selective evolution of the penis

[13788]

Captin_hung: i heard a few years ago that the avearge penis size was 5 inches now i hear that its 6 im just wondering if mabey a bit of evolution has been going on. kinda like a sexual version of survival of the fittest where larger penis size has been selected for thus only passing on those "large" genes and slowly phasing out the "smaller" gene just a thought.

of course i could just have heard wrong and be over thiniking this whole thing

captin_hung

 

[D_Humper E Bogart]

JonB would so kick ass at this, but I'm here first!

Good question, I think it's been argued, that since we've got the largest penis compared to the primates, then there is obviously an advantage, probably due to sexual pleasure.


But I'm not completely sure how penis size is passed on genetically. As an example, if it came exclusively from the mother, say, then there's not much point in her having a well-hung father! It's probably more like any other trait and passed from both parents though.

There's loads of other factors to consider, such as diet, hormones in the womb (and outside) that effect our final penis size, but I don't think that there is too much of an "advantage" to being bigger than X size. At the end of the day, it's about having children. A population cannot change it there's no body being born! (Well, unless a lot of people die at once, but I doubt all the smaller people are dying young&#33

The person who has more kids passes on their genes to the next generation, so if all the children ended up average, then the population has already been stablised slightly more around the average. That's not even counting if the exact alleles are not directly linked to each other, so could be inhereted seperately, (ie, a hung dad having smaller offspring).

Then there's population genetics, and it could be "a fluke" that there are more hung alleles in a population...

Blah, I'll end there methinks.

---------
Or I could simply say, "there's lies, damned lies and statistics!"

 

[B_btrelll]

Originally posted by Captin_hung@Aug 10 2004, 07:00 AM
i heard a few years ago that the avearge penis size was 5 inches now i hear that its 6 im just wondering if mabey a bit of evolution has been going on. kinda like a sexual version of survival of the fittest where larger penis size has been selected for thus only passing on those "large" genes and slowly phasing out the "smaller" gene just a thought.

of course i could just have heard wrong and be over thiniking this whole thing

captin_hung

It depends where you're hearing from. Every study seems to have found a different size. Some have found race a factor, others not

In fact a large number of studies have concluded the opposite - penises are getting smaller

If it were a case of being down to personal pleasure and attractiveness, the same could be said for any physical attribute regarded highly by females - features such as eyes, brains etc which are commonly found a more important factor than penis size.

 

[Donk]

You have heard wrong on a couple of accounts: (1) The averages reported by studies have been getting smaller in recent years, not bigger. Until a few years ago the only statistic you could ever find on the topic was the Kinsey Report average of just over 6". More recent studies report numbers between 5" and 5.5". (2) "Evolution" of the human species in either direction is unlikely to have occurred over a period of a few decades. There are undoubtedly billions of males with penises 6" or under and females descended from such males around the world who are reproducing.

Again, your statistics are backwards--the numbers have been getting smaller, not larger. But it is highly unlikely that smaller penis size is "evolving." More likely, the smaller, more recent statistics are just either more accurate or more "politically correct" than the older ones.

 

[13788]

theEye: You heard it was 5 inches a "few years ago"...evolution doesn't normally happen that quicky, especially considering that a human generation is twenty-odd years.

 

[mindseye]

Originally posted by Donk@Aug 10 2004, 08:50 AM
You have heard wrong on a couple of accounts: (1) The averages reported by studies have been getting smaller in recent years, not bigger. Until a few years ago the only statistic you could ever find on the topic was the Kinsey Report average of just over 6". More recent studies report numbers between 5" and 5.5". (2) "Evolution" of the human species in either direction is unlikely to have occurred over a period of a few decades. There are undoubtedly billions of males with penises 6" or under and females descended from such males around the world who are reproducing.

Again, your statistics are backwards--the numbers have been getting smaller, not larger. But it is highly unlikely that smaller penis size is "evolving." More likely, the smaller, more recent statistics are just either more accurate or more "politically correct" than the older ones.

I think it's premature to conclude that the numbers are getting smaller. Kinsey's methodology was not terribly sound, so it's unfair to compare his study to more recent studies. Even taking that into consideration, only about two generations have passed since Kinsey and today, and that's not enough for a wholesale change in penis size to take place.

 

[kurios]

Any study that I have ever looked at has some major flaws if they are to be treated as scientific fact. In some it is the sampling, in others the measurement practice( especially self measurement) and the way the average can be skewed. Other threads have provided some very good reactions to 'average size' stats.
One, if not the only, solid approach to measurement involved clinical staff actually measuring college jocks in Cancun. So far so good for acccuracy. But just who do you really think was going to stagger up to the measuring stick? The football star with the 2" dick or guys that already were pretty cool with their size.
Self measurement is just a wee bit too subjective to yield scientific results.
There are from lockeroom/changerooms quite a few big guns 7' and over, there are many 4-6 inch pistols and a few of lesser dimensions. One 9" can drag the average way up when in fact it is one of many.
I dont think there is any way to tell whether cocks are getting bigger or smaller.
I am still convinced that there are many more guys measuring 4-6 inches than above or below with most of the 4-6 and therefore most guys 5 to 5 and a bit.
Conclusion is based on observations and does not presume to be at all scientific!

