Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The evolution of size matters
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 1 of 91 (695700)
04-08-2013 8:42 PM


OK, I was a little anxious at first, but I perked up when I hit the 3" rule.
Still, to quote Agent Mulder as he disrobed at the arctic station, "I want everyone to keep in mind that it's very cold in here."
Science proves women like men with bigger penises
Penis size does affect attractiveness

"If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by roxrkool, posted 04-09-2013 10:09 PM Omnivorous has replied
 Message 6 by Faith, posted 04-09-2013 11:47 PM Omnivorous has replied
 Message 20 by bluegenes, posted 04-10-2013 3:18 PM Omnivorous has not replied
 Message 30 by Son Goku, posted 04-12-2013 1:32 PM Omnivorous has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 2 of 91 (695702)
04-08-2013 9:12 PM


Thread Copied from Coffee House Forum
Thread copied here from the The evolution of size matters thread in the Coffee House forum.

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 989 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


(1)
Message 3 of 91 (695870)
04-09-2013 10:09 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Omnivorous
04-08-2013 8:42 PM


it matters
From my own experience and speaking to my female friends, it does matter, but only in the beginning.
Who cares if a penis is 2" after he gets out of the shower if that penis reaches adequate length when it matters?
If it's <= 3" at maximum size... well then that's likely going to be a problem, I'm sorry to say.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Omnivorous, posted 04-08-2013 8:42 PM Omnivorous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Omnivorous, posted 04-09-2013 11:32 PM roxrkool has replied

  
CoolBeans
Member (Idle past 3614 days)
Posts: 196
From: Honduras
Joined: 02-11-2013


(1)
Message 4 of 91 (695871)
04-09-2013 10:24 PM


There will be a lot of sports car sales this year

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Omnivorous, posted 04-10-2013 12:35 AM CoolBeans has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 5 of 91 (695873)
04-09-2013 11:32 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by roxrkool
04-09-2013 10:09 PM


Re: it matters
roxrkool writes:
If it's <= 3" at maximum size... well then that's likely going to be a problem, I'm sorry to say.
Based on my own experience and discussions with multiple wives and lovers, size only really matters at the extremes: awfully small presents a stimulus problem, and, at the other end of the range, nobody really wants their cervix bruised. As I used to tell my friends, it's vainglorious to think you're going to impress a passage that can accommodate a baby's head. Note that the photos presented to women to grade for sexual attractiveness found a correlation with flaccid penis size up to 3"--but the correlation decreased beyond that measure: Sex in the City notwithstanding, not Mr. Big, but Mr. Big Enough.
I probably shouldn't have started out laughingly, because I think the research raises some interesting questions.
The observation that the homo sapiens penis is both proportionately larger and more clearly displayed than other primates suggests that sexual selection may have driven both. The press report I linked to at least suggests that, in this case, sexual selection might have been partly driven by evaluations of potential pleasure rather than fitness: I can't think of another cited case of sexual selection where that applies, and I can't think of any way in which penis size would be a valid proxy for
general fitness.
In the classic example, the peacock's tail or its equivalent serve as a proxy for the peacock's general fitness; one hardly supposes the peahen obtains an extra frisson of pleasure because her mate has a gaudy tail.
So do homo sapiens display in this case a unique brand of sexual selection based on an evaluation of future pleasure rather than fitness? If so, that might represent a departure from prior known modes of selection, based on pleasure and utilizing our species' cognitive abilities to evaluate and anticipate.
Thanks for responding to the OP--I think it is fascinating research, and I feared I had wrong-footed it with humor I meant to be disarming.
Edited by Omnivorous, : No reason given.

