I am so glad you exist. I'm sorry to say that I've been wondering, for a long time, why men have nipples? Knowing this would help me sleep better.

- Leslie

Women have breasts and their nipples are meant to feed their kids. Men also have nipples. Why? What purpose do they serve?

- Bruce

Why do men have nipples?

- Karensa

Why do males have nipples?

- John in Ottawa

I was wondering why men have nipples?

- Sheona

Ok, I know this might sound a bit strange, but why do men have nipples?

- Alex

Yikes. I've put this one off as long as I possibly could, but people keep asking. There's a lot of room for bad jokes here, but I'll try to give you a (more or less) straight answer and save the bad jokes for places where they're not as obvious.

Men have nipples:

1. Because women need them.
2. Because there's no reason not to.

Starting with the first point, men and women are obviously the same species, despite the fact that one of them comes from Mars, the other from Venus. Since both sexes inherit genetic traits from a female mother and a male father, it's impossible for them to ever diverge too radically. (Of our 23 pairs of chromosomes, only one pair is sex-differentiated.)

The genetic "blueprint" for males and females is largely identical. Both men and women are (usually) equipped at birth with two eyes, ten toes, a voice box, buttocks, a small and a large intestine, etc. Some of these parts develop differently, but the parts themselves are still present in both genders. Women typically are shorter and less hairy than men, with smaller waists, bigger hips, larger breasts, higher voices, and so on. But these are just modifications to the same blueprint — they're not different parts. (Interestingly, even the male and female reproductive organs are biologically similar, despite their markedly different appearances and functions.)

In fact, it is almost impossible to detect the difference between a male and female fetus for the first couple of months of development. We're all female (or unisex, perhaps) until the sex hormones kick in at about 14 weeks. That's when male and female "differences" begin to appear. But by that time, the fetus has already developed many of its parts, including nipples. The male sex hormones won't turn these nipples "on" — they won't ever supply milk — but it also won't bother to take them away. And why is that? Let's move on to point two...

According to our understanding of natural selection and evolution, genetic traits acquired via gene mutation which are beneficial to the survival of a species are passed along to successive generations. Traits which are detrimental will eventually disappear, because the animals or humans carrying them will die off.

Opposable thumbs are one of the great things about being a primate. They enable us to hold tools, knit sweaters and play Nintendo games. It's easy to see why we've kept them. On the other side of the coin, a deer born with a flashing bullseye on its side probably won't be passing his genes on to too many generations.

But sometimes the process of natural selection greets traits with resounding indifference. What good are human toenails, really? How about earlobes? Sometimes things are just "there." Perhaps they had some use millions of years ago, but they don't help now. Of course, they don't hurt either, so there's no reason to select against them. Natural selection blithely goes on its way and leaves them alone.

And that's it in a nutshell. Men don't really need their nonfunctional nipples, but women do, so they're a default part of the human body — men have nipples because humans have nipples. And since there's no apparent survival benefit from getting rid of male nipples, they haven't disappeared... yet. (Check back in another million years.)

Sources: Scientific American, New Scientist, Salon.com, MadSci.org

In Europe and the U.K. people eat with their fork in their left hand and their knife in the right hand. They continue to use the fork in the left to put the food in their mouth. People in North America cut up food using their utensils in the same hands as in Europe and the U.K., but then they put down their utensils and switch the fork to the right hand to put the food in their mouth.

The first time I observed this method of eating in Canada I was perplexed — it seemed bizarre (and very inefficient!). I also noticed that Americans eat the same way. Most American and Canadian customs can be traced back to Europe or the U.K.. Where did this unusual method of eating come from?

- Shaun C., Cambridge, Ont.

I was actually having this conversation with an Australian friend last week. I never realized I ate "funny" until I visited Australia and New Zealand a few years ago. There, as in the U.K., people follow the "Continental" method of eating, while I grew up eating with the "American" or "zigzag" style. (Actually, I'm even less cultured than that — I rarely even use a knife. The side of the fork is sharp enough for me.)

When eating, the natural tendency is to use your "favoured" hand to do all the tricky stuff. If you're right-handed, you'll slurp soup with the spoon in your right hand, eat a bowl of noodles with the chopsticks in your right hand, cut a tough piece of steak with the knife in your right hand... and if a fork is the only utensil available, you'd probably hold it in your right hand, too. (We're talking "natural" here — no finishing school allowed.) So in a sense, the zigzag method is older than the Continental method — it's the natural way, with no artificial "etiquette" injected.

According to CuisineNet's timeline of eating utensils, the fork arrived fairly late to the dinner party. Spoons (shells) and knives (anything with a point) have been around since prehistory, but forks didn't become widespread until the 1700s.