 

[Donk]

Originally posted by mindseye@Aug 10 2004, 10:56 PM

I think it's premature to conclude that the numbers are getting smaller. Kinsey's methodology was not terribly sound, so it's unfair to compare his study to more recent studies. Even taking that into consideration, only about two generations have passed since Kinsey and today, and that's not enough for a wholesale change in penis size to take place.

I think we are really making the same point: the fact that the numbers are changing does not mean that the actual size of the average penis is changing. All it means is that different methodologies give different results. If the newer studies are more accurate, then the newer numbers come closer to giving the actual average size that penises are now and have always been. I agree with you that it is highly unlikely that the average size of the human penis has actually changed over the past few decades (if ever).

 

[jonb]

Wouldn't be a difference in a few years. LOL Evolution isn't that fast, unless you're a bacterium of some kind.

There are, however, conditions which can favor a larger penis. They're based on the preferences of females; also, penis size, along with sperm count and a few particular penis shapes, would be favored in a polygynandrous population, one where females mate with multiple males and males with multiple females. But with globalization, we will never get the requirement for even radical change within a couple generations: A small isolated population introduced to a radically different environment.

My theories wrt the new 5" stat is twofold: One, it's more politically correct. Two: Americans especially have gotten heavier. Remember, every 30 pounds is an inch.

 

[D_Humper E Bogart]

Isn't that with every 30lbs it's one inch "inwards"?

 

[xtrathickdick]

Originally posted by jonb@Aug 11 2004, 02:19 AM
Wouldn't be a difference in a few years. LOL Evolution isn't that fast, unless you're a bacterium of some kind.

I disagree -- evolution can happen very quickly. One example is the channge in the height of the average Japanese after WWII. Another is how American girls today begin menstruating and developing breasts at a much earlier age than just 20 years ago. And just recently there was an article regarding how some young people in Japan—heavy users of portable electronics—have developed unusual thumbing powers. They're even starting to ring doorbells with their thumbs and point with their thumbs. There are reports of people typing 40 words a minute with thumbs alone.

Does this mean that thumbs are evolving before our eyes? Might thumbs, for example, migrate farther up the side of the hand? Become more pointy? Pivot better?

Behavior precedes anatomy—that seems to be a general rule in evolution.

 

[Donk]

Originally posted by xtrathickdick+Aug 12 2004, 11:15 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (xtrathickdick &#064; Aug 12 2004, 11:15 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-jonb@Aug 11 2004, 02:19 AM
Wouldn&#39;t be a difference in a few years. LOL Evolution isn&#39;t that fast, unless you&#39;re a bacterium of some kind.

I disagree -- evolution can happen very quickly. One example is the channge in the height of the average Japanese after WWII. Another is how American girls today begin menstruating and developing breasts at a much earlier age than just 20 years ago. And just recently there was an article regarding how some young people in Japan—heavy users of portable electronics—have developed unusual thumbing powers. They&#39;re even starting to ring doorbells with their thumbs and point with their thumbs. There are reports of people typing 40 words a minute with thumbs alone.

Does this mean that thumbs are evolving before our eyes? Might thumbs, for example, migrate farther up the side of the hand? Become more pointy? Pivot better?

Behavior precedes anatomy—that seems to be a general rule in evolution. [/b][/quote]
These things are not genetic "evolution" of a species. They are all attributable to either diet or behavioral changes. For several years I have worked out with weights and increased my protein intake. I am thus much more muscular than I was 10 years ago. I have not genetically "evolved" into a more muscular species, I have just nurtured my human body&#39;s pre-existing capacity to add muscle.

P.S. I&#39;m no thumb-typist, but I don&#39;t regard pressing a doorbell with a thumb as a particularly unusual "thumbing power." Not to detract from the remarkable thumb-related accomplishments of Japanese youth . . .

 

[13788]

steve_w: The difference between thumbs and penis size however is rather dramatic. For one, penis size is pretty far down the list when it comes to mate selection in the human race. I mean really, think about it. The majority of men go to great lengths to make sure there is no bulge down below, and that things are generously covered. Generally, finding clothing that accents the bulge is rather hard to do too...so it&#39;s safe to say that clothing evolved to conceal the male bulge. Women go for many other attributes and really don&#39;t even consider the size of the male member until well into the relationship. By the time the relationship makes it to the bedroom and his penis is exposed, chances are the woman has already made a decision if she loves the man and wants to stick with him.

