So if you're small, you're sure to get an A, B or C grade?
That guy's beating so far around the bush, he'd start a fire just by walking.
That guy's beating so far around the bush, he'd start a fire just by walking.
Mugen:
That guy's beating so far around the bush, he'd start a fire just by walking. [/b][/quote]
His opinion on how he thinks women think...
One's "C" can be another's "A"...
...and that's still not the actual point. The point that I got was to dispel the myth that size doesn't matter...what you do with that knowledge is up to you...
...Read the last pages to get the actual message of the whole deal.
So if you're small, you're sure to get an A, B or C grade?
That guy's beating so far around the bush, he'd start a fire just by walking. [/b][/quote]
His opinion on how he thinks women think...
One's "C" can be another's "A"...
...and that's still not the actual point. The point that I got was to dispel the myth that size doesn't matter...what you do with that knowledge is up to you...
...Read the last pages to get the actual message of the whole deal.
ssu: That site is a joke (maybe literally, I don't care)
Whatever the case, its pretty obviously not to be taken all that seriously, it's written by a bloke...
And how many blokes (survey or no survey damnit!
) have had their vagina filled with various dicks of various sizes.... Not many I'd hope.
Not least it might be worth speculating his own size No doubt it's gonna be perfect - right??
Just check out this page http://www.penissizedebate.com/page10_inst...or-genetics.htm for the whole thing - Not heard that much shit since the days of Take That
Whatever the case, its pretty obviously not to be taken all that seriously, it's written by a bloke...
And how many blokes (survey or no survey damnit!
) have had their vagina filled with various dicks of various sizes.... Not many I'd hope. Not least it might be worth speculating his own size
No doubt it's gonna be perfect - right??Just check out this page http://www.penissizedebate.com/page10_inst...or-genetics.htm for the whole thing - Not heard that much shit since the days of Take That
Damn, and I thought I knew a fair bit on evolution!
Mugen, that last page should have been the first and only one, end of story.
It's a bit like watching porn and a CND moment comes at the end.
Mugen, that last page should have been the first and only one, end of story.
It's a bit like watching porn and a CND moment comes at the end.
- jonb,
Yeah, 10,000 years after the Neolithic Revolution, we're seeing the bad side of having too many offspring. World hunger, anyone? And the biggest problem is the US: In terms of consumption, the average American equals about 30 Laotians or Ugandans. It gets worse if you're upper-class; then, you're equal to 70 Chinese. In other words, if you're an American, the ink's redder than the blood of various Third Worlders killed so you can fill your Hummer.
doubtless_mouse: Mugen You are right; you should only read the last few pages
and realize this is all a crock.
To insure survival and growth of the species, nature enforces a process called natural selection. This means that only the best should live and the weak should take a back seat. This principle of survival of the strongest caused competitiveness to be hard-coded in our basic instincts
Ok I have to take this statement on; it truly offends me in its sheer stupidity.
Natural Selection is defined as the process by which environmental effects lead to varying degrees of reproductive success among individuals of a population of organisms with different hereditary characteristics, or traits. The characteristics that inhibit reproductive success decrease in frequency from generation to generation. The resulting increase in the proportion of reproductively successful individuals usually enhances the adaptation of the population to its environment.
Translated into laymens terms, Natural Selection refers to traits of members of the species not the members themselves. It is referring to genes not individuals. The authors view that women have evolved to want large penises because it creates a better chance to become pregnant is nothing more than gibberish. The argument defeats itself. Any trait that increased the ability of the individual to reproduce (i.e. large penis) would be passed on to subsequent members of the species. Traits that did not increase or decreased this ability would be bred out of the species. Over the course of time, the reproductive success of large penised (sp) men should have lead to all men having large penises, not just a few. Instead the fact that there is such diversity in penis size leads one to think that penis size was not a contributing component of successful reproduction. Some of the traits that did evolve and increased our ancestors ability to reproduce are; bipedalism, opposable thumbs, larger brains, speech, etc. All humans possess these traits. These traits survived the evolutionary fire and made it through to become part of our species traits.
Rantings of the Mouse
To insure survival and growth of the species, nature enforces a process called natural selection. This means that only the best should live and the weak should take a back seat. This principle of survival of the strongest caused competitiveness to be hard-coded in our basic instincts
Ok I have to take this statement on; it truly offends me in its sheer stupidity.
Natural Selection is defined as the process by which environmental effects lead to varying degrees of reproductive success among individuals of a population of organisms with different hereditary characteristics, or traits. The characteristics that inhibit reproductive success decrease in frequency from generation to generation. The resulting increase in the proportion of reproductively successful individuals usually enhances the adaptation of the population to its environment.
Translated into laymens terms, Natural Selection refers to traits of members of the species not the members themselves. It is referring to genes not individuals. The authors view that women have evolved to want large penises because it creates a better chance to become pregnant is nothing more than gibberish. The argument defeats itself. Any trait that increased the ability of the individual to reproduce (i.e. large penis) would be passed on to subsequent members of the species. Traits that did not increase or decreased this ability would be bred out of the species. Over the course of time, the reproductive success of large penised (sp) men should have lead to all men having large penises, not just a few. Instead the fact that there is such diversity in penis size leads one to think that penis size was not a contributing component of successful reproduction. Some of the traits that did evolve and increased our ancestors ability to reproduce are; bipedalism, opposable thumbs, larger brains, speech, etc. All humans possess these traits. These traits survived the evolutionary fire and made it through to become part of our species traits.
Rantings of the Mouse
- jonb,
Correct, mouse. One of the big mistakes the early Darwinians (Huxley, Haeckel, et al.) made was this image of natural selection as something active. It's not; natural selection just means that some organisms have more offspring than others, and some (most, in fact) have no offspring at all because they die before they can reproduce, are simply sterile, or can't attract a mate. The last, sexual selection, is the only one with a sentient force ultimately behind it, namely the opposite sex.
Relative to chimpanzees, humans do have large penises: Twice as large, in fact. But more important in our evolutionary history would be opposable thumbs (found in all primates, so it first became prominent in the Eocene), bipedalism (found at least occasionally in all primates; habitual bipedalism first became prominent in the Lower Pliocene), and larger brains (Middle Pleistocene).
After the radiation of humans from eastern Africa from the Middle Pleistocene to the recent era, various traits were preferred by various populations. For example, I have flared nostrils, which would be an advantage in a hot, humid environment. As would my larger ears and longer limbs. Now, place me in Siberia with about the same technology as the Chukchi at the time of Russian contact, and I freeze to death rather quickly. Similarly, certain traits were preferred by sexual selection after the aforementioned radiation, hence (for example) the small breasts on Japanese women.
Relative to chimpanzees, humans do have large penises: Twice as large, in fact. But more important in our evolutionary history would be opposable thumbs (found in all primates, so it first became prominent in the Eocene), bipedalism (found at least occasionally in all primates; habitual bipedalism first became prominent in the Lower Pliocene), and larger brains (Middle Pleistocene).
After the radiation of humans from eastern Africa from the Middle Pleistocene to the recent era, various traits were preferred by various populations. For example, I have flared nostrils, which would be an advantage in a hot, humid environment. As would my larger ears and longer limbs. Now, place me in Siberia with about the same technology as the Chukchi at the time of Russian contact, and I freeze to death rather quickly. Similarly, certain traits were preferred by sexual selection after the aforementioned radiation, hence (for example) the small breasts on Japanese women.
Similar threads
