Evolution And The Penis

Discussion in 'The Healthy Penis' started by Big Al, Jan 2, 2009.

  1. Big Al

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2008
    Messages:
    2,830
    Likes Received:
    6
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Central FL
    by Paul A.
    Courtesy of AltPenis

    I read once about an old aboriginal custom of matching women to men on the basis of penile and vaginal compatibility. Small, "deer" men were matched with deer women and the large, "buffalo" men were matched with buffalo women. How they came to determine just who was a "deer" woman and who was a "buffalo" woman was never disclosed and I can imagine a few "deer" women would have been somewhat dismayed at their designation. On the face of it I suppose this seems reasonable. Why have deer boy with buffalo girl when buffalo boy is the only man for the job? But it begins to break down when one remembers that the vagina is highly expandable. With a modicum of foreplay, deer woman can easily take on buffalo boy and may well prefer the experience. Those sensible communal minded natives no doubt came to this arrangement when they realized that deer boy would never make it in the open market. This was clearly a deer boy driven agenda.

    This raises an interesting question. If the ideal size is larger than average, why isn't the average man larger? I suppose one could dismiss the question by answering "God likes to mess with our heads," but there is a genuine conundrum here. Our bodies have been sculpted over millennia by evolution to perfectly match form to function. And of all the forces driving evolution, none is sharper than female sexual selection. If women prefer to have sex with men with large dicks then the genes for large penises should quickly spread through the population. Every man should be packing a whopper. So why aren't they? Well, there are several theories.

    1. Woman really don't like 'em big. This, of course, is a total lie. When was the last time you saw a five inch dildo?

    2. Women may like a large penis but they're stuck with guy they get. Someone's got to end up with deer boy, right? Well, yes, but deer woman can also screw buffalo man on the side and con deer man into raising buffalo son. Think this doesn't happen? Wrong! It's been estimated that 15 percent of children in Britain are the offspring of someone other than their stated father. Studies have shown that women are more inclined to cheat at the peak of their ovulation. Even if the rate of cuckoldry were only 5 percent, buffalo man genes would dominate the population within 12 generations (in evolutionary terms, a blink of an eye).

    3. Every man is already packing a whopper. This is actually true and lends some credence to the idea that there is selective pressure favoring larger penis size. After all, our closest relatives, the bonobo chimps, have penises that are substantially smaller than ours at 3 inches (and they're proud of them too). Gorillas at 1.5 inches would be the laughing stock of the shower room if they couldn't beat you to a pulp for even looking. Compared to most mammals, even deer boy is hung like a stallion. Evolutionary biologists have theorized that our relatively large penis size has evolved as part of ongoing selective pressures. Plausible enough. But again, we're talking sexual selection here, something vastly more powerful than adaptive selection. If the ideal penis size is eight inches, the top of the bell curve should be eight inches. The fact that it's not tells us that something else must be happening.

    4. There may be selective pressure favoring bigger dicks but there are also selective pressures mitigating their size. Aha! This must be it. There is a limit to even runaway adaptation - a cost to every extra ounce of flesh we carry on our bones. It has to be fed and oxygenated. Limited resources tend to keep a lid on such extravagances. There's also a physical limit to what women could realistically accommodate. And a limit to what men can have hanging. Buffalo man with his big floppy dick may be the subject of every woman's fantasy but sadly, buffalo man didn't make it when the hunting party was forced to flee through the brambles (ouch). So okay, twelve inch dicks are probably out. But what about an eight inch dick? Okay... brambles again, but why not a big dick that collapses to a nub when not aroused? And how about thickness? In any size survey, women invariably choose girth over length. Why isn't the penis thicker?

    5. The genes for dick size are passed down through the mother. Deer woman may sleep with buffalo man but give birth to... sigh... deer boy. Proponents of this theory (this is a bar table theory only. No serious scientist would advance it) speculate that the genes for penis size, like the gene for hemophilia, are located on the X chromosome. Because a woman has two X chromosomes and a man only one, a woman may mate with buffalo man but his buffalo dick genes will lose out in the long run. But anyone who knows anything about Mendelian genetics will recall that that while none of buffalo man's sons will have his buffalo dick genes, half of his daughters will. And so will half of their sons. All things being equal, as long as women prefer buffalo dicks, buffalo dick genes should propagate.