I have noticed that women favor men that have more of a "generic" appearance to themselves. What I mean by this is an average haircut, clothing that that is in mainstream style (IE business suits, t-shirts & jeans are favored, versus a guy that wears kilts and has long hair) . One of the biggest things however is that women tend to like men that do not show any sexual attributes&#33; For example, the female repusion to the "speedo" style swimsuits (that of course readily show the male equipment underneath&#33 Unlike other species of animals in the world, the female is the one that is the physical showoff, versus the male. Take, for instance mallard ducks, where the male duck has bright colors, while the female is camoflauged. Male lions have manes, while the females don&#39;t. With Humans however, females are one of the few creatures with breasts that protrude, females also have smoother, hairless skin, and generally they have much curvier, visualy appealing bodies. Instead of the male creature trying to attract a female, as is the case with birds for instance, the male is the one doing the persuing, while the female is attempting to look attractive to the males to get their attention. The male penis is merely a tool to get the job of sex done more than it is a device for sexual attraction.

Because of this, We are more likely to see more significant differences develop in the female body than in the male. Females will probably evolve larger breasts, smoother skin, curvier legs, etc. OTOH, evolution will probably develop ment that can get erections quicker and easier, and shoot cum harder and deeper within the vagina.

Women go for functionality and what a man can do more than what a man looks like. Just noticed the universal appeal women have for a wealthy man&#33;&#33;&#33; I think Donald trump is ugly as sin, but women are all over that guy&#33;

 

[Ecchi]

Evolution is slow, and our bodies wouldn&#39;t change that much over a few years. I will admit, there does seem to be a greater proliferation of hung men, and girls seem, to be &#39;blossoming&#39; at much younger ages. So there does seem to be a very mild evolution, physically.

This next opinion, I know won&#39;t be popular, but its an observation.

Relationships, seem to be evolving to be far more material and sexual based than they ever were, I see that in the younger generations, and its creeping into the older generations as well. I&#39;m not sure where it&#39;ll lead ....

 

[xtrathickdick]

Originally posted by Donk@Aug 12 2004, 01:08 PM
These things are not genetic "evolution" of a species.

Ok. So, here&#39;s an example of relatively fast genetic change.

A species of mouse has evolved dramatically in just 150 years, showing genetic change can occur much faster than was thought possible.

The discovery was made by accident by two American biologists studying the genetic make-up of a common wild mouse in Chicago.

Dr Dennis Nyberg and Dr Oliver Pergams, both from the University of Illinois at Chicago, analysed DNA samples from 56 museum specimens of the white-footed mouse dating from 1950 back to 1855, and 52 "modern" wild mice captured from local forests and parks.

They found startling genetic differences between the frozen samples dating from 1950 to 1855 and modern mice.

Only one of the present-day mice had DNA that matched that of mice collected before 1950.

While fast evolutionary change has been seen in fruit flies, such rapid evolution in a mammal has not been reported before.

 

[MASSIVEPKGO_CHUCK]

Our resident anthropologist, Mr Jonb, would no doubt have an insight on this like no one else.

 

[jonb]

Well, I&#39;m more just familiar with the basics of biology. They&#39;ve proven speciation over a 60-year laboratory experiment involving insects.

That being said, I wouldn&#39;t consider changes in stature to be necessarily genetic changes. Ditto for increased rates of asthma, earlier menarche, or a variety of other biological traits. Traits of complex inheritance seem to be humans&#39; genetic MO.

 

[D_Humper E Bogart]

I dunno about the mice, because it&#39;d be pretty easy to just have a lot of the adults wiped out, so the offspring would be related to very few adult mice.

Anyway, the have a short generation time and short lifespans, so I suppose genetic drifting would be easier to notice.

Saying that, who said organisms or people "need" to evolve, if it works, then there wont be an advantage changing.

It&#39;s like with girls having periods earlier, there&#39;s something dogy, because we don&#39;t "evolve" that fast and 10 year olds having periods is NOT an advantage, that&#39;s for sure.

It&#39;s the joke about hormones in the water supply, methinks.

 

[13788]

steve_w: Much of what we are seeing as "evolution" too could be also happening due to better nutrition too. The better nutrition can mean early puberty in both boys in girls. It is a proven fact that people are taller now than they used to be.

A movie theater build during the 1920&#39;s has had to move it&#39;s seats around a few years ago to give more legroom. When the theater was built, people were shorter and had shorter legs. At that time, the seats were known to be spacious. The better nutrition nowadays meant that taller people were visiting the movie theater and were cramped


We also cannot discount artifical growth hormones that are given to animals for bringing on early puberties and faster sexual development too&#33;

 

[jonb]

Well, that&#39;s what&#39;s called a secular trend. Evolution typically involves genetic changes, not a simple change in environment. Actually, stature in the US has about evened out, whereas stature in Europe, because of better health, is still increasing.