Penis Size Natural Selection

Lies, all lies . NOTHING is more important than the size of your penis. Love? Happiness? Good Friends? Beer? All nothing without a massive wang!

I dont think there is actually any real science backing who gets what size of a penis. Determining what size penis a baby will have will be just as hard as determining the combination of facial features that you might get from your past generations gene pool. Lets face it guys…small, average or big, we all eventually at some point spread our seed. Eventually.

If anything, the average to small penis gene pool is spread more because the guys with the big dicks are having so much sex that they learn to use condoms for every woman. The beta-male is more likely to settle down??? Ha who knows, but size is all in our heads as far as Darwin is concerned.

I hope you were joking. Otherwise you are a very, very sad man.

So if evolution favours looks and personality, why is everyone so bad and ugly?

I was definitely joking. Sarcasm is hard to convey over message boards I find.

This is an absolutely ridiculous discussion. Natural selection as we see it now is a relatively modern societal occurrence. During the majority of human evolution, ¨the alpha male¨ wan´t the man with the largest penis in the group, but the more traditional definition of the biggest, most physically dominant male who had the right within the group to stick it in the most women.

The only time I can see penis size coming into play is for sperm competition within a group of men. For instance, a bigger guy buries his seed deeper than the rest and thus has a higher probability of getting a woman pregnant, and wins in the odds if more men than himself had recently had sex with an ovulating woman. Orgasm also increases the chances of contraception.

But I´d think that something like producing ample amounts of semen might be more important competitively.

Improper inference. The fact that humans have larger phalluses than other animals says nothing about female preference. For all any of us know, women might prefer smaller ones.

It means that 6 inches is roughly optimal, given the constraints that have been in play up until roughly the present.

By “optimal” I don’t mean optimal for female pleasure. I mean optimal for reproduction. That’s all that evolution “cares about.”

I didn’t know that! O:-)

In many cultures, women don’t even have the choice of who they reproduce with. Back in the day, I think women were chosen by men, instead of the other way around, so the chances of penis size being affected by natural selection might be pretty slim.

I’m not sure if there are too many girls around that can take a 10 foot cock!
AND, I know I would not want one that size! You couldn’t even wank it! :mad:

The smarter guys spread their seed. Because they can convince any girl to take off their pants and not use a condom. ;D

ModestoMan is right on the mark. Evolution tells us nothing about why a certain trait evolved, only that the traits observed in the current majority of the species must have allowed the species to survive/reproduce at some point. Anything concerning why a trait evolved is pure speculation. Evolution is when individuals with better traits (and by better, I mean traits that give the individual a reproductive advantage over the other members of his population, such as stronger muscles, better personality, more body hair if the climate is cool, etc.. A smaller penis could, in theory, actually be to the individual’s advantage, given the right circumstances) pass their genetic makeup on more frequently than those with weaker traits. As a result, the individuals with weaker traits produce less offspring than individuals with strong traits, and the population as a whole has a higher percentage of individuals with the strong traits.

My bad, didn`t even notice I used `instead of 10“. Still getting used to this imperial system!

This is the boat I am a believer in as well :P

As I see it, the biggest problem in this line of thought is the implication that dick size as an evolutionary factor is either the end-all be-all OR an extremely influential component of the overall equation, when the simple fact is that often it’s *behavior* and not just anatomy that made the difference as to who got to reproduce: it’s not about who had the biggest dick and was able to pass his genes on - it’s about A) who was more lethal than their competitors, and then B) who produced more offspring. And these factors usually [IMHO] worked in this exact order, not the other way around: i.e. if you were a supremely lethal badass, you could have a 2½” pecker and it wouldn’t matter a whit - your genes were more likely to be passed on, period.

Now - that said, I will acknowledge that there is a cultural aspect to this whose influence has ascended over time, just as the influence of the strictly biological (speed, strength, agility, etc.) has decreased somewhat - albeit not so much that it’s not still observable. However, it seems to me that’d just translate into an equivalent area. Most women would get wetter at the prospect of marrying a billionaire than from being offered a 10” schlong on an otherwise mediocre or sub-par male. In terms of evolutionary desirability, the former can provide for the kids he creates, which is something that’s likely to matter much more to the woman who’s going to have to pop ‘em out; the latter fellow can’t offer anything viable by comparison.

Care to clarify? As I read it - perhaps incorrectly - you’re saying natural selection is a figment of our collective modern cultural mind, or are you saying what I said last paragraph above?