Evolution, a fact of life, and death, it in fact must apply to penis size.so will we, Homo sapiens in a few years have larger parts as the penis is apart of sexual atraction and therefore procreation and, the larger will therefore reproduce and the smaller won't as often?the people of Antiquity were smaller; as in their height, entire body size, and certainly penis size, the romans were sex obsessed, so we do know that.so will we put on an extra inch or 2 during the next century?
Evolution - will the average penis size increase as centuries go on?
- Thread starter liberalcynic
- Start date
people were smaller due to diet etc, not genetics.
penis size will only increase if it's bred for...that is, if women stopped having babies with small men & had more with big men.
that's not going to happen!
there are plenty of reasons why women breed with a guy. penis size is low on the list.
so no, imo, it won't be increasing.
penis size will only increase if it's bred for...that is, if women stopped having babies with small men & had more with big men.
that's not going to happen!
there are plenty of reasons why women breed with a guy. penis size is low on the list.
so no, imo, it won't be increasing.
Evolution just means change over time. Darwinian evolution is driven by selective pressure on heriditary features. Genetic drift will also cause evolution, but it's non-Darwinian, and slow. And I suppose evolution could be said to be caused by other things, such as an influx of an improved food source in a situation in which food wasn't in short supply, so that the same creatures survived, but all grew in a different way; or perhaps the introduction throughout the population of a fungus which stunts skeletal growth. (As happened to Ursus spelaeus. Maybe.) Since it affects the ontology of the population, even though not the gene pool, in a certain sense it's evolution. If all women on the planet followed a fashion to have their little toes amputated the better to fit into Italian designer shoes, that could be considered an evolution.
There's an old joke in archaeological circles about the traditional evolutionary charts made up for inanimate objects, such as arrowheads. They start shaped one way at one end of the chart, then move along a time axis, showing various stylistic and functional changes. The joke involves a vision of randy arrowheads cranking out little arrowheads to fill their happy arrowhead homes. I suppose it's funny if you're stuck in a bloody awful conference in some bloody awful town like, say, Providence.
There's an old joke in archaeological circles about the traditional evolutionary charts made up for inanimate objects, such as arrowheads. They start shaped one way at one end of the chart, then move along a time axis, showing various stylistic and functional changes. The joke involves a vision of randy arrowheads cranking out little arrowheads to fill their happy arrowhead homes. I suppose it's funny if you're stuck in a bloody awful conference in some bloody awful town like, say, Providence.
DaveGoodie
Experimental Member
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2006
- Posts
- 191
- Media
- 5
- Likes
- 24
- Points
- 163
- Location
- Wisconsin, USA
- Sexuality
- 99% Straight, 1% Gay
- Gender
- Male
My guess would be that there would be a very marginal increase in (say) the next 100 years as average body sizes increase. But I would suggest this is the equivalent to people being 6 inches taller than they were 600 years ago - therefore only an inch every 100 years, which in penis terms is about 1/10 inch per 100 years.
Not enough to get excited about
Not enough to get excited about
Some of the west african tribe females select their men by penis size, and this naturally breeds larger sizes - or so it would appear. However, more often than not they all still end up being just about average because these women naturally select show'ers and not grow'ers. This very well could be why statistically, african american men are more likely to show better.
i think it important to mention that there are normally a 1:1 ratio of male to female, since the population expantion of 19th century, it has been about 53% male and 47% female so, there's 12% of the male gene pool beening wiped out, therefore, with the theory of bigger is better, the taller, stronger,smart and bigger cocked live on
no, most women are just intimidated by big dicks.
ask a group of women, most will say that longer than 6 or 7 inches hits the cervix & hurts.
i'm here but if i fell in love with a guy with 4" cock, well, i still have toys and he'd still have hands.
i've known women too who prefer small cocks.
they would say that 4" is plenty enough.
and size doesn't ever replace performance!
