Is Large Penis Size a Recent Evolutionary Change?

Discussion in 'The Healthy Penis' started by B_quietguy, Dec 30, 2008.

  1. B_quietguy

    B_quietguy New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2005
    Messages:
    1,286
    Likes Received:
    5
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Bay Area, California
    According to some recent articles in Scientific American magazine, biologists recently discovered that humans have gone through a lot of evolutionary changes in just the last 10,000 years. By comparing DNA from people around the globe and compared recent DNA to those of human remains from centuries ago, scientists found that at least 7 percent of human genes underwent evolution as recently as 5,000 years ago. This is fascinating, because we don't see as much evolutionary change in the preceding 200,000 years before that. We are evolving at a rate 100 times faster than any time since we split off from the chimpanzees 5 million years ago.

    Many of the recent genetic changes are in genes related to diet, brain structures or immunity. The changes related to immunity makes sense in if you consider that humanity has come into increased contact with animals (cows, goats, chickens, etc...) and that people with robust immune systems are likely to survive and reproduce. Furthermore, by living in cities more and more often over the last 10 thousand years, humans have become exposed to open sewage. As for genetic changes related to brain structures, I guess that means smarter people were more likely to pass on their genes than those with below average intelligence. Genes which regulate dietary metabolism changed a lot because we now eat foods which our ancestors never dreamed of. (e.g. - cheese, breads, rice, high fructose corn syrup, etc....)

    Now, we also know that humans have a larger penis compared to our primate relatives, the gorillas, chimpanzees, and bonobos. We've got larger penises both in terms of absolute size and compared to overall body size. However, we have no idea when large penises evolved among our ancestors. To put it bluntly, there are no penises in the fossil record - just hard body parts like bones and teeth. (Yeah, we like to brag about the hardness of our cocks, but compared to really tough parts like bones and teeth, penises just don't compare.)

    Upon learning how many genes have changed in human history over the last 10,000 years, we can now speculate that the enlargement of human penises occurred recently. It is quite possible that during the last ice age, the average penis was a mere 4 inches or less. The last ice age ended between 10,000 and 15,000 before present. Perhaps since then, the average penis size extended to 6 inches. If true, that merely means that men with longer penises were more likely ot bear offspring than men with shorter organs.

    In a few years, we might be able to determine if genes related to penis size did change within the last 10 thousand years, or if they remain unchanged since before then. Once humans identify which genes affect penis size, we can then compare those genes among different humans alive today and among those in the fossil record to see how recently they changed. The scientific field of molecular evolution provides techniques for determining how long ago a gene may have changed. Indeed, the molecular clock within our DNA has already surprised us with the revelation about how fast we are changing.

    This line of thinking leads to various questions.

    1. Did human penis size really increase that much within historical times?
    2. Will the human penis size continue to increase over hundreds of future generations?
    3. What factors led to humans having a much larger organ than our ape cousins?
     
  2. morano

    morano Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2008
    Messages:
    243
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Chicago
    Hmmmm....ur questions intrigues me...lol.no, but seriously good questions. I guess we'll hAV to wait it out. I know ill be around in 5,000 years (sadly i wont).lmao
     
  3. D_Brecock Evileye

    D_Brecock Evileye New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2008
    Messages:
    783
    Likes Received:
    4
    If any of us were walking around in a loin cloth humting mastadons I am sure our penis would only be four inches long. Other wise it would freeze and fall off. lol All jokes aside, I find this very interesting.
     
  4. Moez???

    Moez??? Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2007
    Messages:
    692
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    121
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    SE Michigan
    weren't humans much shorter too, and this was because we didn't have as much of a diet? couldn't that be the same issue with penis size?
     
  5. D_ExJagSack

    D_ExJagSack New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2008
    Messages:
    158
    Likes Received:
    1
    Womens boobs have grown bigger too.. like 2 cup sizes in the past 50 yrs!!

    WE are evolving at a much slower rate..
     
