Size and Natural Selection

[readingHelpsMe]

I just had a thought ... scary I know. While not all women are size queens in most informal surveys I have seen on this and other sites* it seems that most women prefer the 6" to 7" range and more than a few like it larger that that. Now 6" is larger than the average** so you might think that the preference of women over time*** would cause the average size of men to be closer to 6" to 7". Also, in the informal surveys there are more women stating preference for very large men then should be statistically available. Once again that might suggest that over time that preference would produce men with penises over the 5.1" actual average.

Now, a few different conclusions might be drawn from this:
1) Generally, women until recently were discouraged or were unable to voice and practice there preference and so this increase in average will happen in future generations.
2) Generally, women are not that good or don't care enough at judging size and so when they state a preference of 6" to 7" they might actually be thinking of penises that are 5" to 6" or smaller.
3) Overall penis size is such a small factor**** that women's size preference takes a back seat to other things and thus the average penis size is dictated by other factors.

* including measurection.com
** most modern scientific surveys put it closer to 5.1" and this is not putting into consideration that small men would be less likely to participate
*** we are talking many generations here
**** no pun intended

 

[MagicTongue]

Are we talking about length or girth? Both are important, but girth is more important than length.

 

[AlbertCunning]

Are we talking about length or girth? Both are important, but girth is more important than length.

The measurements are obviously length-measurements.
However, his theories, which have some truly Darwinian qualities, would definitely be equally true/untrue for girth-measurements as well.

But generally, I don't think penal size is important enough, in the scheme of things, to make any significant impact on future generations' sizes.

The day size were to become an almost religious matter, then maybe, but otherwise the influence will just be marginal.
A society which ends up making these kinds of priorities, bears all the signs of decadence, and will probably collapse sooner than later, and then be devoured whole by the teeny-weeny east-asians.
(Ok, that was just some sort of joke.)

I'm always happy to hear about women's preference for girth.

 

[AlbertCunning]

But generally, I don't think penal size is important....

I'm sorry, I meant 'penile', not 'penal'.
I've always found it hard to adjectivate genitals.

Few others have ever given this much thought, I'm quite sure.

 

[vibratingfinger]

BBC NEWS | UK | Human species 'may split in two'

Oliver Curry thinks natural selection favors bigger penises.

 

[B_superlarge]

** most modern scientific surveys put it closer to 5.1"

Got links to those surveys?

 

[snoozan]

I don't buy it. It sounds like junk speculation and pseudo-scientific horseshit. 100 years ago scientists just like Mr. Curry thought black people had smaller brains than white people.

Men with small penises have always gotten laid, and as far as I know, it doesn't seem plausible that men with large penises consistently have more kids than men with smaller penises. I think other factors influence mating and breeding so much more that penis size is a non-factor and therefore won't change that much. I could be wrong, though.

However, we could all be wrong and for some reason we don't know, average penis sizes could shrink. Who knows.

 

[Male Bonding etc]

Probably more to the point than how many times guys with big dicks insert them into vaginas is which guys have higher sperm counts. Admittedly, if sperm count is unrelated to dick size the guys scoring more often are going to have more offspring, but there really are so many other factors.

Furthermore, with all the augmentation and surgery being done these days, I'm not so sure the "pert breasts" and similar attributes are necessarily what will be passed on genetically.

Then again there's the whole genetic engineering business that may make much of this a moot point, at least for those who can afford it.

 

[Male Bonding etc]

Okay, as long as I am taking up space here (because I got impatient and clicked "post" twice), here's an interesting vision of the future: picture a Neanderthal looking fellow who is dragging his giant penis much the way they have usually been depicted dragging a club. The preference for large penises has gotten to the point that they have to be milked for procreation... or the women have become like giant walking vaginas with pert breasts riding on top... Then again, we may not have to wait for evolution and "natural" selection to make this happen, the plastic surgeons will be offering them in the near future.

 

[snoozan]

Okay, as long as I am taking up space here (because I got impatient and clicked "post" twice), here's an interesting vision of the future: picture a Neanderthal looking fellow who is dragging his giant penis much the way they have usually been depicted dragging a club. The preference for large penises has gotten to the point that they have to be milked for procreation... or the women have become like giant walking vaginas with pert breasts riding on top... Then again, we may not have to wait for evolution and "natural" selection to make this happen, the plastic surgeons will be offering them in the near future.

