Evolution and Penis Size

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

PS.. During the Roman Empire, Small penis's were in, Large Penis were frowned upon as less masculine or virtous etc..

IIRC they were screwing little boys a lot too.

From an evolutionary standpoint I am not positive that the woman's pleasure mattered much. You raided a village, stole the women and raped them. I doubt that any of the raiders said "Was it good for you honey"???

While no doubt rape has been around forever, I doubt it factored into evolution as much as traditional coitus. Selfish gene theory says a man's best chances for genetic success requires him to stick around enough to help feed and protect.

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

Not that this horse needs any more beating to remain dead, but a couple points have not been made.

Natural selection has a tough time making the penis larger due to homology. The male and female genitals are indistinguishable in the womb until three months gestation. A genetic tendency for a larger penis would also be a genetic tendency for a larger clitoris (both external and internal portion) in females of the same family. The giant external clitoris could be distracting or easily injured/infected. The giant internal clitoris could impact surrounding tissues negatively and even make childbirth difficult.

Also, any selective pressure for larger genitals might or might not be evident in similar primates with dissimilar social constructs.

Last, humans DO have huge penises (as percentage of body mass) compared to other primates. For a female's physical pleasure, too much length means her partner can't "bottom out" and bump his pubic bone into her clitoris (assuming face-to-face coupling, which may be a relatively recent innovation). But ancient human females had hands and one might assume that like chimp females they were not shy about touching themselves, even during intercourse, so would that matter?

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

Has anyone on this thread actually read Darwins book or any book on evolution?

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

I recommend The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins. Fascinating. There are some books on amazon dealing mainly with sexual evolution; I haven't pulled the trigger yet on that.

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

Has anyone on this thread actually read Darwins book or any book on evolution?

Yes, not saying I am am expert though and it was some time ago.

On this note, I have a question. Let us say that some people on an isolated island, no outsiders added to the gene pool, pull on their penises. Eventually would the young males be born with larger penises?

[imac Retired Moderator Member of the Month Nov 12PEGym Hero Find all posts View Profile Close imac]

Yes, not saying I am am expert though and it was some time ago.

On this note, I have a question. Let us say that some people on an isolated island, no outsiders added to the gene pool, pull on their penises. Eventually would the young males be born with larger penises?

If everyone on that island cut off their index fingers would baby's eventually start to be born without index fingers?

[second lensman Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close second lensman]

Yes, not saying I am am expert though and it was some time ago.

On this note, I have a question. Let us say that some people on an isolated island, no outsiders added to the gene pool, pull on their penises. Eventually would the young males be born with larger penises?

No evolution doesn't work like that.
Traits evolve because over generations the differences make for a survival advantage.

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

While I agree with the above comments, it is THEORETICALLY possible: let's say the penis pullers are wildy successful and prospective mates flock to them shunning small non-pullers. Genetic diversity would produce both large and small candidates, with larger candidates who needed to pull less or not at all, so would have more time for hunting or mating.

In fact, given the attention to size inherent in a penis pulling society, larger specimens may be given higher stature in society and therefore plenty of advantages (e.g. higher quality females for reproduction).

[imac Retired Moderator Member of the Month Nov 12PEGym Hero Find all posts View Profile Close imac]

While I agree with the above comments, it is THEORETICALLY possible: let's say the penis pullers are wildy successful and prospective mates flock to them shunning small non-pullers. Genetic diversity would produce both large and small candidates, with larger candidates who needed to pull less or not at all, so would have more time for hunting or mating.

In fact, given the attention to size inherent in a penis pulling society, larger specimens may be given higher stature in society and therefore plenty of advantages (e.g. higher quality females for reproduction).

What utter bollocks!

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

Also, "evolution theory" is what it says on the tin... a THEORY at best. When it comes to humans I personally believe that eugenics in some way or an other has a lot to do with how we look, a sort of genetic engineering. I'm not talking labs and white coats but keeping infants based on certain physical traits. Like keeping the lighter skinned offspring and disposing of darker ones or mating people with certain "favorable" physical or behavioral traits, or killing off the week as we have seen in Sparta. I think the Masay tribe in Africa for example deliberately bred and/or kept taller infants. So you need to look at this question in the light of man made engineered qualities though I'm not aware of anyone deliberately breeding little John Holmes lookalikes.... certainly my parents didn't.... those bastards

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

No evolution doesn't work like that.
Traits evolve because over generations the differences make for a survival advantage.