  6. D_Myer_Dogasflees

    D_Myer_Dogasflees New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2008
    Messages:
    495
    Likes Received:
    3
    'evolving' doesn't always move to the better, and sometimes it's not evolving at all. especially with humanbeings. culture seems to control where we go. not what nature wants, what's best or even what we want. humanbeings are going really no where good, we are going somewhere, but it's limbo as to where. it's usually the people with small penises which marry and have the most children, while the ones who are larger are more promiscuous, but use condoms, something that nature doesn't understand

    my2c
     
  7. B_quietguy

    B_quietguy New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2005
    Messages:
    1,286
    Likes Received:
    5
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Bay Area, California
    Boobs have gotten bigger recently -- but I thought that was due to surgery. Last I checked, surgery was not inherited genetically.

    As for the rate of evolution ... For decades people assumed humans had stopped evolving for about 200,000 years. Recent studies of DNA from different people have shown otherwise. The fact that human DNA changed more in the last 10 thousand years than the previous 5 million came as a complete surprise. So far, the genetic changes are for things which don't show up in the fossil record - like brains, metabolism and immune systems.

    In retrospect, this makes complete sense. For millions of years, our ancestors lived on the African savannah where the climate did not change much - hence little need for evolutionary change. Then within the last few thousand years, humans have undergone so many changes in diet, culture, habitat, and climate. You'd expect the genome to change as well.

    As they say, when the name of the game is "survival of the fittest", then you either adapt or die.
     
  8. B_quietguy

    B_quietguy New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2005
    Messages:
    1,286
    Likes Received:
    5
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Bay Area, California
    Yes, our ancestors from 10 thousand years back were shorter than us today. So were our ancestors from just 300 years ago. At this time, I suspect the increase in height is mostly due to diet, but there could be a genetic component as well. I suppose you could find out by measuring the skeletons of people were generally well fed from centuries ago. People such as kings, Egyptian pharoahs (plenty of those skeletons around!), queens, nobility, religious leaders, etc... If they're skeletons are the same size as modern humans, then you could say the increase in height is mostly (or entirely?) due to diet.

    I don't know of any study which correlates diet with penis size - so I can't answer your second question. If somebody did such a study, we might learn a few things. And if we discovered any connection between them, I'd bet my bottom dollar that almost every man and boy would change his diet.
     
  9. jason_els

    jason_els <img border="0" src="/images/badges/gold_member.gi

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2004
    Messages:
    10,576
    Likes Received:
    25
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Warwick, NY, USA
    There are two variables to penis size: flaccid and erect length.

    Flaccid lengths tend to be greatest in people from warm climates, HOWEVER, you have to look pretty far back to determine where people are really from. A lot of migration has gone on in the past 10,000 years with plenty of people not ending-up where they're from.

    You also have to look at the culture of the people.

    If Betty is out banging clothes on rocks one morning and spots Fred bathing just a bit upstream. She notes that Fred doesn't seem to be too well hung. But then along comes Barney and Barney, though short, has a nice thick and long penis that will give her pleasure. It also looks more, "manly," and that's attractive to her. Betty bats her eyes at Barney and voila! They reproduce. Fred may have a harder time getting a woman. He might have to be a great hunter, a problem solver, or be of high birth in order to compensate for his relative lack of size. Therefore, men with smaller penises are chosen less than men with larger penises.

    All this makes tremendous sense IF women have a say in who they copulate with. But frequently they don't. It is very common for a woman to have no idea what size her future husband is as he wears unrevealing clothing and he's being chose for his ability to provide or improve status for the bride's family. When it comes to genitals, the father in-law only cares that his future son-in-law is fertile and potent.

    Over time, as humans began to wear many clothes and move about the world, an interesting pattern developed. Men in colder climes tended to be growers while men in warmer climes tended to be showers. Why the difference if women don't get to choose what size man she mates with? It may simply be that the man who is a grower stands a better chance of keeping his penis safe and warmer when it's close to the body while the shower's penis doesn't need to retract because it never gets cold. The growers had an environmental advantage over the showers, even if slight.

    We know that some cultures highly prized or have worshiped the penis and considered a large penis to be important. The most notable example of this is Rome where a big dick could get you places in society and the military. Today, the largest penises in Europe are in France and Italy. Is it then coincidence that the culture which celebrated the small penis, Greece, have the smallest penises in Europe?

    How can that be when we know that in both cultures, which are well-documented, women had no freedom to choose their mates? There is no advantage in having a penis of a certain size if size is not a criteria for choosing a mate.

    I'd love to read more on this because it is fascinating. Male genitals are so infrequently displayed in any culture and women so restricted in choosing mates, that I wonder if and when penis size did play a part in natural selection.

