The evolution of size matters

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

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.

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

I really like small cars.

Hi, Prototypical.I take it, then, that you reject sexual selection altogether? It occurs to me that you are applying our current sexual context to our evolutionary history. On what grounds do you conclude that "everyone breeds" applied to our ancestors 100,000 years ago or 1,000,000 years ago?And how else would you explain Homo sapiens' dramatic secondary sex characteristics? Our sexual dimorphism, in size and shape (if I recall correctly) exceeds that of our primate cousins. What is the origin of the male wedge (broad shoulders/narrow hips) and the female hourglass?You seem to be arguing that a trait must be subjected to absolute selection to make an evolutionary difference. But modern era studies of evolution in action--from the beak sizes of Darwin's finches to the survival advantage that tree swallows with just a few mm shorter wings enjoy (thus reducing road kill incidents)--contradict you. If your argument for an absolute effect from sexual selection were valid, I don't see why it wouldn't apply to selection in general.Have you refuted selection altogether?I wouldn't argue that a female preference for a larger penis strongly influences reproductive success now, but rather than it once did. So a surviving preference is exactly what I would expect, just as our preference for calorie-rich fat survives, although it does not serve us well now.Edited by Omnivorous, : too many millions