Thunder's Place

The big penis and mens' sexual health source, increasing penis size around the world.

Evolution theory of the big penis mating attraction to women

Yeah, some say the female orgasm is adaptive for that reason, but others (the late Stephen Jay Gould, for example, in his essay “Male Nipples and Clitoral Ripples) say that it’s just an accident based on the clit’s anatomical analogy to the penis. Obviously the male orgasm is adaptive — not just the fact of ejaculation, but the pleasant feeling, too, since it motivates mating. But why should both sexes have to enjoy mating? In a lot of species, all sex is basically rape, which works just fine for reproductive purposes.

Personally I tend to think that Gould is right about female orgasms, and therefore I’d say that large penises were selected in humans simply because of women’s choices, on a fully conscious level, to get fucked by cocks that make them cum. If sperm retention via orgasm were really the reason for large-penis selection in humans, then why wouldn’t men have evolved monster balls, like chimps, in their sperm competition?


Please :donatecar to Thunder's Place to keep it running.

In the mrpoll survey I don’t find it unbelievable so many women claim to have experienced big. Even if there is a low percentage of big guys , there are a lot of men so the number of big guys adds up to quite a number walking around. Big guys get around because of their confidence and perhaps some big guys even get around to show up other men(competition)) so that when other men have sex with the woman she may not be as impressed with guys that aren’t as big. I’ve been with a number of women and each had had one or more big guys. It’s really not surprising to me.

There were so many ideas here to which I either objected or agreed, that I won’t bother doing either. Lotta good stuff, dotta dumb stuff…

So why not add more dumb stuff to the fire? <wink> I’ll violate one of my own personal “forum rules” and post something which I read once, but don’t remember where. ( I hate when people do that! You can’t check their facts. But it seems pretty innocuous in this case, so…)

Re: the mrpoll survey - I read somewhere, somehow, about 5 years ago that a study was done in which women were asked what they thought the average male penis length was. The averaged answer was around 7”.

So these women were contacted again at a later date for another survey in which they were presented with a “toy” measuring 7” x ??? (I forgot the other number… it may not have been given) and asked to estimate it’s length.

The result? On average women estimated that the 7” toy was about 9” long.

Do they look bigger up close or something?

busted bus

I have only read the first page of this so far but here goes,

Wider hips=Better chance of having live birth, in the past there were no survivors if there was a problem.

Bigger dick=Better chance of having a girl, if you had one boy that boy can have multitudes of children with many women. A better chance of survival for the race as a whole.

Larger guys with muscle=Better hunter to provide for the family. Don’t you think that in today’s society that the girls wanting a financial secure male is the same thing?

Some of these things do go back to ancient roots in survival but they have been transformed into today’s standards. We as men need to be able to provide for our women by looking good, making a better living, having better function,larger equipment. Women need to keep us tied to them for mutual survival, we stay home and don’t stray out and get hurt (taken away).

Hey TT,
What do you think???


The ravings of a madman...

There have been good points , pro and con, as to whether larger penis is likely to impregnate. But:

A direct comparison is not completely possible. Some mammals only allow the ‘dominate’ male to breed. Wolves only allow the ‘dominate’ male AND the ‘dominate’ female to breed (that’s right only the alpha couple breed).

And while chimps developed large sperm producing testes to perpetuate their genes, female chimps ‘advertise’ their fertility with over-swollen outer lips. Chimps don’t ‘couple’, they are social but they don’t ‘couple’.

So when female chimps are fertile, the males ‘have at her’ repeatedly. Huge sperm loads give the male the opportunity to fertilize, but they also attempt to guard the female after they copulate, bettering his chances, since there is no ‘commitment’.

So humans are not completely analogous with chimps. The theory is that human females developed the trait to hide their fertility to facilitate ‘coupling’ to ensure that offspring will survive since humans take so long to reach maturity and independence.

So quickly, the theory is:

1) Human men’s foreskins and glans-shape create a suction that will draw out any sperm that might have been left before him.

2) Obviously a longer penis will allow a male to deposit sperm closer to the uterus. But a thick one might create a very good suction that would draw out a previous deposit.

