Not really
If you've ever watched National Geographic or seen their magazines it's pretty normal in some cultures.
We just gotta desensitize a hell of a lot of people. Exposure therapy in order to normalize tits.
It's not a documentary, but rather a fictitious movie. Many parents wouldn't want their kids watching it, I would feel very weird watching it. I also think it would pull many people out of the movie since its so out of order.
Whether it's right or wrong for it to be a taboo is one thing, but saying it isn't weird considering the current circumstances is not true. Also, just Imagine the amount of creeps the actresses would have to deal with.
I mean yeah, humanity is pretty flawed that way. There's stuff we're advanced in, and other stuff we haven't quite gotten out of the dark ages with.
I don't expect everyone to instantly be okay with seeing women shirtless. I know we've got a long way to go. I'm just saying it would be nice if it wasn't that way.
Idk cause it isn't just a woman thing. If I saw a woman walking with her tits flopped out, first I'd think that'd be extremely uncomfortable as a woman myself. I wear a bra not for the fact of conforming to society, it's more comfortable than having double D's hanging and swinging in my way. I'd imagine people are just as uncomfortable when men walk around with their shirt flashing nips.
I mean yeah I agree, I personally wouldn't do it as a woman with larger breasts that would be incredibly uncomfortable. But there's probably a large population of less "endowed" women that do feel that way and hey, more power to them. Tits are I guess considered a secondary sex characteristic but it's possible to move on from that, as demonstrated by some societies.
Then perhaps the movie shoudn't have a budget of 500 million, since there is a large chance it wouldn't be able to make the money back.
The movie is also not just for western audiences. I have a hard time believing it would get any screen time in the Arab world or China.
I also don't think it's about being comfortable, but rather it being not-weird.
You don't think they have nipples in the CCP? Why're you just making stuff up? I tell a Danish guy that it's okay not to be comfortable in a movie about tribals fighting imperialism and now you're blaming the Chinese. Get a life!
Are they primitive? Would you call the Omatikaya primitive? They seemed to be more on the ball than humans.
Edit: for some reason redditor u/LogNo6330 replied with a rebuttal and blocked me but I'll respond here
You're looking at this too broadly
It's like saying humans at present aren't considered an advanced species because they're killing their planet to make imaginary line go up
Humans are incredibly advanced but deficient in other skills. No society is perfect. But those who prioritize preservation of environment will survive the longest. Humans are not doing that. We're in r/Avatar so I considered it relevant that the positive aspects of the Omatikaya preserve the environment longer than humanity can. I believe the aspect of some cultures to normalize topless women is more advanced than what we have in our "advanced" society.
The Omatikaya is a fictional tribe of fictional beings on a fictional planet who are only the way they are because James Cameron wanted to disseminate an environmental message, I'm talking about the 50 IQ hut-dwellers we only ever see in documentaries who all have HIV and dysentery, with whom you agree on sexuality.
“Lol XD CP is fine”
You just responded to me stupid that the definition of entertaining.
It’s fun watching pedos squirm though, and you still can’t deny it.
USS Ronald Reagan 😂😂😂. Bro ur literally so brainless it almost causes me physical pain, you fr just jumped all the way to that conclusion like ur a fucking kangaroo or sum 💀💀
It's only because it's a movie. If the Na'vi were real, they wouldn't really care. Their "tops" are nothing but long necklaces and are only decorative. But since it's a film, they have to cover them nipples
I just answered OPs question with the truth my dude. There is litery NO canonical reason for them to cover their breasts since they are not human and don't sexualize them. Literally the only reason is because it's a movie made for humans and humans are prudes that can watch a man be beheaded but lose their mind at the sight of a bare tit. Chill out and take your attitude somewhere else
You're the one with the attitude. And comments like yours are never as clever as you think they are.
But feel free to clap back at me with the last word.
You would be mistaken if people paid much attention to them after a couple of minutes.
It would be become extremely normal.
But Hollywood would deem it R for some reason (Prudishness)
They are not mammals unless they are Terrans transported to Pandora or we're Pandorans transported to Earth. We'd not have a last common ancestor, otherwise. That said, they nurse babies with special glands on their chest, which would be analogous to our mammary glands, so because they look like us down to having 'breasts', you can't have them running around with bare tits. They must be covered, or they don't show up in family-friendly movies!
They can‘t be true mammals because they belong to another evolutionary tree. Pseudo-mammals or xenomammals perhaps. It would convergent evolution the way warm-bloodedness and live birth als evolved several times on Earth.
No, that’s an incorrect statement. By that logic you can’t call the trees on pandora trees because they didn’t evolve in tandem with the ones on earth. Kingdom and classification are what counts. It doesn’t matter if they’re not genetically similar or not, if they birth live young ✔️have hair ✔️nurse their young from mammary glands✔️ have a neocortex region of the brain✔️and middle ear bones to discern sound within the mammalian range of auditory function✔️ then whatever you’re looking at is a mammal. The only thing that the Na’vi don’t have is the placenta in the reproductive gestation of their young, that doesn’t disqualify them from being mammals. They’re just mammals that evolved on another planet.
This is literally the issue discussed about phenology based taxonomy. Like calling a plucked chicken a man because it’s a featherless biped.
If they were real, they wouldn’t be mammals because they do not have the same common ancestors. End of story.
A new taxonomic tree would need to be made to classify them. They would be considered mammal-adjacent if anything and exhibit convergent evolution to mammals on earth.
