metafilter: anti-microbial snot mixed in with a lot of fat and sugar

May 20, 2006 2:49 AM

the origin of fun bags.The age old question of where breasts came from may have finally been answered!

[boobs] first evolved as an immunoprotective gland that produced bacteriocidal secretions to protect the skin and secondarily eggs and infants, and that lactation is a highly derived kind of inflammation response. [...] Milk is actually a kind of anti-microbial snot mixed in with a lot of fat and sugar.

All vertebrates have an innate immune system consisting of molecules which are hostile to microbes. It appears that the nutritional content of the milk is a product of mutation and repurposing of these immunological molecules! Xanthine oxidoreductase, which produces natural preservatives and disinfectants is also responsible for the essential role of encapsulating fat droplets which promotes suspension in water. Lactose (sugar) "requires a specific synthetic complex consisting of β-1,4 galactosyltransferase and α-lactalbumin for its production." As it turns out, α-lactalbumin is a modified (mutated) version of an awesome little molecule that literally skins bacteria alive - lysozyme!
posted by Tryptophan-5ht (127 comments total)

is snot...
posted by Muirwylde at 2:52 AM on May 20, 2006

hmmm, thats a lot of real estate on the front page. Didn't realize it'd be so huge. Admins - if you need to cut it down, I promise not to take it personally.
posted by Tryptophan-5ht at 2:52 AM on May 20, 2006

Fun bags? I beg to differ.
posted by taursir at 3:12 AM on May 20, 2006

It's a speculative story at this point

The innate immune system is a primitive defense system that uses peptides that recognize various common microbial surface molecules, and also uses enzymes that produce chemical agents lethal to bacteria. It's a first line of defense that differs from the more specific immune system in that it doesn't require specialized immune system cells and also doesn't acquire the kind of highly refined specificity we see in antibodies (note, too, that antibodies are also secreted in milk—they are the IgG, IgE, and IgM molecules listed above.)

The writer never bothers to give any evidence for an evolutionary process -- he merely assumes evolutionism must have happened. These teleolocial benefits fit better with an Intelligent Designer than blind chance plus death (natural selection)
posted by bevets at 3:40 AM on May 20, 2006 [1 favorite has favorites]

whats great about this discovery is that it addresses the most common argument from creationist/id folks. EG - they understand how a wolf evolves saggier skin and eventually you've got a blood hound, but how do you get new functional complex structures?

there are many ways in which this happens, but the one perfectly illustrated here is the repurposing and duplication of existing genetic code. Where before, you had a molecule which kills bacteria - a few mutations later, and its helping to produce complex sugar molecules.

i wish i had more aptitude with this kind of stuff - it fascinates me to no end.
posted by Tryptophan-5ht at 3:40 AM on May 20, 2006

"The writer never bothers to give any evidence for an evolutionary process"
I believe thats because they don't have any at this point. As you pointed out "It's a speculative story at this point" In science, they start with a guess, then look for evidense that proves or disproves their guess. Its just a guess at this point, but its a fascinating and compelling guess.

please note the bold italic "may" in the first sentance.
posted by Tryptophan-5ht at 3:58 AM on May 20, 2006

[boobies are good]
posted by slimepuppy at 3:59 AM on May 20, 2006

"at this point" three times in that last post and a new way to spell 'evidence'. no more posting @ 4 am.
posted by Tryptophan-5ht at 4:07 AM on May 20, 2006

Milk is actually a kind of anti-microbial snot mixed in with a lot of fat and sugar.

Not all mucous is snot or phlegm. You'd think the biologist who wrote the article would know better.
posted by Smart Dalek at 4:24 AM on May 20, 2006

Smart Dalek: He's just saying that for the effect. I'm sure he's not using snot in the technical sense there.
posted by edd at 4:35 AM on May 20, 2006

metafilter: snot in the technical sense

don't hit me, I swear that was my first tagline. I've resisted the urge for years man - but the snot came along!
posted by dabitch at 4:53 AM on May 20, 2006

Mmmmm ... immunoprotective glands that produce bacteriocidal secretions to protect the skin and secondarily eggs and infants.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 5:06 AM on May 20, 2006

milk is a product of mutation and repurposing of these immunological molecules!

we fucked chimpanzees, too.
posted by quonsar at 5:29 AM on May 20, 2006

posted by fatbobsmith at 5:48 AM on May 20, 2006

This might have made an interesting post if it hadn't included the term "fun bags". Oh, and if it hadn't involved a lame meme in the title. But "fun bags" ticked me off more.
posted by Hildegarde at 5:55 AM on May 20, 2006

I always thought my breasts were modified sweat glands. That doesn't sound so fun does it?
posted by shimmerglimpse at 6:05 AM on May 20, 2006

This might have made a more interesting post if it had included more illustrative illustrations of "fun bags". Oh, and if it hadn't involved such lame mammaries in the title. But the lack of fun bags ticked me off more.
posted by UbuRoivas at 6:14 AM on May 20, 2006

Sarah McLachlan would say "Weep not for the mammaries...."
posted by pmbuko at 6:53 AM on May 20, 2006

Hildegarde, everything about male sexuality ticks you off.
posted by Mean Mr. Bucket at 6:57 AM on May 20, 2006

"Fun bags" isn't as bad as "snot bags" so can we just let it droop - erhm, forgive me - drop? Also, wouldn't this mean that the dick is just a snot filled stick?
posted by DenOfSizer at 7:13 AM on May 20, 2006

Two words: mucous membranes.
posted by tommasz at 7:16 AM on May 20, 2006

"Fun bags" is not about male sexuality. It's about devaluing female sexuality. But thanks for your valued input, Mr. Bucket.
posted by arcticwoman at 7:17 AM on May 20, 2006

Great article, though.
posted by arcticwoman at 7:17 AM on May 20, 2006

This is a pretty cool idea and provides even more reasons why all healthy women should breastfeed.

Although, we all know that the writer of the article had to assume the existence of evolution or the atheistic conspiracy wouldn't have allowed his paper to be published. Now that Bevets is here, he'll explain it all to us. Tell me, why did God make breasts?
posted by Mr. Gunn at 7:20 AM on May 20, 2006

Why would this PZ Myers guy wanna try to make breasts unattractive? Xanthine oxidoreductase? Lactogenic hormones? Hydroxyl radicals and enzymes interacting with bacteria? Didja look at that cross-section biopsy image of a boob? Gross! I'll never be able to suck on a girlfriend's titty with the same wanton abandon again! I'll be too busy trying to push thoughts of lactiferous sinuses, secondary tubules and adispose tissue in superficial fascia out of my head. Damn you Myers! Damn you and your collegiate vocabulary!
posted by ZachsMind at 7:26 AM on May 20, 2006

As much as I like what the term refers to, "fun bags" really irks me for some reason.
posted by sonofsamiam at 7:38 AM on May 20, 2006

Suddenly, cheese seems really gross.
posted by zaelic at 7:49 AM on May 20, 2006

Tell me, why did God make breasts?

So he can command us not to lust after them, of course.
posted by effwerd at 7:54 AM on May 20, 2006

It's mucus, I tellya!
posted by notsnot at 7:57 AM on May 20, 2006

On the Seventh Day, whilst resting, G_d happened to remember that it would be about 6000 years before He would create Super Wal-Marts. Therefore, in order to provide Cain and Abel with a readily accessible, hypoallergenic, and anti-microbial food supply pending the establishment of future food distribution channels, He, in his Infinite Wisdom, created mammary glands on both Adam and Eve.

The rest is history. . .
posted by rdone at 8:00 AM on May 20, 2006

assets
balloons
baps
bazookas
boobs,boobies
bristols
charlies
chubbs
funbags
hooters
jubbelubs
jubblies
jugs
knockers
melons
norks
pair
rack
tits,titties
posted by soiled cowboy at 8:02 AM on May 20, 2006

Soylent Green is people!! Is People!!
posted by Skygazer at 8:22 AM on May 20, 2006

So what's the hang-up about snot anyway?

I'm pretty certain decades of picking my nose (in private) has done me no harm, and I'd suggest that it has fortified my immune system. I can't remember the last time I had a day off work. If there's a real problem with snot, why would God have put our noses so close to our mouths?

It's so strange that nose picking has become greatest taboo.
posted by marvin at 8:47 AM on May 20, 2006

Nice article. Stupid lead.
posted by longdaysjourney at 9:04 AM on May 20, 2006

"Fun bags" is a pretty derogative and demeaning term for breasts. Yes, we know men like breasts, and that's fine and in the natural order of things, but please remember that the owners of breasts would like some respect. Using the "fun bags" term to start off this post is pretty rude, crude and uncouth.
posted by konolia at 9:18 AM on May 20, 2006

all i know is if someone starts talking about joysticks, i'm going to be so incredibly offended
posted by pyramid termite at 9:22 AM on May 20, 2006

That didn't answer the question of the origin of Fun bags though. The defining characteristic of the human breast is it's huge size relative to other primates and most other mammals. That is to say human breasts are weird because they are bags.