    6. Dick size isn't genetic at all. It's determined by hormones in utero. We are all, by default, female. What turns a relatively tiny clitoris into a strapping great dick are androgens - male hormones, generated at a critical point in gestation. In fact there are women who are genetically male but phylogenically female because of a mutation that renders them androgen insensitive. There are also studies that suggest homosexuality in rats can be induced by exposing the mothers to stress at a critical point in gestation. Which is all fine and dandy, but the problem with applying this to dick size is that while the mother's hormones have an influence on gestational development, masculinization is turned on by the fetus itself, through a complex interplay of its own genes. While it's possible that because your mother was late for work at a critical juncture, you now have a piddly dick, dick size in the larger population is still genetically determined.

    So where does this leave us? None of these theories by themselves can explain why we're not all walking around with whoppers in our pants. But perhaps the final result involves an interplay of all the factors. Women may prefer big dicks, but their choice of mate is more varied and complex. As one woman said to me, it's not what's inside you, it who's inside you. This would go for the men they choose to have affairs with as well. In other words, dick size is a factor, but it's not the factor. Other adaptive pressures come into play and before you know it you've got a bunch of deer boys running around. Either that or maybe God really is just messing with our heads.
     
  2. camchain

    Verified Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    1,229
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    132
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    yorkshire, uk
    Verified:
    Photo
    find me one that can take a size 7, please.
     
  3. crossy

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2007
    Messages:
    1,349
    Likes Received:
    4
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Arizona
    This is interesting. What goes wrong with a hermaphrodite? Ambiguous sex?
    Thanks
     
  4. D_Andreas Sukov

    D_Andreas Sukov Account Disabled

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    2,933
    Likes Received:
    3
    well i have seen a 5 inch dido. thats my only comment but then again. it was fat as hell. i guess that just demonstrates how the importance of girth is underestimated again.
     
  5. Big Al

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2008
    Messages:
    2,830
    Likes Received:
    6
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Central FL
    DNA and chromosomal disorders, hormone imbalances, drugs (taken by the mother) and environmental pollutants are some possible causes.
     
  6. _avg_

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2007
    Messages:
    1,704
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    8
    The no.1 selling female sex toy (in the UK, anyways) is the Rabbit at a very modest 5" x 5". According to the site, "when Ann Summers (the main UK sex toy chain) introduced the `Wave` Rabbit last year it was 5.5" in girth. Loads of online reviews from women said it was great in theory, but the girth was uncomfortably thick.

    Lo and behold, they now sell a "new, improved, slimmer" model which is just 4.75 in girth.

    New Improved Slimmer"

    Neat, huh?
     
  7. avg_joe

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    3,284
    Likes Received:
    5
    Gender:
    Male
    LMAO !!! Even a prostitute can't take 7" penis.
     
  8. Mr Moose

    Mr Moose Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2008
    Messages:
    133
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    are you kidding me? im a virgin so i have no clue about any of this but i just find it hard to believe that my girlfriend wont be able to take my 8" dick. is 8" REALLY that big?
     
  9. novice_btm

    Staff Member Moderator Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2006
    Messages:
    18,199
    Albums:
    4
    Likes Received:
    860
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Los Angeles (CA, US)
    Yes, 8" is big, but if she can't take it, you look cute in your gallery, give me a call. :tongue:

    I don't understand the comment either. You can ask any of the guys with 7" and over, and they'll tell you that they have people taking it all. :confused:
     
  10. B_quietguy

    B_quietguy New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2005
    Messages:
    1,286
    Likes Received:
    5
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Bay Area, California
    Interesting post Big Al. This certainly provides a lot of fruitful conversation topics.

    Certainly true for many - but not all - women. So that means although some women might exert evolutionary pressure for large penis genes, others won't. Genes could be concurrently favored and disfavored by evolution.


