penis size and evolution (semen displacement theory, etc.)

Incocknito

Sexy Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2009
Posts
2,480
Media
0
Likes
67
Points
133
Location
La monde
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Egyptian fertility god:

http://raysavant.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/minegyptianfertilitygod.jpg

There are others. I wasn't just talking about Greek gods as you seem to be. Also note "fertility" gods in my previous posts. I wasn't talking about all gods, just the fertility ones.

Also Adam was a man and not a god. So it makes sense that he would have a normal (mansized) penis.
 

DeepDish

Experimental Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2008
Posts
569
Media
2
Likes
9
Points
103
Location
USA
Gender
Male
The "semen displacement theory" is meant to explain why humans have larger penises than other PRIMATES

It has nothing to do with why a small percentage of humans have bigger penises than most humans.
 

paigexox

Sexy Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2010
Posts
1,048
Media
37
Likes
56
Points
83
Age
38
The "semen displacement theory" is meant to explain why humans have larger penises than other PRIMATES

It has nothing to do with why a small percentage of humans have bigger penises than most humans.

Exactly, this isn't about big dick superiority amongst humans, that's taking it out of context.
 

mexdude

Experimental Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2009
Posts
450
Media
2
Likes
4
Points
103
Location
Mexico
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Only in recent history, not long enough to affect human evolution
Well, 50,000 years are quite a lot fucky fucky :biggrin1:, and its a good time, for something like that to develop by selection of mates, and either is going hyper slow, or not going that way
 

Triasco

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Posts
734
Media
46
Likes
2,804
Points
423
Location
Savannah (Georgia, United States)
Verification
View
Gender
Male
Quote: The "semen displacement theory" is meant to explain why humans have larger penises than other PRIMATES

It has nothing to do with why a small percentage of humans have bigger penises than most humans.

Originally Posted by DeepDish [URL]http://www.lpsg.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif[/URL]
The "semen displacement theory" is meant to explain why humans have larger penises than other PRIMATES

It has nothing to do with why a small percentage of humans have bigger penises than most humans.

Exactly, this isn't about big dick superiority amongst humans, that's taking it out of context.

True as that may be, it still an interesting topic to discuss. At least, I think so.

Also, petite, I was reading the following in your post and was suddenly struck by an intriguing thought:

Considering the fact that women haven't had a choice about whom they mated with, being smaller and weaker before advanced civilization, and once civilization advanced they were generally considered property or second class citizens, and observing how humans behave now, I believe it's been selection by men who are responsible for human penis size, and not selection by women.

You are, I think, indeed right in saying that men are the ones making much ado about larger penises. And you also mentioned in your last post that we are social animals. Perhaps it is not that penises are actually evolving into larger and larger organs, but that we are becoming more aware of large penises. It sound oh so much clearer in my head, but I apply my view on the Big Black Cock stereotype: It fulfills itself because those with larger penises are taught to value their size and are more likely to seek out attention for it, while those who are average or underaverage, belittled for their bits and discouraged by their dongers, choose not to seek out attention in fear of rejection.

Originally, I was going to suggest that, perhaps, the shift in attitude toward large penises could be the reason behind its evolution, but I'm no biologist or scientist in that regard, and I have no idea how long it would take. I don't think it would happen quickly enough to coincide with my idea of the big penis gaining the spotlight as America gained its "Bigger is Better" attitude. Also not a history major, so I can't give a precise (or even general) idea of when that attitude was taken.

Of course, these could just be silly notions. I have a tendency to take them shopping and indulge them.
 
Last edited:

Incocknito

Sexy Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2009
Posts
2,480
Media
0
Likes
67
Points
133
Location
La monde
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Females have all the power in sexual relationships. This is in all species and exists even today in human society.

A woman can go out and fuck any man she wants. A man can go out but can only have a shag if the woman wants to shag him.

So I'm not sure prehistoric sex was any different. ie why would a woman have to be "small and weak" and get gang raped. Surely any number of her love rivals would beat the shit out of a potential rapist?

Of course this is just speculation. But the pattern is that women have the power in sexual relationships and choose their mates, not the other way around. Men have very little choice. 90% of males in the animal kingdom die as virgins.
 

paigexox

Sexy Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2010
Posts
1,048
Media
37
Likes
56
Points
83
Age
38
True as that may be, it still an interesting topic to discuss. At least, I think so.

One word of caution, the source probably doesn't generalize itself well outside of the "past" evolution and why the *average* human being has taken on a certain form.