3) I think someone mentioned an intra-vaginal cam that a woman’s cervix ‘dips’ into a pool of sperm and sort of ‘sips’ when she climaxes? There was a scene of that happening during a female orgasm.

Whether a large penis is more likely to cause a woman to orgasm, make your own judgement. I’m not making any value judgement, I’m just reporting some of the things that I’ve read or seen in televised studies.

And as to why haven’t men developed ‘monstrous’ penises? I’d say that comparatively we have. Gorillas are much larger and have much smaller penises. We are the largest of the primates.

And why aren’t all human males ‘large’? For the same reason that there is variation in every other thing that applies to us. Some are taller, shorter, smarter, etc, etc. Anyone who is mildly knowledgeable in animal husbandry knows that there is a ‘pick of the litter’ and there are ‘runts’. (Not MY rule guys, it’s natures fact)

But also there is specific sexual selection:

A woman might choose a male who has resource riches but has a small penis. If she is faithful to him, those will be the genes that his offspring will have (barring some ‘upturn’).

The theory is that women seek men with status, because of the resources available to them. But they have a bent to cheat on the resource wealthy male if he is not also a ‘physical specimen’, so her offspring will have dominate genes.

This thread, along with the “Something I really hate” thread chronicle the duality of the objectives of men and women:

1)Women seek gentle men with resources that they can ‘nest’ with. But on a biological level, if the male is not also ‘dominate’ she many be drawn to other males.

2) Men seek women who are not promiscuous to mate with. But they also have to ‘rid themselves’ of excess sperm often (it’s not healthy to be ‘backed up’)….

Once again these are not MY rules these are NATURES rules that sociologists have observed.

There is also the observation that once a culture has the time to develop art work, they have ‘mastered’ their environment ( because they obviously have the free time). So while we are no longer in ‘survival’ mode some of our past still drives us.

More enlightened people can obviously look beyond past promiscuity in light of today’s commitment, but there is multiple-millenia of survival instincts that must be ignored to do so. And some guys aren’t capable/ willing to do it.

A quick example of our evolutionary instincts:

Women with a 7-to-10 waist -to- hip ratio, draw men’s attention. It doesn’t matter if she is 98 lbs. or 250 lbs., 4’ or 7’. She still has a biological draw, because that ratio indicates that see is a ‘breeder’. Men and women obviously choose what they are capable of ‘handling’ though.

(Here is an interesting side note: Earlier cultures valued fleshier women, because they were viewed as more fertile. And they were right, female athletes who diet to extremely low body fat do not menstruate. The fashion industry has ruined the view of what is healthy.)

And different cultures have differing views of what is alluring.

Anyway, those are the theories. Obviously time and space won’t allow me to point out all the reasons why there are exceptions to a concept/ theory/ ideology. Sorry for the length of the post.

Holy crap.

That’s pretty frickin’ thorough…

Can we go back to talking about drunk, horny chicks now?

No?

How about now?

;)

Nothing wrong with the length of the post when it’s written in such a clear way and with very interesting points like you did. It makes sense that our instincts point the way. If you get time to post more on this subject I’d like to read some detail on the reasons for exceptions that you mention at the bottom of your posts.

I’m curious if the ladies here(DW,Anna,Sunshine) at Thunder’s Place agree on some or many of the points brought up genetically. I like hearing their imput , agree or disagree, because they bring womens’ views to the table.

Quote
Originally posted by beenthere
In the mrpoll survey I don't find it unbelievable so many women claim to have experienced big. Even if there is a low percentage of big guys , there are a lot of men so the number of big guys adds up to quite a number walking around. Big guys get around because of their confidence and perhaps some big guys even get around to show up other men(competition)) so that when other men have sex with the woman she may not be as impressed with guys that aren't as big. I've been with a number of women and each had had one or more big guys. It's really not surprising to me.

I see your point, but I disagree.

