Big Al, I don't debate much with Phil Ayesho. When somebody says one contradictory thing after another, it means the person will say anything to get a reaction, make a point, or "win" a debate. Save your time for better things.
Evolution And The Penis
- Thread starter Big Al
- Start date
I was going through some old notes trying to recall the name of this particular model of sexual selection. Found it :smile: It's known as "Fisherian Runaway".
Phil Ayesho
Superior Member
Love when folks make claims they can't back up.
I said nothing contradictory.
The OP made several fundamentally incorrect statements and assumptions about evolution and how it operates.
Just because human males have larger penises than our other ape relations is not evidence that women's preference for larger penises drove that adaptation.
To make such a suggestion rise above mere speculation you have to demonstrate that women prefer penises much larger than the given average, and that that preference manifests in mate selection.
I.E. you have to show that women are choosing to have more babies with larger dicked men.
The OP did not demonstrate that.
Pointing out the flaws in his reasoning is not the same as sayong human males donlt have larger penises than other apes... its saying that HIS explanation of cause is unsupported by evidence.
Its not baiting... baiting is throwing out an unsupported notion with an incorrect explanation of evolution in support and asking folks to comment...
You can not Bait in REPLY to a solicitation for feedback.
Phil Ayesho
Superior Member
Look AL, this is how science works , YOU are proposing an hypothesis. The onus is upon YOU to provide actual evidence or argument in support of that hypothesis.
SAYING there are mermaids does not make their existence more likely. Anyone can SAY it. I don't have to prove that something you made up is not true... you have to prove that it is.
You CLAIM women prefer bigger dicks... you have not one iota of evidence to back that up.
Certainly the ratio of men to women on this site suggests that penis size is not nearly as important to most women as you imagine.
Again... you seem to completely fail to understand reality based thinking.
Research shows that the vast majority of women have nearly All children with their primary mate. They may have 1 child with another male as a genetic hedge.
Therefore, a woman who had 4 children may have had 1 by another male.
Not ALL women, mind you, but some fraction of the female population.
We KNOW that women do not choose their primary mates based upon penis size. There is NO EVDIENCE women choose to have children by other men based upon penis size.
In fact, they have usually made the descision to bed a man before even knowing the size of his penis.
Based upon these facts, the number of children fathered by large dicked men based upon women's preference is simply TOO FEW to form any kind of species wide pressure driving average penis size up.
It may be enough to keep a large penis trait in the population as a rarity...
But RARE traits do not become species-wide traits without some pressure eliminating the other , more common traits.
Ergo, female prefernce to have affairs with large dicked men could not have driven the overall average up. You need a species-wide advantage to select for a species wide adaptation.
You act as if this has not been studied. Female criteria for mate selection is WELL studied.
They select for a myriad of preferences.... but there is no evidence, no study, anywhere, showing that women factor penis size into who they will marry nor who they will have children with.
They may like a good rogering by a large cock... but, especially today, they are likely to use contraception for their pleasure preferences...
Having a baby is far more serious... they are gonna be more concerned with your earning potential that the size of your dick.
In fact... if women DO all like to have sex with large dicked men, then MARRYING a man cause he had a large dick would be a THREAT as women would fear that other women would be trying to steal that man away.
Its is a fact that women, in general, unconsciously encourage their husbands to gain weight to make them less attractive to competing females.
I am making no assumptions... and I never said women CONSCIOUSLY do so.
Once more, this HAS BEEN STUDIED. Women are 3 to 4 times as likely to consummate an affair when they are ovulating than during other times of their cycle.
Its not an assumption, its what the evidence shows.
Women's sexual desire is driven by hormones and naturally peaks at those times when sex will be most productive. Having sex outside of their marriage is a RISK... they will tend to minimize that risk by being MORE willing when they are MORE likely to get something for their risk.
This is evidence that women are not having affairs for whatever their rationalizesd reasoning may be... but because they are genetically driven to risk affairs for the benefit of varying the genetic makeup of their children... and to keep a second man potentially on the hook for their support should their primary mate leave or die.
