Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-24-2019 11:26 AM
33 online now:
edge, PaulK, Tanypteryx (3 members, 30 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,618 Year: 3,655/19,786 Month: 650/1,087 Week: 19/221 Day: 19/36 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
567Next
Author Topic:   The evolution of size matters
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 91 (696511)
04-16-2013 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by ProtoTypical
04-16-2013 9:53 AM


Re: it matters
How many women in the world today are able to express their preference for a particular mate?

Only in advanced societies with institutional system to support inequality do females not enjoy almost pure control over mating matches.

In societies where those institutions don't exist, or exist to lesser degrees (such as most of the First World), females have more control over mating matches than males.

We have to assume that the female could enforce the preference to a degree that would over come the average male's drive to breed.

Well, a drive to breed isn't some magical thing. The drive has to be acted on.

I just think that the preference would be dwarfed into complete insignificance by factors like general health or physique or wealth or status.

And it is. Penises aren't that large; we aren't talking about a third leg, just a penis that is larger in proportion to the rest of the body than for other primates. Even with small selection pressures (and the study suggests that the pressures are small) it seems very conceivable that the penises of today could be produced through sexual selection.

You also have to take into consideration the fact that some of these factors probably didn't exist when penis size was being selected for, or could have been being selected for at the same time as penis size.

I would concede that I am likely underestimating the potential effect of an extremely minor selection pressure.

What about boobs?


Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by ProtoTypical, posted 04-16-2013 9:53 AM ProtoTypical has acknowledged this reply

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 91 (696514)
04-16-2013 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by ProtoTypical
04-16-2013 8:57 AM


Re: it matters
That if all of the larger men throughout evolutionary history have sired 1.1 children for every 1 child sired by an average male then that would be enough to increase the prevalence of the trait. I do not disagree with that however the fact that the larger than average male is just that and not average would mean that they would have to do a substantially greater amount of breeding to impact the population at large given that there are not that many of them

Well, the thing is that penis size and mating frequency will show direct correlation. Let's say that in early populations 3" erect was smaller; 4" erect was average; and 5" erect was larger. Assuming a direct correlation, each man with a 3" penis reproduces less than each man with a 4" penis who reproduces less than a man with a 5" penis. Also, let's assume that penis size is standardly variable so there are as many men with 3" members as there are men with 5" members.

Given this, the subsequent generation will consist of more offspring from fathers with 4" and 5" penises than from fathers with 3" penisesassuming 50% of the children born to each father are males; i.e., they father a proportion of males equal to their reproduction proportions.

I am saying that the other elements that make up a woman's choice of mate like the ability to provide food and protection would overwhelm any preference for penis size.

It doesn't matter. As long as it is a preference that preference will show in the evolutionary trajectory.

I am just saying that a selection factor has to pass some threshold in order to actually make a difference and I am doubting if this one does that.

And it will. Because not all men equally handsome have equal-sized members; not all men equally wealthy have equal-sized members; etc. Furthermore, not all females rank the importance of different elements of attractiveness the same. There will be some women for whom the choice comes down to penis size, and if their choice is always for the larger member, then we can expect the population as a whole to move in the direction of having larger members.

Do you not find it odd that the very things that separate men from women physically are the things most tied to attractiveness (body size/shape, breasts, penises, face structure, etc.)? When so many members of the population possess features considered generally attractive by the opposite sex, can it be any wonder how those features evolved?

Members who have those features are selected by the opposite sex to reproduce more often than members who don't.

Penis size is just another one of those features.

Penises are a certain size because they need to be a certain size in order to function.

Penises are far larger than they need to be to function. Something has to account for this. Evolution just doesn't make things bigger randomly; in fact, without some other selection pressure for being larger, things are rarely evolved to be any bigger than they need to be.

How do you account for unusually large penises? I guess it's time for you to lay out your alternative theory.