I know. Evolution is about survival and that is it-not pleasure. We are mammals not birds with colorful feathers.

Some people may ask why do cheetahs and gazelle have legs that are so long. They are having an arms race.

A long time ago a cheetah was chasing a gazelle and the faster cheetahs caught the short legged gazelles. These gazelles had short legs and were slow allowing the then stocky cheetah thing to catch it. These gazelles were dinner.

After some time the odds were in the favor of gazelle because they had long legs and the cheetahs did not. So, only the long legged slender cheetahs caught the gazelle.

And so forth and so one. Now cheetahs run 60 mph and have long legs. The Gazelles are now slender and have long legs.

Now if the cheetahs were able to run 75 mph, but had a high rate of leg fractures. Evolution would stop that trait from being passed on because when he cheetah breaks it's leg it cannot eat and dies. The 60 mph cheetah would continue until a better, successful trait was developed.

This is simplistic but correct.

[Padawan787 Moderator ReservePEGym Hero Find all posts View Profile Close Padawan787]

Also, "evolution theory" is what it says on the tin... a THEORY at best.

I don't think that you know what a "theory" is in a scientific context. It doesn't mean an "idea" like it does when the word theory is used in everyday life.

[Trigger Junior Member Find all posts View Profile Close Trigger]

I know. Evolution is about survival and that is it-not pleasure. We are mammals not birds with colorful feathers.

Some people may ask why do cheetahs and gazelle have legs that are so long. They are having an arms race.

A long time ago a cheetah was chasing a gazelle and the faster cheetahs caught the short legged gazelles. These gazelles had short legs and were slow allowing the then stocky cheetah thing to catch it. These gazelles were dinner.

After some time the odds were in the favor of gazelle because they had long legs and the cheetahs did not. So, only the long legged slender cheetahs caught the gazelle.

And so forth and so one. Now cheetahs run 60 mph and have long legs. The Gazelles are now slender and have long legs.

Now if the cheetahs were able to run 75 mph, but had a high rate of leg fractures. Evolution would stop that trait from being passed on because when he cheetah breaks it's leg it cannot eat and dies. The 60 mph cheetah would continue until a better, successful trait was developed.

This is simplistic but correct.

In short, If all the ppl with short penis's were to get eaten , The world would only be left with ppl with long penis' , lol.


j/k


Back to, If we all had long penis' I still would want to be the longest...

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

Science explained that the earth is flat, science explained that there is global warming (very nice algorithms indeed, looks good on paper), science explained we came from monkeys (although the found missing link which inspired many PhD dissertations turned out to have a pigs jaw attached to it ), science and "experts" (LMFAO) explained why we need to bail out banks and many things.... once there is a new theory the old one is discarded and the new one is treated as a holy truth. nobody says: damn we were (are) such bloody idiots for having believed that". I think many (not all) things science has to offer is very much a theory and through time it was almost always politically charged one way or another. That's why I like maths.... no bollocks attached in its rawest pure form.

[Padawan787 Moderator ReservePEGym Hero Find all posts View Profile Close Padawan787]

Wow...

Science explained that the earth is flat

Aristotle claimed that the earth was spherical in 330BC

science explained that there is global warming (very nice algorithms indeed, looks good on paper)

Global warming is a reality, and is cyclical in nature, the only debatable factor is Man's contribution (which is probably negligible)

science explained we came from monkeys (although the found missing link which inspired many PhD dissertations turned out to have a pigs jaw attached to it )

We did evolve from primates, that is indisputable.

science and "experts" (LMFAO) explained why we need to bail out banks and many things....

Economics is a social science.

once there is a new theory the old one is discarded and the new one is treated as a holy truth. nobody says: damn we were (are) such bloody idiots for having believed that". I think many (not all) things science has to offer is very much a theory and through time it was almost always politically charged one way or another. That's why I like maths.... no bollocks attached in its rawest pure form.

Gravity is "just" a theory, but I doubt that you jump out of buildings.

A theory is a proven framework of objective facts.