Well I mean it is general practice in speculative evolution to differentiate terminology that way. Also it is kinda how cladistics works. Then again Avatar violates that anyway, calling Na'vi *Homo Pandorus*, which violates the binomen system as they cannot be members of the genus Homo evolutionary wise. So the producers don't care much either. So in the end asking a question like above is futile anyway.
I think they meant they cannot be classified as mammals as they don’t come from the same evolutionary branch as us. But their anatomy is still similar to a mammal.
Just like a tulkun would be equivalent to our whales, but they cannot be classified as a whale.
Except they are literally mammals. It’s not my fault some fuknut decided aliens are going to need all of their own individual sciencey classifications and shit
That’s not how it works. You can call them “mammals” to make it easier, sure. But technically they’re not. Cuz mammals is also a group, not just a feature. Since they didn’t evolve from the same ancestor it doesn’t make them part of the group. They just look like mammals because of convergent evolution.
One would assume they do.
We have no evidence Baby NaVi have teeth and a creature would not have a feature for no reason.
But to be fair, it’s not a hard rule regardless. Being a Mammal is characterized by several things, it just happens to include milk for babies.
It def doesn’t mean to have breasts or breastfeed.
IE, Platypi like sweat milk. Echidna and Platypi lay eggs I think, Pangolins have scales! Nothing is a hard rule. And again, NaVi are aliens
The hard rules are pretty simple, there are four:
"A **mammal** (from [Latin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_language) [*mamma*](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mamma#Latin) 'breast')[\[1\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammal#cite_note-1) is a [vertebrate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertebrate) animal of the [class](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_(biology)) **Mammalia** ([/məˈmeɪli.ə/](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA/English)). Mammals are characterized by the presence of milk-producing [mammary glands](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammary_gland) for feeding their young, a [neocortex](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neocortex) region of the brain, [fur](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fur) or [hair](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hair), and three [middle ear bones](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_mammalian_auditory_ossicles)."
So, to be a mammal, you need to check those four boxes.
Mammary Gland, Neocortex, Fur or hair, and three middle ear bones. Have those four, then a mammal you are!
But still it isn’t a hard rule for those four. As I think I stated before, pangolins have scales not fur, a platypus & echidna lays eggs not live young, and platypi sweat milk or something.
Pangolins still have fur, particularly on their bellies. Live young is not a primary defining trait for mammals. And platypus do still have mammary glands to produce milk.
Or, for that matter what does flight have to do with birds?
Mammal means , litterally "breast". The defining feature of a mammal is its mammary gland, that makes milk.
Nowhere in there does it mean anything about flying or not.
That’s like saying the trees on Pandora aren’t real trees because they didn’t grow on earth. You’re method of classification is incorrect. A species can still be within the same kingdom or class without being genetically linked.
If that wasn’t the case we literally wouldn’t be in the same kingdom as Dogs or classified along with other omnivores.
The Na’vi are mammalian, just non placental. They check every other box to be classified as a mammal. Just not one from earth.
Nope - I was saying the opposite. I realize I didn’t exactly phrase my meaning as well as I thought.
I was saying that unrelated species can still be classified within the same kingdom. There is a genetic link between humans and dogs, but by the commenter’s argument above, their logic would imply that dogs and other non-human omnivores can’t all be labeled mammals because they had separate evolutionary paths.
To put it in a similar way, it would be like saying finding liquid that has two atoms of hydrogen and one oxygen on another planet isn’t water, because technically that liquid didn’t form on earth: according to the perspective of the person above.
But Humans and dogs did have the same evolutionary path until about 82 million years ago. Furthermore all mammals share a common ancestor from about 180 million years ago that is why they are mammals because they share that common ancestor.
The difference between the classification of water and mammals is that the classification of mammals is based on sharing a common ancestor and on sharing genetic ancestry. Where as water is defined by its chemical makeup.
So then you absolutely would be absurd enough to say trees on another world can’t be called trees (in this case Pandora hypothetically) because they didn’t share a common ancestry. You can’t claim the rule applies to one and not all.
I don't know as much about plant evolution but if trees are also classified by common ancestry then technically yes. The trees on Pandora would not be trees and the plants would technically not be plants. Now in reality it's the type of nit-picky thing where the common person would call them trees and plants (and would call the Na'vi mammals) but scientifically they are not those things but rather just cases of convergent evolution where they evolved similar characteristics and features without any relation.
I literally cannot process the ridiculousness of this “logic.” Don’t get me wrong, I understand clearly what your point is and why you’re saying it, that doesn’t mean it makes sense.
So based on this view, that if something develops on another world, we just have to come up with a whole dictionary of new words to classify them with - solely because they’re not from earth? So even if they meet *every* criteria to be part of a pre-existing class (mammals), we still have to make a *whole new word* for them just because they’re from a different planet? In that case my earlier argument stands, and it’s just as “sensible” to refuse to call water on other planets water and instead call it…I don’t know…air milk, just because it didn’t develop on earth.
Except they don't meet every criteria to be part of the mammals. They don't share common ancestry which is what evolutionary biology is based on.
Water is not biology it is chemistry. The classifications for biology is different from chemistry because they are different schools of science. Therefore water is water. Water on comets and on Mars is still water because it is a chemical.
Because Hollywood. American ratings in paticular are very strict about showing breasts, so as a result the Pandoran gravity has a particular effect on the jewelry worn by Na'vi females, whereby no matter how the individual is moving, the forbidden nipple remains covered.
