My theory on size evolution

B_superlarge

Experimental Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2007
Posts
912
Media
0
Likes
10
Points
163
My theory on the evolution of penis size. I saw some of this in either Mens Health or Mens Journal.


Humans have very large cocks relative to other
primates. The natural assumption is that females
prefer larger cocked men as partners and as such the
penis is getting larger as we evolve.

Let me offer a differing theory. I think the human
enlarged penis evolved early in modern man’s history
as a sign stimulus for other males, not females. As
man began to walk upright, his cock became more
visible to others. Possibly, the larger the penis, the
more dominant the male. The more dominant the male the
more females with which he was able to copulate.
Females to this day are attracted to powerful males.
The more females he screwed the more offspring he had
and the more his large cock genes were passed down.

Also the most powerful primates on earth, the 500
pound gorilla has a 2 inch penis. No one can see his
penis, he walks on all fours, and his dominance in his
group is strictly due to his strength.

Powerful dominant male primates engage in dominance
humping, where the dom males will hump smaller weaker
males as a sign of their power and place. We even can
see a bit of that here on LPSG, where the currency is
cock size, there is no doubt that the larger cocked
men are prized over smaller men. Small men are not
excluded but there is this underlying buzz by both
men and women that big cocks rule the site. Project
that back 250000 years, and I don’t think it has
changed.

Also look at how much the MEN here praise big dicks.
The men here know their place generally and we sort it
out by size. Gay men praise and drool over large cocks
much more than the women. Both gay and straight men
post pictures and videos of internet monsters they
have found with a kind of reverence. Women here enjoy
looking at the big ones but they don’t obsess over it.
Men obsess over it here just like I think they did
250000 years ago. We even see here smaller men offering their women to larger men ostensibly to please the woman but more as I think as this weird voyeur thing. YOu don't see women suggesting that their males go fuck virgins so they can watch. Its strictly a male pre occupation with size.

However, as man became more civilized, the real
currency that exists today that women want to
associate with is power. That is what they wanted
250000 years ago, not penis size. Now power is
defined not by cock size but by material wealth.
Beautiful women flock to powerful men, of that there
can be no question. Jack Welch the powerful former
head of GE said it best,, “money is better than a
full head of hair in getting women.” And it is far
better than being well endowed in getting females.
Genghis Khan’s genes likely still exist today in large
numbers because he literally fucked thousands of women
in his conquering of Asia and Europe. His power
allowed him to fuck all those women.

What is power today? It is being gainfully employed
for one. The more gainfully employed you are the more
likely you are to have access to females. And honestly
the more money you have the better looking the females
you get to fuck. Hugh Hefner anyone?

And today? Economic power is flowing to Asia,
especially China and India. I won’t talk about penis
size cause it is such a hot button, but testicle size
is smaller in Asians and larger in Africans. Whites
are in the middle. Africans are falling further and
further behind the rest of the world in every
conceivable measure and they are still subject to
severe famine and epidemics like AIDS. In my opinion
testicles (and cocks) are getting smaller, not larger
as Asians are beginning to acquire power.

Interesting thought, but polls indicate the standard theory is correct, as most women state a preference for penis of some extra size, and extra girth wins by a landslide. Even women who have some physical or mental reason to prefer average state that the sight of a big one is extra turn on eye candy.
 

Wyldgusechaz

Experimental Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2006
Posts
1,258
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
183
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Interesting thought, but polls indicate the standard theory is correct, as most women state a preference for penis of some extra size, and extra girth wins by a landslide. Even women who have some physical or mental reason to prefer average state that the sight of a big one is extra turn on eye candy.

What polls? Penis size is so far down the list of attributes women seek in a partner as to be insignificant. Any polls I have read are pure junk science.

Women DO NOT pick their partners based on penis size. Height, symmetry, intelligence, material wealth, body proportion are WAY more important.
 

Adam875

Experimental Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2004
Posts
646
Media
0
Likes
12
Points
238
Location
UK
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
What polls? Penis size is so far down the list of attributes women seek in a partner as to be insignificant. Any polls I have read are pure junk science.

Women DO NOT pick their partners based on penis size. Height, symmetry, intelligence, material wealth, body proportion are WAY more important.