Did early human males have the same penchant for bristols as men do now? And did this lead to them mating more frequently with well endowed cave women? If true it's interesting because in most other species it is the women who pick the well endowed males (e.g. A deer's antlers, a peacock's feathers or a lions mane.
posted by afu at 9:24 AM on May 20, 2006 [2 favorites has favorites]

Oh, come on.

So if a woman had posted this, and used the term fun bags, it would have been ok?
posted by kbanas at 9:28 AM on May 20, 2006

My point is that this is not necessarily about sex, it's about sex, and sex is, and has never been, entirely heterosexual -

So a man calls a woman's breasts fun bags, and he's a cretin... what if a woman calls another woman's breasts fun bags, or tits, or jugs? Is it ok then, because it's no longer about patriarchical domination?
posted by kbanas at 9:30 AM on May 20, 2006

I didn't check to see if the poster was male when I was deciding if I hate the term "fun bags" or not, if that's what you're asking.
posted by Hildegarde at 9:34 AM on May 20, 2006

Then I think, mayhap, we all need to take a nap and lighten up.
posted by kbanas at 9:36 AM on May 20, 2006

When we all agree that you should be the arbiter of what's annoying and what's funneeeeee, we'll give you a call.
posted by Hildegarde at 9:38 AM on May 20, 2006

I don't think fun bags is funny, but it didn't raise my ire enough to post a comment explicitly about it.

I'm not saying I should be the arbiter of what's appropriate and what's not - to each his own and all that - I'm just saying, man, lighten up. There's actual honest-to-God stuff going haywire out there on a pretty constant basis. Let that raise your blood pressure.

Seriously, you'll probably get a little more enjoyment out of life.
posted by kbanas at 9:43 AM on May 20, 2006

Seriously, you'll probably get a little more enjoyment out of life.

In other words, learn to enjoy the fun bags.
posted by soiled cowboy at 9:46 AM on May 20, 2006

You sure read a lot into a couple of lines posted on metafilter.
posted by Hildegarde at 9:46 AM on May 20, 2006

I thought this was gonna be a post about cute purses.
posted by Lillitatiana at 9:52 AM on May 20, 2006

Can we forget about the stupid "fun bags" title for a while?

Let's take naked mole rats, for example. Another mammal which aids in the development of its offsprings' immune system by a totally different method.

In the "toilet room," (remember, they have an underground tunnel system, like ants or Viet Cong, with rooms for different purposes) some of the adult rats will produce a specific type of excrement for the babies to roll around in which provides them with all kinds of bacterial goodies similar to what babies get from feeding from their mother's breasts.
posted by kozad at 9:56 AM on May 20, 2006

I don't see anything wrong with using the term "fun bags" Why does a body part deserve respect, above any other body part? How is "fun bag" less offensive then "funny bone"?

The obvious answer is that "fun bags" are "fun" because they relate to sexuality, but that only makes the term offensive if you find the very idea of sexuality offensive. A lot of people feel that way, that's why the word "fuck" is such a profanity. But this place isn't over-run by anti-sexual jihadists, so I say euphemize away.

---
I also dislike seeing every single advance in biology framed as "hah, take that IDers. ID is ridiculous and I think that framing takes away from the inherent interestingness of posts content. Another problem is that often times the commentators aren't really qualified to tell if that particular piece of evidence actually disproves evolution. There's lots of stuff out there that's interesting to think about but doesn't really have the evidence to say it's proof of anything. And not everything in biology actually disproves ID, some of it's just not applicable.

---
I hate it when scientists use inappropriate metaphors to describe things, often times messed up even more by idiot pop-sci authors. I think the scientist may have said that milk was 'like snot' in that it's full of anti-microbial stuff, not that it was ever really 'snot'. The author just lops that last part off to make for interesting copy, and people come off a little less informed.
posted by delmoi at 10:04 AM on May 20, 2006

Lilitatiana wins.