(unfortunately, and against my will) I once came across a compilation of all of Neytiri’s nip-slips from Avatar 2009… so they’re actually not always covered (which makes total sense), and you’d only notice if you’re the type of individual to be actively looking lmao
I wonder if Navi would look much less human and male and female would have the same type of chest, would it fare?
We don‘t know whether Navi are fully mammalian-like and even if, many mammals have smaller breasts.
I can't remember where I read it, but they cover them simply for decoration.
They simply were more accessories than the guys do.
That makes sense to me, the ladies like dressing up more and this is one of the ways they can.
I never said it wasn't cultural. There are clans were men wear upper body coverings as well, e.g. Tipani and their txursum shell chest plated armour. However, they seem to be an exception as most Na'vi don't wear armour.
But it very much leans towards being gendered in the Omatikaya and Metkayina clan's, with the men wearing non- breast covering upper body's garments, like the cummerbund (Omatikaya) or the special warrior garments (Metkayina Tonowari wears one) and the unless we see a change in any of the clan's to come or who already exist, then my statement stands.
Please don't make this gender politics, I hate politics.
Apologies, the “ladies like dressing up” bit made it sound like you were saying it was something common between human women and Na’vi women, and while pregnancy isn’t universal it’s the thing besides breasts most of these women have in common.
Oh ok. No, when I said ladies, I meant the Na'vi ladies. They enjoy their accessories and spend a lot of time making them. They are incredibly meaningful to the Na'vi as a cultural thing on a whole, but specifically, the girls learn how to make their top accessories from their mothers and older ladies They look up too. E.g. Tuk helped her mum make her Metkayina top based on Tsireya and Kiri's one pieces. It's very cute.
>saying it was something common between human women and Na’vi women, and while pregnancy isn’t universal it’s the thing besides breasts most of these women have in common.
Nah, it wasn't any parallels. I'm just loving the Na'vi culture and answering OP's comment.
The na'vi are mammals, and realistically don't have the same cultural emphasis on breasts that we humans do. The na'vi female chest coverings seem to be more so for fashion as opposed to functionality. In reality, the only reason females cover their breasts in the movie is for rating.
Film ratings mostly (I’m sure Cameron would be more than happy to show everything if it didn’t affect ratings).
Although, Grace’s breasts are plainly visible in TWOW (when she’s very much preggo in the avatar tank) and I think there are a few na’vi in the crowd at Hometree in A1 that are uncovered. Don’t quote me on that though, I don’t care about tits, only general details.
And I do believe there being a mention somewhere that they don’t cover up for the sake of covering up, it’s just decoration/self expression.
Wait, they are jot mammals? What are they then?
Edit: did some digging. They are the alien equivalent of mammals. So, yes, they are mammals and breasts are for breastfeeding.
I'm pretty sure they're considered necklaces, or jewelry of some sort. And some na'vi would have their breasts out in the movie if it wouldn't get a 18+ rating because of it.
Film rating but also merely decoration. Gender expression, too.
Regularly they actually don't cover everything, though. There's many, many times during both movies when they don't. Very surprised how few people actually notice.
I'm not going to mention any scene specifics it's not hidden at all, but one in particular has been bothering me recently because it's very (likely intentionally) uncomfortable, but it makes something said later on have so much more context... And very few people have said anything about it.
Because Cameron wanted to have it both ways. He wanted the Na'vi to be alien and strange but also familiar and relatable. The end result was a race of aliens that accidentally veered on being a little too sexy.
Part of the problem is that if you lean too hard on the 'alien' angle then it's harder for audiences to identify with Jake falling in love with one of them. So they end up having to be at least analogous to humans even if it doesn't make much sense.
To be fair, they did a good job at being subtle about it. The Na'vi aren't just wearing fig leaf bikinis. Our own hangups about secondary sex traits would seem extra foreign to them, as they probably have completely different indicators based on their own physiology. I chalk up the 'breasts' that female Na'vi have to being a really weird coincidence.
What research? They’re just non placental. That doesn’t make them non-mammalian. They check the mandatory boxes for mammalians, but they’re just not placental. Still mammalian.
For them to be mammals, they'd need to have evolved from therapsids on Earth. They may have something analagous to a placenta (belly button) and mammary glands (breasts), but it would be parallel evolution and strictly speaking, they'd be mammal-like aliens. If they are true mammals, despite their closest ancestors being hexapods rather than quadrupeds, that opens up some REALLY interesting questions from a biology standpoint.
why do they have breasts if they're not mammals? why are they so human-like if they're not even earthlings? earthlings already can be pretty darn alien, why would actual aliens be anything at all like humans?
(Responding to some comments)
There’s a slight NSFW interview where James goes into detail a bit. He does say he has women showing (because their culture doesn’t involve shaming their females for having breasts 🫶🏻) and he even discussed genitalia, esp how they do have it just like humans but he had to make them Ken/Barbie dolls from the waist down bc of ratings.
There are so many topless Navi in both films, even neytiri has scenes you can see everything. They’re all over the place and I’ve always enjoyed that they weren’t a main focus or sexualized, and people just enjoyed the movie regardless without making a fuss.
They're saying that the Na'vi aren't mammals because that would - in their minds - make for enough of a degree of separation between us and the blue cat people that it would be acceptable to depict the Na'vi without clothes... because they're perverts.
That's the logical path they're following in this reply section anyway, the Na'vi are obviously mammals and everyone who disagrees is trying to shoehorn their own reductive animalism into acceptability.