In the Middle Ages in Europe, spoons were used for soup and gruel, but anything more substantial would be eaten with a knife only — you'd poke the knife into the rump roast, raise the whole thing to your mouth, and take a bite. If you needed to cut something, you'd use one knife to cut and another knife to hold. Both knife and spoon were, naturally, held in the right hand.

Around the 1600s, the English started using forks as companions to their knives. A fork could hold the meat while it was being cut, and could also raise the meat to your mouth. The increasingly broad usage of the fork led to the blunting of the table knife. Since it no longer needed a sharp point — the cutting blade was all that mattered — the ends of knives were rounded off. (Hooray! No more murders at dinner!) This worked fine for the aristocrats in Europe, where etiquette books soon began advocating the use of fork and knife together, but it created a problem in North America.

Americans were slow to adapt forks, but continued to import knives from Europe. When the rounded knives started arriving, the colonists weren't sure how to use them. So when they were cutting meat, they would use their trusty spoons to hold the meat (left hand) while cutting with the knife in the right hand. But without sharp points, the knives weren't very useful for picking up food, so the spoon — transferred back to the right hand, where the spoon always belongs — was used to pick up the cut pieces of meat. When forks became popular in the 19th century, North Americans continued to use them that way.

Sources: CuisineNet, The History of Eating Utensils, Modern Etiquette

Twyndyllyngs <---- What does this mean? And what is this?

- SDF

Twyndyllyngs is the longest word in English that doesn't contain one of the five vowels (AEIOU). It comes from Welsh and is obviously rare, but it does appear in the Oxford English Dictionary. This showed up in an Answer Man column a little while ago but until you asked, I had never bothered to find out what it actually meant.

It turns out that "twyndyllyng" (singular) is a 15th century spelling of the word "twinling," which means, in modern English, "twin."

Source: alt.usage.english

Recently we purchased a pool for the kids, and I remembered something we were always told when we were kids swimming in our neighbour's pool. Is there really a pill or liquid you can drop in the pool, that immediately turns red when someone pees? Some people say it's just a scare tactic for kids, others swear it exists. Is there such a thing? It certainly worked for us, we never dared to test the theory.

- Caroline, Cambridge, Ont.

Ask at any pool supply store and you'll find that there is no "urine detector" on the market for swimming pools. Such a thing is chemically possible, but it would likely have other (much worse) side effects, or be prohibitively expensive.

Phenolphthalein changes colour at different pH levels, and could theoretically be used as a urine detector. The problem is, the water in your pool would have to be red by default, and you'd look for the clear streaks to see who took a pee. Also, phenolphthalein is a laxative. I wouldn't want to swim in it!

Sources: Urban Legends Reference Pages, The AFU and Urban Legend Archive, alt.folklore.urban

What is the relationship, if any, between Porsche and Volkswagen? I have a bet that needs to be settled.

- D.L.

Porsche and Volkswagen don't have an organizational business relationship — that is, Porsche is not a subsidiary of Volkswagen (or vice versa), and the two brands are not owned by the same company. But they do share quite a bit of history and have worked together on many occasions.

• Porsche's founder, Ferdinand Porsche, was an engineer who helped design the first Volkswagen. His son Ferry launched the automaking business of Porsche.
• Ferdinand Piλch, grandson of Ferdinand Porsche, was the president of Volkswagen from 1992 to 2002.
• Porsche, VW and Audi (which is a subsidiary of Volkswagen) share many parts and use the same numbering system.
• The two companies collaborated on the VW-Porsche 914, which debuted in 1969. The 914 was deemed a failure by most observers, but the companies collaborated again on the Porsche 924 (1976).
• The Porsche Cayenne and the VW Touareg SUVs were jointly developed.

Volkswagen owns Lamborghini, Audi, Bentley and Bugatti, but not Porsche.

Sources: AutoZine, Wikipedia, Auto Express, Audifans.com, RoadGlue.com

Name the only American group that was part of the hit single "Do They Know It's Christmas" which was taped in 1985?

- Rob

Do you look up an answer or do you rely on your own knowledge? Anyone can find an answer particularly with the help of the Internet.

- Anne

When Bob Geldof pulled together Band Aid (the U.K. precursor to USA for Africa and "We Are The World"), he assembled British bigwigs like George Michael, Sting, Duran Duran and Phil Collins, along with token Americans Kool & The Gang. (The recording session was actually in 1984 — the single was released for Christmas 1984).

To answer Anne's question/comment, I research almost everything that shows up in this column, even when I'm sure I know the answer. (If you hadn't noticed, almost every single answer links to three or four sources — I'm not trying to take credit for any knowledge that isn't mine.)

This Kool & The Gang answer came from my "own knowledge," but I still conducted a quick Internet search to make sure I was correct. (And I was.) There's nothing the Answer Man hates more than giving out incorrect information.