1. Because it's a theoretical article, so it has zero comparative power -- it can't rule out competing hypotheses
2. This thread is sort of a mish-mash of science, social stereotypes, and personal conjecture

Maybe I am just a hard-ass and find it a fruitless debate because you're not going to uncover anything :tongue:, but by all means, continue in the name of discussion, and I shall read it! :wink:
 

Gaydane

Sexy Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2006
Posts
236
Media
0
Likes
75
Points
248
Location
Copenhagen
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
I didn´t know that human penises were large...

For example compared to elephants and horses, mans penis is a micro penis LOL
 

technopeasant

Experimental Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2007
Posts
257
Media
0
Likes
24
Points
163
Look around this site some and you will find that a whole lot of large penises probably about an equal amount have a large shaft and a small head that looks like it was made penetrate. Then there are those with bulbous heads that look like they would kill. If evolution in this theory were responsible then the large heads should dominate. This theory is likely hogwash since women don't care half as much as men about penis size. This doesn't take into account the normal size penises and lower end of the statistical spectrum. The large penises in this theory really only make up about 30% of the spectrum thus the theory doesn't hold water In my opinion, which is worth about as much as anyone elses.
 

petite

Expert Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Posts
7,199
Media
2
Likes
146
Points
208
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Female
The "semen displacement theory" is meant to explain why humans have larger penises than other PRIMATES

It has nothing to do with why a small percentage of humans have bigger penises than most humans.

I don't know why you felt that you needed to say this, unless you've misunderstood it's relevancy to how the human penis probably evolved...

Yes, we realize that the theory has to do with why humans have larger penises than primates. The relevancy of humans selecting the largest penis males is directly related to the process by which average penises become larger over time. The process of evolving one trait or another involves the greater survival or reproductive success of the individuals in a species that have the most extreme form of that trait, which occurs on a feedback loop wherein that particular trait develops. Did you read my example about peacocks and how they developed? It's basic evolutionary theory. The average length of the peacock tail is now as long as it is because in the past the peacocks with the longest tails kept getting selected, so the question is, "Why were the longest tails more successful?" It's simply the same question here.

Hence, in order to develop the average size penis of the modern human male, long long ago, the largest males among the proto-humans kept passing on their genes at a higher rate than the average male at the time, driving the average size of the human penis up. What we are discussing are the possible reasons why the largest males had an advantage, and what by what mechanism that feedback loop occurred. I say it was social, males with higher social standing had the opportunity to marry/mate more often, hence the discussion about the behavior of humans to consider larger penises to be convey symbolic meaning of superiority.

Exactly, this isn't about big dick superiority amongst humans, that's taking it out of context.

I think maybe you have missed the point about why we're discussing how a social animals' social behavior would affect it's own evolution.

In The Evolution of Human Mate Choice from The Journal of Sex Research (Feb, 2004), the article is almost entirely focused on the benefits of certain types of social behavior, namely the advantages of cultural superiority of the male in the survival rates of the offspring, which is most likely the reason why modern women still prefer culturally advantaged males when selecting a mate. The examples given are from studies of modern cultures, but it provides quite a bit of insight into how earlier humans probably also behaved.

You are, I think, indeed right in saying that men are the ones making much ado about larger penises. And you also mentioned in your last post that we are social animals. Perhaps it is not that penises are actually evolving into larger and larger organs, but that we are becoming more aware of large penises. It sound oh so much clearer in my head, but I apply my view on the Big Black Cock stereotype: It fulfills itself because those with larger penises are taught to value their size and are more likely to seek out attention for it, while those who are average or underaverage, belittled for their bits and discouraged by their dongers, choose not to seek out attention in fear of rejection.

Originally, I was going to suggest that, perhaps, the shift in attitude toward large penises could be the reason behind its evolution, but I'm no biologist or scientist in that regard, and I have no idea how long it would take. I don't think it would happen quickly enough to coincide with my idea of the big penis gaining the spotlight as America gained its "Bigger is Better" attitude. Also not a history major, so I can't give a precise (or even general) idea of when that attitude was taken.

Of course, these could just be silly notions. I have a tendency to take them shopping and indulge them.

That's really interesting. The article above made me wonder if it could have also been a function of male competition over mate selection.

Neither can I. As subgirrl pointed out earlier, when the human penis grew to it's modern average size is of upmost importance to understanding how that change occurred. [/QUOTE]


Females have all the power in sexual relationships. This is in all species and exists even today in human society.