    Hmmm... Not sure how the author determined big penis genes would dominate so quickly. I guess by "dominate the population", he meant it would become more than 50% of the population. Also, I think the author assumed that women would only screw on the side with well endowed men - and that's not a likely assumption.


    True. Compared to all other primates, and most mammals, even modest human men are very well endowed for their body size. Like the author, I'd agree this is due to sexual selection - just as peahens favor peacocks with large feathers. Over many generations, this drove peacocks to have very large feathers to the point where a bird can't fly as well and becomes a snack for tigers in the forest.

    If many women have prefer penises closer to eight inches, I suspect that will exert enough evolutionary pressure to increase penis size from the current 6 inches. Just wait another 10,000 years and then do a survey. The fact that the average is not eight (yet) might mean that evolution has not pushed penis size up to a practical maximum. It can also imply the point made in the next paragraph.


    I don't see cavemen running through brambles with eight soft inches dangling from them. The men would soon learn to avoid brambles - and most men are not eight inches when soft, but closer to 3. Besides, what kind of caveman goes into brambles when chased by lions? If a hunting party is chased by lions, then there is more evolutionary pressure against slow runners than against well-hung men. Sadly, the slowest sprinters didn't make it back to camp that night.

    I could accept that some counter pressure against evolving larger penises.
    What if the reason why the average is "only" six instead of eight is because there is some physiological or developmental reason why short penises are preferred.

    Based on all the anecdotes I've heard from hung guys saying their fathers, uncles, and grandfathers are also hung, I'd assume there is a genetic component and some of those genes come from the father's side.

    Perhaps it is a combination of genes and hormone soup in the uterus, or the right amount of hormones growing up. If some guy has the big dick gene, but that gene is not activated at the right stages as he gestates or grows up, then the gene is near useless for determining penis size.


    Again, interesting article. There's probably dozens of factors that influence evolution to select for or against various genes. We'd be smart if we could only think of half of them.
     
  11. Big Al

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2008
    Messages:
    2,830
    Likes Received:
    6
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Central FL
    Thanks!

    It makes sense both from a preference and a mechanical point of view. If a woman has multiple partners, it's possible that the larger penis would deposit sperm closer to the neck of the cervix beating out the competition. Also, if the larger penis can induce better orgasms in females, this would aid in conception from vaginal and uterine contractions drawing in the sperm.

    That's definitely a possibility. It's also possible that the opposite may happen. Recent studies show an alarming drop in reproductive functioning in males. Here are some references on the subject: Secular Decline in Male Reproductive Function: Is Manliness Threatened? -- Bhasin 92 (1): 44 -- Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism

    That sounds sensible. Without the right level of hormones and other positive factors (fitness, nutrition, etc.), full genetic potential won't be reached.

     
  12. Phil Ayesho

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2008
    Messages:
    5,581
    Likes Received:
    872
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Diego
    Your analysis reflects a very poor understanding of how evolution operates.

    The main agents evolution relies on are selective pressure and reproductive success.
    A larger penis does not make you more likely to survive, so that means that it would have to act by reproductive success. i.e. any trait that resulted a higher than average number of children would tend to proliferate.

    Well, bigger dicks are NOT more effective at getting women pregnant, nor do they affect infant survival... so all that's left to enhance repoductive success is the hypothesized female preference for larger dicks.

    Men are more concerned about their penis size than women are. Men WANTING larger penises does not have any effect on their reproductive success.

    Women, by and large, MAY appreciate a larger dick, but that is not USUALLY the sole basis upon which they choose a mate... and women will tend to have MORE children with the men they choose as mates, than with occasional flings.
    So, although there may be some preference for larger penises among women.... it is not that strong a factor in their mating choices, so the effect of big dicks on reproductive success will be fairly minimal.

    Also... the human penis, as far as primates are concerned, is actually rather large already. The currently somewhat larger penis in humans is already a reflection of how strong the selective pressure for larger dicks actually is.