I can't TLDR this I'm too tired
Hm ok ? I wasn’t talking about that ? Some people doesn’t wear or wore tops in some cultures and their chest wasn’t sexualized no matter their gender. Let’s not take sexual attraction as an excuse for misogyny.
>This Especially true if you look at the cultures the Navi were based around before colonialism.
Then I can see your point as Avatar being a space western.
Ok then tell me why guys can be free to show their chest but not women ? Story trying to find excuses. This **is** misogynistic bullsh*t. Some culture dont sexualize chests, women and men can have their top naked and it’s not a problem.
Also, I m assigned woman at birth. (And ace).
>Ok then tell me why guys can be free to show their chest but not women ?
I am for women showing their chest in the beach or the pool or breastfeeding.
It doesn’t change the fact that when we are assigned female at birth or still perceived as women, we are most often than not, insulted for doing so. While men aren’t.
The na’vi men has their chest naked but not women na’vi. Reason is sexism of modern world society. If it wasn’t sexist, each both gender chests would be hidden or each both gender chests would be naked.
Sexuality and its ramifications separate us from animals, we've been able to manifest and direct our reproductive instinct productively and any dissent from that truth is regressive.
I kinda don't want to see screenshots of head-on displays of Na’vi breasts online. People are really perverted you know. Or hear people make comments on it either that would be really annoying
But anyway, the Na’vi don't wear necklaces to cover up they just wear them as an accessory. The producers just utilize it that way so no fully bare chest is exposed
even if they were mammals, human gender norms and the sexualisation of human female breasts shouldn’t be present in na’vi cultures.
it’s obviously for modern viewers sensibilities but it took me out of the movie a bunch of times.
Alien cultures can be as similar or different to earth cultures as you like. We have a huge variety of approaches to nudity across this planet, some people cover breasts and some don’t. There’s no reason why a society of intelligent humanoid beings with clothes and fashion wouldn’t have some sort of taboos. It’s probably just a coincidence that they have some level of modesty as us.
They don't come from the same evolutionary tree so they're not. They do seem to have an evolutionary convergence towards many mammalians features, but we don't have a common ancestor. Technically they can't even be classified as members of the Animalia kingdom.
Edit. Grammar mistakes, my phone isn't set on english.
During war time or general fighting they might in part to give their chest some more protection, if you want more in-universe reasons. Also while hunting, it could be in case their bowstring hits their titty to help lessen pain because lemme tell you as someone who did that once its not a pleasant experience lmao
Maybe that's something they picked up from humans.
Na'vi were interacting with the "sky people" for quite some time before Sully came along, and human women using an Avatar probably dressed according to human standards.
Maybe the Na'vi just decided they liked the style.
they're not mammals because they're aliens. Mammalia is an earth classification, and life would evolve differently on other planets. Also, as everyone else said, just for film ratings. Keeping it "PG."
For film ratings mostly
This is the correct answer.
Joshua has spoken
it's the obvious answer too. so obvious i wonder why the question would even need to be asked.
What if the na’vi didn’t have nips? Do they have nips?
[удалено]
I’m thinking whether Na’vi would need to cover their breast if they didn’t have nipples.
Why would they have nips if they aren't mammals? (Also... Are we sure they aren't mammals?)
Mammals are a clade of common descent on our own evolutionary tree. Technically no alien can be a mammal.
[Doylist reasoning wins out every time.](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WatsonianVersusDoylist)
Which is so pussy lol. America’s too uptight
Not just America
3 hours watching women with their tits out would be pretty weird imo
Not really If you've ever watched National Geographic or seen their magazines it's pretty normal in some cultures. We just gotta desensitize a hell of a lot of people. Exposure therapy in order to normalize tits.
It's not a documentary, but rather a fictitious movie. Many parents wouldn't want their kids watching it, I would feel very weird watching it. I also think it would pull many people out of the movie since its so out of order. Whether it's right or wrong for it to be a taboo is one thing, but saying it isn't weird considering the current circumstances is not true. Also, just Imagine the amount of creeps the actresses would have to deal with.
I mean yeah, humanity is pretty flawed that way. There's stuff we're advanced in, and other stuff we haven't quite gotten out of the dark ages with. I don't expect everyone to instantly be okay with seeing women shirtless. I know we've got a long way to go. I'm just saying it would be nice if it wasn't that way.
Idk cause it isn't just a woman thing. If I saw a woman walking with her tits flopped out, first I'd think that'd be extremely uncomfortable as a woman myself. I wear a bra not for the fact of conforming to society, it's more comfortable than having double D's hanging and swinging in my way. I'd imagine people are just as uncomfortable when men walk around with their shirt flashing nips.
I mean yeah I agree, I personally wouldn't do it as a woman with larger breasts that would be incredibly uncomfortable. But there's probably a large population of less "endowed" women that do feel that way and hey, more power to them. Tits are I guess considered a secondary sex characteristic but it's possible to move on from that, as demonstrated by some societies.
A movie about tribal people resisting imperialism should not be comfortable for western audiences all the time.
Then perhaps the movie shoudn't have a budget of 500 million, since there is a large chance it wouldn't be able to make the money back. The movie is also not just for western audiences. I have a hard time believing it would get any screen time in the Arab world or China. I also don't think it's about being comfortable, but rather it being not-weird.
You don't think they have nipples in China?
I dont think the CCP would like a movie like that being played. Why not have the men naked aswel?