I don't know WHY "fun bags" is offensive, but it does grate on me, also. Perhaps the reason terms for male genitalia don't offend men is because men largely got to *make up* all their own terms...terms for women's breasts were generally not made up by women, because women weren't supposed to talk so crudely. All the "funny" terms for women's genitalia are generally words a woman first hears yelled at her by some car full of morons harassing her as she walks down the street. So that's what we associate them with. Feminism has not been widespread enough long enough for us to hang out in large groups and make up our own funny names for our naughty bits, a typical male bonding activity...
/derail

this is a cool article though.
posted by emjaybee at 10:07 AM on May 20, 2006

Sweater puppies.
posted by weretable and the undead chairs at 10:11 AM on May 20, 2006

"Tits" > "Fun Bags"
posted by nonmerci at 10:32 AM on May 20, 2006

Dinners
posted by Mick at 10:36 AM on May 20, 2006

So a man calls a woman's breasts fun bags, and he's a cretin... what if a woman calls another woman's breasts fun bags, or tits, or jugs? Is it ok then, because it's no longer about patriarchical domination?

That's right nigga. If you don't know the struggle, you can't use the label.
posted by three blind mice at 10:43 AM on May 20, 2006

A very good article, yes.

and YES, "fun bags" offended me, too.
posted by reflecked at 10:49 AM on May 20, 2006

Blouse bunnies.
posted by weretable and the undead chairs at 10:53 AM on May 20, 2006

This FPP was below the usual standards of MeFi.... I was put off by the lead and didn't even click on the article....

And, now, a little disappointed in the adolescent comments that followed, I should have ignored those as well....

ah well, I guess even a 13 year old can come up with the $5, eh?
posted by HuronBob at 10:56 AM on May 20, 2006

posted by keswick at 11:06 AM on May 20, 2006

People, please don't let the breasts come between us.
posted by NortonDC at 11:12 AM on May 20, 2006

Headlights
/since most of the comments seem to be about the term "fun bags" and other such nicknames
posted by effwerd at 11:13 AM on May 20, 2006

metafilter: breast of the web
posted by pyramid termite at 11:15 AM on May 20, 2006

Kids, are we really getting our dander up over "fun bags?" I've never liked the term, mostly because it actually makes breasts seem unattractive. "Bags?" Ewww. But offensive? How so?
posted by brundlefly at 11:29 AM on May 20, 2006

If 50 cent was a science geek:

You can catch me in the bathroom producing a viscous whitish secretion of the male reproductive organs, containing spermatozoa and consisting of secretions of the testes, seminal vesicles, prostate, and bulbourethral glands
Or catch me on the dancefloor feeling some immunoprotective gland that produced bacteriocidal secretions to protect the skin and secondarily eggs and infants
The sexual urge or instinct as it manifests itself in behavior sells, so I'm an individual who, for a fee, supplies another individual with one who solicits and accepts payment for sex acts, metaphorically speaking

Wouldn't it be a lot more fun? No? Oh well. It was just an idea. For a cover maybe.
posted by funambulist at 11:39 AM on May 20, 2006

This is a very interesting article, if you actually read it instead of snarking about stuff in the comments. People need to chill the fuck out.

Your headlights are on.
posted by blacklite at 11:57 AM on May 20, 2006

What a weird thread. I don't really see how "fun bags" is any more offensive than phrases like "happy trail."
posted by Stauf at 12:02 PM on May 20, 2006

Sounds like someone needs a fresh tube of Preparation H. Extra strength.
posted by c13 at 12:49 PM on May 20, 2006

Read the article, people. Its a fascinating little evolutionary titbit.
posted by Rumple at 12:53 PM on May 20, 2006

bags of sand
posted by mr.marx at 1:02 PM on May 20, 2006

I prefer saying "this turns me off" to "this offends me"--it gets the point across better. 'Offend' sounds like church lady, and implies that it's a sense of morals or ethics that are ruffled, when for me, usually it's just a sense of aesthetics. 'Fun bags' isn't sexy, just like 'nutsack' or 'butthole' or 'weener' aren't. They all sound like words 9 year old boys use, and 9 year old boys aren't my thing. < /personal gripe derail>
posted by tula at 1:43 PM on May 20, 2006

...now, 'blouse bunnies', that's hot.
posted by tula at 1:46 PM on May 20, 2006

provides even more reasons why all healthy women should breastfeed

It's more like an argument against breastfeeding - drinking an excretion of mucus - ewww!
posted by Flashman at 1:47 PM on May 20, 2006

I think the poster's intention in using such a crass term was simply to be controversial and draw attention to the FPP. Otherwise, an article about female breasts wouldn't have attracted much notice on Metafilter.
posted by Flashman at 1:53 PM on May 20, 2006

Also, wouldn't this mean that the dick is just a snot filled stick?

