Evolution and Penis Size

[Jm123 Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close Jm123]

If evolution preferred big dicks why aren't our dicks attached to our foreheads so that our female mate could choose and therefore all the guys with small dicks would be dead by now. Don't you all think that evolution has changed a bit since Darwin did his thing?

Completely agree. Research has indicated that environmental factors, may be a very large factor in penis size. In addition, just because a big dick may feel better to a woman, does not mean it is better at getting her pregnant. Humans do have substantially larger dicks proportionally speaking, and we crush all other primates. Therefore it would be reasonable to think that there was/is an upward pressure on dick size in our past, however, that does not mean it still is occurring.

[CUSP82 Administrator Admin of the Month Dec 2014PEGym Hero Find all posts View Profile Close CUSP82]

Evolution, nature, is not at all concerned with the female orgasm. That where you guys are making your mistake. Did you ever watch cats fuck? If you haven't well it's not such a good thing for the female. Nature is concerned about reproduction and a man can reproduce if he has a one inch dick. If nature, eveolution, cared about a womans orgasm then our dicks would be on our heads, we'd have no tongue, and the marital aid stores wouldn't exist.

[Jm123 Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close Jm123]

Evolution, nature, is not at all concerned with the female orgasm. That where you guys are making your mistake. Did you ever watch cats fuck? If you haven't well it's not such a good thing for the female. Nature is concerned about reproduction and a man can reproduce if he has a one inch dick. If nature, eveolution, cared about a womans orgasm then our dicks would be on our heads, we'd have no tongue, and the marital aid stores wouldn't exist.

Just to give you a slightly different view here is a quote from wiki (talk about a cluster fuck). However, honestly, I would agree with you that evolution is not a major talking point concerning our current dick sizes. I believe environmental factors play a much larger role/concern for the modern man.

"The Lake Duck lives in Argentina, Chile, Paraguay, and Brazil in southern South America.[1]

It is notable for possessing, in relation to body length, the longest penis of all vertebrates; the penis, which is typically coiled up in flaccid state, can reach about the same length as the animal itself when fully erect, but more commonly is about half the bird's length.[2][3] It is theorized that the remarkable size of their spiny penises with bristled tips may have evolved in response to competitive pressure in these highly promiscuous birds, removing sperm from previous matings in the manner of a bottle brush.

Although most male birds have no penis,[4] ducks have a long corkscrew penis, and the females have a long corkscrew vagina, which spirals in the opposite direction.[5] The males often try to force copulation, but the complex mating geometry allows the females to retain control—most forced copulations do not result in successful fertilisation.[6]
"

[Ivor Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close Ivor]

I think it's worth noting that we live in a dick-size-obsessed culture (hence this forum, amongst others), but it's not justified to assume that all other cultures at all times and in all parts of the world have had the same obsession. The ancient Greeks and Romans famously found large penises bestial, comical and grotesque, and considered a small penis to be aesthetically ideal. I mean look at Michaelangelo's 'David', which was made in the Renaissance but is modelled after originals from Classical antiquity. And there's a line in the Kama Sutra describing the ideal penis as thick but short - in fact I think it even describes men with long penises as 'cursed'!

So just because, in Europe and North America in the 21st century, men want to have massive dicks and (some) women want men with massive dicks, doesn't mean it's always been like that. If it had always been that way, penises would soon become too big even for sex to be practically possible - the peacock's tail effect - and that would obviously be pretty self-defeating in evolutionary terms. Remember also that a very big dick is no better than an average-sized one for impregnating a woman, and that a lot of women find very big dicks simply painful rather than arousing. Even those that like the look of a huge wang or the feel of it in their hands don't necessarily want it tearing them up.

[ThinkBigThoughts Member Find all posts View Profile Close ThinkBigThoughts]

I think it's worth noting that we live in a dick-size-obsessed culture (hence this forum, amongst others), but it's not justified to assume that all other cultures at all times and in all parts of the world have had the same obsession. The ancient Greeks and Romans famously found large penises bestial, comical and grotesque, and considered a small penis to be aesthetically ideal. I mean look at Michaelangelo's 'David', which was made in the Renaissance but is modelled after originals from Classical antiquity.

I was in the Louvre not too long ago and found it interesting that of all the nude male sculpture, not one of those stony dicks was bigger than my little fella lol. Of course I was also in a shop in Seattle once that had a sperm whale penis on display, that damn thing was taller than I am!

[tanaka Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close tanaka]

I think to suggest evolution isn't concerned with female orgasm is simply absurd. I recall hearing that a woman is more likely to conceive after orgasm. Also, keep in mind, female orgasm is different than a man's. I've read hers can be so intense that it could kill a man if he experienced the same thing. Clearly, the evolution favors the man that gives her climax. Regardless of that, I believe the larger (but not too large) just makes it easier for him to bring her to that state; the less endowed can also achieve the same end, with a little more effort.

[Ivor Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close Ivor]

I've read hers can be so intense that it could kill a man if he experienced the same thing.

