Discussion (10) ¬

1. 
   Tangentsreviews

   2 January 2012 at 15:54 | # | Reply

   Just as a brief aside… why do the female aliens have breasts if they’re not mammary glands… at which point they should have nipples.

   Yes, I never saw Avatar, never saw the point to it. It’s basically a CG version of an animated movie about the Amazon jungle, with scifi elements mixed in.

   • 
     Gual

     26 January 2012 at 14:37 | # | Reply

     Well, in Avatar they seem to have breasts for just the same purpose as we humans. Anyway, not even the human girls need their breasts in that shape. If you look apes and another animals, they don’t have prominent boobs. Researchers themselves have said is a way for luring the male. Maybe those other aliens are in the same situation?

     Same question is made but for robot gals. They don’t need em for other reason that looking nice. I’m not complaining about that =P.

     Sorry for the late response. We haven’t seen this comment.
   • 
     Thomas

     27 May 2012 at 17:31 | # | Reply

     Don’t worry. We’re talking about the same movie that had two-legged combat robots drop from a height (and come up in a fighting crouch) that would, in any universe with real physics, render them as little more than scrap heaps. Avatar aims to have nice special effects and a breathtaking jungle environment (at which it is good), not plausibility or an original plot.

     • 
       Calvin Copyright

       2 July 2012 at 9:47 | # | Reply

       Actually, those combat robots didn’t jump down; they slid down cables. Don’t you have any eye for details? And besides, Pandora was supposed to have lower gravity.
2. 
   Dacatus

   18 March 2012 at 17:02 | # | Reply

   Actually, ‘we’ (humans) do need breasts, because of our flat faces. Other primates have snouts, or their mouths actually project outwards, allowing them to nurse and breathe. We, flat-faced humans, would suffocate if our females did not have them. “Luring the male”? Indeed, playing with the primitive-brain instinct of “that would be a good mother for my offspring”.

   • 
     Gual

     18 March 2012 at 20:52 | # | Reply

     Dunno. Books, Nat Geo, Discovery Channel and more sources have many theories about it. Who knows? Maybe every one of them have a bit of thruth, maybe none is true. That’s the bad part of a theory, ¿no? ^ ^’
     By the way, I don’t get the suffocate part. How’s that?

     • 
       Dacatus

       20 March 2012 at 17:50 | # | Reply

       Press your hand firmly to your nose and try to breathe. The soft part of the nose folds neatly ‘in’ and blocks the airways. Now, try to do this while drinking thru a straw.

       That’s how babies would have to decide between nutrition and breathing if human females did not have breasts. The breast, pushing out the nipple, provides the human baby with literal breathing room.

       • 
         Chano

         21 March 2012 at 9:25 | # | Reply

         I see. But we evolved from monkeys so we had monkey face features before… With that theory as a base, the question now is: what was first? Boobs made our faces flat or our flat faces made the boobs sprout?

         • 
           Dacatus

           21 March 2012 at 10:21 | #

           Well, we did not evolve from monkeys, but from a species of African apes, that humans, bonobos and chimpanzees share as a common ancestor.

           We’re apes (Old World tail-less primates), not monkeys (who have tails).

           I think the theory also goes about how our flat faces come from the development of advanced stereotypic parallax, or ‘depth perception’ (our silly small eyes, very close to each other on the front of the head), do I’d risk saying evolution selected for females who had some kind of chest volume that helped babies breathe easier. Which could mean evolution favors women with some ‘extra padding’.
       • 
         Chano

         21 March 2012 at 10:45 | # | Reply

         Oh Right, ape face features. My mistake.