    Perhaps with greater sexual and social freedom and power, western women will now make penis size an important factor in choosing a potential sex partner if not a mate. Girls talk about penis size a lot these days and men are more worried than ever about measuring-up. It's my guess is that penis size is just again become a criteria for choosing sex partners in a way that we may not have seen for a very long time.
     
    #9 jason_els, Dec 31, 2008
    Last edited: Dec 31, 2008
  10. Steve26

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2001
    Messages:
    844
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    350
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    New Hampshire + Massachusetts
    Interesting post, jason_els, but I have to disagree with you on a few points.

    You don't specify an era during which Romans supposedly placed a premium on large penises, but Renaissance artwork suggests quite strongly that by the 1500s (which I suspect is more recent than the epoch you're thinking of), a small penis was actually viewed as the masculine ideal in the city-states constituting modern-day Italy. One needs look no further than Michelangelo's statue of David, completed in 1504, to see this. As a giant-slayer, David is masculinity and strength incarnate. But as portrayed in Michelangelo's statue, I think this paragon of manliness could charitably be called less than well-endowed.

    Also, I'd like to know your source for your statements regarding the size of penises in various European nations, which IMO don't hold much water.

    Finally, I strongly doubt that "perhaps ... western women will now make penis size an important factor in choosing a potential sex partner if not a mate." If women really cared that deeply about the size of our penises, there'd be a lot more of them here on LPSG. The relative dearth of women on this site speaks volumes about how little most of them care about penis size.

    Steve
     
  11. Symphonic

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2008
    Messages:
    1,753
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    48
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Minneapolis (MN, US)
    It's not due to evolution. We are pumping more HGH into our food, and teens are eating it; drinking milk will make your penis bigger during puberty because of the HGH in it. Same for boobies.
     
  12. vince

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2007
    Messages:
    14,785
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    540
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Asia
    So now instead of saying, "Mine's bigger than yours", I can say, "I'm more evolved than you". Cool.
     
  13. B_quietguy

    B_quietguy New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2005
    Messages:
    1,286
    Likes Received:
    5
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Bay Area, California
    Jason, you present some intriguing ideas, but is there any proof that people in warmer climates have longer flaccid cocks? Without presenting any evidence, at best I'd call your claim an unverified assertion and perhaps just speculation. At least in my original post on this thread, I gave links to show where I learned which information, and specified which parts of my post were speculative.


    Ah, even if women or men have no ability to choose their partners, and even if women have no idea how large their partners organs are, there could still be a selection for large penises. I can think of three ways in which evolution can still select for large penises even if everyone is monogamous and can't select their mates.

    If a woman has only one partner for her entire life and his large penis gives her a lot of pleasure, she may choose to copulate quite often. More copulation leads to more babies. On the other hand, if he has a small penis and does not give her much pleasure, she may rebuff his invitations more often than accepting them. Less sex leads to fewer babies.

    Consider that a man with a small penis will deposit sperm closer to the vaginal opening, but a man with a large penis will deposit sperm closer to the cervix. Which man's sperm is more likely to flow out of the vagina and get wasted? Whose sperm is more likely to enter her womb?

    Thirdly, if large penises are due to high testosterone levels, and that hormone also makes men horny, then there might be an indirect selection. Horny men will want sex more often than less libidinous men. If there is any correlation between libido and penis size, and also a correlation between libido and siring more children, then I'd expect to see a correlation between penis size and siring more children.


    This is turning into a rather interesting thread.
     
  14. Wrist_thick10

    Verified Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2004
    Messages:
    822
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    352
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    Verified:
    Photo
    I wondered the same thing. For example, did large dickheads evolve to protect the cervix? It's probably not a recent evolutonary change because, as much as a woman may enjoy, or want a large penis to have sex with, she initally goes after the guy, not the penis. I would guess the average woman has no idea what size a guy's penis is, until they have sex. It's kinda like Cracker-Jacks.
     

    Attached Files:

  15. jason_els

    jason_els <img border="0" src="/images/badges/gold_member.gi

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2004
    Messages:
    10,576
    Likes Received:
    25
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Warwick, NY, USA
    My numbers regarding European ethnicity are the results of a study done by the Institut für Kondomberatung which gave the relative penis sizes of European males by nationality. The Greeks and Irish (the Celtic curse) came in last.

