For Thousands Of Years

Discussion in 'Sex With a Large Penis' started by vpasqual, Mar 9, 2008.

  1. vpasqual

    vpasqual New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2006
    Messages:
    152
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    NY METRO AREA
    GREAT ARTICLE BELOW:

    "Each and everyone of you is a product of natural selection. Guys, that means that your daddies, and their daddies, and their daddies... were PICKED (ie selected) by the women of their time. If they didn't like what they saw or felt in dick size, presumably they would have left and found someone else. Another way of putting it is, you are the product of past desirables, which would include your dick. So if the "average" range of dick sizes is between say 5 and 7 inches, then that indicates that females have been selecting that size on average for thousands of years. If the ONLY thing that mattered was a big dick, then all males would currently be very large (10 inches or more?) since past females would have selected only the biggest size. Strangely, but as a matter of fact, you have (past) females to thank for whatever size you are now. I know that most of this will be waisted on most of you. Statistically for every "large" male there is a similarly sized female. Big penis genes can also produce big vaginal canals."
     
  2. LACJohn

    LACJohn New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2007
    Messages:
    239
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yeah

    check out my post here:

    http://www.lpsg.org/1152439-post11.html

    I go into detail about it all.

    And yeah, during male development as an embryo, both males and females have this same looking sexual organ, so your right about the large vaginas.
     
  3. speshk

    speshk New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2006
    Messages:
    378
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    Interesting theory. Kinda supports the old notion that women aren't really into big dicks. Men are.
     
  4. Rubber_JonnyN

    Rubber_JonnyN New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2007
    Messages:
    113
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    South Shields, England
    Ye, true.
    The only problem now is that a lot of people are mixing and therefore penis size in the far far far furture will no longer be something to consider when choosing a partner/fucker. But the downside is that the genepool will decrease, therefore leading to a larger wipe out of people if a disease came across.
     
  5. Rubber_JonnyN

    Rubber_JonnyN New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2007
    Messages:
    113
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    South Shields, England
    YE I AM BBZ. ;>
    But average is fine with me.
    Small? Never had a small one yet. So IDK.
     
  6. Whopper-lee

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2006
    Messages:
    1,602
    Albums:
    9
    Likes Received:
    80
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    USA - Southern boy
    oooooooooK
    Interesting theory..I agree to some degree too...
    :confused:perhaps it kinda explains a few rejections I get from some females when I drop my pants and they say:eek: damn no way you using that on me brotha...sorry!
    They like looking and playing with it but many times don't wanna be bang by it...from some of my experiences.
    I think mother nature has played a cruel joke on some of us with larger than average sized peter to deal with...:frown1::redface:
     
  7. B_andyo

    B_andyo New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2007
    Messages:
    2,009
    Likes Received:
    4
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Miami
    EVOLUTION: hmm well technically in 50k years 90% of guys will fall into the 10-15 inch category...
    Since monkeys chimps have small penises... very small comapred to us.
     
  8. Rubber_JonnyN

    Rubber_JonnyN New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2007
    Messages:
    113
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    South Shields, England
    How did you work out that part? Us being all 10-15 inch?

    Oh I think I know where! Because the monkeys we came from are quite small down there and we're a later stage of them and we have bigger ones than them.
    I get you!
    Yeah, but like I said above, due to us having sex/babies with guys mainly due to their personality etc, it means the selection process where we choose the best guy in every aspect of him is practically non-existent. Personality is not a heriditory gene so I think we'll all be roughly the same size. 6 inches perhaps.
     
  9. dreamer20

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2006
    Messages:
    4,492
    Likes Received:
    4
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    N.Providence
    What article? And what is the link for the article?:confused:
     
  10. Hefty

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2005
    Messages:
    338
    Albums:
    3
    Likes Received:
    500
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Stockholm (SE)
    Have you considered that fact that women in most cases have not had the chance to choose their partner based on penis size at all? Many societies have had, and still have, taboos on premarital sex, for instance. And in many parts of the world marriages are arranged.

    The notion that women have been able "shop around" through history is shortsighted indeed. The world is not Southern California, 1974.
     
  11. pronatalist

    pronatalist Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2007
    Messages:
    1,025
    Likes Received:
    5
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    U.S.
    I kind of doubt that God would just leave such profound things as humans, to "natural selection."

    However, big vaginal birth canals, would be rather beneficial, to help encourage the more easy birthing of lots of precious babies.

    I also think it curious, that after birthing a baby, the birth canal is even more prepared or stretched, for birthing the next baby. And doesn't the stretching of birth help make it all the more impossible for a diaphram to fit? That should tell us something. Humans were not designed to use any means of "birth control," but rather, the body (or God) already sort of "knows" when to get pregnant, and it's better to respect nature and welcome the natural flow of human life.

    Whatever happened to welcoming babies to happen when they happen? Can't anything be "natural" anymore? Must we really "control" everything?
     
  12. Principessa

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2006
    Messages:
    19,494
    Likes Received:
    28
    Gender:
    Female
    I wondered the same thing.


     
  13. Axcess

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2007
    Messages:
    1,648
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
     
  14. pronatalist

    pronatalist Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2007
    Messages:
    1,025
    Likes Received:
    5
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    U.S.
    So? There could be other cues of health that they pick up on, that may relate to reproductive ability.