    And finally... you create a false dilemma. It does not matter HOW large the average penis is... evolution would Always result in a RANGE of sizes, the mean of which would be the 'average'.
    Thus, no matter how big the average penis is, there must be, de facto, penises that are larger as well as smaller.

    Therefore, you can always ask the question of why all penises are not of the larger variety... even tho the answer is that, AS FAR AS YOU KNOW, today's 'average' WAS the larger size a thousand years ago. (meaning that evolution IS making them larger, but can not make them all the SAME)

    So... the final analysis is that evolution probably is slowly driving penis size up....
    However... that process would always APPEAR exactly the way it looks right now.
    A range of sizes, with the largest being rarer than the median.

    IN ten thousand years 9 inches might be average....



    And, keep in mind that, beyond a certain size, larger penises actually CUT your reproductive success.
    Evolution can not drive penis size beyond the size that is optimal for a woman's reproductive tract.

    But that doesn't mean science won't come up with a way you PEOPLE to drive that size up.

    I can vividly imagine the result of the availability of a medical procedure that is as effective on Cock size ad breast augmentation is on breast size.

    Three legged jeans, and lots of guys who just don't know when to stop, dragging around yard long cocks as thick as your upper arm, far too massive to take orally, vaginally or anally...
     
  13. Phil Ayesho

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2008
    Messages:
    5,581
    Likes Received:
    872
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Diego
    Your analysis reflects a very poor understanding of how evolution operates.

    The main agents evolution relies on are selective pressure and reproductive success.
    A larger penis does not make you more likely to survive, so that means that it would have to act by reproductive success. i.e. any trait that resulted a higher than average number of children would tend to proliferate.

    Well, bigger dicks are NOT more effective at getting women pregnant, nor do they affect infant survival... so all that's left to enhance repoductive success is the hypothesized female preference for larger dicks.

    Men are more concerned about their penis size than women are. Men WANTING larger penises does not have any effect on their reproductive success.

    Women, by and large, MAY appreciate a larger dick, but that is not USUALLY the sole basis upon which they choose a mate... and women will tend to have MORE children with the men they choose as mates, than with occasional flings.
    So, although there may be some preference for larger penises among women.... it is not that strong a factor in their mating choices, so the effect of big dicks on reproductive success will be fairly minimal.

    Also... the human penis, as far as primates are concerned, is actually rather large already. The currently somewhat larger penis in humans is already a reflection of how strong the selective pressure for larger dicks actually is.

    And finally... you create a false dilemma. It does not matter HOW large the average penis is... evolution would Always result in a RANGE of sizes, the mean of which would be the 'average'.
    Thus, no matter how big the average penis is, there must be, de facto, penises that are larger as well as smaller.

    Therefore, you can always ask the question of why all penises are not of the larger variety... even tho the answer is that, AS FAR AS YOU KNOW, today's 'average' WAS the larger size a thousand years ago. (meaning that evolution IS making them larger, but can not make them all the SAME)

    So... the final analysis is that evolution probably is slowly driving penis size up....
    However... that process would always APPEAR exactly the way it looks right now.
    A range of sizes, with the largest being rarer than the median.

    IN ten thousand years 9 inches might be average....



    And, keep in mind that, beyond a certain size, larger penises actually CUT your reproductive success.
    Evolution can not drive penis size beyond the size that is optimal for a woman's reproductive tract.

    But that doesn't mean science won't come up with a way for PEOPLE to drive that size up.

    I can vividly imagine the result of the availability of a medical procedure that is as effective on Cock size ad breast augmentation is on breast size.

    Three legged jeans, and lots of guys who just don't know when to stop, dragging around yard long cocks as thick as your upper arm, far too massive to take orally, vaginally or anally...
     
  14. Guy-jin

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Messages:
    3,835
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    669
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Planet Earth
    I'm not feeling up to a long-winded discussion.

    I'll just say for now...

    Humans have the largest penises in the primate world relative to body size.

    Humans are the only upright-walking primates.

    I suggest that these two factors are directly related.

    Think on that.
     
