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.