Size and Natural Selection

MCC

1st Like
Joined
Apr 13, 2007
Posts
44
Media
0
Likes
1
Points
151
Sexuality
90% Straight, 10% Gay
Gender
Male
I am not a scholar in this, but I believe that in Ancient Greek tradition a small penis was a sign of virtue, hence the rather under endowed statues. If that is true, then is it not possible that the current fashion for large penis sizes, even if it were widespread enough to have an evolutionary consequence could just as easilly be reversed later by a change in societal pressures? It seems to be a mistake to assume that the pressures to which the population is exposed are, or will be, consistent.
 

slartlibartfast

1st Like
Joined
Apr 20, 2007
Posts
31
Media
1
Likes
1
Points
153
Location
England
Sexuality
90% Straight, 10% Gay
Gender
Male
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.

I think this is the whole point. If female monkeys chose partners based on penis size, the male monkeys would have cocks dragging on the ground! Because they don't proves this monkey theory wrong.

P.S. If there isn't such thing as evolution how do you explain the origin of the species? Adam and Eve, Noah? C'mon!....
 

snoozan

Experimental Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2006
Posts
3,449
Media
0
Likes
22
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
Unlike Snoozan, I do believe in natural selection, to a certain degree???:confused:

uh, deb, i spent 4 years in college studying evolutionary biology. i don't think you have a firm grasp on how natural selection works, as my point was about the complexity of selection pressures for human breeding.

of course, this shouldn't surprise me as you think a 9 inch cock is so normal you've never seen anything smaller, and you advocate circumcision for absolutely no logical reason. i guess i really can't expect more from you.
 

Male Bonding etc

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2006
Posts
920
Media
0
Likes
17
Points
163
Location
Southwest USA
Sexuality
69% Straight, 31% Gay
Gender
Male
um... hmmm... summer temperatures impacting some people's patience?

One's ability to deal with adversities such as high temperatures and ignorance may also be one of those natural selection factors... which is more attractive, a biting response, patronization, humor, or "good natured" encouragement?
 

snoozan

Experimental Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2006
Posts
3,449
Media
0
Likes
22
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
um... hmmm... summer temperatures impacting some people's patience?

One's ability to deal with adversities such as high temperatures and ignorance may also be one of those natural selection factors... which is more attractive, a biting response, patronization, humor, or "good natured" encouragement?

in that case, i'm doomed.

you know what they say, someone fires a tentative shot in your direction, you hit them with a tactical nuke. wow, i'm sounding positively presidential.
 

Wyldgusechaz

Experimental Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2006
Posts
1,258
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
183
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
We have selective breeding now. College educated people tend to marry college educated people and have LESS children that uneducated people. Europe is dying out, at least the French, Italian, German original stock.

Mother Nature is very harsh but simple when it comes to evaluting genetic favorabilty. Its this simple: the individual that leaves the most offspring for the next generation is the winner. Case closed.

Take Jennifer Aniston. Pretty girl and if she has no children, a total genetic loser. Her line dies out today. Not one trace of her will be left for the rest of eternity.
 

snoozan

Experimental Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2006
Posts
3,449
Media
0
Likes
22
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
We have selective breeding now. College educated people tend to marry college educated people and have LESS children that uneducated people. Europe is dying out, at least the French, Italian, German original stock.

People have always selected mates based on cultural, economic, and geographical similarities. However, even in the most isolated communities and the most isolated times in the history of humanity, people haven't done this enough to speciate, which says a lot.

I don't know that European stock is dying out so much as it's being mixed with other "races" as it becomes easier to move around the world. Using the same argument you could say the African stock in the US died out because most people considered African-American in the US have a fair amount of European blood in them.

It is true that people who are college educated are having fewer children. Americans and Europeans are having fewer children than the rest of the world, not even counting level of education. But white people have always been a minority anyway. Eventually people will be browner than they are now. Oh well. The whole idea of "original stock" is kind of bunk anyway-- humans have been moving around and conquering each other forever.

Mother Nature is very harsh but simple when it comes to evaluting genetic favorabilty. Its this simple: the individual that leaves the most offspring for the next generation is the winner. Case closed.
Unless all of those offspring are killed in a calamity, or war, etc. Unless all of those offspring carry a genetic defect that was not expressed in said individual and increases rate of disease and/or infant mortality. Unless those offspring are, say, college educated and have 0-1 children each. Unless those genes all those offspring carry are selected against, and their line of descendants dies out quickly or slowly depending on the selection pressures. Unless there's some sort of mutation in the parent's gene that makes all the offspring sterile. I could go on, but you get the idea. It's not really case closed.