Jon


Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by ProtoTypical, posted 04-16-2013 8:57 AM ProtoTypical has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by ProtoTypical, posted 04-17-2013 10:28 AM Jon has responded

  
ProtoTypical
Member
Posts: 1776
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 48 of 91 (696601)
04-17-2013 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Jon
04-16-2013 1:57 PM


Re: it matters
In societies where those institutions don't exist, or exist to lesser degrees (such as most of the First World), females have more control over mating matches than males.

Sure they do but I would say that is a recent development. I mean look at any society just 2000 yrs ago. Is there even one that you could point to where the women were treated equally? I am not saying that they didn't have some input. Even a lowly slave girl could twist the will of a king but as a rule I would wager that the men of history have had a lot more say regarding who breeds with who.

Well, a drive to breed isn't some magical thing. The drive has to be acted on.

That is my point that all of the average and smaller men would have been acting on that drive regardless of what the ladies thought about it.

Assuming a direct correlation, each man with a 3" penis reproduces less than each man with a 4" penis who reproduces less than a man with a 5" penis.

As NoNukes said, this is quite an assumption. The preference that the women may have had or have has to actually show up in their choices. If you asked me what my preferred car is I might say a 1979 Porsche 911 in gun metal blue. Even though I could afford it, and assuming my wife would let me buy it, I still find myself with a VW station wagon. My 'preference' is for the Porsche but my choice is the VW.

The answer to the question of what a women finds most sexually attractive is not necessarily the same answer to the question of who she would most like to have children with. Even though a preference is identifiable today and even after assuming that it has been ever present it has to manifest itself in the choices made.

So I would dispute that " It doesn't matter. As long as it is a preference that preference will show in the evolutionary trajectory."

You also have to take into consideration the fact that some of these factors probably didn't exist when penis size was being selected for, or could have been being selected for at the same time as penis size.

This speaks to my point about other characteristics and how much they were influenced by sexual selection. Why wouldn't we assume that penis size developed along with general physique and it was the other much more important qualities of being able to hunt better or having a disposition for doing the dishes that led to the actual choices that women made.

I don't disagree with the sub category of sexual selection as it is really just another element of the environment. I disagree with the amount of overt influence that is being attributed to it in this case. I think the same would apply to the size of a women's breasts. Even if I am initially attracted to a particular sized breast and procreate with that woman simply because of that attraction. If she is not up to the task of rearing children or dies in child birth because her hips are too narrow or is just a down right nasty bitch then I am not likely to have any more children with her. Women with good birthing hips often also have full breasts. Is my attraction to the full breasts or some other recognition of her ability to bear children? The height of a man has a direct correlation to the length of his penis, how do we know that women are not just attracted to tall men?

When so many members of the population possess features considered generally attractive by the opposite sex, can it be any wonder how those features evolved?

No doubt that our mating choices influence the subtle trajectory of our evolution. Quite a leap to conclude that all of our desirable characteristics are a result of those choices. For example, we find intelligence attractive. Do you think that it has developed as a result of mating choices or because it helps people survive? Or confidence. Self-confidence is a big attractor. Did that develop because women find it attractive or is it attractive because it helps you survive and makes you a better provider?

The elements that go into our choice of a mate are staggering in their complexity and number. There are so many easily identified elements that are so much more important for survival and reproductive success that go into one's ideal of a perfect mate.

- Infant mortality and short life spans dictate lots of breeding by everyone.
- Men have historically had a greater input regarding choice of mate than women have had thus further reducing any effect of the female's preference.
-Men with unusually large penises are rare and thus dictating that the female's preference would have to manifest itself in a mating choice at a rate that would overcome the mating success of all the average sized men.
-Penis size seems to be related to race as shown by this graph


Doesn't this contradict the idea that female preference is a driver for penis dimensions?

I guess it's time for you to lay out your alternative theory.

I don't need my own theory to shoot holes in yours do I?

edit;

Evolution just doesn't make things bigger randomly;

Yes it does.

