“male nipples”

(from ‘conception’ until ‘sexual differentiation’, all ‘mammalian fetuses’ (‘fetusi?’) within the same ‘species’ look the same (regardless of ‘sex’))

(in ‘humans’, this lasts for around ‘6 weeks’, after which ‘genetically-male fetuses’ begin producing ‘male hormones’ such as ‘testosterone’)

(usually, males’ nipples do not change much past this point; however, some males develop a condition known as ‘gynecomastia’, in which the ‘fatty tissue’ around and under the ‘nipple’ develops into something similar to a ‘female breast’)

(aka ‘man boobs’)

(this may happen whenever the ‘testosterone level’ drops)

(“gynecomastia” (although not as severe) may occur in ‘pubescent boys’ undergoing ‘physical changes’ due to the ‘rapid’ + ‘uncontrolled’ (?) release of ‘hormones’, including ‘estrogen’)

(*ala ‘citola’*)

(the heightened levels of ‘estrogen’ in ‘pubescent male bodies’ leads to the ‘swelling’ of the ‘nipple’ + ‘surrounding tissue’ – this can often look similar to a ‘female human nipple’ – and may cause ‘slight discomfort’)

(thus, because the “female template” is the ‘default’ for ‘humans’, the question is not why ‘evolution’ has not selected against male nipples, but why it would be advantageous to select against ‘male nipples’ to begin with)

(the ‘uncoupling’ of ‘male’ + ‘female’ traits occurs if there is ‘selection’ for it…)

aka

(…if the ‘trait’ is important to the ‘reproductive success’ of both ‘males’ + ‘females’ but the ‘best’ (or ‘optimal’) trait is different for a ‘male’ and a female)

(we would not expect such an ‘uncoupling’ if the attribute is important in ‘both sexes’ and the ‘optimal’ value is similar in ‘both sexes’, nor would we expect ‘uncoupling’ to ‘evolve’ if the attribute is important to ‘1 sex’ but ‘unimportant in the other’)

(aka neither (particularly) ‘good’ or ‘bad’)

(in terms of ‘reproductive success’)

(the latter is the case for ‘nipples’)

(their advantage in ‘females’, in terms of ‘reproductive success’, is clear)

(but because the genetic “default” is for ‘males’ + ‘females’ to share ‘character(estics)’, the presence of ‘nipples’ in ‘males’ is probably best explained as a ‘genetic correlation’ that persists through ‘lack of selection against them’, rather than ‘selection for them’)

(interestingly, though, it could be argued that the occurrence of problems associated with the ‘male nipple’ (such as ‘carcinoma’), constitutes ‘contemporary selection against them’)

(in a now-famous paper, ‘stephen jay gould’ + ‘richard c lewontin’ emphasize that we should not immediately assume that every ‘trait’ has an ‘adaptive explanation’)

(just as the ‘spandrels’ of ‘saint mark’s domed cathedral’ in ‘venice’ are simply an ‘architectural consequence’ of the meeting of a ‘vaulted ceiling’ with its ‘supporting pillars’, the presence of ‘nipples’ in ‘male mammals’ is a ‘genetic architectural by-product’ of ‘nipples’ in ‘females’)

(this idea implies ‘men’ have ‘nipples’ because ‘females’ do)

(but my nipple masturbatory tendencies ‘improves’ my life!)
(or does it?)
(it feels good)

(but it could feel so good that i neglect other responsibilities)

(which would lead to long-term net ‘unhappiness’)

(and thus ‘lack of reproductive success’)