Hahaha, where did you hear that? It's a nice idea but complete nonsense. However, I agree with your general point that there is obviously an evolutionary reason for female orgasms - otherwise they wouldn't exist, right? It's not necessarily to do with reproduction directly, however. Our closest living relatives are the bonobos, who engage in just about every possible kind of sexual activity whether the females are in heat or not (I think they're one of very few species, other than humans, that do this). In fact most of their sexual activity is social rather than reproductive, in that its function is not to lead to babies but to reinforce the social bonds of the group. Much of it is same-sex, in fact primatologists have seen that the most common kind of sexual activity among bonobos occurs between females.

So features of our anatomy and behaviour that are to do with sex aren't necessarily to do with reproduction. Female orgasms could well be one of these things. After orgasm (male or female), cells in your brain release oxytocin, a chemical responsible for social bonding. Women's brains also release it when they breastfeed. Basically it's thought to play a large part in falling in love. Experiences that help create bonds between people are going to strengthen a social group, which will make it a safer and more nurturing environment for offspring. So female orgasms could play an important evolutionary role in this indirect way, rather than in the direct way of making conception more likely.

(And if you think about it, if the main purpose of female orgasms was to make conception more likely, it's a bit of a puzzle why most women never experience an orgasm through intercourse alone - if they were that big a deal in terms of conception, you'd expect them to happen automatically every time, or nearly every time, like male orgasms do. Plus, the females of almost no other species have an equivalent to the sexual climax human women can have.)

[CUSP82 Administrator Admin of the Month Dec 2014PEGym Hero Find all posts View Profile Close CUSP82]

I think to suggest evolution isn't concerned with female orgasm is simply absurd. I recall hearing that a woman is more likely to conceive after orgasm. Also, keep in mind, female orgasm is different than a man's. I've read hers can be so intense that it could kill a man if he experienced the same thing. Clearly, the evolution favors the man that gives her climax. Regardless of that, I believe the larger (but not too large) just makes it easier for him to bring her to that state; the less endowed can also achieve the same end, with a little more effort.

What does an orgasm do? Make us feel good right? Do you really think Nature gives a shit? Since when is Nature all that kind? The male does not care about a female orgasm. Do you think the male lion cares if his girlfriend got off or not? Nope, when he wants to screw he does and she can't do a damn thing about it and as long as he places his sperm inside the right recepticle she will get pregnant. Take it from a guy with 4 kids!

[tanaka Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close tanaka]

Hahaha, where did you hear that? It's a nice idea but complete nonsense.

Would Female Orgasms Kill Men?
"Putting it a little crudely, if the intensity of a woman's orgasm was played through a man's brain, there's a danger that the shock to his system would kill him."

It isn't necessarily proven but it is suggested in theory.

[tanaka Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close tanaka]

Do you think the male lion cares if his girlfriend got off or not?

The lion would care, if the lioness could get off. She can't, but a woman can. Your chances at sexual success (including genetic continuation) are enhanced if you make your partner climax. Keep in mind too that men and women behave differently regarding orgasm. Stereotypically, the man will leave, ask her to leave, fall asleep etc. But a woman can attach an emotional importance to orgasm. Or so I've heard.

[CUSP82 Administrator Admin of the Month Dec 2014PEGym Hero Find all posts View Profile Close CUSP82]

The lion would care, if the lioness could get off. She can't, but a woman can. Your chances at sexual success (including genetic continuation) are enhanced if you make your partner climax. Keep in mind too that men and women behave differently regarding orgasm. Stereotypically, the man will leave, ask her to leave, fall asleep etc. But a woman can attach an emotional importance to orgasm. Or so I've heard.

And you know this how?

[Ivor Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close Ivor]

Would Female Orgasms Kill Men?
"Putting it a little crudely, if the intensity of a woman's orgasm was played through a man's brain, there's a danger that the shock to his system would kill him."

It isn't necessarily proven but it is suggested in theory.

OK, this is the quote from the book:

When an orgasm has been achieved through sex, you can measure theta waves. These are also said to cause the "running high" feeling of euphoria experienced sometimes by marathon runners. If theta waves are taken as a criterion, the entire brain emits theta waves when women reach an orgasm that are close to 10 times stronger than when men climax. So, if theta waves are an indication of an orgasm's strength, then women experience an orgasm that is physically impossible for men to go through. Putting it a little crudely, if the intensity of a woman's orgasm was played through a man's brain, there's a danger that the shock to his system would kill him. That risk makes it impossible to experiment on a man at the moment. And men can never become women.

Note the 'if' I've highlighted. It assumes the subjective intensity of an orgasm is directly proportional to the intensity of these theta waves. Maybe that's true and maybe it isn't. However, it's clearly impossible to objectively measure the strength of an orgasm, isn't it? So all you can do is subjectively judge the strength of your own orgasms. If someone has just had an orgasm, you can ask them whether it was strong, weak or middling, by their own standards. But how do you judge whether Person A's orgasm was stronger than Person B's? And since no-one has ever been both a man and a woman (even people who have gender reassignment surgery still have the nervous system they were born with), it's not really scientific to say women have stronger orgasms than men.

Also, even assuming women can have stronger orgasms, there is no explanation whatsoever in support of the statement that they would "kill" a man. The author of the article sounds pretty skeptical and I'm inclined to be skeptical too.