Edited by Prototypical, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Jon, posted 04-16-2013 1:57 PM Jon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by caffeine, posted 04-17-2013 11:03 AM ProtoTypical has responded
 Message 53 by Jon, posted 04-17-2013 10:17 PM ProtoTypical has responded

  
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1601
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 49 of 91 (696607)
04-17-2013 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by ProtoTypical
04-17-2013 10:28 AM


Penile correlations and rape in the past
Sure they do but I would say that is a recent development. I mean look at any society just 2000 yrs ago. Is there even one that you could point to where the women were treated equally? I am not saying that they didn't have some input. Even a lowly slave girl could twist the will of a king but as a rule I would wager that the men of history have had a lot more say regarding who breeds with who.

How common are forced copulations in hunter gatherer societies today? I'd guess a lot less than you seem to be implying - except in intertribal conflict. I would think conceptions due to rape in wartime would only be inthe minority though.

I don't know how much choice human women had over choice of partners over most of our history, but I don't think you can just assume it was slim.

Why wouldn't we assume that penis size developed along with general physique and it was the other much more important qualities of being able to hunt better or having a disposition for doing the dishes that led to the actual choices that women made.

Because, contrary to your claims later in the post, there is no correlation between penis size and height. Penis size seems to vary independently of the size of the rest of the body.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by ProtoTypical, posted 04-17-2013 10:28 AM ProtoTypical has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by NoNukes, posted 04-17-2013 11:56 AM caffeine has responded
 Message 51 by NoNukes, posted 04-17-2013 12:01 PM caffeine has not yet responded
 Message 52 by ProtoTypical, posted 04-17-2013 12:24 PM caffeine has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 91 (696629)
04-17-2013 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by caffeine
04-17-2013 11:03 AM


Re: Penile correlations and rape in the past
How sure are we that penis size is fully inheritable. Perhaps the difference between a tiny one, and a functional one is subject to natural selection. But is there any evidence that the difference between a functional one, and a Johnny Wadd monster is passed on to offspring rather than being subject to non-genetic factors. I don't know enough biology to accurately list the possibilities, but perhaps something during embyo development or epignetics factors.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes. Galileo Galilei 1615.

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by caffeine, posted 04-17-2013 11:03 AM caffeine has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by caffeine, posted 04-18-2013 9:20 AM NoNukes has responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 91 (696631)
04-17-2013 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by caffeine
04-17-2013 11:03 AM


Re: Penile correlations and rape in the past
How common are forced copulations in hunter gatherer societies today? I'd guess a lot less than you seem to be implying - except in intertribal conflict. I would think conceptions due to rape in wartime would only be inthe minority though.

Forced copulations are not the only possibility. There are other situations where women have minimal choice about their mates physical attractiveness. How about arranged marriages as another possibility? How about societies were families are glad to marry then off their daughters for doweries.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes. Galileo Galilei 1615.

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by caffeine, posted 04-17-2013 11:03 AM caffeine has not yet responded

  
ProtoTypical
Member
Posts: 1776
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 52 of 91 (696638)
04-17-2013 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by caffeine
04-17-2013 11:03 AM


Re: Penile correlations and rape in the past
I don't know how much choice human women had over choice of partners over most of our history, but I don't think you can just assume it was slim.

I wouldn't say slim but just less than the male input. Haven't males always been the more aggressive of the sexes regarding mating? Are women not more submissive than men are? A women would have to strenuously object as opposed to just being mildly resistant due to a preference for an extra few mm.

How common are forced copulations in hunter gatherer societies today?

I wouldn't classify it as rape because of the context although it would classify as rape today. It is more the idea that the male is dominant due to physical characteristics which I think would have played the greatest role as we were developing our social concepts of equality and our sense of empathy.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by caffeine, posted 04-17-2013 11:03 AM caffeine has not yet responded

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 91 (696670)
04-17-2013 10:17 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by ProtoTypical
04-17-2013 10:28 AM


Re: it matters
I mean look at any society just 2000 yrs ago.

A lot of the world was still pretty civilized 2000 years ago.

That is my point that all of the average and smaller men would have been acting on that drive regardless of what the ladies thought about it.

You need evidence to back this up. You need to present something to support your implied position that before the advent of modern societies with their views on equality a woman mated at the whim of whatever man happened to be nearest her.

This talk about women never having had any say in mate choice is quite silly.