DaveGoodie
Experimental Member
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2006
- Posts
- 191
- Media
- 5
- Likes
- 24
- Points
- 163
- Location
- Wisconsin, USA
- Sexuality
- 99% Straight, 1% Gay
- Gender
- Male
I think that's right. I have a preference for enormous breasts, but I have had a few small-breasted girlfriends, and could end up with one for life and for - er breeding purposes if she were the right person - I am not going to choose a life partner on the basis of body part size, no matter how much I love a good pair of whoppers!
Dave
Dave
Dazza
Expert Member
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2006
- Posts
- 201
- Media
- 43
- Likes
- 191
- Points
- 263
- Location
- England (North)
- Sexuality
- 99% Straight, 1% Gay
- Gender
- Male
I very much doubt that the average penis size will get bigger as the centuries go on
Firstly big cocks are minority as are women who actively seek out big cocks. Contraception is widely used and not all guys go out of their way to impregnate as many women as possible.
Also I cannot see how having a large cock gives a guy any breeding advantage (may be a disadvantage as women might be scared off).
Infact big cocks may get less common as they are a relative rarity and our smaller cocked brethren out number us considerably. Also the falling fertility rate may adversely affect our reporductive chances.
Unless guys with big cocks mate like bunnies and produce a lot of big cocked offspring there is unlikely to be any change in the percentage of big cocks.
Women have many criteria for choosing a partner, although I would guess the main one is the size of his ....wage packet.
I fear we are as doomed as the dinosaurs.
Firstly big cocks are minority as are women who actively seek out big cocks. Contraception is widely used and not all guys go out of their way to impregnate as many women as possible.
Also I cannot see how having a large cock gives a guy any breeding advantage (may be a disadvantage as women might be scared off).
Infact big cocks may get less common as they are a relative rarity and our smaller cocked brethren out number us considerably. Also the falling fertility rate may adversely affect our reporductive chances.
Unless guys with big cocks mate like bunnies and produce a lot of big cocked offspring there is unlikely to be any change in the percentage of big cocks.
Women have many criteria for choosing a partner, although I would guess the main one is the size of his ....wage packet.
I fear we are as doomed as the dinosaurs.
A little something of tangental interest I found (here, highlighting mine, not the author's):
"Human sexuality was not easily discussed in Darwin's day. Freud's works would not appear for several decades. A number of contemporary theorists have focussed on human sexual features, both physiological and behavioral, as the results of sexual selection. Many of these hypotheses are built upon a principle that Darwin alluded to, but did not pursue, that females in human evolution hypothetically could be responsible for particularly important human features. Darwin very hesitantly suggested that human evolution progressed, before the establishment of contemporary polygynous and monogamous patriarchal social structures, under promiscuous social structures characterized by a high degree of female choice (Smith, 1976). In some very succinct ways, human sexual anatomical and behavioral characteristics offer more than just clues as to how human being evolved, they suggest the very process itself. At the core of that process is female choice.
"Fisher (1992) writes that female choice in human evolution is evidenced by the size of the male penis. Cronin (1983), and Small (1993) describe how penis size and testicle size are impacted by female choice in other species. There is a close correlation between testicle size and penis size and promiscuous social structure as seen in chimpanzees where males with larger testicles and penises produce and distribute larger quantities of sperm creating an advantage over the other males (Margulis & Sagan, 1991), If you are a male living in a hierarchically organized social system, a gorilla harem for example, then copious amount of sperm production or a long penis does not increase your chances of producing progeny. Your ability to prevent other males from sexual contact with females, by force or intimidation, positively influences your chances of reproductive success. Gorillas retain a diminutive penis and testicle size. Human males evidence sexual anatomical characteristics suggestive of a promiscuous social structure (Wilson & Daley, 1992). [...]
"Though Darwin hesitated to pursue the implications, human evolution may have progressed following the dynamic that comes with the benefits of female choice. Trivers (1985) notes that female choice tends to reinforce certain characteristics in the male population. Tanner (1981) applies this principle to human evolution and comes up with a compelling argument that males disposed to making sure that the children are taken care of would be selected by the females as copulation partners in the presence of big-headed babies requiring years of care. Human anatomy evidences this suggestion. Male anatomy with a large penis and big testicles suggests a non-hierarchical promiscuous social structure, usually characterized by female sexual selection."