    What if bigger vaginas simply tend to give birth to more babies, spreading those genes faster, than the norm for the general population, spreading larger families to a greater proportion of the overall growing population, that is, if it really makes much difference?

    Or maybe some guys may shoot off more sperm, or more energetic sperm? Some guy said that most every time he took off his pants, his wife got pregnant, and they had 5 children before they did anything about it. Of course I probably said, well why stop at five, right when you are on a roll?

    Even pheromones may make some difference, or the smells of humans, relating to sex, that we may scarcely even notice on the conscious level? Do we really understand so well, what naturally attracts us to a particular member of the opposite sex?
     
  15. snoozan

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2006
    Messages:
    3,568
    Likes Received:
    4
    This whole line of reasoning has been beaten to death by people who don't fully understand evolution. A trait must be actively selected for it to to evolve in any meaningful direction-- and I doubt that women have ever had much of a chance of choosing a mate based on penis size. In general, women have chosen or been chosen (or forced) as mates without seeing a man's penis. Few women today (aside from those on this site) choose a mate primarily or even largely on penis size, which is what would be required.

    Mind you, I'm not saying that vaginas and penises haven't evolved-- but only on the very extreme ends that would truly make procreating impossible such that an already paired couple couldn't complete intercourse.



    It's slightly more complex than this outside of royalty, but yes, I agree with you.

     
  16. _avg_

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2007
    Messages:
    1,704
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    10
    "Each and everyone of you is a product of natural selection."

    And mutation. And genetic drift. And stochastic events.

    "Guys, that means that your daddies, and their daddies, and their daddies... were PICKED (ie selected) by the women of their time. If they didn't like what they saw or felt in dick size, presumably they would have left and found someone else."

    False assumption. Penis size is one (almost neglibile?) factor in mate selection and reproductive success.

    Theory = FAIL.
     
  17. kman2000

    kman2000 New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Messages:
    26
    Likes Received:
    0
    Almost every post in this thread is garbage. And to pronatalist, it seems that everyone who bashes evolution is very ignorant on the matter. I have no problem with religion (in fact I think it can be a great thing and can provide some morality to life), but the bible was written before the world was more scientifically understood. And it was written by man, not God. And a committee chose which books were truly 'divine'. Yes, a committee of people. And since they could not have experienced heaven or seen God, they had no more knowledge of the matter than you or me. And they chose which books were 'true'. This basically means that there is a 99.9999% chance that a) some books were included which are not divine, b) some books were excluded that were divine, or c) both. Basically, I can't believe in a word of the Bible because there's almost a 100% chance that something is wrong. And if I don't know what's wrong, I don't know what's right. I think the Bible is a nice story with some good general moral guidelines and should be treated as such, but the religious fundamentalism associated with it is ridiculous.

    The Universe is much older than the Bible would lead you to believe. Evolution HAS occurred, IS occurring, and WILL occur. If you knew how similar we were to every single-celled bacteria in existence, would you still doubt that we evolved from a common ancestor? Microevolution is PROVEN to take place. Look at the evolution of bacteria and viruses. The Flu evolves every year (look at the avian flu, strain H5 N1). HIV is evolving drug-resistance (this is BAD). Even the MECHANISM of evolving drug resistance by HIV and other viruses, and especially bacteria (which are selected for every day in labs all over the world) has been determined. Evolution IS occurring.

    I'm a very logical person. BUT, I will admit that I believe in God. Just not evolution. And I don't think God has any control over what happens (he just watches). Why do I believe in God? Probably because I want to believe that there's something greater out there. My beliefs are riddled with inconsistencies because of my belief in God. The only excuse I can think of is that God was present before the Big Bang. Yes, I'm trying to rationalize superstition. The point I'm trying to get across is that I'm not some atheist trying to bring down your religion. I'm saying that evolution exists, and that everything on Earth (and in the Universe) is due to random occurrences. Go read the Age of Reason by Thomas Payne (or go watch the first part of the movie Zeitgeist, available freely online).

    [edit]Just to clarify, I'm not suggesting that penis size is evolving noticeably during our present time -- it takes a LONG time for change like that -- see my other post on the matter in another evolution thread[/edit]
     
  18. Narcisse

    Narcisse Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2007
    Messages:
    137
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    The original post is so wrong, so full of misconceptions about evolution that I don't even know were to start.

    I suggest you learn a little bit more about anthropology
     
  19. Principessa

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2006
    Messages:
    19,494
    Likes Received:
    28
    Gender:
    Female
    Yes, you are correct. I should have made the stipulation that usually only happend in the upper classes. I'm guessing the serfs and peasants married for love or something close to it. :wink:
     
  20. CaptainChaos

    CaptainChaos New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2007
    Messages:
    153
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Canada
    everything that we are is a product of evolution. The fact is that human penis' are much larger than those of our evolutionary ancestors. this is a long process that takes 100's of thousands of years.

    religion has nothing to do with anything. it is an outdated attempt at explaining the natural world before science. "man's response to the unknown"
     
Draft saved Draft deleted