As NoNukes said, this is quite an assumption. The preference that the women may have had or have has to actually show up in their choices. If you asked me what my preferred car is I might say a 1979 Porsche 911 in gun metal blue. Even though I could afford it, and assuming my wife would let me buy it, I still find myself with a VW station wagon. My 'preference' is for the Porsche but my choice is the VW.

Unfortunately for your argument natural and sexual selection have absolutely nothing in common with buying a car.

The answer to the question of what a women finds most sexually attractive is not necessarily the same answer to the question of who she would most like to have children with. Even though a preference is identifiable today and even after assuming that it has been ever present it has to manifest itself in the choices made.

That's ridiculous. All of these things are measures of attractivenessit's not just physical. Even though penis size has/had to compete with the other measures in importance it is still a factor of attractiveness and thus subject to sexual selection.

Why wouldn't we assume that penis size developed along with general physique and it was the other much more important qualities of being able to hunt better or having a disposition for doing the dishes that led to the actual choices that women made.

It would be odd to assume it developed along with general physique because it is not just that humans are bigger and so are their penises; instead, human penises are proportionally much larger than other primates'. Something specifically drove selection toward unnaturally large members.

Doesn't this contradict the idea that female preference is a driver for penis dimensions?

Your graph is crap.

I don't need my own theory to shoot holes in yours do I?

It would help. Right now the theory proposed has all that is needed to explain the evidence and is perfectly logical and reasonable. Without a better theory to replace it, there's no need to even give the situation a second thought.

Seriously.

Jon


Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by ProtoTypical, posted 04-17-2013 10:28 AM ProtoTypical has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by ProtoTypical, posted 04-18-2013 8:03 AM Jon has responded

  
ProtoTypical
Member
Posts: 1776
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 54 of 91 (696685)
04-18-2013 8:03 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Jon
04-17-2013 10:17 PM


Re: it matters
A lot of the world was still pretty civilized 2000 years ago.

What kind of an answer is that? Can you point to one society 2000 yrs ago that treated women as equal to men? Where a woman's opinion would be given equal regard.

You need evidence to back this up. You need to present something to support your implied position that before the advent of modern societies with their views on equality a woman mated at the whim of whatever man happened to be nearest her.

This talk about women never having had any say in mate choice is quite silly.

Sure and you need to address the evidence presented. It would also help if you did not exaggerate my position.

The evidence is that most of the women in the world today are not treated as equal by most of the men in the world today. That women are achieving more equality as time progresses and they enjoy more equality than they did 2000 yrs ago. I make the assumption that this trend remains true as we go back in time.

Men are the more aggressive gender and tend to initiate sexual relations. Men are physically stronger and the urge to mate can be mighty powerful. Restrictions of this urge are of a social nature and are very likely to be more developed now than in the past. No doubt that these restrictions developed as a result of females indicating their wishes but this requires active and determined resistance to the males intentions. The females have always had a say in the matter but they have to work much harder than the male to make it count.

These facts reduce the impact of any preference the female might have and or require that the preference be much stronger to have an effect and show up in the form of active resistance.

Unfortunately for your argument natural and sexual selection have absolutely nothing in common with buying a car.

They have everything in common and are both driven by the same process of benefit evaluation.

Even though penis size has/had to compete with the other measures in importance it is still a factor of attractiveness and thus subject to sexual selection.

Sure it is a factor but is it substantial enough to have an impact on the evolution of penis size? At the extremes? Absolutely. The repulsion will amount to enthusiastic resistance and the suitor will fail. I can see that it makes a contribution to keeping penis size within it's range. Is that the same as changing it's range of size?

Your graph is crap.

Possibly.

Right now the theory proposed has all that is needed to explain the evidence and is perfectly logical and reasonable. Without a better theory to replace it, there's no need to even give the situation a second thought.

Except that the logic is not perfect nor is the magnitude of the effect of a woman's preference completely reasonable. I think that my points are valid and have not been refuted.