Affairs, for both men and women are a genetic TACTIC. Everything we TELL ourselves are after the fact rationalizations for a behavior driven by evolutionary advantage.
I am not deluding myself. I am not the one claiming that women prefer to have babies with large dicked men... YOU are saying that... and providing NO argument and NO evidence that your 'story' has merit.
In a typical straw man argument, you mischaracterize my arguments to be something you think you CAN win, rather than the actual argument you know you can not.
I never said nor implied that female preference does not factor into evolution.
What I said was you have no evidence that women are making mating choices based upon penis size.
You have not established that females prefer large penises; you have not established that women decide to have babies with men based upon the size of their penises, and you have not established that this postulated preference is widespread enough to account for a species-wide trend in adaptation.
I personally know dozens of women who have kids. I could not find a single one that says Dick size was a factor in their selection of mate.
Last edited:
Phil Ayesho
Superior Member
You need to come to grips with the fact that there is a difference between a 'preference' and a selection criterion. Women may have a preference for chocolate... cause they like it, its pleasurable etc...
That preference does NOT factor into their criteria for MATE selection.
Women, for example, DO overwhelmingly prefer TALLER men... it actually IS cited by women as a criteria for mate selection.
Because of this you could validly claim that average human height is driven up by women's preference for taller men.
ALSO- The fact that men's penis size varies SO widely argues for no clear criteria of selection being applied. For example TUSK size in elephants show a MUCH narrower range of sizes... because female elephants DO prefer males with larger tusks.... that preference drives tusk size toward a competitive mean.
Like peacock tails, which show astonishingly little variation, True female selective criteria result in a distillation of the trait toward the most effective ideal.
The fact that human penis size is NOT narrowing in on a competitive mean size argues that there is NO competition being applied regarding size.
The fact that women in studies State clearly that penis size is NOT a factor in choosing a mate argues against your hypothesis, as well.
I have pointed out that human fetal HEAD size is a more likely reason for human vaginal and penile size to be proportionally larger than in our nearest ape relatives.
But beyond that... a size range of 2 or 3 inches, all the way up to 12 or 13 inches IS NOT EVIDENCE OF SELECTIVE PRESSURE.
Its evidence of genetic drift associated with a trait that has almost no selective advantage.
Agreed.
So where is your evidence that women's choice of mates is based on penis size?
Saying women like a big dick does not mean that they choose to have babies with men on that basis.
My Wife may LIKE a ferrari... but she insists I BUY a minivan.
First... Female selection matters, Men wanting bigger dicks does not. Males feeling intimidated by larger dicked men MIGHT come across as LESS CONFIDENT... and thereby not get laid.... but, again, the women are thus selecting for CONFIDENCE, not dick size.
Your thesis is defeated by this scenario...Yes, dick size gets bigger... but NOT because of female preference regarding dicks.
Second... I am NOT arguing against evolution- that is yet another blatant straw man mischaracterization.
I am arguing FOR evolution as it is currently understood.
Your argument for female dick preference is not consistent with evolutionary theory because you can not show evidence of it in action, and have no evidence of strong selective pressure.
Agreed. with the caveat that genetic drift is also a feature of evolution resulting in variation within species.
Invalid assumption. You have no proof that dick size has "trended" up. As far as you know current average human dick size changed at the same time Homo Sapiens first speciated.
It may have happened when Homo Erectus first speciated... that is, the proportional change relative to overall body size that differentiates humans from other apes... and the proportional size simply stayed the same relative to our increasing overall height and body size.
You Imagine average dick size keeps getting bigger. You have no evidence that that is the case... All you can show is that it DID get bigger... not when, how, nor over what span of time.
No doubt evolution shaped our penis.
What we are arguing here is NOT whether evolution was the culprit... but YOUR thesis that females preferring larger dicks is the Agent DRIVING a continuing increase in size.
You have not established that size continues to increase out of proportion to our height.
Here is YOUR argument in an analogy.
Females Like larger feet in men.
Average human Foot size has increased over the past thousand years... female preference drives evolutionary traits, ergo, females must PREFER larger feet, and that preference is driving our increasing foot size.