Yes, I would agree, judging merely from comments (on the odd occasion) that I have heard women pass. The man with the super-dong is more often regarded as a curio and even a joke.

But what of gay men? The reproductive and gene-passing element is absent here, of course, and the fascination and attraction is invariably derived from penis-desire, and the larger the better. Though this may be true of most casual contacts, does it apply, I wonder - any more than in the heterosexual sphere - to enduring gay partnerships? What might be the qualities that draw two men into 'marriage' as distinct from the one-night stand?
 

D_Earlsomme Eatsprick

Sexy Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2006
Posts
186
Media
0
Likes
40
Points
163
I have something to say, especially about the female choice and what is the "best male".

Generally speaking, IS the "best male" - the male that could give the best descent to a female - always the male preferred by the females?

NOT.

***

Different typologies of humans evolved in different environments and in different environments there are different pressures of natural selection. The point is that natural selection is not always in the same direction of female preference. Even if female would like (for example) 6.8 tall men, if the natural selection say that the optimal height is 5.5, the best men a female could choice is absolutely NOT the 6.8 tall men.

Well, and then why female do prefer 6.8 tall men?

IN some species of birds, females like males with a disprotionately long tail, and if you artificially extend the tail of a male in a population, this male will be the preferred by ALL the females in the group. But, if in the nature there is NOT such a most preferred male with a super long tail, there is a reason: it is harder to survive in the natural environment with a very long tail and a male with a super long tail would be preyed after 5 min. and BEFORE to be selected by a female and having descent.
In fact, the female choice to prefer the longest tail is good only if there is NOT in the population a male with the most preferred tail. Because THE MOST preferred male is a loser that is not able to run away from predators.

Conclusion: Paradoxically, the most preferred male is NOT the best male. This female preference is adaptative only because some other environmental factors prevent the most preferred male to exist or is really unlikely to meet him.
 

B_superlarge

Experimental Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2007
Posts
912
Media
0
Likes
10
Points
163
What polls? Penis size is so far down the list of attributes women seek in a partner as to be insignificant. Any polls I have read are pure junk science.

Women DO NOT pick their partners based on penis size. Height, symmetry, intelligence, material wealth, body proportion are WAY more important.

How about one by Psychology Today? Sure, penis size is down on the list, but it isn't an insignificant factor. As we evolve people are getting taller, intelligence is becoming greater, and penis size is getting bigger (though at a slower rate). Penis size counts but must give way to other factors that impact women more since we don't live but a very small percentage of our lives fucking them with our penises. Males do put more emphasis on penis size because males are naturally competitive with other males, but that doesn't mean penis size doesn't count to women. If more lifetime was lived in the bedroom having sex it would count even more to women. Plus, don't forget about size queens as if they don't exist. They aren't as rare as some guys choose to think.

Psychology Today: Men's bodies--the survey
 

Wyldgusechaz

Experimental Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2006
Posts
1,258
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
183
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
How about one by Psychology Today? Sure, penis size is down on the list, but it isn't an insignificant factor. As we evolve people are getting taller, intelligence is becoming greater, and penis size is getting bigger (though at a slower rate). Penis size counts but must give way to other factors that impact women more since we don't live but a very small percentage of our lives fucking them with our penises. Males do put more emphasis on penis size because males are naturally competitive with other males, but that doesn't mean penis size doesn't count to women. If more lifetime was lived in the bedroom having sex it would count even more to women. Plus, don't forget about size queens as if they don't exist. They aren't as rare as some guys choose to think.

Psychology Today: Men's bodies--the survey

Where did you get this nonsense? Penis size is getting SMALLER! The cradle of humanity is Africa, where the largest testicles can be found. The further you get from Africa, the smaller the testicles. Asian men and Native Americans have scientifically measured smaller testicles and I would venture smaller cocks.

I would also, although this might be more controversial, you COULD make an argument that as intelligence (or better male industriousness) goes up, testicle size goes down. Lets be honest, Africa is falling behind the rest of the world in general by decades and decades in terms of education and human creativity.
 

B_superlarge

Experimental Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2007
Posts
912
Media
0
Likes
10
Points
163
Very well put, everyone. And I, for one, would rather date a well developed brain over cock any day. Much more attractive.