Yes, but only for a few moments.
posted by five fresh fish at 2:08 PM on May 20, 2006

Great summary by by emjaybee... that puts things in an interesting light.
posted by rolypolyman at 2:09 PM on May 20, 2006

It's so strange that nose picking has become greatest taboo.

I recall a paper about the immunological benefits to nose-picking, in that children who nose-pick apparently improve their immune system. Alas, I've no citation.
posted by five fresh fish at 2:13 PM on May 20, 2006

Charming thread. Entropy, devolution and choads have finally struck Mefi in force.

May I offer another neologism?

Attention Whoring

Ta
posted by tonebarge at 2:30 PM on May 20, 2006

My first reaction to "fun bags" was "Oh, please." But seeing others getting their panties in a twist over a silly nickname made me reconsider. It's just a nickname, people! And it makes me think of oversexed old ladies out on the town. Sweater puppies and blouse bunnies are much funnier, though.
posted by annieb at 2:32 PM on May 20, 2006

I'll agree with tula; offended is perhaps the wrong term. The childish funbag label definitely put me off.

It didn't keep me from reading the excellent article, and I wish I hadn't given the poster any extra attention for the kiddie talk; better to ignore tiresome attention ploys like that.
posted by reflecked at 3:02 PM on May 20, 2006

Yeah, I never said I was offended by it, though I might as well have, for all the reactions I got to saying I didn't like the term.

But I think it's interesting that the women in this forum are being asked to moderate their language in order to allow the public embracing of a stupid term like "fun bags" for a prominent and constantly-remarked-upon part of their own anatomy. As if the term itself strikes at the heart of male sexuality, nay, the very core of male being! *staples hand to forehead* How could we be such male-hating bitches? It was even suggested that disliking "fun bags" as a tag is akin to hating human sexuality itself.

That discussion, that female breasts are somehow the alpha and the omega for male sexuality and thus something that can be named and/or mocked publicly by them, is extremely odd to me. Particularly so as commentary on a post about the evolutionary function of human breasts, which, everyone may note, has nothing whatsoever to do with male sexuality.
posted by Hildegarde at 3:18 PM on May 20, 2006

Props to Tula for summing it up really well--and I agree completely. I don't think "fun bags" is offensive yet I would never use the term to describe my own breasts for the reasons you listed.

Hildegarde, how are the women in this forum being asked to moderate our language? Disliking the term and bitching about it incessantly are a little different--some people see something silly and move on because it isn't worth getting worked up over. I also think it's silly that you're speaking for every woman on Metafilter.

Fun bags is a fucking euphemism, people. Good Lord. We have lots of silly names for the penis, too. We have silly, idiotic names for EVERYTHING. How is this new or unusual?
posted by nonmerci at 3:53 PM on May 20, 2006

I also think it's silly that you're speaking for every woman on Metafilter.

I am certainly not under the delusion that I'm speaking for every woman on metafilter. I was merely expressing my own thoughts on the matter. And in terms of language moderation; I was referring to the suggestion that we not use the word "offended".

And I don't think anyone here has bitched "incessantly", but I suppose you're welcome to your own opinion.
posted by Hildegarde at 4:10 PM on May 20, 2006

Bags of mucus...that are fun...I don't see whats such a big deal...I mean I guess we could change it to sweater zeppelins...
posted by Muirwylde at 4:10 PM on May 20, 2006

I recall a paper about the immunological benefits to nose-picking, in that children who nose-pick apparently improve their immune system.

Yes, but must you eat it in order to enjoy the full immunological benefits?
posted by nlindstrom at 4:12 PM on May 20, 2006

I think what Bevets is trying to say is that boobies are proof that there is a God who loves us.

That's beautiful, man.
posted by First Post at 4:20 PM on May 20, 2006

Jesus Christ people, they're just words.

Great article, though.
posted by empath at 4:21 PM on May 20, 2006

I shouldn't have hung out with military com troop geeks then. It was not uncommon to hear "Hey! Check out the dual tuned superheterodynes on that chassis!"
posted by Samizdata at 4:26 PM on May 20, 2006

I think what Bevets is trying to say is that boobies are proof that there is a God who loves us

...and manboobs are presumably the work of the devil, right?
posted by UbuRoivas at 4:44 PM on May 20, 2006

And I don't think anyone here has bitched "incessantly",

See, that's precisely the problem. You don't realize how trifling and boringly repetitive you are.
You were offended. Everyone gets it. Some even share your opinion, to a degree. But ultimately nobody cares. Neither about the lanuage, nor about your sensibilities. Life's unfair and men are pigs. Get over it.
posted by c13 at 4:45 PM on May 20, 2006 [1 favorite has favorites]