  15. Big Al

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2008
    Messages:
    2,830
    Likes Received:
    6
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Central FL
    Phil has a habit of responding to my posts in a confrontational manner. I believe it's because he likes to argue with me :biggrin1:

    Both points are outlined in my previous post.

    Please do some research on the mechanisms behind human female orgasms.
    The fact that human penises are the largest [by far] amongst other primates proves that there is or was an evolutionary trend towards larger penises.

    If a woman has had sex with multiple partners in a short space of time, which penis would have a better chance of depositing its sperm closest to the cervix? If a larger penis feels better to a woman, which type of penis is she going to prefer?

    No one said it's the factor, but it's a factor nonetheless. That alone would provide some noticeable evolutionary momentum over time.

    Have you considered that womens' choice of mates may have been influenced by penis size? If they have their choice of suitors, women are likelier to choose mates with "average" or large" penises over "small" ones. If men with small penises are less likely to get chosen as mates or if their penises are less efficient at conception, this "small penis" characteristic will be phased out over time. This is why the average human penis is 5-6 inches long. Compare that to the other primate figures in the first post.

    That's how evolution works :smile:

    All other things being equal, "occasional fling" sex is more likely to result in conception if the woman has better quality and/or more frequent orgasms with her fling. Statistics from Western countries suggest that approximately 30% of all paternity tests exclude the supposed father as biological father.
    Law.com - Parent Trap? Litigation Explodes Over Paternity Fraud

    It's a strong enough factor to have produced the largest penises in the primate world.

    You have contradicted yourself a couple of times in your statements. Either there's an evolutionary drive towards larger penises or isn't- your stance isn't clear. Also, the human penis is not "somewhat larger" than other primates'- it's substantially larger.

    I recommend that you read some Mendel. The average penis size for humans is much higher than the average for other primates. A man with a 4 inch penis would be considered very small by human standards but enormous when compared to non-human primates' penises.

    Of course- that's Mendelian genetics. Where did I state otherwise?

    As far as most of us know, there are no penis size studies dating back 1,000 years, so the only benchmark we have is to compare ourselves to our closest relatives in the animal kingdom.

    The fact is that evolution has driven up penis size in humans.

    If a study were to continue for the next several hundred or several thousand years, we may see enough of a difference to make a case on this evolutionary trend.

    We're not talking about 12 inch monsters here. Most women can handle a relatively large penis without too much trouble. The human female reproductive system has undoubtebly evolved as well, and will likely continue to evolve in tandem with males' reproductive systems.

    I can't see a large proportion of men wanting to make their penises so huge they'd be useless. They would be the rare exception, not the rule.
     
    #15 Big Al, Jan 4, 2009
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2009
  16. B_quietguy

    B_quietguy New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2005
    Messages:
    1,286
    Likes Received:
    5
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Bay Area, California
    I noticed that too. I think of some of his posts as "WTF!?" Others seem more thoughtful or thought-provoking.
     
  17. Phil Ayesho

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2008
    Messages:
    5,581
    Likes Received:
    872
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Diego
    not just with you, Big Al...


    But your question was why penises are not LARGER.
    Females, by and large, do not orgasm due to penile size... the clitoris is on the outside.
    Nor is female orgasm required for reproductive success.

    Again, you must demonstrate an effect on reproductive success, OR upon the enhanced survival conferred by the trait, or you have no evolutionary mechanism.

    As to selection pressure on the size of the organ... there is no pressure greater than the pressure of functionality.
    I could argue the more likely cause of human penile size is the fact that human babies have pretty large heads, requiring a proportionally larger vaginal tract, which requires a larger penis to ensure the tactile stimulation that leads to ejaculation....

    This is a more supportable argument than any 'postulated' female preference for size, as it directly relates to whether the male can achieve ejaculation with each opportunity to reproduce.

    Larger penises are LESS likely to deposit sperm correctly because they can bruise the cervix, causing swelling and white blood cell activity that is destructive to sperm.
    Statistically, there is ZERO correlation between penis size and procreation. IF what you were saying were true, then you should be able to show a disparity in the birth rates between populations with smaller average penis size and populations with larger average penis size.
    No such disparity exists. Ergo, penis length has little or no effect on sperm delivery.