What about the one night stands. I think penis size goes up some rungs then. It's quite obvious brains usually lose out in nightclub environments where many people are often willing to encounter a physical hookup knowing it very well may not lead to more.
 

Wyldgusechaz

Experimental Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2006
Posts
1,258
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
183
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
What about the one night stands. I think penis size goes up some rungs then. It's quite obvious brains usually lose out in nightclub environments where many people are often willing to encounter a physical hookup knowing it very well may not lead to more.

You kidding right? Facial attractiveness, body form like broad shoulders catch lady's eyes but if you have no charm or game(read intelligence) you are toast. And how would a lady/girl know a guy's dick size in a club?

I have said this b/4, only the village(dumb from the get go) idiot would trade a speck of intelligence for an increase in cock size. Women crave intelligence in a partner. The smarter you are, the more women to which you will have access(if of course you use that intelligence to be successful). And lets define intelligence. I am not talking very selective geek intelligence like being an IT wiz. I am talking broad ability to talk about stuff, about engaging a women's mind first.
 

B_superlarge

Experimental Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2007
Posts
912
Media
0
Likes
10
Points
163
You kidding right? Facial attractiveness, body form like broad shoulders catch lady's eyes but if you have no charm or game(read intelligence) you are toast. And how would a lady/girl know a guy's dick size in a club?

I'm mainly talking about looks winning out over intelligence in nightclub settings. The brain is not the sexiest thing in those settings. I've witnessed it many times: Guys move in with nothing more than simple chit chat. The chicks like the attention and the guy seems cool enough and just might be some FUN.

Engage their minds? You're the one who's got to be kidding. In those settings if a guy tries to engage their minds with something other than mere chit chat the vast majority of those chicks will not be leaving with him, if any. I've seen guys try it and it doesn't work. I even tried it before I came to realise it just doesn't turn chicks on in party atmospheres.
 

B_superlarge

Experimental Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2007
Posts
912
Media
0
Likes
10
Points
163
Also, something I forgot to include when the phone rang: Chicks in nightclubs may not can tell penis size on most guys in the club, but that doesn't keep them from shoe size, hands size, and bulge size watching in the hope they may get an indication. SOME women bulge watch in the public, a LOT of women bulge watch in nightclubs. It's all too obvious.
 

D_Earlsomme Eatsprick

Sexy Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2006
Posts
186
Media
0
Likes
40
Points
163
You kidding right? Facial attractiveness, body form like broad shoulders catch lady's eyes but if you have no charm or game(read intelligence) you are toast. And how would a lady/girl know a guy's dick size in a club?

I have said this b/4, only the village(dumb from the get go) idiot would trade a speck of intelligence for an increase in cock size. Women crave intelligence in a partner. The smarter you are, the more women to which you will have access(if of course you use that intelligence to be successful). And lets define intelligence. I am not talking very selective geek intelligence like being an IT wiz. I am talking broad ability to talk about stuff, about engaging a women's mind first.

I agree. Scientific studies on male attractive features, like body proportion or size, are made regardless all the others features linked to the movements, the personality, the social abilities...because, in these studies, the controlled female choice is usually made on pics.
As a consequence, these studies exclude all the characteristics that distinguish a men from a dummy. In other words, if a female is forced so choice between different dummies, she would select those with some facial features or broad shoulders :rolleyes:
This tell us almost nothing really significant about the real female choice, and especially nothing about the relative importance of those features that make of a "subject" a true living human being (and not a dummy).
 

D_Terry_Misue

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2007
Posts
375
Media
0
Likes
67
Points
163
Sexuality
No Response
PHP:
Humans have very large cocks relative to other primates.
The natural assumption is that females prefer larger cocked 
men as partners and as such the penis is getting larger
as we evolve.


Evolution, in the most basic context, is about competetion for resources and differential reproduction. Accordingly, only those traits that increase the fittness of the individual play a direct role in sexual selection, that is natural selection for mating success.

Sexual selection rarely appears as linear as it is assumed in this case. Females may prefer men with larger cocks, but it can be applied to sexual selection only if a man with a larger penis is more 'fit' to survive. In other words having a larger penis must advertise ones overall fitness.