Hasbro needs to come out with a product called fun bags. Excretion of a milky white substance is completely optional.
posted by ryoshu at 4:48 PM on May 20, 2006

Exactement, c13.
posted by nonmerci at 5:10 PM on May 20, 2006

But ultimately nobody cares

Now who's speaking for everyone? Hildegarde had a point, she made it, minor kerfuffle ensued in which other points were made. Part of the work of being a feminist is calling out embedded sexism in language; whether this particular sexism was worth calling out is subject to opinon. But she didn't claim to speak for "all the women of metafilter".

And I like man boobies so long as they don't need a Manssiere or are overly hairy. They're so cute and useless. We can't call them funbags; how about "funpads"? "perkpoints?" "itty bitties"? "pinchies"?
posted by emjaybee at 5:12 PM on May 20, 2006

Um, by the way, Hildegarde, your words say otherwise:

"But I think it's interesting that the women in this forum..."

Or are you trying to say that's not a generalization?
posted by nonmerci at 5:13 PM on May 20, 2006

Gosh, I simply must remember to get all offended and shout about it next time someone uses slang terms for penises. I just hate it when they call it a "mackeral." And "dong" is just abusive.
posted by five fresh fish at 5:24 PM on May 20, 2006

I recall a paper about the immunological benefits to nose-picking, in that children who nose-pick apparently improve their immune system. Alas, I've no citation.

Google "nose picking immune system Bischinger".
posted by Hubajube at 5:39 PM on May 20, 2006

Now who's speaking for everyone?

Its just a guess. I, like many other members of my sex, may lack in the sensitivity department, but I really have a hard time imagining that it would be otherwise. Do you really mean to tell me that your evening (morning, afternoon) is ruined now because of what Hildegarde was made to go through?
Feminism, just like everything else, has it's time, place and measure. If you go overboard, you stand a great chance of becoming a nuisance and jeopardizing your cause. Imagine having a conversation with someone who constantly corrects your pronunciation and grammar. They may be right technically, but...
posted by c13 at 5:43 PM on May 20, 2006

Problem with "fun bags" is it makes it sound like you're supposed to open 'em up and see what's inside and that just kinda ruins the mental image.
posted by furiousthought at 5:44 PM on May 20, 2006

Problem with "fun bags" is it makes it sound like you're supposed to open 'em up and see what's inside and that just kinda ruins the mental image.

Wait, you mean you're not supposed to open em? I've been doing it wrong this whole time? Next, I suppose you'll tell me that I'm not supposed to try on fishmittens or eat roast beef curtains. I've got a freezer full of em, man! What do I do with em?
posted by crataegus at 6:39 PM on May 20, 2006

Hildegarde: Particularly so as commentary on a post about the evolutionary function of human breasts, which, everyone may note, has nothing whatsoever to do with male sexuality.

Milk no, but breasts maybe: "Some zoologists (notably Desmond Morris) believe that the shape of female breasts evolved as a frontal counterpart to that of the buttocks, the reason being that whilst other primates mate in the typical piggy-back position, humans are more likely to successfully copulate mating face on. A secondary sexual characteristic on a woman's chest would have encouraged this in more primitive incarnations of the human race, and a face on encounter would have helped found a relationship between partners beyond merely a sexual one."
Let the protestations continue.
posted by Popular Ethics at 6:43 PM on May 20, 2006

Is this really all that new? I thought this is the same reason why desperate people with CFS and other diseases are drinking bovine colostrum. (Shuddering)
posted by overanxious ducksqueezer at 7:06 PM on May 20, 2006

And this doesn't explain the age-old question: why do men have nipples, yo?
posted by overanxious ducksqueezer at 7:10 PM on May 20, 2006

Don't despair, guys:

In the adult male, the dormant glands can still be revived by a sufficient dose of estrogen. Actual lactation is rare--only a couple cases have been recorded. But at least one writer (Daly, 1978) has suggested that the "physiological impediments to the evolution of male lactation do not seem individually surmountable." Meaning we may yet see the dawn of the truly liberated household.
posted by overanxious ducksqueezer at 7:14 PM on May 20, 2006

Hildegard can speak for me anytime. She's right on about this. "Fun Bags" is a stupid and derogatory term, and it turned me off of this post. Hildegard's expressing her opinion ONCE (and then replying to her detractors with calm, reasonable replies) hardly counts as "going overboard." And being called man-hating and anti-sexuality for not liking one stupid, juvenile term? That's just mind-boggling to me.
posted by blueloggy at 7:41 PM on May 20, 2006

... I had a vegan friend once who referred to (cow's) milk as "Udder Pus" in an attempt to turn people off of drinking it.