IT almost sounds reasonable if you simply neglect the baseless assumptions.
Here is the analogy to my counter...
In fact... with improvements in nutrition and hygiene, average human HEIGHT has been increasing for thousands of years. The FOOT increases in size proportionally to height.
This ALONE might explain increases in height, which, alone, explains increases in foot size.
I stipulate that Women DO prefer a taller man. Ergo women are selecting for men who are TALLER... and that could factor as well into increasing average height over time...
HOWEVER... in that case they are selecting for HEIGHT, not foot size. The increasing size of feet is INCIDENTAL to the ACTUAL selection criteria.
A key difference with the analogy is that I am also pointing out that you have NO evidence that human's proportionally larger genitalia did not occur as part of the significant increase in proportional infant head size.
And No evidence that penis size has increased since that time out of proportion to our individual height.
Add to that that you have No evidence that women select mates based upon penis size.
And you have no evidence that male penises show evidence of such selection pressure by a reduction in trait variation toward a competitive mean, as is seen in ALL other species in repsinse to female selection preference.
What we are is absolutely the result of evolution.
But your idea of evolution is not the definition of evolution.
Arguing against your thesis is NOT arguing against 'evolution'.
Its arguing that your thesis is not consistent with evolution and the evidence.
Last edited:
Here are a few other articles and references on the subject:
"We do not know why men have conspicuous genitals, but a male chimp solicits a female by opening his legs, displaying an erect penis and flicking his phallus with a finger as he gazes at a potential partner. A prominant, distinctive penis helps broadcast one's individuality and sexual vigor, which may lure female friends. In many species of insects and primates, males have exceptionally elaborate penises, and scientists think these evolved specifically because females chose those males with elaborate, sexally stimulating genitals. So perhaps as Lucy's ancestors became bipedal some four million years ago, males began to parade their genitals in order to make special friends with favored females--selecting for those with large organs."
(Fisher, H. (1992) Anatomy of Love: The Mysteries of Mating, Marriage, and Why We Stray. Simon & Schuster, New York, 1992. pp. 177)
Looks like Guy-jin was on the money with his post :smile:
"One characteristic among primates has been clearly targeted for possible selection by Fisherian female choice--male penis size. Primate males living in groups with many females and many males, groups in which promiscuity is the mating rule, have long penes (Dixon 1978). Male chimps, in fact, use their penes for display toward estrous females. Because a longer penis would give a female pleasure (note that the human male has the longest and thickest penis of any primate), female choice might have been a factor driving penis length to extremes among primates."
(Small, Meredith F. (1993) Female choices: Sexual behavior of female primates. Cornell Univ. Press, Ithaca, 1993 pp. 109)
"Rampant female mating leads to competition not before but after copulation, not among bodies but among sperm. A female copulates with several males whose sperm compete to fertilize her. Sperm competition can occur even if a female copulates with different males several days apart. This is because sperm are hardy and may survive in the vagina of a chimpanzee or woman for as long as eight or nine days. Any female who copulates with more than a single male while ovulating opens the gates to a sperm race. The males or men who produce the sperm are not direct entrants; they are more like corporate sponsors advertising their name and providing financial backing. Not all participants in the all-male marathon are equally prepared to win. Mammals who mate more frequently, and produce more sperm per ejaculation, are more likely to impregnate their partners. Favoring the sperm of one male over that of competitors are such things as position during intercourse, force and timing of pervic thrusting, number and speed to ejaculated sperm, and proximity of the spermatic means of delivery---the penis---to the egg at time of ejacultion. Copious sperm production (estimated by testicle weight), deep penetration, and an elongated penis are all presumably advantages to males engaged in sperm competition. Perhaps most important is sheer sexual vigor, with more active males ejaculating the greatest number of times gaining a competitive edge. The charm and proficiency of a male---his ability to seduce a female and to continue to please after seducing her---of course also crucially determine his chances of entering and therefore of winning the competition; and in this sense females make the great impact of generally deciding who will and will not compete. There is also evidence that a woman who climaxes while making love to her lover is more likely to become pregnant by him."