I'm not selling this as ultimate truth, this is a theory, but one with strong evidence - and it can also be inferred from this article that women like big cocks because they want more sperm! Well actually, that's not just a girl thing, is it?:tongue:
A very 'first' world perspective...
Read my previous post - SPERM - we are programmed to WANT YOUR SPERM!! (LOL - sorry - bit creepy that? :biggrin1: )
As humans, we are very different from other animals. We generally settle down with one partner and most consider it wrong to have more than one life partner. However, it's not common to have more than two children at a time. We've also gotten into a rut where having a load of kids isn't ethical, for at least most families. Money and time cut in.
Maybe things would be different if we still lived in caves, our men going out hunting while the women stayed home and cared for the children. But no, we've evolved into something much less animalistic.
It's even become hard to have more than one child with different women like some species do, because there's such a thing as Child Support.
Maybe things would be different if we still lived in caves, our men going out hunting while the women stayed home and cared for the children. But no, we've evolved into something much less animalistic.
It's even become hard to have more than one child with different women like some species do, because there's such a thing as Child Support.
I've probably posted this before in reply to speculations along these lines.
First of all, people are not getting taller at all - they are merely returning to an average height that was common prior to the industrial revolution. During the late 18th and early 19th century, health and living conditions were generally so bad for the working class (the vast majority at that time) that their growth was stunted. Average heights have been rising roughly one inch per generation since 1900 - this is commonly called the 'secular trend' in sociological or anthropological circles. We have only just recently returned to an average height that was considered normal 300 years ago.
Secondly, about human height, suffice it to say that the fossil skeleton of 'Turkana Boy' (2nd most famous humanoid fossil after Lucy) is a 13yr old boy who is approximately 5'6" tall and projections suggest that he would be 6'2" full grown. This skeleton is from some 2.8 million years ago.
On this basis, it doesn't look like there is any evolutionary pressures on making humans taller despite the passage of 2.8 million years. I should think the same is likely true with penis size.
First of all, people are not getting taller at all - they are merely returning to an average height that was common prior to the industrial revolution. During the late 18th and early 19th century, health and living conditions were generally so bad for the working class (the vast majority at that time) that their growth was stunted. Average heights have been rising roughly one inch per generation since 1900 - this is commonly called the 'secular trend' in sociological or anthropological circles. We have only just recently returned to an average height that was considered normal 300 years ago.
Secondly, about human height, suffice it to say that the fossil skeleton of 'Turkana Boy' (2nd most famous humanoid fossil after Lucy) is a 13yr old boy who is approximately 5'6" tall and projections suggest that he would be 6'2" full grown. This skeleton is from some 2.8 million years ago.
On this basis, it doesn't look like there is any evolutionary pressures on making humans taller despite the passage of 2.8 million years. I should think the same is likely true with penis size.
Penis size will decrease. A very large penis, lets say 10 inches is rare and women usually don't know how large their partner is before sex. So they will mostly get a small penis to have sex with. Its very difficult for a woman to narrow her search for a large penis. Also because of social issues (disease, child support, etc.) a man with a large penis cannot go out and impregnate as many women as a man could have in centuries past.
JustAsking
Sexy Member
Sexual selection is a very powerful evolutionary force in a large number of species, so the OP's notion is not ridiculous. However, his prediction is based on an assumption that there is a predominant number of women prefer ever larger penises. I don't think there is any evidence to back that up.
If at one point in hominid history this was true, it doesn't seem to be now, on the average. If you took a sampling of penis size amongst men who have procreated recently and men who have not, I doubt if you would find a difference in the average in the two groups.
If at one point in hominid history this was true, it doesn't seem to be now, on the average. If you took a sampling of penis size amongst men who have procreated recently and men who have not, I doubt if you would find a difference in the average in the two groups.
This is a serious weak point if attempting to extend the argument to human populations. A significant correlation has yet to be demonstrated (outside of the movies, that is).
Similar threads