[Ivor Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close Ivor]

The lion would care, if the lioness could get off. She can't, but a woman can. Your chances at sexual success (including genetic continuation) are enhanced if you make your partner climax. Keep in mind too that men and women behave differently regarding orgasm. Stereotypically, the man will leave, ask her to leave, fall asleep etc. But a woman can attach an emotional importance to orgasm. Or so I've heard.

Also, I have to ask if you've ever seen a nature documentary about lions! Male lions are the ultimate selfish bastards, they usually can't even be bothered to hunt their own food - they just wait till a lioness has made a kill and then use their larger size to bully her away, eat their fill and leave whatever they can't eat for her. They're pretty damn selfish 'in bed', too (much like domestic cats, where sex is often pretty close to what you would call rape if humans were involved).

And you seem to be falling into some majorly clichéd stereotypes about sex. You like to shoot your load and then leave, do you? Fine, whatever works for you - but I actually like all the afterplay, and I don't think I'm particularly unusual in this respect. There are important differences between men and women, sure, but I think the male and female sexual responses are a lot more similar than many people think. The idea that men are happy with any old warm, wet hole to stick their cock while women are flighty, emotional creatures who need to feel they're "being made love to" - load of bollocks, I say. Men have emotions and moods too, and women also like physical pleasure for its own sake.

[HailEros Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close HailEros]

That's a well thought out post, but I have several issues. First, while large breasts should be favored due to expected advantages of feeding children, small breasts are a sign of youth which is favored by males for whatever reason. But, a small penis has NO similar advantage.

Second, recently I've begun observing very carefully, and found that women very often take a glance at the bulge. They are very sneaky; it takes a fraction of a second, but they (like men w/ boobs and butts) seem to not be able to help themselves. If you haven't, take time to observe carefully. I've determined that women of mating age, can't help but try to glimpse a crotch shot if they can go unnoticed. They are good at it; they can combine a blink and an eye roll into the right direction. We men have similar tendancies/instincts.

Again, my thesis is: we are here to enlarge our penises and nature had underendowed all but a few freaks with extra large genitals. Why? A similar but unrelated question: why are most primates far stronger than humans? We are the dominant species, by far, but we are weak compared to apes. Evolution is indeed smarter than we are.

(Sorry, I'm coming into this thread late. And although I haven't read it all, I'm already very interested and feel a strong need to post my opinion)
As far as our strength, as opposed to apes; apes and other animals rely on strength to survive. We've become the most advanced species because we've become, by far, the most intelligent. We humans have mostly abandoned former attributes, such as strength and speed, in favor of a much more valuable asset...intelligence. Most animals are more physically dominant than humans, yet there are zoos all over the world. Why? Because we were intelligent enough to develop methods for dominating every other animal on the planet. As for your statement on breasts; I agree that large breasts are a symbol of nourishment for men, and are desired accordingly. But I don't think this is a good analogy for penis size. For instance, breast feeding is considered a bonding experience between mother and child. So a man's affinity for large breast could also have to do with his own personal feelings of nourishment. And I don't think women could have those same feelings about a penis, unless something went TERRIBLY wrong in her childhood. Also, a man's biological attraction to a youthful woman has nothing to do with small breasts. The attraction isn't to young girls. But rather to girls recently developed and at the "ripe" age for reproducing. And my opinion about the initial post, referring to evolution...you have to consider how long it takes for evolutionary processes to occur. Sex sells. It's in the media. It's in the advertising market. It's EVERYWHERE. But a mere 60-70 years ago things were completely different. I mean, Elvis could only be shown on TV from the waist up because his dancing was apparently too sexually provocative for the time. My point is that men in this culture haven't really felt the need to have a large penis for very long. The gears of penis evolution are more than likely turning at this very moment. Some might even say that this site is a product of the evolutionary process.

[HailEros Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close HailEros]

[QUOTE=Ivor;658425]Hahaha, um, no - that's not how evolution works at all. Genetic code does not get 'adjusted' during an individuals lifetime, it's fixed at the moment of conception and remains the same until we die. The genetic make-up of a *population* changes over time as some genes are preferentially selected and some are weeded out.

You're not *really* a doctor, are you?

Also, exactly how many babies are born massively ripped? No-one has lots of muscle mass without eating protein and exercising. It's just that some people have more of a genetic predisposition towards putting on muscle than others.[/QUOTE

I completely disagree. If this were the case, there would be no such thing as evolution. If the genetics of a given specimen are fixed at conception and do not alter throughout It's lifetime then at what point would any genes evolve? Babies aren't born "massively ripped" because they are not yet developed. A baby boy who is born from a long line of muscular men isn't going to be muscular at birth, but later in life after sexual development, given a proper environment, that baby will probably be muscular, or at least have a significant advantage over a person born from a less muscular lineage. I believe (yes, this is a BELIEF. Not trying to call it a theory. Not saying It's anything concrete. Rather a general idea that makes sense to me) that a person's lifetime actually determines evolution. A given individual's perception , through experience, on what is required to facilitate survival, I believe, is what determines specific traits that should be passed down on a genetic level.