/Fish/ (Summarized) wrote:

Lactation is just a theory. Teach the controversy!

/Fish/ claims that "Lactation" is just a theory, and provides supposed alternative interpretations for each species boobs, but many of his proposed solutions are not scientific in the slightest, and completely untestable. He also fails to unite them into one overarching Universal Theory of Boobage, which Lactation Theoy is. He would throw away hundreds of years of boob research and peer review (the peers all agree that boobs are good) for some half-baked crackpot ideas!





Nevertheless, I consider myself a scientifically minded person, so I propose that we test the theories that he has that are testable.
First, the untestable ones: Succubi, Angel, Mantoid, Razias. The things he claims for these are not testable, and thus cannot replace Lactation Theory, even in principle!


Then, the testable ones.

/Fish wrote:

Dridders' breasts house venom-producing organs and storage sacs, which deliver the compound to their fangs when needed.

To test his "Dridder boob" theory we will need to get a sample of any and all liquids inside of a dridder's boobs, and compare them to any and all liquids that come from their fangs. If his theory is correct, we should also be able to confirm that their breasts and fangs are connected by squeezing them. If he is correct, venom should come out of the fangs. For obvious reasons this should be done on a tranquilized or willing dridder!

/Fish wrote:

Dryads grow large, healthy coconuts. Nothing abnormal here.

This theory seems far-fetched to me just on the surface. What about pine-dryads, are those coconuts on their chests as well? Suspiciously round pine cones?
A soft boob will have a low resistance to pressure, but a coconut boob ought to have a very high resistance to pressure. For this theory to be tested all that will be needed is to poke a dryad in one of her breasts with a force measuring gauge. The actual difference is high enough that you could probably get away with just a finger prod, but it's best to be scientific about such things.

/Fish wrote:

Fairies have secondary magic reserves located on their chests, though they have to carefully aim at the target with them to cast a spell.

This theory ought to be simple enough to test: capture a fairy and orient them in one of two directions: boobs facing target, or boobs not facing target. Continue testing them until they run out of magic. If this theory is incorrect, they will run out of magic at around the same time.

/Fish wrote:

Mermaids have two air bladders on their torso's chest to control their buoyancy in water. Whale mermaids have been known to use their breasts to amplify sonar to locate prey with.

Ultrasonic sounds travel much faster in water than it does in air, so testing this "theory" requires only that we place an ultrasound device on one side of their breast and a detector on the other side, and then compare the time between the ping being sent and it being received with the time it takes the same to happen when there is only air between them.

/Fish wrote:

Chlaenas: This may be where ink is produced.

As with dridders, a simple squeeze or two can confirm or deny this theory.

/Fish wrote:

Harpy breasts serve as surprisingly efficient airfoils. Human technology has yet to catch up with their advanced design.

We can do a strict comparison of the efficiency of the harpy body as an air-foil with and without breasts quite easily: create a plaster mold of a harpy, create two copies, and remove the boobs from one of the test models. Then simple wind-tunnel testing will show how much more efficient a harpy-with-boobs is than without.

/Fish wrote:

Slug-girls store sticky slime inside their breasts, which they can then draw up from their throats and into their mouths to have a ready supply of slime loogies at the ready.

As with the dridders, a simple squeeze ought to produce dramatic results. An alternative method would be measure the bust of a particular subject, then run back and forth in front of them dodging spitwads until they are exhausted, then measuring the bust size again. If this theory holds water then the second measurement ought to be smaller than the first. However, to control for statistical variation several different subjects will need to be measured.

/Fish wrote:

Sphinx breasts can cause people to muddle their answers to riddles, therefore denying them rite of passage and are promptly eaten.

To test this we need a sphinx that is without boobs, or one that has their boobs covered from view. A simple tally of the number of people eaten by both after that should show that this theory is not true.

/Fish wrote:

Miaxi can gather pollen on their chest's larger surface area.

Quite simple to test: take a normal miaxi and have it go collect pollen for a period of time. Once it has returned, carefully remove (probably by hand) all the pollen and weigh it. Bind the Miaxi's breasts tightly (to minimize their surface area; unpleasant but required for the experiment to work) and have them collect more pollen, and then weigh it as well. Compare the two values.

/Fish wrote:

Naga breasts may have venom sacs in them as well, or simply give off high levels of mamma-rays* to stun prey as the naga Vivian has demonstrated.

Again, a simple squeeze will show if they have venom sacs in them.


Detecting mamma-rays would be considerably harder, but also more scientifically rewarding, as discovering a new particle is rare. First we will need to find a detector of some sort, and then calibrate the detector against a known scale. /Fish/ suggests that males are strongly affected (and thus excellent detectors), but he does not mention what species, and I feel that in order to be comprehensive we should test all genders of many species, with many individuals from each species.

Calibrating the detectors will not be particularly difficult: all that needs to be done is decide on a scale, then give the detectors some binoculars and a map to the showering locations of the creatures on that scale.

Testing how penetrating a mamma-rays would also be quite simple: take a calibrated detector and a known source, and then place various materials between the two: glass, rock, wood, etc.

Finally would come the testing of how radioactive mamma-rays make something; calibrated detectors will need to be tested with images of known sources, and reconstructions/fake images of known sources. Mamma-ray theory will fail if the calibrated detectors detect mamma-rays coming from something that was never exposed to a mamma-ray source!