Here is why:
61% of women had less than 10 sexual partners. And a huge majority didnt have many more than that. Out of 10 random guys, probably 1 or 2 would be 7 inches or more, maybe 1 with 8. What is the % of 10-inchers? About 1 in 1000?1 in 10000? I agree that the confidence of hung guys may skew it some in their favor, but not that much. Guys with small or average size get laid probably about the same.
Heck, I get laid less than anyone I know and I am better looking and probably more hung ( I dont know their sizes, but I am over 8”) than any of myfriends.

Also, as far as the whole size/selection thing, for it to make any sense whatsoever, itmust meet one major criteria. That is : Do Females or are females responisble for mate selection? To me it always seems like males make that choice.

I think we have to consider that human offspring are essentially born premature - requiring a lot of care and resources for many years post birth.

Therefore, women would tend to select mates that had abundant resources - If penis size isn’t correlated with this then I would think penis size would not be a selection attribute. However, if penis size is correlated with viable offspring then I can see women selecting one male for a mate and another for impregnation.

Ah - I see this has already been covered in much greater detail in a post above this one. Never mind.

The problem I’m seeing with some of these posts (IMO, by the way, since I’m a CS and Math guy and not a biologist) is that some posters have this idyllic view of evolution as a sort of perfect divining force which automatically suits every specie perfectly to their environment and perfectly controls reproduction to that end.

This is not the case.

Evolution is a hit/miss proposition, with mostly random driving forces, that is almost always behind the pull of an environment and trying to catch up. Additionally, it’s not some single force which molds organisms to their surroundings, but rather a hodge-podge of attempts at meeting the many, many variables which comprise those surroundings.

So it’s pretty much useless to say, “X couldn’t happen because Y is better and therefore we would evolve Y”. Maybe in the past X was better. Maybe in the future X will be better again. Maybe Y hasn’t had a chance to saturate the population.

That last part is kinda important. “Survival of the fittest” doesn’t typically mean that everyone else dies. It means that some are “preferable”. Given some random trait, even among 1/10 of a population simultaneously (for instance, a particular height suddenly becomes much more desirable), which is probably an outrageously high restriction, how long would it take to propagate that trait throughout a population?

This is why the “We’d all have 2 foot dicks” argument fails. Penis length is only one trait among many, not the least of which is a “show me the goods” attitude that has developed in the animal kingdom. Sure the peacock with the prettiest tail-feathers will woo all the chics, but if a really badass peacock with pathetic feathers shows up and kicks everybody else’s ass, it’s gonna bepathetic tail-feathers that show up in the next generation… ignoring social evolution of course (does anyone know if peacocks are monogamous?).

Also, I’m often wrong. I’ve had a really nice bottle of wine tonight and I hope everyone else is feeling just as good as I am.

busted bus

Quote
Originally posted by lurky
Holy crap.

Can we go back to talking about drunk, horny chicks now?

Given the subject wouldn’t a few monkey jokes be appropriate about now?

As I read some of these posts I can literally feel my IQ dropping.

An informative thread by a really bright bunch. Incredible material here.
For the first time I can remember I have nothing to add…

Alright, alright……. Charles Darwin walks into a bar patronized exclusively by monkeys and the bartender says…….

This issue, like so many others, is covered with some scientific bearing in “Sex: A Natural History”. It’s a wonderful book, and I have to keep coming back to recommending it again and again in these discussions. The author of the book pretty much argues that the evidence favors the interpretation that penis size has been evolutionally favored in humans as a secondary sex trait for signalling purposes.

There’s a couple pages on the topic.

You can actually read the relevant pages by going to this book on amazon and searching on “penis size.” The bit i’m thinking of is linked to on page 99 and runs another page or two from there.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/080…ords=penis+size

(The amazon “search inside” feature expires the links to searches more specifc than this so it’s up to you to scroll down the page to the link to page 99.)

No! Wait!! I wanna hear the monkey joke!

Supersizeit, I got another point of view from the woman I was talking about above. In her words, she may fall in love with a man but it’s the large cock that “closes the deal.”

I never once thought about the size of my husband’s penis when we were deciding to have children. I figured it will happen or not happen regardless of the size of his penis.


You don't have to be great to start, but you have to start to be great.

Zig Ziglar

Top

All times are GMT. The time now is 01:12 AM.