(Margulis, L & Sagan, D. (1991) Mystery Dance, On the Evolution of Human Sexuality: Summit Books, New York pp. 37)
"Let us consider one factor that may predispose a species to male investment, female choice: females may prefer to mate with males who will invest strongly in their offspring. Most of the major kinds of male parental investment have been shown to affect female choice or may easily do so. At one time this would have been a controversial statement, but it is now well established, as the following studies suggest."
(Trivers, RL (1985) Social Evolution. Benjamen/Cummings: Menlow Park. p. 249)
It may be suggested that in some cases a double process of selection has been carried on; that the males have selected the more attractive females, and the latter the more attractive males. This process, however, though it might lead to the modification of both sexes, would not make the one sex different from the other, unless indeed their tastes for the beautiful differed; but this is a supposition too improbable to be worth considering in the case of any animal, excepting man."
(Darwin, C. (1871) The Descent of Man . John Murray: London p. 233-4)
"As we will see, humans are unusual in that both males and females have highly sex-specific, sexually-elaborated traits. In most animal species, only one sex, usually the male, shows sex-specific elaborations. This unusual human morphological pattern suggests that hominids underwent a pattern of mutual sexual selection with both males and females exercising selective mate choice with respect to somewhat different criteria."
Miller, Geoffrey F. (1994) Evolution of the human brain through runaway sexual selection: the mind as a protean courtship device. unpublished thesis. pp. 156)
Some more:
Penis Evolution: Intersexual and Intrasexual Selection
Semen Displacement as a Sperm Competition Strategy in Humans
"We do not know why men have conspicuous genitals, but a male chimp solicits a female by opening his legs, displaying an erect penis and flicking his phallus with a finger as he gazes at a potential partner. A prominant, distinctive penis helps broadcast one's individuality and sexual vigor, which may lure female friends. In many species of insects and primates, males have exceptionally elaborate penises, and scientists think these evolved specifically because females chose those males with elaborate, sexally stimulating genitals. So perhaps as Lucy's ancestors became bipedal some four million years ago, males began to parade their genitals in order to make special friends with favored females--selecting for those with large organs."
(Fisher, H. (1992) Anatomy of Love: The Mysteries of Mating, Marriage, and Why We Stray. Simon & Schuster, New York, 1992. pp. 177)
Looks like Guy-jin was on the money with his post :smile:
"One characteristic among primates has been clearly targeted for possible selection by Fisherian female choice--male penis size. Primate males living in groups with many females and many males, groups in which promiscuity is the mating rule, have long penes (Dixon 1978). Male chimps, in fact, use their penes for display toward estrous females. Because a longer penis would give a female pleasure (note that the human male has the longest and thickest penis of any primate), female choice might have been a factor driving penis length to extremes among primates."
(Small, Meredith F. (1993) Female choices: Sexual behavior of female primates. Cornell Univ. Press, Ithaca, 1993 pp. 109)
"Rampant female mating leads to competition not before but after copulation, not among bodies but among sperm. A female copulates with several males whose sperm compete to fertilize her. Sperm competition can occur even if a female copulates with different males several days apart. This is because sperm are hardy and may survive in the vagina of a chimpanzee or woman for as long as eight or nine days. Any female who copulates with more than a single male while ovulating opens the gates to a sperm race. The males or men who produce the sperm are not direct entrants; they are more like corporate sponsors advertising their name and providing financial backing. Not all participants in the all-male marathon are equally prepared to win. Mammals who mate more frequently, and produce more sperm per ejaculation, are more likely to impregnate their partners. Favoring the sperm of one male over that of competitors are such things as position during intercourse, force and timing of pervic thrusting, number and speed to ejaculated sperm, and proximity of the spermatic means of delivery---the penis---to the egg at time of ejacultion. Copious sperm production (estimated by testicle weight), deep penetration, and an elongated penis are all presumably advantages to males engaged in sperm competition. Perhaps most important is sheer sexual vigor, with more active males ejaculating the greatest number of times gaining a competitive edge. The charm and proficiency of a male---his ability to seduce a female and to continue to please after seducing her---of course also crucially determine his chances of entering and therefore of winning the competition; and in this sense females make the great impact of generally deciding who will and will not compete. There is also evidence that a woman who climaxes while making love to her lover is more likely to become pregnant by him."