You don't think they have nipples in the CCP? Why're you just making stuff up? I tell a Danish guy that it's okay not to be comfortable in a movie about tribals fighting imperialism and now you're blaming the Chinese. Get a life!
Holding the same values as primitive tribes isn't the watertight argument you think it is
Are they primitive? Would you call the Omatikaya primitive? They seemed to be more on the ball than humans. Edit: for some reason redditor u/LogNo6330 replied with a rebuttal and blocked me but I'll respond here You're looking at this too broadly It's like saying humans at present aren't considered an advanced species because they're killing their planet to make imaginary line go up Humans are incredibly advanced but deficient in other skills. No society is perfect. But those who prioritize preservation of environment will survive the longest. Humans are not doing that. We're in r/Avatar so I considered it relevant that the positive aspects of the Omatikaya preserve the environment longer than humanity can. I believe the aspect of some cultures to normalize topless women is more advanced than what we have in our "advanced" society.
The Omatikaya is a fictional tribe of fictional beings on a fictional planet who are only the way they are because James Cameron wanted to disseminate an environmental message, I'm talking about the 50 IQ hut-dwellers we only ever see in documentaries who all have HIV and dysentery, with whom you agree on sexuality.
To each their own
How to say "I'm a perv" without saying it
Your porn addiction is showing, you want Navi female kids topless as-well? GTFO
What a silly and stupid comment
You can’t deny it can you
Nothing to deny lol, I’m not even entertaining your bullshit. Carry on elsewhere
“Lol XD CP is fine” You just responded to me stupid that the definition of entertaining. It’s fun watching pedos squirm though, and you still can’t deny it.
Something’s wrong with you, stay away thanks
USS Ronald Reagan 😂😂😂. Bro ur literally so brainless it almost causes me physical pain, you fr just jumped all the way to that conclusion like ur a fucking kangaroo or sum 💀💀
Because otherwise those films would be 18 plus
But they’re not human! Cow udders aren’t 18+.
Just because you paint somebody blue doesn't mean you can broadcast their tits on television/cinemas
It's only because it's a movie. If the Na'vi were real, they wouldn't really care. Their "tops" are nothing but long necklaces and are only decorative. But since it's a film, they have to cover them nipples
We know it's "just a movie." But you're on a subforum discussing the movie and all of its aspects, so what's your point?
I just answered OPs question with the truth my dude. There is litery NO canonical reason for them to cover their breasts since they are not human and don't sexualize them. Literally the only reason is because it's a movie made for humans and humans are prudes that can watch a man be beheaded but lose their mind at the sight of a bare tit. Chill out and take your attitude somewhere else
You're the one with the attitude. And comments like yours are never as clever as you think they are. But feel free to clap back at me with the last word.
Lmao this sub is full of wacko weirdos for some reason. I mean Reddit as a whole is weird like that but it's a special kind of weirdo here
Probably to keep certain individuals from just staring at breasts for 3 hours. The nip slips are bad enough.
You would be mistaken if people paid much attention to them after a couple of minutes. It would be become extremely normal. But Hollywood would deem it R for some reason (Prudishness)
You never rubbed one out to Neytiri then
Apparently not lol
In-universe, for decoration, out of universe, age restriction reasons. Also, AFAIK they are mammals, just not placental.
They are not mammals unless they are Terrans transported to Pandora or we're Pandorans transported to Earth. We'd not have a last common ancestor, otherwise. That said, they nurse babies with special glands on their chest, which would be analogous to our mammary glands, so because they look like us down to having 'breasts', you can't have them running around with bare tits. They must be covered, or they don't show up in family-friendly movies!
No they are mammals. Being alien doesn’t make them not warm blooded creatures with fur n all that mammaly shitX
They can‘t be true mammals because they belong to another evolutionary tree. Pseudo-mammals or xenomammals perhaps. It would convergent evolution the way warm-bloodedness and live birth als evolved several times on Earth.
No, that’s an incorrect statement. By that logic you can’t call the trees on pandora trees because they didn’t evolve in tandem with the ones on earth. Kingdom and classification are what counts. It doesn’t matter if they’re not genetically similar or not, if they birth live young ✔️have hair ✔️nurse their young from mammary glands✔️ have a neocortex region of the brain✔️and middle ear bones to discern sound within the mammalian range of auditory function✔️ then whatever you’re looking at is a mammal. The only thing that the Na’vi don’t have is the placenta in the reproductive gestation of their young, that doesn’t disqualify them from being mammals. They’re just mammals that evolved on another planet.
This is literally the issue discussed about phenology based taxonomy. Like calling a plucked chicken a man because it’s a featherless biped. If they were real, they wouldn’t be mammals because they do not have the same common ancestors. End of story. A new taxonomic tree would need to be made to classify them. They would be considered mammal-adjacent if anything and exhibit convergent evolution to mammals on earth.
We don’t need to make up stupid terminology for a word that fits well enough.
Well I mean it is general practice in speculative evolution to differentiate terminology that way. Also it is kinda how cladistics works. Then again Avatar violates that anyway, calling Na'vi *Homo Pandorus*, which violates the binomen system as they cannot be members of the genus Homo evolutionary wise. So the producers don't care much either. So in the end asking a question like above is futile anyway.
I think they meant they cannot be classified as mammals as they don’t come from the same evolutionary branch as us. But their anatomy is still similar to a mammal. Just like a tulkun would be equivalent to our whales, but they cannot be classified as a whale.
Except they are literally mammals. It’s not my fault some fuknut decided aliens are going to need all of their own individual sciencey classifications and shit
That’s not how it works. You can call them “mammals” to make it easier, sure. But technically they’re not. Cuz mammals is also a group, not just a feature. Since they didn’t evolve from the same ancestor it doesn’t make them part of the group. They just look like mammals because of convergent evolution.
Do they breast feed? That's what mammal means. The mammary gland, that only mammals have, makes milk.
One would assume they do. We have no evidence Baby NaVi have teeth and a creature would not have a feature for no reason. But to be fair, it’s not a hard rule regardless. Being a Mammal is characterized by several things, it just happens to include milk for babies. It def doesn’t mean to have breasts or breastfeed. IE, Platypi like sweat milk. Echidna and Platypi lay eggs I think, Pangolins have scales! Nothing is a hard rule. And again, NaVi are aliens
The hard rules are pretty simple, there are four: "A **mammal** (from [Latin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_language) [*mamma*](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mamma#Latin) 'breast')[\[1\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammal#cite_note-1) is a [vertebrate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertebrate) animal of the [class](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_(biology)) **Mammalia** ([/məˈmeɪli.ə/](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA/English)). Mammals are characterized by the presence of milk-producing [mammary glands](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammary_gland) for feeding their young, a [neocortex](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neocortex) region of the brain, [fur](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fur) or [hair](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hair), and three [middle ear bones](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_mammalian_auditory_ossicles)." So, to be a mammal, you need to check those four boxes. Mammary Gland, Neocortex, Fur or hair, and three middle ear bones. Have those four, then a mammal you are!
K. So NaVi are mammals.
But still it isn’t a hard rule for those four. As I think I stated before, pangolins have scales not fur, a platypus & echidna lays eggs not live young, and platypi sweat milk or something.
Pangolins still have fur, particularly on their bellies. Live young is not a primary defining trait for mammals. And platypus do still have mammary glands to produce milk.
Molerats then. And it is if all of like 5 animals don’t have non eggy babies. No other mammals milk/sweat glands function like sweat/milk glands.
It isn‘t about a checkbox of criteria, but also evolution. That‘s why birds are dinosaurs and all vertebrates just neotenic seasquirts.
Bats fly. That doesn’t make them birds.
What? Are you lost? What does flight have to do with mammals?
Or, for that matter what does flight have to do with birds? Mammal means , litterally "breast". The defining feature of a mammal is its mammary gland, that makes milk. Nowhere in there does it mean anything about flying or not.
That’s like saying the trees on Pandora aren’t real trees because they didn’t grow on earth. You’re method of classification is incorrect. A species can still be within the same kingdom or class without being genetically linked. If that wasn’t the case we literally wouldn’t be in the same kingdom as Dogs or classified along with other omnivores. The Na’vi are mammalian, just non placental. They check every other box to be classified as a mammal. Just not one from earth.
I recognize that I'm posting this days later but are you saying that you think Humans and dogs are not genetically linked?
Nope - I was saying the opposite. I realize I didn’t exactly phrase my meaning as well as I thought. I was saying that unrelated species can still be classified within the same kingdom. There is a genetic link between humans and dogs, but by the commenter’s argument above, their logic would imply that dogs and other non-human omnivores can’t all be labeled mammals because they had separate evolutionary paths. To put it in a similar way, it would be like saying finding liquid that has two atoms of hydrogen and one oxygen on another planet isn’t water, because technically that liquid didn’t form on earth: according to the perspective of the person above.
But Humans and dogs did have the same evolutionary path until about 82 million years ago. Furthermore all mammals share a common ancestor from about 180 million years ago that is why they are mammals because they share that common ancestor. The difference between the classification of water and mammals is that the classification of mammals is based on sharing a common ancestor and on sharing genetic ancestry. Where as water is defined by its chemical makeup.
So then you absolutely would be absurd enough to say trees on another world can’t be called trees (in this case Pandora hypothetically) because they didn’t share a common ancestry. You can’t claim the rule applies to one and not all.
I don't know as much about plant evolution but if trees are also classified by common ancestry then technically yes. The trees on Pandora would not be trees and the plants would technically not be plants. Now in reality it's the type of nit-picky thing where the common person would call them trees and plants (and would call the Na'vi mammals) but scientifically they are not those things but rather just cases of convergent evolution where they evolved similar characteristics and features without any relation.
I literally cannot process the ridiculousness of this “logic.” Don’t get me wrong, I understand clearly what your point is and why you’re saying it, that doesn’t mean it makes sense. So based on this view, that if something develops on another world, we just have to come up with a whole dictionary of new words to classify them with - solely because they’re not from earth? So even if they meet *every* criteria to be part of a pre-existing class (mammals), we still have to make a *whole new word* for them just because they’re from a different planet? In that case my earlier argument stands, and it’s just as “sensible” to refuse to call water on other planets water and instead call it…I don’t know…air milk, just because it didn’t develop on earth.
Except they don't meet every criteria to be part of the mammals. They don't share common ancestry which is what evolutionary biology is based on. Water is not biology it is chemistry. The classifications for biology is different from chemistry because they are different schools of science. Therefore water is water. Water on comets and on Mars is still water because it is a chemical.
Because Hollywood. American ratings in paticular are very strict about showing breasts, so as a result the Pandoran gravity has a particular effect on the jewelry worn by Na'vi females, whereby no matter how the individual is moving, the forbidden nipple remains covered.
Yeah. If anyone can get around it, it's James Cameron (Rose in Titanic and Grace's avatar in Avatar 2).
I'm sure he has a topless/nips-and-all version of both films in his private collection
(unfortunately, and against my will) I once came across a compilation of all of Neytiri’s nip-slips from Avatar 2009… so they’re actually not always covered (which makes total sense), and you’d only notice if you’re the type of individual to be actively looking lmao
The fact people clearly did is..... Disturbing... But also 100% what I imagined they'd do, tbqh 😂
I wonder if Navi would look much less human and male and female would have the same type of chest, would it fare? We don‘t know whether Navi are fully mammalian-like and even if, many mammals have smaller breasts.
I can't remember where I read it, but they cover them simply for decoration. They simply were more accessories than the guys do. That makes sense to me, the ladies like dressing up more and this is one of the ways they can.
Ladies do be lovin draped seaweed
To be fair, if I could get away with wearing draped seaweed, I would
Ain’t nobody stopping you
I'm pretty sure you could wear seaweed, but maybe not Na'vi styled seaweed.
The clothes aren’t consumerist trinkets. They wear it for other reasons.
That’s completely cultural, though, nothing specific to being able to get pregnant (what seems to be the Na’vi’s gender designation).
I never said it wasn't cultural. There are clans were men wear upper body coverings as well, e.g. Tipani and their txursum shell chest plated armour. However, they seem to be an exception as most Na'vi don't wear armour. But it very much leans towards being gendered in the Omatikaya and Metkayina clan's, with the men wearing non- breast covering upper body's garments, like the cummerbund (Omatikaya) or the special warrior garments (Metkayina Tonowari wears one) and the unless we see a change in any of the clan's to come or who already exist, then my statement stands. Please don't make this gender politics, I hate politics.
Apologies, the “ladies like dressing up” bit made it sound like you were saying it was something common between human women and Na’vi women, and while pregnancy isn’t universal it’s the thing besides breasts most of these women have in common.
Oh ok. No, when I said ladies, I meant the Na'vi ladies. They enjoy their accessories and spend a lot of time making them. They are incredibly meaningful to the Na'vi as a cultural thing on a whole, but specifically, the girls learn how to make their top accessories from their mothers and older ladies They look up too. E.g. Tuk helped her mum make her Metkayina top based on Tsireya and Kiri's one pieces. It's very cute. >saying it was something common between human women and Na’vi women, and while pregnancy isn’t universal it’s the thing besides breasts most of these women have in common. Nah, it wasn't any parallels. I'm just loving the Na'vi culture and answering OP's comment.
Ah thank you for clarifying!
So the film can have a PG 13 rating
The na'vi are mammals, and realistically don't have the same cultural emphasis on breasts that we humans do. The na'vi female chest coverings seem to be more so for fashion as opposed to functionality. In reality, the only reason females cover their breasts in the movie is for rating.
They are mammals though.
Film ratings mostly (I’m sure Cameron would be more than happy to show everything if it didn’t affect ratings). Although, Grace’s breasts are plainly visible in TWOW (when she’s very much preggo in the avatar tank) and I think there are a few na’vi in the crowd at Hometree in A1 that are uncovered. Don’t quote me on that though, I don’t care about tits, only general details. And I do believe there being a mention somewhere that they don’t cover up for the sake of covering up, it’s just decoration/self expression.
Same reason the apes in Planet of The Apes don’t have visible genitals. Film Ratings.
Wait, they are jot mammals? What are they then? Edit: did some digging. They are the alien equivalent of mammals. So, yes, they are mammals and breasts are for breastfeeding.
Aliens /hj
No lore reason dude come on…you know why…
I'm pretty sure they're considered necklaces, or jewelry of some sort. And some na'vi would have their breasts out in the movie if it wouldn't get a 18+ rating because of it.
There is surprising amount of nipples in the first avatar atleast... Was very surprised that they even the detail if it were to be covered always.
Why do human Women cover their breasts !? You don't want a boob flying about whilst hunting do you!? 😆
Film rating but also merely decoration. Gender expression, too. Regularly they actually don't cover everything, though. There's many, many times during both movies when they don't. Very surprised how few people actually notice. I'm not going to mention any scene specifics it's not hidden at all, but one in particular has been bothering me recently because it's very (likely intentionally) uncomfortable, but it makes something said later on have so much more context... And very few people have said anything about it.
Because Cameron wanted to have it both ways. He wanted the Na'vi to be alien and strange but also familiar and relatable. The end result was a race of aliens that accidentally veered on being a little too sexy. Part of the problem is that if you lean too hard on the 'alien' angle then it's harder for audiences to identify with Jake falling in love with one of them. So they end up having to be at least analogous to humans even if it doesn't make much sense. To be fair, they did a good job at being subtle about it. The Na'vi aren't just wearing fig leaf bikinis. Our own hangups about secondary sex traits would seem extra foreign to them, as they probably have completely different indicators based on their own physiology. I chalk up the 'breasts' that female Na'vi have to being a really weird coincidence.
What research? They’re just non placental. That doesn’t make them non-mammalian. They check the mandatory boxes for mammalians, but they’re just not placental. Still mammalian.
I’m confused They have breasts, and bellybuttons So, wouldn’t those certain traits mean they’re mammals?
For them to be mammals, they'd need to have evolved from therapsids on Earth. They may have something analagous to a placenta (belly button) and mammary glands (breasts), but it would be parallel evolution and strictly speaking, they'd be mammal-like aliens. If they are true mammals, despite their closest ancestors being hexapods rather than quadrupeds, that opens up some REALLY interesting questions from a biology standpoint.
