Ray's Pretty Nipples

The spiritual Mac and Cheese daddy himself, Ray Comfort, is at it again. This time it’s nipples on men. I’m just going to have to let Ray speak for himself. It’s only right to let him fully clarify himself as a moron before berating him as one. Comfort says,

“It’s my guess that God gave men nipples for aesthetic purposes. Without them, an obvious "something" would be missing. They give balance to the male body.”

I’m amazed that Ray is able to dumbfound me with his stupidity time and time again. I really ought to be used to it by now. Does he have no concept of the fact that what is familiar is attractive? If men did not have nipples, an “obvious ‘something’” would not be missing. It would be the norm. A male with nipples would have an obvious “something” present and it would cause us discord because it was NOT the norm. We would think it was strange…as strange as a man without nipples would be to us now. Ray continues,

“Men have nipples for the same reason God gave us one nose and not two, and two eyes and not one. That’s unless you think that a one-eyed two-nosed man would be attractive to women. I’m sure such a man would have some sort of a career in Hollywood, but probably not as a leading lady’s-man. So I think it’s fair to say that the male nipple is purely cosmetic."

Well, here we have it. Ray has no clue about human biology, physiology, or psychology and what actually constitutes attraction. If one eye and two noses were the norm, we’d think two-eyed, one-nosed people were disfigured and possibly even freakish. The male nipple is most assuredly NOT “cosmetic”.

Men have nipples because when all of us start off in the womb, we’re essentially following a female “template” 1. We’re all “proto-females”. Nipples develop during the third or fourth week of gestation, two to three weeks before the sex of the infant is determined. If the Y-chromosomes trigger testosterone production, a male is produced and the nipples are essentially useless. If it doesn’t, a female develops and the nipples will eventually have subcutaneous mammary glands that will produce milk and possibly nourish another nipple-bearing human.

"The male moustache falls into the same category. I can’t think of why it exists other than for decorative purposes.”

Well, even a broken clock is right at least once a day, right?

Views: 432

Comment by Reggie on June 16, 2009 at 9:40pm
Haha, awesome title! Sometimes I wonder if Ray Comfort is really pulling some stunt a la Sacha Baron Cohen. Some of the things he says makes me exclaim "He can't be serious". I guess me and my decorative nipples just have a hard time accepting that level of stupidity.

BTW, did anyone ever notice that Captain Riker on Star Trek TNG didn't have nipples? Also, did anyone else notice how weird that last question makes me look now that I have typed it out?
Comment by Doug Reardon on June 16, 2009 at 9:51pm
What? Number one has no nipples, you've got to be kidding! Please cite episode which demonstrates said aberrant physique.
Comment by Reggie on June 16, 2009 at 10:00pm
My Trek-fu is not that strong to cite episodes. It was something I noticed over the years of watching and anytime he appeared sans shirt, I would pay attention in an effort to spot a nipple, but I never did see them.
Comment by James on June 16, 2009 at 11:12pm
Ray Comfort = perpetual *facepalm*

Can this guy really be serious? I'd like to think it's a joke, but considering the source I'm afraid it's not. Just when I think I've heard the must absurd claim from him, here he is with something ever 'better'.
Comment by dune on June 17, 2009 at 4:50am
what I find scary is that such people get all this publicity.
Comment by Misty: Baytheist Living! on June 17, 2009 at 7:22am
So.. following this douche's logic.. shouldn't three nippled men be considered that much more attractive?
Bigger breasted women usually are....

And as for facial hair on men, that's just stupid, otherwise the genetics for it would have faded about the time handlebar mustaches went out style...or at least started to fade....

The reason men have nipples is because of the development in the womb. The reason for this development is because it is the safest way to keep women from being born without them, and unable to feed their offspring. It was one more trick of natural selection.
Oddly enough, I read an article somewhere that used this line of reasoning for the 'gay-gene.' Basically the 'gay-gene' is actually a 'cock-loving gene' that some women get to add a little more fertility into their lines. Occasionally, usually in younger male siblings where a woman has already produced male fetuses, this gene develops in male as well as female embryos. The result is a ratio win for reproduction. A herd of women that like sex with men a lot and thereby produce lots off offspring, male included. Occasionally they end up with a young male offspring that doesn't, but it's ok because all the other siblings have it covered, so to speak.
I can't remember where I read this, but if anyone is interested (even if just for the nipple quote) I can dig it up and pass it on.
Comment by Reggie on June 17, 2009 at 11:03am
Misty - You are correct about studies showing a correlation between gay men and extra-fertile female siblings. This explains how the "gay gene" is able to continue to propagate; through the fertile females siblings. Of course, I do not have links at hand to point to these studies, but I am sure I read this in New Scientists among other sources.
Comment by Chris on June 17, 2009 at 11:23am
I posted a little more on the issue of facial hair on my Blogger site, but essentially, he's correct about it. Not just the "moustache", but all facial hair. It's the human male's "plumage", indicating strength and virility because it results from high levels of testosterone. Absolutely nothing to do with "God" or what we think is attractive. Obviously, facial hair isn't considered very attractive anymore or we'd see more men growing beards rather than shaving them off.
Comment by Dave G on June 17, 2009 at 11:47am
Ray never disappoints, always delivering a new dose of radical ignorance and stupidity whenever things start to get dull.
Comment by Laura on June 17, 2009 at 2:39pm
But if Adam was created before there was a woman, and before Yahweh had any intent of making a woman, why would the appearance of the male body have anything to do with what a woman would find attractive?

I know, I know: "shhhh. shhhh. Laura, shhhh."


You need to be a member of Think Atheist to add comments!

Join Think Atheist

© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service