"If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by roxrkool, posted 04-09-2013 10:09 PM roxrkool has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Dogmafood, posted 04-10-2013 8:33 AM Omnivorous has not replied
 Message 12 by 1.61803, posted 04-10-2013 10:52 AM Omnivorous has not replied
 Message 15 by roxrkool, posted 04-10-2013 12:44 PM Omnivorous has not replied
 Message 24 by Jon, posted 04-11-2013 12:20 AM Omnivorous has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


(2)
Message 6 of 91 (695874)
04-09-2013 11:47 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Omnivorous
04-08-2013 8:42 PM


Decided to delete this post as this is a subject a Christian should not comment on at all. Not that I said anything terrible, but anything on this subject can only come out of my pre-Christian past and shouldn't be mentioned at all. Sorry. The Cheers can now be turned to Jeers.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Omnivorous, posted 04-08-2013 8:42 PM Omnivorous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Omnivorous, posted 04-10-2013 12:29 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 14 by ringo, posted 04-10-2013 12:29 PM Faith has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 7 of 91 (695879)
04-10-2013 12:29 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Faith
04-09-2013 11:47 PM


Thanks, Faith. I understand your creationist perspective, and I appreciate your input.
And I agree that "other things" are more important than physical perfection.

"If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Faith, posted 04-09-2013 11:47 PM Faith has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 8 of 91 (695880)
04-10-2013 12:35 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by CoolBeans
04-09-2013 10:24 PM


CoolBeans writes:
There will be a lot of sports car sales this year.
I really like small cars.

"If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by CoolBeans, posted 04-09-2013 10:24 PM CoolBeans has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-10-2013 12:46 PM Omnivorous has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 9 of 91 (695888)
04-10-2013 3:22 AM


Maybe it's a point in favour of intelligent design that God put the cliteris on the outside of the woman. (Else we'd all be sporting dongs dragging along the ground by now).
Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 348 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


(1)
Message 10 of 91 (695906)
04-10-2013 8:33 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Omnivorous
04-09-2013 11:32 PM


Re: it matters
I imagine that the process of sexual selection is a different thing today than it was when we were all running around naked. I just can not see the Palaeolithic women complaining about not having enough orgasms. Well, I can see them complaining but would anybody be paying much attention? ") I appreciate that the female orgasm contributes to the likelihood of conceiving but they are not essential and I would think that the male contribution to defence and being able to provide food and shelter would be overwhelmingly more important factors regarding any choices that she might make.
I would also question how much input the female would have had regarding her sexual partners 500k yrs ago. I would think that it would have been much less than it is today.
Another point about sexual selection is the fact that just about everybody has children. It is not as though only the well endowed do the breeding. I would say that female preference for penis size is a nearly trivial factor in the evolution of penis size.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Omnivorous, posted 04-09-2013 11:32 PM Omnivorous has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Tangle, posted 04-10-2013 11:12 AM Dogmafood has replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 11 of 91 (695908)
04-10-2013 10:11 AM


shrinkage
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEnKLhi83J8
Hilarious Seinfield episode.
realizing he was short changed) I was in the pool! I was in the pool!
[Jerry and George talking in Jerry's room]
GEORGE: Did she do it on purpose?
JERRY: It was my fault, I told her the wrong door.
GEORGE: I was supposed to see her. She wasn't supposed to see me.
JERRY: So what?
GEORGE: Well ordinarily I wouldn't mind. But...
JERRY: But...
GEORGE: Well I just got back from swimming in the pool. And the water was cold...
JERRY: Oh... You mean... shrinkage.
GEORGE: Yes. Significant shrinkage.
JERRY: So you feel you were short changed.
GEORGE: Yes! I mean, if she thinks that's me she's under a complete misapprehension. That was not me, Jerry. That was not me.
JERRY: Well, so what's the difference?
GEORGE: What if she discusses it with Jane?
JERRY: Oh, she's not gonna tell Jane.
GEORGE: How do you know?
JERRY: Women aren't like us.
GEORGE: They're worse! They're much worse than us, they talk about everything! Couldn't you at least tell her about the shrinkage factor?
JERRY: No, I'm not gonna tell her about your shrinkage. Besides, I think women know about shrinkage.
GEORGE: How do women know about shrinkage?
JERRY: Isn't it common knowledge?
GEORGE & JERRY: (Elaine walking down the hall they notice her and wave her into the room) Elaine! Get! (She enters)
GEORGE: Do women know about shrinkage?
ELAINE: What do you mean, like laundry?
GEORGE: No.
JERRY: Like when a man goes swimming... afterwards...
ELAINE: It shrinks?
JERRY: Like a frightened turtle!
ELAINE: Why does it shrink?
GEORGE: It just does.
ELAINE: I don't know how you guys walk around with those things.
Edited by 1.61803, : bad spelling