The peacock (easy target for jokes, I know :smile:) has a tail that, superfically at least, appears as a disadvantage. However, the male with the longest, most robust tail that can still survive in the wild has the best genes. Also, the colors of the feathers in the tail, if they are bright and beautiful, say to available females that this bird is able to find the best food, thus he is the best mate choice because the resulting offspring will have the best available genes. It is all about advertisement.

PHP:
I think the human enlarged penis evolved early
 in modern man’s history
as a sign stimulus for other males, not females. 
As man began to walk upright, his cock became 
more visible to others. Possibly, the larger the penis, 
the more dominant the male. The more dominant the 
male the more females with which he was able to
 copulate.  Females to this day are attracted to
 powerful males.  The more females he screwed 
the more offspring he had and the more his large 
cock genes were passed down.

This would truly be a case of intrasexual selection if only the strongest, most fit males had big dicks. We all know that is not the case. What about alll those skinny dudes that have huge cocks? What about the stud at the gym thats built like a brick shithouse to compensate for his small cock? If the guy with the biggest dick had the best genes and was the most fit to survive, then he would be the preferential mate choice for females. However, saying a big dick is an advertisement for fittness is like saying that height or weight is an advertisement for fittness. Many traits expressed in organisms fall under the catergory of 'continuous phenotypes' (like height or skin color in humans); that is to say that the population expesses a continuum of possibilities for that trait and the expression has more to do with prevailing environmental conditions than genetic fitness. I am not sure if dick size is a continuous phenotype, but I'm quite sure it is not an advertisement for overall genetic fittness.

PHP:
 We even can see a bit of that here on LPSG, 
where the currency is
cock size, there is no doubt that the larger cocked 
men are prized over smaller men. Small men are not
 excluded but there is this underlying buzz by both
 men and women that big cocks rule the site. 
Project that back 250000 years, and I don’t 
think it has changed.

LPSG can not be considered a fair representation of real life evolutionary biology. The community here can not be considered an accurate random sampling of the human population, thus, though the dynamics are interesting here, data from this site can not be accuratley used to extrapolate scenerios 250,000 years in the past (most estimates put our species at about 160,000 years old).

All in all, I would like to stress that this is only my opinion and in no way am I discrediting anyone else's ideas. It is great to see some sciece on here instead of just comparing which reality show guy has the biggest bulge :smile:
 

Boobalaa

Legendary Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2007
Posts
5,535
Media
0
Likes
1,185
Points
258
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
Richard Dawkins mentions in one of his books,..One of the reasons homonids may have first stood up on two legs was to show the female how happy he was to see her..
 

earllogjam

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2006
Posts
4,917
Media
0
Likes
179
Points
193
Sexuality
No Response
Many battles between males of all species are highly ritualized. They don't really fight, they just display. Large antlers or beating the chest and making threat postures. Just standing upright with a huge erection, bigger than than opponent may have been enough to discourage a real fight.

Also perhaps the most hung male would have the support of the group if he were threatened.

Interesting, but you are assuming that our hominid ancesors were small dicked. Perhaps they were larger than us? Perhaps the dicks of gorillas and chimps actually shrunk from our common ancestor?

Also most early homosapiens who lived outside the equatorial belt wore clothing as a survival necessity covering the genitals most of the time and I would imagine the dick probably was not out on display most of the time.

I also question the archtype that all cultures in the world are as penis sized obsessed and it is an innate quality that is revered. I have a feeling that it is more culturally specific, much like looped earlobes, neck length, calf thickness, tatoos and other physical qualities of what people think is beautiful and esteemed in certain societies. I think there are lots of guys with big dicks who are not valued in any society simply because it does not convey a survival advantage. It is not like a guy with a big dick produces better sperm.
 

andysmith

Just Browsing
Joined
Feb 8, 2008
Posts
53
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
91
You kidding right? Facial attractiveness, body form like broad shoulders catch lady's eyes but if you have no charm or game(read intelligence) you are toast. And how would a lady/girl know a guy's dick size in a club?

I have said this b/4, only the village(dumb from the get go) idiot would trade a speck of intelligence for an increase in cock size. Women crave intelligence in a partner. The smarter you are, the more women to which you will have access(if of course you use that intelligence to be successful). And lets define intelligence. I am not talking very selective geek intelligence like being an IT wiz. I am talking broad ability to talk about stuff, about engaging a women's mind first.


yayyyyy a guy whos educated and actually read about it