It hasn't been that way in the past for human females. In fact, scientists who study the female orgasm take it as a given that much of the sex human females probably had was due to rape, and not by choice. For example, researcher Meredith Chivers proposes that the reason why women become physically aroused but not psychologically aroused when shown certain images of women in states of undress or certain violent imagery is because she believes human females evolved that response as a way of minimizing damage from being raped. It's a horrible thing to think about, but along with things like slavery, it appears to be one of those uncomfortable truths about our own past. Even in our modern written history, the treatment of women in the past has been horrible.

A woman can go out and fuck any man she wants. A man can go out but can only have a shag if the woman wants to shag him.

You're talking about 20th century Western women again. Even in our recent history in the west, the idea of marrying for love is a recent one.

As Joseph Campbell talked about in his lecture on courtly love from Transformations of Myth Through Time, even the Authurian myths aren't understandable when viewed through our modern lenses because they were written in a time when women did not choose the men that they married, so they were not expected to be in love with them. Guinevere did not betray her husband in an emotional sense because he would not have expected her to be in love with him. The concept of love having anything to do with marriage didn't occur until hundreds of years later when women had more say in whom they married.

So I'm not sure prehistoric sex was any different. ie why would a woman have to be "small and weak" and get gang raped. Surely any number of her love rivals would beat the shit out of a potential rapist?

Aw! That's nice to think about. Can we go back and make it work like that?

One word of caution, the source probably doesn't generalize itself well outside of the "past" evolution and why the *average* human being has taken on a certain form.

You've lost me. Can you explain what you mean because what I think you mean doesn't make sense, so I think that I must be misunderstanding your meaning.

1. Because it's a theoretical article, so it has zero comparative power -- it can't rule out competing hypotheses
It's from a book, and according to the OP, the authors didn't present any competing hypotheses. However, since this is a thread, we're now talking to each other, not to the authors of that theory. We sort of left that behind pages ago.
2. This thread is sort of a mish-mash of science, social stereotypes, and personal conjecture
Ouch! Way to criticize everyone in this thread all at once, and with such condescension and superiority, without actually engaging in the discussion yourself. I find your post by far the most uncivil in this entire thread, not that it's that uncivil, but it certainly isn't nice. What I don't understand is why you would want to jump in here just to make everyone feel bad when we're all having a good time.
Maybe I am just a hard-ass and find it a fruitless debate because you're not going to uncover anything :tongue:, but by all means, continue in the name of discussion, and I shall read it! :wink:

Don't rain on our parade when we're all having fun. No one here has lost their tempers or is behaving badly so far (although, you've just skirted that line). I think it's pretty obvious that everyone is simply enjoying an interesting conversation.

If you don't want to participate, just don't participate.
 
Last edited:

paigexox

Sexy Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2010
Posts
1,048
Media
37
Likes
56
Points
83
Age
38
We are really burning bridges now.

Honestly, I was going to make a full-fledged reply to your post (it's why I deleted that comment you've already quoted), but I would rather not get drawn into this any further if your rebuke is any indication of where we are going. I am sorry if you took my comments so personally, but it was my observation on the topic at hand, and I suppose whether or not that's deemed a contribution to the thread can be left to the eyes of the beholder. This is the internet, thick skin and a grain of salt helps. I also don't recall singling you, or anyone else out for that matter, but if you wish to build a crucifix, then be sure to grab the hammer and nails while you're at it.

Suffice it to say, I am always very weary of scientific articles, what they claim, how they've established those claims, and whether or not it is something which has gone through the peer review process and is actually certifiable. If you are still wondering about the origin of the article I am referring to, it can be found within the first post. The thread starter supplied a link to a PDF of the original article, which was cited by the author(s) of the novel.

Perhaps I let my education in the sciences spoil my own fun for this thread (and apparently piss on others), but what I stated in my post was simply that it is not good practice to harvest an idea from a finding/scientific journal/whatever source, and then immediately build upon it with your own intellectual property. This is because the theory and hypotheses within that specific article can not rule out competing ones on their own. So in my eyes, it's troubling to use them as a launch pad for discussion that takes you places the article never intended to go. It's a tempting trap to fall in, and one of the very large reasons the general public has such peculiar views of the sciences -- it paves the way for a lot of trouble, and it's something always worth considering.

Now to be a total cunt, if you would like to know how I would go about it differently; use something like Google scholar, do some searching around on the topic at hand, see if there are any competing theories, or ones convergent with this, and how they differ. That way not only are you broadening horizons, but you can also be sure what you are reading is rooted in scientific fact, not philosophy.

