Missing Aquatic Link

 Titty Tuesday it is. 

That is a day completely dedicated to this very interesting subject, part of the human female body.
Lots of words have been dedicated already to the human 'mammalia', the breasts of human women.

 Yes, they are different!  Different in shape when compared with the breast(s) of human men, different in shape when compared with that animal what has for 98.8 percent the same DNA as humans, that is the chimpanzee.

Okay, as member of the family 'Mammals' the first true 'contact' when born is with the NIPPLE of the mother, the top of a breast ( I capitalized that word on purpose  because I know that only the word already seems to give a fit to certain fundamentalist people, let alone when I would show an example of it).
But it is wrong to think that this - being the first contact with a source of food - is the only reason for the fascination people, and men in particular, for the female breasts.
In his book 'The naked ape' (1969) Desmond Morris posed the hypothesis that men's fascination came with people started walking on two legs instead of four.

The female genitals were all of a sudden not any longer visible so the breasts started to 'grow'to make more visible that it was concerning a female. And when she was willing to mate, for it was the right moment to get fertilized, her ..... erm NIPPLES turned red !!! That was the theory.
Elaine Morgan - another author - was quite amused reading The Naked Ape and her answer was The Descent of Woman (1972).

                                                            

Was Homo Sapiens - the 'knowing - or wise -  man' - really THAT STUPID that they couldn't recognize women any longer after walking on two legs that they needed visible breasts to see if it was a female they were encountering?????
There had to have been another plausible reason for nature to let such changes happen.
Breasts don't have to be big to be able to contain much milk. Female breasts are big because of the fat tissue in it, not because of the milk it could contain!
One should first really look to the function of that female breast. To feed the newly born infants. Chimpanzee-mothers feed their baby's in the trees where they are safe for predators. The infants cling to the bodyhair of their mothers to reach the source of food.
That really should have been a problem for human mothers, for where is the bodyhair? There is NONE, humans have almost no 'fur' on their skin! Now one could start to wonder why.
It is very likely  for the same reason why people have 30 % of their bodyfat under the skin, like most water mammals to the contrary of those mammals who live solely on the land. 

Elephants and pigs also have that property, but a part of their evolution was proven as well to have taken place in the water. There are much more properties proving that a significant part of the evolution ( Elephants, pigs and HUMANS) took place in water circumstances. The shape of feet, the shape of the nose, sweating and crying salt water, the larynx and absolutely the ability to walk on two feet instead of four.  And waterbirth, it goes that easy for human women and baby's. And when born the baby's can swim right away.            

When in the water after being born clinging to the wreath of floating hair of their mother would have been easy. For human hair can grow VERY LONG. That must have had a reason as well. Never seen a chimpanzee mother with hair that long.Next to that probably the newly-born should see a source of food floating in the water too 

 

although it would be easier to go to the land for that. The mother only had to sit down somewhere at the beach and without having to hold the baby the baby could reach the source of milk, hanging right in front of him/her!!!! Exactly at the right height.

That sounds more logic, doesn't it? That is how nature works, to preserve the species.
The Belgian doctor Marc Verhaegen started a study about this subject as well and wrote books about it. ( 1997, Aquatic Ape)

By the way it was the marine biologist  Alister Hardy who suggested the first time in 1960 that Homo Sapiens had spent a part of the evolution very close at - or in - sea.

                                   
There are still people who just have unlogic difficulties with the idea. But they are nevertheless  the same people that enjoy going to the beach each summer, spending time in a salt sea and finding out how good that is for their skin. Then they dive in the water holding their breath with ease and no water directly going into their nose .... 

Well let me tell you, as an ape I wouldn't try that. Not even as a Chimpanzee.