(Margulis, L & Sagan, D. (1991) Mystery Dance, On the Evolution of Human Sexuality: Summit Books, New York pp. 37)
"Let us consider one factor that may predispose a species to male investment, female choice: females may prefer to mate with males who will invest strongly in their offspring. Most of the major kinds of male parental investment have been shown to affect female choice or may easily do so. At one time this would have been a controversial statement, but it is now well established, as the following studies suggest."
(Trivers, RL (1985) Social Evolution. Benjamen/Cummings: Menlow Park. p. 249)
It may be suggested that in some cases a double process of selection has been carried on; that the males have selected the more attractive females, and the latter the more attractive males. This process, however, though it might lead to the modification of both sexes, would not make the one sex different from the other, unless indeed their tastes for the beautiful differed; but this is a supposition too improbable to be worth considering in the case of any animal, excepting man."
(Darwin, C. (1871) The Descent of Man . John Murray: London p. 233-4)
"As we will see, humans are unusual in that both males and females have highly sex-specific, sexually-elaborated traits. In most animal species, only one sex, usually the male, shows sex-specific elaborations. This unusual human morphological pattern suggests that hominids underwent a pattern of mutual sexual selection with both males and females exercising selective mate choice with respect to somewhat different criteria."
Miller, Geoffrey F. (1994) Evolution of the human brain through runaway sexual selection: the mind as a protean courtship device. unpublished thesis. pp. 156)
Some more:
Penis Evolution: Intersexual and Intrasexual Selection
Semen Displacement as a Sperm Competition Strategy in Humans
Last edited:
D_Chocho_Lippz
Account Disabled
Phil loves to type. I think the noises the keys make soothes him. Any more, I just skip over his posts because they seem to cyclical and narcissistic. I think we should all form a club of people who Phil likes to berate... there is a lot of us....
There was a similar incident of thread hijacking going on over at the Penis Enlargement subforum. Here's what I wrote in response there:
There are some people on the internet that love provoking arguments above anything else. They attack/insult the poster (ad hominem), pick and choose their points, twist your statements to suit their needs, exhibit a lack of logic and common sense, and if you read through their posts often enough they'll contradict themselves. They won't let up even if they've been proven wrong or if they've been chastised by other members- on the contrary- this often makes them more vigorous. They do this in order to elicit emotional responses. It's all part of their MO. They're known as internet "trolls" and they rarely contribute anything of value except drama and entertainment [for themselves, mostly].
I've proven that even after surfing the net for over a decade it's still possible to get sucked into their games
I had some kind members recently recommend a solution that I didn't even know was possible with this forum. Check out the Edit Ignore List function. It's the next best solution for dealing with trolls; the first being banning them from the forum (probably not going to happen here).
B_webcamfuck.me
Just Browsing
When has he been inconsistent in his arguments here?
This thread has shifted from actually discussing the case to sniping at Phil because you've lost the argument and/or don't understand it. Don't blame him for your own deficiencies in science and debate.
D_Chocho_Lippz
Account Disabled
I don't mind (and enjoy) debating, but I don't like getting brow-beaten every time I talk. I also don't like having to read 3-4 posts worth of stuff just for you to berate me. :wink:
But, welcome to the club. :smile:
This is prolly do to the fact boyfriends/husband buy their lovers small dildos.
There's nothing wrong with intelligent debating- that's how ideas get shared. When one side is more interested in stirring things up for their own amusement the concept of debating goes out the window. This hijacked thread is a good example of that. That's when the "Edit Ignore List" function comes in very handy :biggrin1:
Last edited:
pronatalist
Sexy Member
I don't buy the evolution argument, as In the beginning God created ...