Again, I am sorry if offended anyone, I am just a bit more distant when it comes to matters such as these.
/holier than thou, out :tongue:
 

paigexox

Sexy Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2010
Posts
1,048
Media
37
Likes
56
Points
83
Age
38
Of course not, there are numerous very well educated people here. But to that end, I am sure some can appreciate the underlying message.

I have a dry, dark and sarcastic sense of humor -- like a bottle of wine gone bad, and the text of the net' doesn't help assuage that when it comes to tone.
 

FRE

Admired Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2008
Posts
3,053
Media
44
Likes
833
Points
258
Location
Palm Springs, California USA
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
Looking at ancient paintings and carvings, the penises are depicted as rather small. Now that could mean that unlike today's society, small and cut penises were worshiped, or it could mean that penises have grown larger with evolution. Clearly that's what men wish for these days...

Disclaimer: The post need not be taken seriously.


The penis was not always depicted as small. Examples:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Priapus_Church


priapus - Google Search

Ancient and Old: Hermes with a Phallus

And here is the Toyota Priapus:

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...QCg&esq=2&page=2&ndsp=37&ved=1t:429,r:19,s:36
 
Last edited:

petite

Expert Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Posts
7,199
Media
2
Likes
146
Points
208
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Female
Look, I don't want to berate you or pick apart anything you've said or continue with any meta-conversations about conversing in this thread. I'd like to keep it all fun. So, I'm getting back to the actual topic this thread is about.
 
Last edited:

petite

Expert Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Posts
7,199
Media
2
Likes
146
Points
208
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Female

Bringing up Priapus is just cheating! That's what he was known for! :tongue:

:lmao: I just noticed that last photo. Did you mention Priapus just for that joke?

I did notice that there's an entire thread about penis size in Greek art in Ecetera.

The thing is, discussions about Greek art are probably moot because by then human penis size was probably almost exactly the same as it is now. I doubt there has been significant change since then. This goes back to subgirrl's comment about when those changes happened.
 
Last edited:

matthi

Loved Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2006
Posts
198
Media
10
Likes
692
Points
323
Location
New York (United States)
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
Cool! There are a lot of really good comments in here, thanks for sharing. My original question about possible alternative explanations for why humans [as a species; of course the topic of within-species differences is related, of interest to this forum, and may even inform the original question] have comparatively large penises [corrected for body mass: sorry, elephants!] has definitely been answered with some great suggestions. I will need some time to process all this information! =)
 

petite

Expert Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Posts
7,199
Media
2
Likes
146
Points
208
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Female
Cool! There are a lot of really good comments in here, thanks for sharing. My original question about possible alternative explanations for why humans [as a species; of course the topic of within-species differences is related, of interest to this forum, and may even inform the original question] have comparatively large penises [corrected for body mass: sorry, elephants!] has definitely been answered with some great suggestions. I will need some time to process all this information! =)

I'm glad you created the topic. I had fun discussing it. I didn't actually think up the theory that I've been discussing, but I read it so long ago I can't remember where, or else I'd provide a link for you. I'm sure that the original author would do a much better job of describing it than I have done.

Do you mind if I add a few more thoughts?

Studies of animal evolution have revealed that the gender that posses the selective power is always the "plain" one with the more practical traits for survival and the gender that is sexually selected is the one with the extreme traits, which are frequently impractical for survival. This is the observation that Darwin made. The male peacock is hindered by brightly colored tailfeathers which make flight impossible, evasion on the ground difficult, and make him much more visible to predators. The female is plainer and without the large tailfeathers and is more likely to evade predators as a result, her body is much more practical for survival. So let's compare the male and female of our species. Which do you consider to be the physically practical gender in humans? The male is large and strong, his torso doesn't posses the nipped in waist that weakens it. He possesses greater height and speed. The female posses enlarged mammary glans once she becomes of a fertile age, which are uncommon among mammals that are not nursing. Looking at the physical characteristics of human males and females, I think it's clear that the females weren't the ones with the selective power in our evolutionary past, hence their attractive but impractical bodies now.

Also, regarding female selection for large penises, I'm going to make my least logical argument yet for it doesn't provide an answer regarding why human penises are larger, but it is a challenge to certain assumptions regarding how genitals would evolve. When browsing through a paper in this journal about the selective forces on primate genitals and human genitals, I observed that in primate species wherein selection was performed by the females, the males all have small genitals. Now, this is a poor argument for all species wherein sexual selection is a factor select for different things, and the lack of female selection for penis size is insignifcant, but it's interesting to think about, especially since so many human males seem to automatically assume that female selection must mean that penises become enlarged over time.