    As to the grower/shower thing, I can't find anything that verifies that but it seems to be the CW. I'd like to find something that verifies it.

    The Roman period I'm talking about is pre-fall so up to about the mid 5th century CE. David appears smaller than he should because he's frightened. Other depicitions of phalluses of the Renaissance era vary from life-like to smaller than average. Much of this is because of the aesthetic legacy of the Greeks. Rome was big on Greek aesthetics and to sculpt in the Greek manner was the norm and that meant depicting men with genitals somewhat less than full-sized.

    Real life was, however, very different. Of all people, Leonardo da Vinci likely had the most impact on the depiction of male genitals in western art. After the fall of Rome and with the rise of the Catholic church, the nude male figure disappeared nearly completely. Even Adam was depicted with fig leaves or a strategically-placed branch. About the only nude figure allowed was the infant Jesus. In the few bits of secular art from the medieval period, mostly from northern Europe, which do depict nude males, their genitals are also shown only crudely and diminutively. This comes from church influence which sent the male nude underground in the first place. Genitals were naughty things and best not to show them at all, but if you did, better make them inconspicuous.

    da Vinci changed all that. The Renaissance Italian dynasties weren't terribly pious and had no need to be. The pope was Italian and could usually be persuaded, if not outright influenced, by the various Renaissance dynasties. da Vinci actually dissected penises, something the church strictly forbade everywhere else, and saw the inner workings of the organ. He did not feel the need to make the penis inconspicuous. Instead, he depicted penises naturally and fully-grown. This caused a sensation and with da Vinci's liberation of the penis, came the other great Renaissance tribute to the cock, the codpiece. Codpieces were nothing new as trousers hadn't been invented yet, but for the most part they remained inconspicuous articles of clothing frequently hidden beneath tunics. Renaissance fashion changed to shorter tunics and much more ornamented codpieces of outrageous proportions. In Renaissance Italy, a man of means went about with a jeweled codpiece slightly upturned at the end perhaps to accomodate erection without constriction. By the end of the Renaissance, the conspicuous codpiece had reached all over Europe and so had nude art containing adult-sized genitals. See, A Mind of Its Own for a really fascinating look at how the penis has been treated in western art and culture throughout history.
     
  16. jason_els

    jason_els <img border="0" src="/images/badges/gold_member.gi

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2004
    Messages:
    10,576
    Likes Received:
    25
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Warwick, NY, USA
    There's a theory that the glans penis evolved to scoop out the semen of sexual rivals from the vagina. There's a lot of controversy around the theory, but there it is. The study also showed that longer penises stand a better chance of keeping semen in the vagina.
     
  17. No_Strings

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2007
    Messages:
    4,100
    Likes Received:
    6
    I can't remember where I first read it, but that's what I've always thought ot be true.

    Maybe, Jason, there really was a time when women would gather and lay themselves upon a rock face, and it was our job to sniff them out and go to it? One guy at a time, of course. :cool::biggrin1:
     
  18. jason_els

    jason_els <img border="0" src="/images/badges/gold_member.gi

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2004
    Messages:
    10,576
    Likes Received:
    25
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Warwick, NY, USA
    I doubt that. My guess is it's due to infidelity. Women cheat more than men do and are actually genetically programmed to do so, perhaps even more than men. Women invest far more in child rearing than men so it's likely that they find a good guy, bed him, but then see an even better one come along and bed him too and then another. As one man can impregnate many women in relatively rapid succession, it doesn't surprise me that the glans has been adapted to be a weapon in the battle to successfully mate.
     
  19. crossy

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2007
    Messages:
    1,349
    Likes Received:
    4
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Arizona
    The infant Jesus was born with 2 inches flaccid. By the time of His Bar Mitzvah his organ approached the length of two fountain pens.

    See Flavius Josephus Antiquities Chap 2 ("GLANS PENIS (1a),upturned codpieces and salvation", (1b) Jesus's Haftorah.)
     
    #19 crossy, Dec 31, 2008
    Last edited: Dec 31, 2008
  20. crossy

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2007
    Messages:
    1,349
    Likes Received:
    4
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Arizona
    Some men have a very tiny glans and an enormous shaft. I agree about the adaptation of the glans to be a weapon...
     
Draft saved Draft deleted