Take Jennifer Aniston. Pretty girl and if she has no children, a total genetic loser. Her line dies out today. Not one trace of her will be left for the rest of eternity.
Not really. She has siblings, cousins, and further removed family members who all carry a lot of the same genes as her. It's not really about the individual so much as it's about the gene pool. It's not the person who wins this race, it's the gene. The more a gene is expressed and selected for, the more common it is, and therefore wins the genetic race. In that way, it's less about individuals and more about genes and gene pools. Yes, people carry the genes, but it's more about the group carrying said gene and the selection pressures thereupon that make the difference of which genes become widespread and which genes die out.

The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins goes into this part of evolutionary theory. It's a good read. I don't claim to be an expert on evolution, but he is, and can probably express what I'm trying to better than I can.

Still, this doesn't have any bearing on the OP, really.
 

B_spiker067

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2006
Posts
2,163
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
183
We have selective breeding now. College educated people tend to marry college educated people and have LESS children that uneducated people. Europe is dying out, at least the French, Italian, German original stock.

Are they dying out or is the population just stabilizing?

Cultures that have abused their environment by overpopulating have died out or are in the process of dying out. Easter Island, Haiti, Madagascar,...

Mother Nature is very harsh but simple when it comes to evaluting genetic favorabilty. Its this simple: the individual that leaves the most offspring for the next generation is the winner. Case closed.

Take Jennifer Aniston. Pretty girl and if she has no children, a total genetic loser. Her line dies out today. Not one trace of her will be left for the rest of eternity.

Here let me help you out. Its not the individual who leaves the most offspring rather it is the individual who leaves the most 'surviving' offspring. Educated parents and their children will likely survive the huddling brown masses you fear Wyld.:biggrin1: :rolleyes:

And besides after 2 generations there really isn't much of 'you' left anyways. On the other hand the survival of a species is really what evolution is talking about.
 

B_spiker067

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2006
Posts
2,163
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
183
Could someone explain why of all the primates men have the largest penis?

If a gorilla's penis was largers than a man's would be on Planet of the Apes?

A female friend of mine used to cut on idiots by saying, "Fuck you are one big dude, I bet you have a gorilla dick." Or something along those lines.
 

diamond

Legendary Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
May 13, 2006
Posts
678
Media
4
Likes
1,265
Points
548
Location
Suisse
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
Without Prejudice

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.

When I stated that I did not agree with you it was in reference to your suggestion that penis size was a "non factor".
I felt that the author perhaps had some merits to his claim and that penis size might have something to do with it. (IMO)

For you to suggest that I do not have a "firm grasp" on certain concepts is very arrogant on your behalf, especially since you do not know my educational background nor life experiences.

of course, this shouldn't surprise me as you think a 9 inch cock is so normal you've never seen anything smaller,

I actually went back to my posts earlier today, and was trying to locate where I had written that I had never seen a penis smaller than nine inches?:confused: I believe what i did say, was that I had never been with a man under 9 inches physically ( meaning sexual intercourse). Perhaps you might want to contemplate that I have not had many sexual partners in order to warrant such a statement?

More importantly I realize that the average penis size is between 5-6 inches in length and a man who has a penis of 9 inches or bigger ( length) represents a small percentile of the population, however rare, they do exist.
Ironic that such presumptions originates from a woman who claims not to be sizequeen.


and you advocate circumcision for absolutely no logical reason. i guess i really can't expect more from you.

As far as my advocacy towards circumcision, it is based on several factors and personal choice. I did not realize that when someone voices (their opinion) or preference on LPSG it implies that one must have scientific or empircal data to back up personal decisions that should be made between two people who created the child in the first place.

May I remind you, that when you voice your opinions against circumscision never have I asked for a logical explanation behind your decision, but rather accepted the differences of opinons that make us all unique individuals.

In regards to expecations, it is I who has been disappointed in a post written by a woman who claims to be articulate and intelligent and yet so condescending in nature.
 

diamond

Legendary Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
May 13, 2006
Posts
678
Media
4
Likes
1,265
Points
548
Location
Suisse
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
Can you please refer to the quote that implies " I started it"? If you are referring to the quote below, it simply was a difference of opinion, nothing more nothing less. It seems you flew off on a tangent for no apparent reason.
 

snoozan

Experimental Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2006
Posts
3,449
Media
0
Likes
22
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
Well, you singled me out long after my post, it came off as being snide, and you used the WTF? smiley. How else was I supposed to take it? Admit it, you were taking a jab at me.