That sounds frighteningly close to what we've done to cows using selective breeding and hormones.

 

[southwest]

Seems to me what my ideal partner in fantasy, and the partners whom I've actually been with were quite different. This is not to say my partners didn't cut it, they did. There is far more going on in a relationship than a single attribute.
As for the evolution argument, species that specialize are less likely to have a survival advantage. The worlds most prolific species seem to be less fussy when it comes to breeding, and are far more opportunistic .... take what's on offer if nothing else better is there.

 

[Male Bonding etc]

That sounds frighteningly close to what we've done to cows using selective breeding and hormones.

Too true!

 

[viking1]

Seems to me what my ideal partner in fantasy, and the partners whom I've actually been with were quite different. This is not to say my partners didn't cut it, they did. There is far more going on in a relationship than a single attribute.
As for the evolution argument, species that specialize are less likely to have a survival advantage. The worlds most prolific species seem to be less fussy when it comes to breeding, and are far more opportunistic .... take what's on offer if nothing else better is there.

Not many of us will EVER have our ideal fantasy partner in real life.

 

[southwest]

All too true viking1 .... that being said my 'not perfect' partners have put plenty of good smiles on my face!!!!

 

[B_big dirigible]

BBC NEWS | UK | Human species 'may split in two'

Oliver Curry thinks natural selection favors bigger penises.

The cited Mr Wells did not see the split going the way described by the BBC item. (Of course he didn't write about penises, though he doubtless thought about them a bit.) His Eloi were not the smart ones - they were little more than children, physically and mentally. The Morlocks were what H.G.'s contemporary, Karl Marx, would have considered the "producers of value" - the workers. Wells was speculating about the ultimate development, or final degeneration, of the English class system. He clearly expected the final product of the British aristocracy to be even more dim-witted than it was popularly believed to be in his day.

 

[earllogjam]

This thread reminds me of the movie "Gattaca" where in the near future we will have power to determine what our babies genetic makeup will be and the measure of a man will be in the printout of his DNA sequence. It will decide what job you get, who you can marry, how you live, and your place in society. Kind of like a modern day caste system.

It would certainly alter the appearance of people and create a definite class distinction between the genetically determined "superior" people and the faith birth "chance" people according to the movie.

As the human genome is disected and genes are identified, we will one day be able to screen for many human traits and determine what genes perpetuate and are available for the rest of time. It will no longer be the Darwinian fittest survive with nature choosing survial genes but rather humans choosing genes depending on social ideals and directly steering evolution on their own accord - sounds disasterous in the long term to me, maybe the end of our species.

This is already happening on some level with Down-Syndrome babies because of prenatal genetic screening - they are just not being born these days as well as babies with birth defects.

I could see as a parent how this genetic manipulation would seem appealing to ensure that my kid came into the world with all the advantages- healthy, smart, no predisposition to disease and physically strong. I see the kind of competitive parents who would use a service like at a Montessori School here. So it isn't very far fetched for me.

I am not sure where the future of genetic manipulation is headed but the technology will be upon us soon and it does seem ominous, at least the long term ramifications do. It would be eugenics brought to life which is very scary.

 

[Hugh G. Rection]

Well if you believe in evolution, which I don't, it could have something to do with this: Female monkeys go after male monkeys with bigger penises because they see it as a sign of fertility.

 

[JustAsking]

Well if you believe in evolution, which I don't, it could have something to do with this: Female monkeys go after male monkeys with bigger penises because they see it as a sign of fertility.

Except there are so many more selection factors than just penis size in most primates.

 

[vibratingfinger]

As far as I know female monkeys don't go after males. Males seek female monkeys like most species. Bonobo chimps and dolphins however are two animals that have sex for pleasure. But even for them penis size doesn't seem to deterime their partner. For example female bonobos frequently engage in lesbian sex which doesn't involve penis at all.

This is off topic. But I came across this some time ago. Made me laugh.
Australia forces female Koalas into hardcore lesbian sex

 

[JustAsking]

Well if you believe in evolution, which I don't...

Interesting. If not evolution, then what?