Also, it is interesting to note that even though the Bonobo chimp has sex for pleasure, their penises are not larger than the penises of chimpanzees, which suggests an alternative reason for why human penises are so large.
 
Last edited:

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
men with larger penises were respected more by other men, creating a feedback loop that lead to larger and larger penises.
Sorry, dont see this working. You are saying that men with smaller penises respect men with larger penises, give them more respect because of this and allow them to mate more? This would mean the men with bigger penises have more children and pass on their big penises, but it would also mean men who respect big penises have fewer children. So fewer children who have the trait of respecting a big penis. the trait of allowing anyone with a big penis to mate instead of you is genetic suicide.

I don't believe female choice had an influence. I believe that other men are more responsible for penis size than women or physical explanations having to do with sex, since throughout most of history women haven't had a choice about who they had sex with, being essentially property or second class citizens.
People are not the same as animals because they have big brains. The most important thing about people is their ability to decide what they want and work out how to get it. This still applies to women who have one dominating husband to whom they legally belong totally. Women did and do have choice about who they mate with. Without the cooperation of the woman concerned it becomes totally impossible to mate with her in the face of the husband to whom she notionally belongs who is guarding his property. Why would there be all these legal rules saying women are property if the husbands did not think they needed all the help they can get in defending their 'propoperty' from other males? The existence of the rules is proof other males were getting in on the act. It might be argued that in fact these rules help the woman's choice. She has one 'guardian' who has power over her but that guardian is keeping away all those unwelcome would be rapists. Only the ones she chooses get in past the protections.

Yeah, I'm not buying the "women were gangbanged sooo much" theory.
Why not? Males love a gangbang. Theres nothing like watching someone else having sex to start feeling you want to be doing that right now right there in his place. Presumably that is evolutionarily inherited conditioning at work. It pays to take part in a gangbang or we wouldnt be programmed to do it. Whether the women concerned are willing or unwilling would be entirely beside the point. One of the traits of us clever apes seems to be constant warfare which traditionally includes lots of rape. If you think about the timescales concerned, every human of breeding age might historically be involved in at least one war and that is enough to have a significant impact on the number of offspring you have. Successfull campaign, several gangbangs. So then somehow your sperm have to make it instead of the rest of your platoon. Is it better to go first and get a head start or go last and pump out all that sperm already there before injecting your own spermicide laden mix. (yes, I remember reading something about killer sperm types too). It might be better to be the little guy who is forced to go last because hes small but then his sperm just poisons whats there already. So maybe a killer combination is little guy who is forced to go last but who has big dick and killer sperm.

I believe that men who had a higher social status, for whatever reason, be it physical prowess, greater social skills, more wealth (in whatever form), had greater access to mate and/or marry and so they spread their genes more,
Which makes men the peacocks. Big muscles or big dicks are not there because of being survival traits in themselves but just to impress the ladies. Which begs the question of whether the ladies would be able to see the aforementioned big dicks before getting hands on. And wehether lying might not be just as effective as having. Which brings us back to big brains. Maybe rules about not being naked in public are again really control mechanisms so that the ladies being controlled do not get to see the competition showing off.

You still see it today in human behavior. Women don't care one-tenth as much as men do about penis size, but men still want to compare and know who is larger and who is smaller than themselves.
Never bothered me, but then Im not small. It might be that people who are small, or believe they are small, feel inferior about it but the whole issue of size has never attracted me. Small ones are just as interesting as big ones sexually. Now, as far as locker rooms go, that isnt quite the same thing. That is about showing off rather than sexual attraction and people being competitive will argue about who can piss furthest never mind who has the thickest arms.

an awful lot of men actually enjoy being cuckolded, but women do not.
So genetically, men are programmed to take part in the gangbang because it upps their chance of having offspring, whereas women are programmed to be selective, because they have the power to weed out undesireable mates.

The large penises in this theory really only make up about 30% of the spectrum thus the theory doesn't hold water
But what is a large penis? Surely a large penis is one bigger than is needed to get a female pregnant. I think about 1 in is enough to get a female pregnant, so anything more than this ought to be considered large. The 30% you mention are GINORMOUS.

1. The sperm still in the vagina are actually the losers in the race to the ovum. There is nothing the penis can do about the sperm in the uterus or the Fallopian tubes, the ones it should really be worrying about.
which is why chemical warfare has been evolved to deal with those. But you still have to deal with the slush waiting in reserve.
 
Last edited: