Biologic imperative for females to pick a partner

[Wyldgusechaz]

Just to offer even more fuel to the size inferno, if you think about how our genetics was carved out, over 250000 years or more, dick size would be a very small selective factor.

There is nothing more vulnerable than a post partum female nursing a helpless infant. Thats why as Altered Ego put so clearly, she wants the whole package. Its in her genes. I think a female picks a male partner ( or better yet male partners who protect and nurture their female and baby have more off spring survive on the savanna) based on a whole host of qualities ( the whole package) because a baby born by a female with a wandering unprotective monster dicked male died a few days after childbirth. Her genetic material was then wiped from the earth forever.

Its also why men are more drawn to the purely physical looks of a female. The survival of the baby is mostly dependent on the nurturing protective instinct of the male. The mother doesn't need to have the whole package, she just needs to be well put together.

There you have it IMO. Women at one time needed a man who was there for the long haul. A prehistoric woman that had sex with an uncommitted big dick died out and so did her genes.

Just my theory, shoot holes in it if you will.

 

[SpoiledPrincess]

I agree that women are driven to seek out a man who's a good provider but that's more because we like nice gifts

 

[nerd]

you are totally assuming humans lived in small families of couples instead of larger social groups

 

[SpoiledPrincess]

When the human population was very sparse they'd have had to live in small family groups.

 

[lafever]

Hmmm, it seems to me that if you lived 10,000 years ago that people were close nit more like packs, as to protect the common good of the tribe, i cant see one individual taking the sole resposibility. In those times to take care of someone soly on your own devices seems improbable to me, you would need the combined efforts of everyone to make it.:redface:


lafever

 

[lafever]

Wow! It seems as though were on the same page S.P.:smile: I was writing when you were posting. Hmmm....


lafever

 

[Wyldgusechaz]

I agree that women are driven to seek out a man who's a good provider but that's more because we like nice gifts

Actually I have thought of that. You like nice gifts cause its in your genetics. A male showering you with gifts is capable of providing for you while you are helpless. Why risk your life so to speak on someone who couldn't even feed you while you were helpless?


>>>you are totally assuming humans lived in small families of couples instead of larger social groups<<<

Its an anthropological fact that homo sapiens spread from the human birthplace of Africa in tiny groups seeking a better life ( more protein). Much like how America was colonized, by a couple carving out a homestead in the wilderness. These bold pre historic adventurers moved thru the ice ages and thru mountain ranges and deserts in harsh circumstances bearing children along the way. That took a helluva a man and woman tightly bonded to do that.

 

[lafever]

If i`m correct than it would be logical to assume there`s a greater conscience thats helped us evolve beyond Darwins theory.


lafever

 

[nerd]

Its an anthropological fact that homo sapiens spread from the human birthplace of Africa in tiny groups seeking a better life ( more protein). Much like how America was colonized, by a couple carving out a homestead in the wilderness. These bold pre historic adventurers moved thru the ice ages and thru mountain ranges and deserts in harsh circumstances bearing children along the way. That took a helluva a man and woman tightly bonded to do that.

i thought it was an anthropological fact that humans had to coalesce in groups larger than couples in order to hunt and defend themselves from predators and that it required only one adult to take care of the children of more than one couple

 

[D_Joseba_Guntertwat]

Yes, it wouldn't make sense if stone age people just hung around in couples. Haven't you watched the Flintstones?

As far as cock size goes, humans are one of the few animals to have sex purely for pleasure. It helps the couple to bond more closely, and of course the more pleasurable the sex the closer the bonding, one would assume. Maybe that's why larger cocks WERE selected for - human cocks are very large relative to other apes. Tell that to a monkey next time he insults your mother.

 

[joejack]

Its an anthropological fact that homo sapiens spread from the human birthplace of Africa in tiny groups seeking a better life ( more protein). Much like how America was colonized, by a couple carving out a homestead in the wilderness. These bold pre historic adventurers moved thru the ice ages and thru mountain ranges and deserts in harsh circumstances bearing children along the way. That took a helluva a man and woman tightly bonded to do that.

Actually, it requires a clan to take down a mammoth.:smile: Also, a village to raise an idiot.:biggrin1:

 

[B_Veronica_Divine]

It is worth noting that we have some of the best body-size to penis ratio of a whole host of animals.

Preportionally, I've heard that we're bigger than horses, elephants, all the other primates, and you tend to have to get down to the level of Barnacle (whole body is a penis) or some insects.

Of course this is all hearsay.

 

[Wyldgusechaz]

Actually, it requires a clan to take down a mammoth.:smile: Also, a village to raise an idiot.:biggrin1:

Actually, its thought we have opposible thumbs inorder to pick fruits and insects for food. Thats what we first started eating. Its a pretty well known fact Europe was derived from about 50-couple hundred individuals who survived the ice age, likely eating dead or dying animals. We didn't start killing large beasts till far later in human history.
I am going to stir that pot now

feelthegirth quote "Maybe that's why larger cocks WERE selected for - human cocks are very large relative to other apes. "

I contend larger reproductive organs are being selected against. Its a measured known fact even Thomas Jefferson noted it that Native Americans and by measurement Asians have smaller testicles by weight. Of this there is no argument. I posted it a long time ago. Africans have the largest testicles by weight. So the further you get from the cradle of civilzation the smaller the nuts. Why?

 

[SassySpy]

I actually get quite perplexed when everyone makes good points. So far all arguments make sense to me, now how bloody confusing is that?

my second thought was that smaller testicles/scrotums produce more viable sperm, seems I read somewhere.
but that could be hearsay from the voices in my head.......

 

[D_Joseba_Guntertwat]

I contend larger reproductive organs are being selected against. Its a measured known fact even Thomas Jefferson noted it that Native Americans and by measurement Asians have smaller testicles by weight. Of this there is no argument. I posted it a long time ago. Africans have the largest testicles by weight. So the further you get from the cradle of civilzation the smaller the nuts. Why?

Hmm. Asian people are smaller generally, due to mainly dietary reasons (just look at Asians who have lived on a US diet), so it would make sense that they wouldn't have such large penises. Not sure about Native Americans, but aren't they closely related to Asians?
Could be something to do with climate too. During an ice age it's easier to get frostbite in your equipment if it's swinging between your knees.

 

[Wyldgusechaz]

IMO the most successful prehistoric enclaves were those manned by protective nurturing males. Their offspring were much more likely to survive. The big error I see made in these genetic discussions is thinking the male who reproduces the most is the winner. No its the male whose offspring survived who was the winner.

And after 250000 years it hasn't frickin changed. The most nurturing, family protective and providing male still has the most successful offspring. Thats why women want the whole package even today. Penis size could likely be the least accurate measure of having successful offspring. Women are way more drawn to powerful men than well endowed men, whether it be on the savanna or the boardroom.

 

[espreggels]

There you have it IMO. Women at one time needed a man who was there for the long haul. A prehistoric woman that had sex with an uncommitted big dick died out and so did her genes.

Just my theory, shoot holes in it if you will.

So then why do promiscuous, commitment-avoiding studs still exist? If it weren't a viable reproduction strategy, any such disposition to this behavior would have been bred out of humanity through natural selection and we would be perfectly monogamous. Obviously that's not the case, so being a promiscuous male must be at least a somewhat successful strategy.

I don't want to get into a treatise here -- especially on material I'm far from expert in -- but you may want to check out some texts on evolutionary biology. A good primer is called (for real) Sperm Wars, by Robin Baker. It's a pretty eye-opening look at the evolutionary theory behind human behavior. I'm not saying it's got all the answers, but he makes a lot of compelling arguments.

Warning: If you're a hopeless romantic, you probably won't like it, and you might even violently disagree with the conclusions he draws, many of which are not flattering to the idea of monogamy.

 

[Wyldgusechaz]

So then why do promiscuous, commitment-avoiding studs still exist?

Because in recent times society allows it. Go back 200 years and see how much tail those guys got. Hookers only. Go back 25000 years and a guy who hit up a mans wife would be killed by the husband. And the wife would be toast too. And how many truly promiscuous men are there? A big time stud who knocked up a gal in the ice age and bagged on her comdemned her to death.

If it weren't a viable reproduction strategy, any such disposition to this behavior would have been bred out of humanity through natural selection and we would be perfectly monogamous. Obviously that's not the case, so being a promiscuous male must be at least a somewhat successful strategy.

I don't want to get into a treatise here -- especially on material I'm far from expert in -- but you may want to check out some texts on evolutionary biology. A good primer is called (for real) Sperm Wars, by Robin Baker. It's a pretty eye-opening look at the evolutionary theory behind human behavior. I'm not saying it's got all the answers, but he makes a lot of compelling arguments.

Warning: If you're a hopeless romantic, you probably won't like it, and you might even violently disagree with the conclusions he draws, many of which are not flattering to the idea of monogamy.

Actually for a society as a whole, monogamy seems like a wonderful strategy. Is there one, just one polygamous society that wouldn't be destroyed by a more puritan more monogamous society? Western Christian relatively monogamous Europe pretty much dominated most of the earth.

 

[viking1]

Just look at the rest of the animal kingdom. Not much monogamy among them, is there? Most animals are promiscuous. They have been around for quite a while.

 

[espreggels]

Actually for a society as a whole, monogamy seems like a wonderful strategy. Is there one, just one polygamous society that wouldn't be destroyed by a more puritan more monogamous society? Western Christian relatively monogamous Europe pretty much dominated most of the earth.

I didn't say that monogamous society is unsuccessful. I merely said that we are not perfectly monogamous -- we cheat, we have one night stands, we have threesomes. If those activities weren't successful reproductively, natural selection would have ensured that we don't do them.

In fact, there are arguments that monogamy was put in place by lesser-status males to ensure that they have access to women; without societal encouragement of monogamy, women tend to flock to very high status men -- "alpha males," though I think that term is reductive -- leaving lower-status men alone. You can see this with the groupie phenomenon -- as soon as a male achieves a high level of fame or riches, wouldn't you agree that he has access to a much higher number of women? But if a rock star is married, it leaves more women for the "rest of us."

I'm not saying that's an indisputable fact. That's just the theory.

As for Western Christian society's domination, you might want to check out Guns, Germs, and Steel (man, I'm a regular book club over here) for an excellent explanation of why this came to be. In a nutshell, the author argues that the initial environment of the birthplace of Western society, the Fertile Crescent, was much richer in food and livestock resources than anywhere else, and that this advantage gave the Western world a huge head start. Successful agriculture led to food surpluses which led to thinkers and inventors having time to think and invent rather than being forced to grow their own food, which led to superior technology and strategies for using it. With these superior elements (with a lot of help from epidemic diseases that developed as a result of having close-packed city populations and to which most native societies had no immunity) they went on to conquer the world. In the book, monogamy doesn't figure into it too heavily, but I agree that it probably played a part.