Why aren't all of the penises the perfect size by now?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Jon, posted 04-17-2013 10:17 PM Jon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Jon, posted 04-18-2013 5:25 PM ProtoTypical has responded

  
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1601
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 55 of 91 (696686)
04-18-2013 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by NoNukes
04-17-2013 11:56 AM


Re: Penile correlations and rape in the past
quote:
How sure are we that penis size is fully inheritable. Perhaps the difference between a tiny one, and a functional one is subject to natural selection. But is there any evidence that the difference between a functional one, and a Johnny Wadd monster is passed on to offspring rather than being subject to non-genetic factors. I don't know enough biology to accurately list the possibilities, but perhaps something during embyo development or epignetics factors.

Apparently it's not all inherited, according to wikipedia at least. Their article on penis size lists a nuch of chemical factors during development which can affect the size of the penis, but most of these seem to be to reduce it from what it would otherwise have been.

I'm afraid I don't really know anything about this, so I can't help you much further.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by NoNukes, posted 04-17-2013 11:56 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by NoNukes, posted 04-18-2013 11:38 PM caffeine has not yet responded

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 91 (696801)
04-18-2013 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by ProtoTypical
04-18-2013 8:03 AM


Re: it matters
What kind of an answer is that? Can you point to one society 2000 yrs ago that treated women as equal to men? Where a woman's opinion would be given equal regard.

Maybe; but I really don't need to. Unless you think that the evolution of larger penises occurred within the last 2000 years, the specifics of mate selection in the year 13 a.d. are completely irrelevant.

The evidence is that most of the women in the world today are not treated as equal by most of the men in the world today. That women are achieving more equality as time progresses and they enjoy more equality than they did 2000 yrs ago. I make the assumption that this trend remains true as we go back in time.

Any evidence relevant to the time period during which larger penises evolved?

Men are the more aggressive gender and tend to initiate sexual relations. Men are physically stronger and the urge to mate can be mighty powerful. Restrictions of this urge are of a social nature and are very likely to be more developed now than in the past. No doubt that these restrictions developed as a result of females indicating their wishes but this requires active and determined resistance to the males intentions. The females have always had a say in the matter but they have to work much harder than the male to make it count.

What you say is true of many species, and yet female sexual selection is still a meaningful part of these species' evolution.

Rape is not the primary means of reproduction for humans. A particular female may be at the mercy of a particular male, but that particular male is then at the mercy of that female's social group.

Your graph is crap.

Possibly.

Definitely.

I can see that it makes a contribution to keeping penis size within it's range. Is that the same as changing it's range of size?

Do you accept that the preference can have an impact on penis size?

Why aren't all of the penises the perfect size by now?

What 'perfect size'?

Jon


Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by ProtoTypical, posted 04-18-2013 8:03 AM ProtoTypical has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by ProtoTypical, posted 04-18-2013 8:39 PM Jon has responded

  
ProtoTypical
Member
Posts: 1776
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 57 of 91 (696815)
04-18-2013 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Jon
04-18-2013 5:25 PM


Re: it matters
Maybe; but I really don't need to. Unless you think that the evolution of larger penises occurred within the last 2000 years,

Eh? The point was that all of the evidence that we have indicates that women enjoy more equality today than they have in the past. That even today, a time when women enjoy a greater amount of respect and equality than at any time in recorded history, they still are not treated equally in much of the world and are, in many cases, unable to express their true desires.

I chose 2000 yrs ago because that should be a long enough span to prove the trend. This evidence should offer some indication of a woman's historic ability to express her preferences. From there we extrapolate back into the mists of time and make the assumption that women did not enjoy equal rights 200k yrs ago.

Any evidence relevant to the time period during which larger penises evolved?

Are you suggesting that women's rights have regressed in the last 200k yrs?

While we are on the subject of relevant evidence, don't you think that the expressed preference of women today regarding the importance of penis size would be vastly different from the opinion of a woman on the very edge of survival in a harsh environment? A 24 yr old college student does not value the same things that a prehistoric 24 yr old did.

Rape is not the primary means of reproduction for humans.

I bet you that a good % of all the sex that happened in the world today in places like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, India, Rwanda etc would classify as rape if it had happened in the first world. I bet you that rape is a lot less prevalent today than it was 200k yrs ago.