As far as the assertion that "Anyone can find an answer," I think you're overestimating Mr. Anyone.

Obviously most of this stuff is out there on the Internet, because that's where I find it. I'm reasonably smart, but I'm not unique. Any resourceful, experienced person could do the same things I do.

But based on the number of questions I receive which say "I've searched and searched but still can't find ___," finding answers on the Net isn't always like dusting crops (that's a Star Wars reference — I'm not trying to belittle crop dusters here).

People can change their own oil, make their own pizzas and knit their own socks, too, but most of them don't want to. I'm just filling a need here.

Hi, I'm a longtime reader, first-time questioner.

My 10-year-old son mentioned the other day about a time when a non-pitcher pitched a major league baseball game. I Googled it and found a game in August 2001 when a centre fielder, Steve Finley, pitched in the ninth inning. (Now he tells me he was just kidding, but the damage is done!!)

My question is, how often has this occurred, a non-pitcher pitching in the majors?

- Jeff S.

Nothing better than baseball questions!

In the early days of the game, this was no big deal. A number of players — notably Babe Ruth — were used as pitchers and "position players." But as the game became more specialized, mound appearances by position players became more and more infrequent.

While these performances are now rare, they're certainly not unheard of. It still happens a handful of times every season when a team is in a blowout and doesn't want to waste any "legitimate" pitching arms. It's usually a scrub that gets the call — not one of the team's better players — but sometimes a star in the twilight of his career will take the mound to fulfill a lifelong dream.

I can't locate a complete list (trust me, it would be very long), but here are some highlights:

• Infielder Todd Zeile recently pitched an inning for the Mets in a 19-10 loss to the Expos. In addition to Zeile, first baseman David McCarty (two games), catcher Cody McKay, third baseman Robin Ventura, catcher Tim Laker, second baseman Abraham Nunez and infielder Trent Durrington have all seen mound time this year. By my count, that's eight appearances already this year by non-pitchers.

• In 2003, I found only one position player on the mound: catcher Wiki Gonzalez. In 2002, I've got four: second baseman D'Angelo Jimenez, third baseman Tomas Perez, first baseman Mark Grace, and the aforementioned Zeile. In 2001, there were seven: infielder Chris Donnels, outfielder Bobby Bonilla, first baseman John Mabry (he also pitched an inning in 2000), outfielder Steve Finley, infielder Desi Relaford, infielder Mark Loretta, and Laker again.

• For the last couple of seasons, the Brewers' Brooks Kieschnick has been that rarest of rare birds: a legitimate two-way player. He's used regularly as both a relief pitcher and a pinch-hitter. Last year Kieschnick pitched in 42 games, played three games in left field, and served as a designated hitter in four games.

• Four players have played all nine positions (including pitcher) in a single game: Bert Campaneris (1965), Cesar Tovar (1966), Scott Sheldon (2000) and Shane Halter (2000). Halter also pitched one inning in 1998.

• Baseball folklore says that Jose Canseco injured himself while overenthusiastically warming up for his one inning of major league pitching in 1993 — one of the rare examples of a star player, in his prime, taking a shot at the mound. (And one of the best arguments for not using position players there.)

• Other guys I know who have pitched in the last 15-20 years (this is nowhere near an exhaustive list): third baseman Wade Boggs (twice), outfielder Dave Martinez (twice), utility man Jose Oquendo (three times), third baseman Gary Gaetti (three times).

Research done at: Baseball Reference, ESPN.com

This question was brought upon a friend of mine: Can a little person beat an average height person in a (running) race? Your answer is patiently awaited. Thank you so kindly.

- Ms. Ingrid L.

Now this is kind of a strange question. What do you mean by "little person"? Do you mean someone who is shorter than average, or someone who would be called, in politically incorrect terms, a midget or dwarf?

Either way, I'd say the answer is surely yes, at least in some situations.

On average, a person of "average" height is faster than a "little" person (longer legs mean more ground is covered with each stride). But there are certainly exceptions. Some people of average height are morbidly obese, or 95 years old, or have casts on their legs. They're not usually very fast in running races. Some little people are able to move their legs really quickly. So they're fast.

A significant number of world-class sprinters and NFL running backs have been shorter than average (under 6 feet tall), and a lot of gigantic NFL linemen and NBA centres are not very fast. Height is a factor in the speed of a runner, but it's probably not one of the most important ones.

Hey, Answer Man... just curious, do you wear boxers or briefs?

This info could be very useful to me... thanks.

- Alex B., Richmond Hill

Boxers, unless I'm doing something athletic.

What I'm dying to know is how this information could possibly be "very useful" to you. Is there some kind of Answer Man trivia contest that I'm not aware of? If so, I demand a cut!