    As to women preferring larger because they "feel better" I knew a guy with a LITERALLY 12 inch dick. Lots of women dated him out of pure curiosity... every one of them broke up with him due to painful sex.

    Point of fact... women generally express a preference for 7 inchers ( true measure... not ego measure) with a good GIRTH...
    There may be size queens out there, but they are not the norm, hence their preference plays little part in species wider adaptation.

    The fact that they like girth more than length can easily be correlated to their vaginal tract being designed to accommodate the proportionally enormous heads of human babies.... it takes girth, not length, for them to feel penetration on their vaginal walls without damage to the cervix.
    And this, again, implies the pressure on penis size was not based upon a preference for size, but upon the pressure applied by accommodating our increasing brain size while retaining sexual function.



    Well, its been about 4 million years of species specific adaptation. The large size variation that still exists in penis size thru any given population argues against you.
    It implies that no 'specific' size is particularly better, nor greatly more preferred. As any such advantage would tend to result in a narrower range of diversity.

    Rather... penis size shows great variability, showing that small penises pass on their genes just as effectively as larger penises.

    This demonstrates that penis size, regardless of female pleasure, does not seem to factor much into female mating choice. Instead, female humans seem to select based upon other, less physical traits. aggression, assertiveness, confidence, affluence, authority, and fame factor far larger.

    Genghis Khan could have had micropenis... Could well be the single most influential reason why Asians tend to have smaller penises... but he still was one of the most prolific breeders in human history.
    Ergo, any effect of a minority of female size queens is drowned out by those females with more sophisticated and lucrative criteria of selection.

    The fundamental flaw in your reasoning is the idea that evolution would favor females choosing for THEIR advantage regarding pleasure...... when in fact evolution favors females choosing for their CHILD'S advantage, in which the mothers' sexual pleasure factors not one bit.

    Female humans have developed larger breasts than other primates as a sexual cue and attraction... but they did not develop that trait because Males LIKED them... rather, females that could grow prominent breasts displayed a physical symmetry and robust health that translated into more and healthier babies... and the males that responded to this trait ended up passing that gene onto more children.
    Thus it was not the pleasure men took in breasts that drove their development, but the fact that that trait Actually translated into longer lived and more productive offspring that favored men who found them attractive.

    What turns men on about women is not what defined the evolution of female traits... rather, the traits that make for a healthier and more productive female defined what male's would be attracted to.

    By that logic, cave women preferred a larger cock BECAUSE men have to have them to work with their larger vaginas...not the reverse.
    Again preference does not drive form... Function drives preference.

    Todays cocks are, on average, the size they need to be to work... and that is all.
     
  18. Phil Ayesho

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2008
    Messages:
    5,581
    Likes Received:
    872
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Diego
    Again, you have no data to support the idea that women choose mates on penis size. Certainly this site is not crawling with women.

    Statistics show that women tend to invest most of their reproduction with the man who offers the most secure environment for children. They may fuck a guy on the side, as a genetic hedge on their bets, and they may pick that guy based upon purely physical traits... but by and large females do not choose based upon physical traits.
    Men, however, do select women based upon physical traits.
    This is why men display affluence, assertiveness, and social prominence to attract women instead of their dicks.
    And this is why women display their physical beauty and health to attract men.


    See... you just made an argument, and then offered evidence that your argument is false.

    30% is not "more likely"- this means 70% of offspring are from the primary mate relationship. Primary is the evolutionary advantage, period.

    Yes, its a proven fact that women tend to have affairs when they are ovulating ( that's when they are horniest) Yes that means they are more likely to get pregnant from any given fling fuck than from the any given, and more frequent regular fuck. But that difference is entirely attributable to women's TIMING of extramarital fucking...

    Thus we know that women have affairs to hedge their genetic bets... but, again, you have no evidence that penis size factors at all in their selection of who to have a fling with.

    boldly said without a single shred of evidence in support.
    As stated, human fetal brain size is far more likely to be the cause than female preference.