Do you accept that the preference can have an impact on penis size?

I accept that women would object strenuously to mating with a man that had either a giant or a micro penis. I accept that this objection would be strong enough to limit the spread of either case.

I do not accept that females are concerned enough with the difference between a 5 and a 6 inch penis when taken in conjunction with all of the other things about a man that dictate her choice of mate to influence penis size beyond the extreme cases. In as much as she would have been able to express that preference.

What 'perfect size'?

The larger one that all of the women have been supposedly preferring. Which is another point. It isn't as though one size fits all or that all of the women prefer the same thing.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Jon, posted 04-18-2013 5:25 PM Jon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Jon, posted 04-18-2013 9:51 PM ProtoTypical has responded

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 58 of 91 (696825)
04-18-2013 9:51 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by ProtoTypical
04-18-2013 8:39 PM


Re: it matters
I chose 2000 yrs ago because that should be a long enough span to prove the trend.

But society of 2000 years ago wasn't really that much different than society of today. Why not go even further back to the most relevant possible timethe time when large penis size was being selected for.

This evidence should offer some indication of a woman's historic ability to express her preferences.

But we aren't talking about history; we're talking about prehistory.

From there we extrapolate back into the mists of time and make the assumption that women did not enjoy equal rights 200k yrs ago.

No you can't; the two time periods have nothing in common.

I bet you that a good % of all the sex that happened in the world today in places like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, India, Rwanda etc would classify as rape if it had happened in the first world. I bet you that rape is a lot less prevalent today than it was 200k yrs ago.

Please tell me you have more than a list of 'betchyas'.

I do not accept that females are concerned enough with the difference between a 5 and a 6 inch penis when taken in conjunction with all of the other things about a man that dictate her choice of mate to influence penis size beyond the extreme cases.

But that isn't what we are talking about. A 5" penis and a 6" penis are still within the average range. We want to know why humans don't all have 'micropenises' since, proportionally speaking, this is the size of penis that we would be expected to have given our size were there no other selective pressures acting on penis size.

It isn't as though one size fits all or that all of the women prefer the same thing.

Of course not; but there's a range. Read the study in the OP. There is a clear preference indicated.

Edited by Jon, : No reason given.


Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by ProtoTypical, posted 04-18-2013 8:39 PM ProtoTypical has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by ProtoTypical, posted 04-18-2013 10:59 PM Jon has not yet responded

  
ProtoTypical
Member
Posts: 1776
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 59 of 91 (696829)
04-18-2013 10:59 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Jon
04-18-2013 9:51 PM


Re: it matters
But society of 2000 years ago wasn't really that much different than society of today. Why not go even further back to the most relevant possible timethe time when large penis size was being selected for.

Snort.

Because as you say it was prehistoric. Are there some prehistoric teenage diaries that I might refer to?

If you look at the evolution of women's rights from 2000 yrs ago until today you can not deny that they have improved. Why wouldn't you assume that this trend would continue further back into eras of which we have no proof?

Anyway I think that I have raised some valid objections to the idea of a direct connection between the preferences of modern day 26 yr old Australian gals and the size of my penis...even though I have no objection to any possible direct connection.

I also think that I have been thinking about penises way more than I usually do. Lets talk about breast size and big hard nipples.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Jon, posted 04-18-2013 9:51 PM Jon has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by caffeine, posted 04-19-2013 9:42 AM ProtoTypical has responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 91 (696833)
04-18-2013 11:38 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by caffeine
04-18-2013 9:20 AM


Re: Penile correlations and rape in the past
I'm afraid I don't really know anything about this, so I can't help you much further.

I know even less about it than you do. Which makes it hard for me to take serious speculation about natural selection or sexual selection driving penis size. Even if women select bigger penises, we have no idea if the result will be offspring with the same characteristics.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes. Galileo Galilei 1615.

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by caffeine, posted 04-18-2013 9:20 AM caffeine has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Jon, posted 04-18-2013 11:53 PM NoNukes has responded

  
Prev123
4
567Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019