However, that still wouldn't rule out some level of natural selection, of those most prone to reproduce more prolifically, gradually growing to an ever larger proportion of the population, and so "average" sized penises could over time, get somewhat larger. Larger human populations, human hormones and scents more pervading our environment, even improved nutrition may have some effects.
But I have long suspected that a longer and more girthy penis, may more effectly "seal" the vagina, helping to insure that the natural semen spurts are more likely to be pressed into or towards the cervix, helping to pump the sperm more efficiently to where babies are made, than if the penis didn't so much fill the vagina, allowing sperm to wander more and get lost without as many making it in the direction to find the egg.
Interesting to read, that while humans aren't really horse-hung, the human penis getting as long as 11 inches sometimes, could be nearly pony-hung, comparing favorably to ponies at 13 inches. If there is much natural selection of pro-reproductive traits going on, then in an increasingly populous world of now some official 6.7 billion human beings, it would seem there would be some room for effects, like some women perhaps becoming efficient baby-making "machines," or some guys being a bit impressively-endowed, well unless we humans are already so well-endowed compared to other primates, that many people are now only "average" in comparison with other modern humans? There are many women who even in developed countries, don't practice any means of "birth control." Many for religious or practical reasons, just never have got around to selecting a "satisfactory" means of "birth control," or just love children or hardly notice that their family is growing a bit "large." Are they all just "religious," or could it also be, that human reproductive urges could be growing more powerful, generation to generation, or they have inherited certain genes that make them a bit more fertile or somehow emphasis their maternal instincts to reproduce children? Is it really the old silly male competition of "mine is bigger than yours" which may manifest in forms of comparing cars or oversized watches and such? Or could it be a broader phenonomen, in which many women may be getting bigger boobs, to feed more babies efficiently? Could birth of twins and triplets, be growing slightly more common?
Families seem to be a bit smaller these days, no thanks to rampant contraceptive pushing, but among those who for whatever reasons don't use any "birth control," might their families be growing a bit larger than the historical norm, especially if they marry and start while yet rather young?
However, that still wouldn't rule out some level of natural selection, of those most prone to reproduce more prolifically, gradually growing to an ever larger proportion of the population, and so "average" sized penises could over time, get somewhat larger. Larger human populations, human hormones and scents more pervading our environment, even improved nutrition may have some effects.
But I have long suspected that a longer and more girthy penis, may more effectly "seal" the vagina, helping to insure that the natural semen spurts are more likely to be pressed into or towards the cervix, helping to pump the sperm more efficiently to where babies are made, than if the penis didn't so much fill the vagina, allowing sperm to wander more and get lost without as many making it in the direction to find the egg.
Interesting to read, that while humans aren't really horse-hung, the human penis getting as long as 11 inches sometimes, could be nearly pony-hung, comparing favorably to ponies at 13 inches. If there is much natural selection of pro-reproductive traits going on, then in an increasingly populous world of now some official 6.7 billion human beings, it would seem there would be some room for effects, like some women perhaps becoming efficient baby-making "machines," or some guys being a bit impressively-endowed, well unless we humans are already so well-endowed compared to other primates, that many people are now only "average" in comparison with other modern humans? There are many women who even in developed countries, don't practice any means of "birth control." Many for religious or practical reasons, just never have got around to selecting a "satisfactory" means of "birth control," or just love children or hardly notice that their family is growing a bit "large." Are they all just "religious," or could it also be, that human reproductive urges could be growing more powerful, generation to generation, or they have inherited certain genes that make them a bit more fertile or somehow emphasis their maternal instincts to reproduce children? Is it really the old silly male competition of "mine is bigger than yours" which may manifest in forms of comparing cars or oversized watches and such? Or could it be a broader phenonomen, in which many women may be getting bigger boobs, to feed more babies efficiently? Could birth of twins and triplets, be growing slightly more common?
Families seem to be a bit smaller these days, no thanks to rampant contraceptive pushing, but among those who for whatever reasons don't use any "birth control," might their families be growing a bit larger than the historical norm, especially if they marry and start while yet rather young?
Similar threads