    Its large for a primate... not proportional large compared to, say, horses.

    I did not say we don't have larger penises. I am saying you have no valid argument that female preferences for larger penises is the cause.
    I am not contradicting the assertion of penis size, I am contradicting the flaws in your arguments as to how evolution would affect such a change.


    I read Mendel in 1972...
    1- humans are not pea plants... the selection forces acting upon them are not the same as the vegetable kingdom.
    2- you realize there HAS been some significant genetic work done since Mendel, right? Like , say, the entire study of evolutionary and population genetics? I recommend you look into the work of Dawkins, Kimura, Templeton, and, for the epistemological slant, Nowak.

    Um, no, Apes do not select mates by the same criteria that humans do, nor do their infants sport enormous craniums.
    You do have the obligation of arguing HOW such an effect could take place.

    You want to IMPLY that longer dicks deposit sperm more effectively, or that women prefer procreating with larger dicked men, then Demonstrate that larger dicked men father more children...



    No doubt. My post was not refuting that. It was refuting your characterizations of HOW evolution works, and the mechanism driving this effect.



    Unecessary. The primate evidence supports a trend. It just doesn't support your reasoning for the trend.

    In fact, as genetic technology advances, Future increases in size will almost certainly be the result of preference...since we will have the power of direct modification.
    However... even then, it likely will not be the result of female preference as mush as the result of male obsession over their own size.



    Not in my experience. I know large men who complain about never being allowed to drive the entire thing home ( cause it hurts the girl) and, at 8 inches I am not huge, but have had half my partners complain of discomfort.

    Again, female anatomy shows the same range of sizes as does the male... there are as many who don't want a massive dick as do. Effect of female preference is thus nullifed.

    Because of the advent of bio-technology... we may be entering a phase where evolution will no longer employ natural selection on human physiology. Our future shape will likely be defined by artificial selection.

    Assuming technological civilization survives.


    Tell it to the plastic surgeons and gym rats.

    If men are obsessed with dick size because of comparisons to OTHER men's dick sizes, if that is the psychology at play, then seeing ever larger dicks will spur men to have theirs made even larger.

    Since most of men's orgasms are acheived thru masturbation... mens' delight in their own size will drive their choices more than how effective they are as pleasuring women...

    I would bet that, in that event of being able to specify, men's cocks will trend toward a length conducive to sucking themselves off.

    And I can see them asking their partners to get modification enabling them to better accommodate the monsters they will sport.
     
    #18 Phil Ayesho, Jan 4, 2009
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2009
  19. Big Al

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2008
    Messages:
    2,830
    Likes Received:
    6
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Central FL
    That wasn't "my question"- that's part of the article that I posted. Human penises are larger- that's the point of the comparison between humans and primates (see sections 2 and 3 of the article).

    Female orgasms aren't required, but they help. They would also ensure that a female would continue to return to a mate that gave them those orgasms. FYI- There are many different types of female orgasms- clitoral orgasms are just one type.

    If you believe that women don't have any size preference, you're deluding yourself. They may not all be after the whoppers, but I can assure you that most women prefer "average" to "large" over "small".

    There are many possible factors as to why human males have evolved such large penises. I presented you with just some of them. Here's an example that circumvents your premise- why have certain male birds like peacocks evolved such colorful and cumbersome feathers? Certainly not for any survival advantage (the plumage makes them stand out), nor does the plumage itself aid in any reproductive manner (unlike penises). It's solely because they're more attractive to females of the species.

    Again, I'm not talking about monster penises here- I'm talking about larger than average penises.

    It makes perfect sense mechanically. As I stated before, a larger penis will be able to get closer to the cervix than a smaller penis would, increasing the chance for conception. Female orgasms also increase the chance of conception. Consider that there's also bound to be a wide variation of penis sizes within a population.

    In my last post I put up a link to an article that showed an alarming percentage of children do not belong to putative fathers taking paternity tests. That doesn't mean that penis size is the sole reason or even a large factor as to why these women are cheating, but it likely plays a role on some level. Even if the percentage is small it should affect size trends over a long enough period of time.