I never imagined she was so right.

As for me, I think "fun bags" is lame, but not offensive. I call mine tits on occasion.

And men have nipples because without them I'd have no reference point for my figure drawings. Duh.
posted by po at 8:00 PM on May 20, 2006

And being called man-hating and anti-sexuality for not liking one stupid, juvenile term?

I think people are reacting to Hildegarde's posting history moreso than the comments in this thread.

Perhaps the reason terms for male genitalia don't offend men is because men largely got to *make up* all their own terms...terms for women's breasts were generally not made up by women, because women weren't supposed to talk so crudely.

Um. That's quite the assertion. Do you really think that some men were sitting around one day and someone said, "Hey! Twat! That's a good one!" and rang up the editors of the OED? To claim that one gender "made up" certain commonly used slang terms displays a certain lack of understanding of linguistic change, I think.

Feminism has not been widespread enough long enough for us to hang out in large groups and make up our own funny names for our naughty bits, a typical male bonding activity...

A typical male bonding activity? Are you serious?
posted by IshmaelGraves at 8:15 PM on May 20, 2006

s/moreso/more/
posted by IshmaelGraves at 8:16 PM on May 20, 2006

nlinstrom, yes eating it. You should try it sometime. Soothing reassuring and evidently good for your health. You'll find your nostrils are conveniently located, and shaped to accept most 50th percentile fingers.
posted by marvin at 8:27 PM on May 20, 2006

The problem with 'fun bags' is that its a stereotypical generalisation. Sometimes neither of them are much fun, and often the one of the left is utterly miserable.
posted by Sparx at 8:29 PM on May 20, 2006

some of you folks need to look up "derogatory". "Fun bags" isn't soaking with pious reverance, but its hardly derogatory. Yes, its juvenile, immature and silly, but getting offended, or even *angry* ("ticked off") is juvenile immature and silly.
posted by Tryptophan-5ht at 9:11 PM on May 20, 2006

"I wana cum on on your lad bags." Daddy, every inch my father, agreed. After all these breast things were designed for the pleasure of real men. Wouldn't you agree? Ambiguity anyone? Then we shared a little nipple snot. Ah.. fun times.
posted by econous at 9:29 PM on May 20, 2006

Tryptophan-5ht: good link -- too bad more of the information is not getting discussed ... maybe you will think twice before you try to "dumb down" your posts for the class clowns?

He said fun bags ... heh heh
posted by Surfurrus at 11:05 PM on May 20, 2006

I agree with those who find 'fun bags' an unattractive name for something that is, generally, attractive. (I'm queer and male, and still like boobies!)

I don't pretend to understand every feminist's complaint. I am inclined to agree they often go overboard and make themselves sound less credible.

Thinking deep thoughts on the matter, it occurs to me: Men tend to be crazy about women! But you know what? The physical drive to engage in sexual activity way out-strips the capacity to other than objectify the target of attraction. How exactly we manage this is what separates the creeps from the rest of the pack.

Lactation is fascinating. Figuring out possible courses of how it may have evolved is a great example of biological sleuthing.

Now explain why, when I was a much younger man, my nipples used to leak when I was exceptionally aroused?
posted by Goofyy at 2:01 AM on May 21, 2006

Is that called "Witches' milk" too, or is that only for newborn babies? And why, oh why, would babies be producing their own milk? Has our fast track self-serve society really come this far?

Occasionally, a male baby is born with enough of his mother's estrogen in his body to produce a bizarre phenomenon known as "witches' milk," with the male glands, suitably stimulated, pumping away at the moment of birth.
posted by overanxious ducksqueezer at 2:20 AM on May 21, 2006

Men can produce milk too, or so a friend claims. All I ever knew about was witch's milk in babies! weird huh?