"You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 12 of 91 (695909)
04-10-2013 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Omnivorous
04-09-2013 11:32 PM


Re: it matters
I can't think of any way in which penis size would be a valid proxy for general fitness.
Me either. However we humans are a strange bunch. Humans tend to conflate penis size with virility, sexual prowess and masculinity. It was that way in the past and it seems to be that way today.
The penis song: by Monty Python
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGRPFUYUUdQ

"You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Omnivorous, posted 04-09-2013 11:32 PM Omnivorous has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 13 of 91 (695913)
04-10-2013 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Dogmafood
04-10-2013 8:33 AM


Re: it matters
Prototypical writes:
would also question how much input the female would have had regarding her sexual partners 500k yrs ago. I would think that it would have been much less than it is today.
I'm not so sure about that - I've never really gone with the caveman dragging the woman by the hair to his cave thing. If we accept that H. sapiens developed as social animals, rape isn't really a great tactic.
But another thing is the fact that the clitoris is the most innovated area of a woman's entire body, it has almost twice as many nerve ending as the penis but is a tiny fraction of the size. It's entire purpose appears to be to provide pleasure to the woman during sex. This indicates to me that it's there because the woman needs to consent - otherwise why have it?

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Dogmafood, posted 04-10-2013 8:33 AM Dogmafood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by roxrkool, posted 04-10-2013 12:46 PM Tangle has not replied
 Message 18 by Dogmafood, posted 04-10-2013 2:43 PM Tangle has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 14 of 91 (695926)
04-10-2013 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Faith
04-09-2013 11:47 PM


Faith writes:
... there would have been no opportunity for selection to make a difference in the short span since Creation at least among the human tribes that wear a lot of clothing.
That's actually a pretty good point. I think creationists should make it a major plank in their platform.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Faith, posted 04-09-2013 11:47 PM Faith has not replied

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 989 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 15 of 91 (695930)
04-10-2013 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Omnivorous
04-09-2013 11:32 PM


Re: it matters
I would agree with that -- that it really only matters at the extremes -- but there are many women who do judge based on the size of a flaccid penis, which really doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I think I now know why male actors (not porn actors) are not keen on full frontal movie roles -- women ARE going to judge their sexual prowess based on what they see on the screen.
it's vainglorious to think you're going to impress a passage that can accommodate a baby's head.
Having had a baby and all, I can tell you that just because the vagina can stretch to accommodate a baby's head, doesn't mean that a nice sized penis isn't going to be appreciated; particularly if the kegel muscles are stillin good shape. During birth, the mother's body is in overdrive to make sure the vagina is in the proper condition to deliver a baby.
I think women do in fact select their mates with pleasure in mind. Of course women want other things in a man (a job, money, car, good personality, funny, good heart, flat abs, nice legs, good teeth, eye color, nice build, whatever floats her boat), and I certainly think some of them can make up for a lack of size (say less than 3" erect), but it would be tough. I don't know many women willing to make that sacrifice, to be honest. It probably just depends on how important sex is to the woman.
I have a friend who hates sex and her and her husband average maybe once or twice a year. She probably couldn't care less if he was poorly endowed.
Thanks for responding to the OP--I think it is fascinating research, and I feared I had wrong-footed it with humor I meant to be disarming.
You're welcome. It's an awkward topic, to be sure. I wasn't sure whether to be funny or serious, either.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Omnivorous, posted 04-09-2013 11:32 PM Omnivorous has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024