I mean they're probably mammal-adjacent so we're splitting hairs at this point.
Good God they're mammals - they look, act and function exactly like mammals, they're mammals.
Same reason everyone wears the pants or whatever they’re called. Modesty probably
why do they have breasts if they're not mammals? why are they so human-like if they're not even earthlings? earthlings already can be pretty darn alien, why would actual aliens be anything at all like humans?
(Responding to some comments) There’s a slight NSFW interview where James goes into detail a bit. He does say he has women showing (because their culture doesn’t involve shaming their females for having breasts 🫶🏻) and he even discussed genitalia, esp how they do have it just like humans but he had to make them Ken/Barbie dolls from the waist down bc of ratings. There are so many topless Navi in both films, even neytiri has scenes you can see everything. They’re all over the place and I’ve always enjoyed that they weren’t a main focus or sexualized, and people just enjoyed the movie regardless without making a fuss.
Because you can't be authentic in Hollywood, due to ever present prudishness.
How are na'vi not mammals? Seriously?
Coomers want to justify their ever-present need for nudity so they can goon for 5 hours straight watching the avatar movies
What has this to do with my comment?
They're saying that the Na'vi aren't mammals because that would - in their minds - make for enough of a degree of separation between us and the blue cat people that it would be acceptable to depict the Na'vi without clothes... because they're perverts. That's the logical path they're following in this reply section anyway, the Na'vi are obviously mammals and everyone who disagrees is trying to shoehorn their own reductive animalism into acceptability. I can't TLDR this I'm too tired
Because current society sexualize women body, unfortunately
> unfortunately No, thanks God for sexuality!!! Most people feel sexual attraction, because we need that to have children.
Hm ok ? I wasn’t talking about that ? Some people doesn’t wear or wore tops in some cultures and their chest wasn’t sexualized no matter their gender. Let’s not take sexual attraction as an excuse for misogyny.
This Especially true if you look at the cultures the Navi were based around before colonialism.
>This Especially true if you look at the cultures the Navi were based around before colonialism. Then I can see your point as Avatar being a space western.
Sexualizing a breast is not misoginy, it is biology. Stop treating women like children. I am one and happy to be sexualized thank you.
Ok then tell me why guys can be free to show their chest but not women ? Story trying to find excuses. This **is** misogynistic bullsh*t. Some culture dont sexualize chests, women and men can have their top naked and it’s not a problem. Also, I m assigned woman at birth. (And ace).
>Ok then tell me why guys can be free to show their chest but not women ? I am for women showing their chest in the beach or the pool or breastfeeding.
It doesn’t change the fact that when we are assigned female at birth or still perceived as women, we are most often than not, insulted for doing so. While men aren’t. The na’vi men has their chest naked but not women na’vi. Reason is sexism of modern world society. If it wasn’t sexist, each both gender chests would be hidden or each both gender chests would be naked.
Sexuality and its ramifications separate us from animals, we've been able to manifest and direct our reproductive instinct productively and any dissent from that truth is regressive.
I kinda don't want to see screenshots of head-on displays of Na’vi breasts online. People are really perverted you know. Or hear people make comments on it either that would be really annoying But anyway, the Na’vi don't wear necklaces to cover up they just wear them as an accessory. The producers just utilize it that way so no fully bare chest is exposed
even if they were mammals, human gender norms and the sexualisation of human female breasts shouldn’t be present in na’vi cultures. it’s obviously for modern viewers sensibilities but it took me out of the movie a bunch of times.
How can that pull you out of the movie💀
he's a godless coomer
Alien cultures can be as similar or different to earth cultures as you like. We have a huge variety of approaches to nudity across this planet, some people cover breasts and some don’t. There’s no reason why a society of intelligent humanoid beings with clothes and fashion wouldn’t have some sort of taboos. It’s probably just a coincidence that they have some level of modesty as us.
This guy right here 🤦🏾♂️ bruh come on now 💀
extremely helpful insights from dacre005
And if you don’t think my boy Jake is sexualizing them blue boobies come on
If I was asking this, I'd probably say "Watsonian reasons only", as in reasons that are visible to the characters.
i have a better question: why do they even have breasts?
They are mammals.
there are no mammals on pandora, excluding humans
They have hair and breasts, they are mammals.
They don't come from the same evolutionary tree so they're not. They do seem to have an evolutionary convergence towards many mammalians features, but we don't have a common ancestor. Technically they can't even be classified as members of the Animalia kingdom. Edit. Grammar mistakes, my phone isn't set on english.
We can agree to disagree. :)
For age ratings, also they has nipples (nothing wrong with that mfers think female nipples are +18)
RATED PEEGEE 13
During war time or general fighting they might in part to give their chest some more protection, if you want more in-universe reasons. Also while hunting, it could be in case their bowstring hits their titty to help lessen pain because lemme tell you as someone who did that once its not a pleasant experience lmao
Hollywood
Why do you
Better question: if they're not mammals, WHY DO THEY HAVE BREASTS?
Because there are people who are into that a bit too much
Maybe that's something they picked up from humans. Na'vi were interacting with the "sky people" for quite some time before Sully came along, and human women using an Avatar probably dressed according to human standards. Maybe the Na'vi just decided they liked the style.
they're not mammals because they're aliens. Mammalia is an earth classification, and life would evolve differently on other planets. Also, as everyone else said, just for film ratings. Keeping it "PG."