I never really liked my tits, I was shy and never sun bathed topless ever, and I thought I'd never make friends with these guys.... until now as they produce lots of that anti-microbial snot with fat and sugar which is absolutly fascinating. They work! I even whip them out in public now. Screw fun bags, they're food bags.
posted by dabitch at 2:29 AM on May 21, 2006

dammit, overanxious ducksqueezer beat me to it.
posted by dabitch at 2:30 AM on May 21, 2006

Goofyy, like a generous hypochrondriac, I have done your worrying for you. It appears that if one nipple has a discharge, this should be cause for concern, ie. visit to the doctor and a mammogram (or man-o-gram?), but if both nipples have discharge that there is less cause for concern because there is less likely to be cancer in both breasts. Fortunately, since this discharge happened when you were a much younger man, I think it is safe to say that there is no further medical action required on your part, which is good since you weren't expecting any.
posted by overanxious ducksqueezer at 2:34 AM on May 21, 2006

Surfurrus - good point :(
posted by Tryptophan-5ht at 3:12 AM on May 21, 2006

Thanks overanxious. I never thought it was cancer, as it only happened under *cough* certain *cough* conditions, and usually was a sign that I was quite happy. The spots in my shirts were sometimes a bit much though. More bothered that it doesn't happen anymore. (the stress of being a post-menopausal man).
posted by Goofyy at 5:58 AM on May 21, 2006

The antibacterial nature of mothers milk is well known in lactating circles. I have even seen mothers squeeze the milk into their infant's eyes to prevent/heal eye infection.

A sad issue, though, is how vulnerable lacatating women are to environmental toxins -- there are a large number of persistent pollutants (chemicals used in pesticides, metals or industrial chemicals) that tend to accumulate in the fatty breast milk. Some governments are taking action to monitor chemicals in breast milk. The US is not one of them.

The damage being done to nursing infants via toxins in breast milk could be considered a kind of 'state infanticide'.
posted by Surfurrus at 9:57 AM on May 21, 2006

Sung to the tune "Mercedes Benz" by Janis Joplin:

"Oh Lord, won't you buy me some silicone implants?
The ones that you gave me
won't shake when I dance.
I'd rather have mountains
than molehills for ants...
So Lord won't you buy me some silicone implants?"
posted by annieb at 2:49 PM on May 21, 2006

Just for fun.
posted by annieb at 2:49 PM on May 21, 2006

econous: "I wana cum on on your lad bags." Daddy, every inch my father, agreed.

"Lad bags"? That's a whole other discussion...
posted by hjo3 at 2:50 PM on May 21, 2006

Life's unfair and men are pigs. Get over it.

I'll be sure to share that with the next rape victim I meet.

The damage being done to nursing infants via toxins in breast milk could be considered a kind of 'state infanticide'.

Yeah but they still end up healthier and smarter than their formula-fed counterparts. And die less. Formula feeding is still the more dangerous "choice".
posted by beth at 4:33 PM on May 21, 2006

beth, your statement sounds a little premature. we have no idea what those chemicals do to growing infants (who happen to be the group most vulnerable to toxins), because nobody has done the studies (one could argue they would be unethical anyway). From NRDC:

Examples of these problem chemicals include PBDEs, perchlorate, nitro musks and musk xylenes. PBDEs are environmentally persistent, accumulate in fat and resemble the PCBs and dioxins.

There is also very little information available on the toxicity of these chemicals.

Modern history is replete with examples of chemical toxicities being discovered long after the damage has been done. If you ever feel like shitting your pants, read Our Stolen Future: How We Are Threatening Our Fertility, Intelligence and Survival by Theo Colborn and Fateful Harvest by Duff Wilson.
posted by overanxious ducksqueezer at 5:43 PM on May 21, 2006

ODsqueezer: there are, however, plenty of studies that show children raised on breast milk are healthier, smarter, and just plain "better" than children raised on formula. Whatever effects the toxins have, they're still appear to be less harmful than formula.
posted by five fresh fish at 5:52 PM on May 21, 2006

beth, I was not making a case against breast feeding - I totally agree with you. I am just stating that the most vulnerable in our society - nursing infants - are being, in effect, poisoned.

I believe there was even one scientist who made a call to the "pro life" people to focus their 'crusade' on this form of infanticide.
posted by Surfurrus at 9:46 PM on May 21, 2006

FFF, well yes, and the same horrible chemicals are likely to be in cow's milk and thus in the formula. i'm just living up to my name. we're really ignoring a looming ecological disaster, hence the ducksqueezing.
posted by overanxious ducksqueezer at 10:34 PM on May 21, 2006

Do not taunt Happy Fun Bags.
posted by kirkaracha at 11:40 AM on May 23, 2006 [1 favorite has favorites]

Between the fun bags title and the picture in the article, I am so not turned on.
posted by webfanatic at 10:14 PM on May 30, 2006