In conclusion:
In conclusion I have proposed a series of quite simple test that anyone can perform that will easily show that /Fish/'s boob theories are incorrect at best, and willful fabrications at worst. I would have cited well known works in this area of science, like any of the Girls Gone Wild series of educational videos, or even Wikipedia, but I don't feel that this is required to dispel this psudo-scientific garbage.

All in good fun, in case it wasn't obvious by the third time I said that the theory could be disproved by simply squeezing a boob.

Hey thanks for that wiki link. Lots of usefull info in there.

Malahite wrote:

/Fish/ wrote:

-An angel's divine bosom keeps the righteous distracted from evil.

Considering Lust is a sin, I'd say quite the opposite.

Technically its a vice not a sin, but whatever.



Anyhow, why can't mammaries just be for the production of milk? That's what they do in real life!

because the non human half of many of these species don't take care of their Young and some people need closure with this issue.

asaenvolk wrote:

because the non human half of many of these species don't take care of their Young and some people need closure with this issue.

Doesn't it go more by individual to individual rather than species? It would be useful for the ones that do take care of their young, so the species as a whole has them?

/Fish/ wrote:

-An angel's divine bosom keeps the righteous distracted from evil.

hahaha XD

This explains quite a bit. Nicely done, fish.

I like the explanation for angels, and for the scarcity of males. Never had I realised what a handicap a lack of boobs was in certain environments! And...

Oldman40k2003 wrote:

The claim:

/Fish/ (Summarized) wrote:

Lactation is just a theory. Teach the controversy!

/Fish/ claims that "Lactation" is just a theory, and provides supposed alternative interpretations for each species boobs, but many of his proposed solutions are not scientific in the slightest, and completely untestable. He also fails to unite them into one overarching Universal Theory of Boobage, which Lactation Theoy is. He would throw away hundreds of years of boob research and peer review (the peers all agree that boobs are good) for some half-baked crackpot ideas!

(Though I must admit, I always have wondered why dryads have boobs. It brings to mind sweet but slightly unrealistic images of a a dryad fondly holding her unrooted sapling baby to her breast.)

Konata supports Razias!

French snack wrote:

(Though I must admit, I always have wondered why dryads have boobs. It brings to mind sweet but slightly unrealistic images of a a dryad fondly holding her unrooted sapling baby to her breast.)

My answer, from this two year old thread: "Dryads present us with an interesting problem, considering their method of reproduction doesn't seem compatible with nursing. We know that Dryads often become the "center" of a group, with other creatures working for them. Perhaps they need to nurse a child of their group from time to time? Dryads have a great deal of control over their biochemistry, so it also might be useful to have boobs simply as a means to produce a particular fluid quickly and store a large amount of it for later use."

nksrocks wrote:

Konata supports Razias!

hahaha

how DO Dryads reproduce? I take it has something to do with the partner bond that they form, and they do have female reproductive parts.

Archmage Bael writes in his latest release:(XD naw just kidding) maybe its mental? like their minds "meld" so to speak and they reproduce with a seed. now of course body contact may or may not be necessary. (but this would allow two female dryads to have a child)

this idea seems interesting to me though lemme know if anyone likes it maybe i can make it more detailed.

Oldman40k2003 wrote:

French snack wrote:

(Though I must admit, I always have wondered why dryads have boobs. It brings to mind sweet but slightly unrealistic images of a a dryad fondly holding her unrooted sapling baby to her breast.)

My answer, from this two year old thread: "Dryads present us with an interesting problem, considering their method of reproduction doesn't seem compatible with nursing. We know that Dryads often become the "center" of a group, with other creatures working for them. Perhaps they need to nurse a child of their group from time to time? Dryads have a great deal of control over their biochemistry, so it also might be useful to have boobs simply as a means to produce a particular fluid quickly and store a large amount of it for later use."

So basically Dryads are the Felaryan version of wet nurses?

in one perspective yes.

just let your "other" head do all the thinking while in felarya. it solves so many problems. (course said problem being solved safely is another matter all together)

JohnDoe wrote:

So basically Dryads are the Felaryan version of wet nurses?

Well, as I saw it, we have dryads, who are known to form groups of creatures around them, creatures that reproduce in a more standard way.
We want said dryads to have boobies. (Well, at least I do. )
If they nurse children of their groups from time to time then that frees up the mothers for more intensive work.
Alternately, being able to nurse an orphan child means that the work load on the other nursing mothers is not increased, and knowing that their children will be taken care of even if they die may make parents more willing to take risks when the dryad asks them to.

My second solution was that dryads use their breasts as basically big storage tanks for useful chemicals. Dryads have good control over their biochemisty, so being able to have a breast full of healing solution could be very useful. Considering how large dryad breasts are, that much healing chemical could heal a very large number of people, so even if her group took serious damage during a fight they might be able to "get back on their feet" much quicker than if they relied totally on Felarya's healing soil.

Both of these proposals can be combined: wet nursing a child once or twice a week with some sort of super-food, for example.




Hah, a funny idea struck me: booze producing boob.

Oldman40k2003 wrote:

Hah, a funny idea struck me: booze producing boob.

So the legends were true!

Seriously that is by far the greatest solution to why dryads have breasts.