    Again, you're talking about the extreme upper end of the scale here. Your example is an anomaly and it doesn't validate your point, except the part where you stated that lots of women dated him out of curiosity- which would do more to validate my point.

    Another self-contradiction there, Phil. You just admitted that most women do have a preference :smile: Also, a seven inch penis is well on the upper end of average, so this further validates a preference for "large".

    You've actually proved my points (in your own weird way) :wink: How would these penises been selected for in the first place. What other kind of "pressure" would there have been except preference and/or function. It doesn't happen spontaneously.

    Not at all. You're creating red herrings to try to prove your point. The original argument was about the increase of human penis size due to evolutionary pressure, not variations in penis size between specific groups. As I stated in my previous post, even the smallest human penises (by groups) are still far larger than those of our closest primate relatives.

    Again, you stated: "Point of fact... women generally express a preference for 7 inchers ( true measure... not ego measure) with a good GIRTH..."

    No one is arguing that a wide variety of penis sizes exist. Again, please read some Mendel and acquaint yourself on the definition of evolutionary trends.

    The problem with your logic is that you assume evolution only works in one direction or due to a limited number of factors. There are many factors that drive evolution, and mates' preferences for certain characteristics are chief amonst them.

    You don't have to believe that human characteristics like penis and breast size have anything to with sexual selection or that females' choice of characteristics are a significant factor in the evolutionary process. You can create all of the arguments against it you want. That doesn't negate the fact that the evolution of the human penis is driven by natural selection.

    Here's the definition of natural selection (I've emphasized some key points for your benefit):

    Natural selection is the process by which favorable heritable traits become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable heritable traits become less common, due to differential reproduction of genotypes. Natural selection acts on the phenotype, or the observable characteristics of an organism, such that individuals with favorable phenotypes are more likely to survive and reproduce than those with less favorable phenotypes.

    Hope this helps.
     
  20. Big Al

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2008
    Messages:
    2,830
    Likes Received:
    6
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Central FL
    If it makes you feel better to believe that size is not a factor in female preference then more power to you- and good luck with that.

    Let's review your statement: "They may fuck a guy on the side, as a genetic hedge on their bets, and they may pick that guy based upon purely physical traits..."

    Exactly the point.

    Another red herring. What's to assume that the other 70% aren't, on some level, chosen for their positive characteristics.

    You're making the assumption that a woman times her affairs exclusively to coincide with her ovulations.

    Again, you're assuming that female preference is not a factor in evolution. Why you're deluding yourself so vigorously in this capacity astounds me.

    Been there, done that. How genetics work and the theory that evolution is driven by natural selection is the point.

    Which would validate the reason why non-human primate penises are so small while humans' are so large.

    To avoid repeating myself, reread some of my previous statements.

    At 8 inches you're still well outside of the "average curve" (5-7 inches). You're assuming that I'm trying to say that all women prefer a huge penis- I'm not.

    If you're familiar with how humans typically mate, it's the females that usually decide on whether or not there'll be any sexual activity. There preferences are paramount.

    At this point, I think you're arguing just to argue :)

    "Gym rats" and people that frequent plastic surgeons are not the norm.

    Men comparing themselves to other men certainly plays a part in the psychology behind wanting a larger penis. If a man feels intimidated by another man's penis, it constitutes an advantage for the larger male. Another point for the pro-evolution stance.

    Let's get to the point. Human penis size is what it is due to evolution. The reason why human penises average what they do is because that's been the evolutionary trend. If humans' larger penis size did not proffer some kind of advantage or if it wasn't "chosen" then it would not have evolved the way it has.

    Human penises are also distinct from other primates in the fact that we have no bones in our penises. Human penises rely on hydrodynamics in order to function. Further proof that some sort of evolutionary incentive is the cause behind why human penises are so distinct in comparison with our primate cousins'.
     
    #20 Big Al, Jan 4, 2009
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2009
Draft saved Draft deleted