Why Is The Penis Shaped Like That?

[YourCaptor]

Social evidence, maybe, kinship and all that stuff. Biologically, I'm unclear how we're not programmed for maximum fuckitude. No estrus. Doin' it more or less bonobo style.

I still believe that our one serious and unchanging hard-wiring is adaptability and problem solving, so we went off and did those things in a stunning range of ways.

Cause I don't feel like getting all serious business about what eventually is just speculation I'll keep it short.

Human ancestors typically gave birth to 1 child at a time, have a long pregnancy, then have a dependent child for several years, and have a long inter-birth period during which the mother can't get pregnant. We take a ridiculously long time, and huge amount of energy to grow up.

No matter how much sex you have, you're not gonna get more pregnant.

Then like you said, men can't detect a womans cycle, so not only is fucking useless, but also hopeless.

And you end up with mothers that somehow need to feed themselves, and kids, plus all other tasks required.

Theory is the human solution was to get social. Sex became social, collecting food became social, taking care of kids became social. So we end up having sex not to have babies, but to make close bonds. The better a male is to a female, the more likely it is that he is feeding his kids.

Now biology is anything but neat and tidy, so yes the ancestors were probably fucking around. However it's likely they had favorites, which would change over time. However consider that your relationships were far more important then now. Here you step on the street, nobody gives a shit if you had a one nighter. But they probably lived in groups of about 30, so you had what, maybe 5 other options, who are all involved with someone. People are gonna notice things, and maybe not be cool about it.

 

[Netzach]

Cause I don't feel like getting all serious business about what eventually is just speculation I'll keep it short.

Human ancestors typically gave birth to 1 child at a time, have a long pregnancy, then have a dependent child for several years, and have a long inter-birth period during which the mother can't get pregnant. We take a ridiculously long time, and huge amount of energy to grow up.

No matter how much sex you have, you're not gonna get more pregnant.

Then like you said, men can't detect a womans cycle, so not only is fucking useless, but also hopeless.

And you end up with mothers that somehow need to feed themselves, and kids, plus all other tasks required.

Theory is the human solution was to get social. Sex became social, collecting food became social, taking care of kids became social. So we end up having sex not to have babies, but to make close bonds. The better a male is to a female, the more likely it is that he is feeding his kids.

Now biology is anything but neat and tidy, so yes the ancestors were probably fucking around. However it's likely they had favorites, which would change over time. However consider that your relationships were far more important then now. Here you step on the street, nobody gives a shit if you had a one nighter. But they probably lived in groups of about 30, so you had what, maybe 5 other options, who are all involved with someone. People are gonna notice things, and maybe not be cool about it.

I wonder which taboo came first - who you should not have sex with because they're already someone's lay, or who you should not have sex with because you're related too closely and your offspring keep failing in one way or another as viable?

I think we're overstating the former when the latter might be in play. The clan structure is so widespread in which you have expectations to marry into X and never marry into Y.

Is there evidence showing we went from social animals to non-social animals, like foxes, to back again? I'm having trouble imagining a Lucy type hominid as a loner. I'm having issue with this "got social" idea - Or were we always social animals, and slowly managed to drift off into pairings on occasion once supported by technology?

Also, hunting. Yeah only male chimps do it, so clearly only male early hominids must have, 'cause that's THE MODEL of course. Except when female chimps, apparently do it too.

Oh wait, also they do it with spears, even. And only females do this. And the "prostitution for meat" theory was also soundly debunked recently too by the people in the Goodall camp. (Males share not with sexually receptive females first, but the most annoying and urgent beggars first - it takes the pressure off defending the kill)

As scientists get less rigorous about proving their social agendas and more rigorous about actually watching their subjects, I think the picture gets a lot more complicated.

 

[midwestyankee]

Absolutely. But what's so unusual about that? We're talking about belief here, not knowledge. Belief serves emotional needs. Knowledge doesn't always do that.

Yes, though it's belief clothed in Goodwill Store castoffs from Knowledge with hopes of getting some Trick-or-Treat candy by wearing the right costume.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Yes, though it's belief clothed in Goodwill Store castoffs from Knowledge with hopes of getting some Trick-or-Treat candy by wearing the right costume.

Excellent metaphor

 

[YourCaptor]

I wonder which taboo came first - who you should not have sex with because they're already someone's lay, or who you should not have sex with because you're related too closely and your offspring keep failing in one way or another as viable?

I think we're overstating the former when the latter might be in play. The clan structure is so widespread in which you have expectations to marry into X and never marry into Y.

Is there evidence showing we went from social animals to non-social animals, like foxes, to back again? I'm having trouble imagining a Lucy type hominid as a loner. I'm having issue with this "got social" idea - Or were we always social animals, and slowly managed to drift off into pairings on occasion once supported by technology?

Also, hunting. Yeah only male chimps do it, so clearly only male early hominids must have, 'cause that's THE MODEL of course. Except when female chimps, apparently do it too.

Oh wait, also they do it with spears, even. And only females do this. And the "prostitution for meat" theory was also soundly debunked recently too by the people in the Goodall camp. (Males share not with sexually receptive females first, but the most annoying and urgent beggars first - it takes the pressure off defending the kill)

As scientists get less rigorous about proving their social agendas and more rigorous about actually watching their subjects, I think the picture gets a lot more complicated.

I guess social isn't the best word choice. Maybe cooperative.

Which I would expect leads to increased socialization.

Basically the hard evidence is that bipedalism evolved before the brain. It is not certain if male canines shrunk to uselessness before or after bipedalism, but it indicates a lack of aggression and competition. Reproductive crypsis likely caused this change in males. However we did not go the route of gorillas likely because offspring became too expensive for one male and multiple females. So currently science speculates early hominids developed primitive societies with food collecting and sharing objectives.

Anyway, all this evidence goes against sperm competition.

 

[thesweetsweetness]

Interesting article. I'm wondering why there was no mention of foreskin and it's role/function. To my understanding thorough some reading, foreskin helps maintain lubrication during sex by covering over the ridge of the glands during an outward stroke. So wouldn't foreskin then prevent the displacement of another man's semen?

 

[Curious_in_Cali]

This makes me think about squeegees in a whole new way. Thanks.

 

[Shankara20]

Interesting article. I'm wondering why there was no mention of foreskin and it's role/function. To my understanding thorough some reading, foreskin helps maintain lubrication during sex by covering over the ridge of the glands during an outward stroke. So wouldn't foreskin then prevent the displacement of another man's semen?

Interesting question. I bet all the researchers were circumcised and thought their thingie was what a normal thingie looks like.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Interesting question. I bet all the researchers were circumcised and thought their thingie was what a normal thingie looks like.

Like the guy who says that bananas prove there is a god because the guy likes them so much...

 

[midwestyankee]

Like the guy who says that bananas prove there is a god because the guy likes them so much...

I grew up Catholic, and if I recall correctly, the proof of God is that bread is made of blood and bone. And unleavened and tastes like shit.

 

[SirLeo]

Hey, to each is own. I love matzha!

 

[midwestyankee]

Hey, to each is own. I love matzha!

Matzoh is to Catholic communion wafers as lobster is to fish sticks.

 

[RoperTrace]

This thread reminds me of my Uncle Richard telling his son, my cousin, "don't worry buddy, a small dick fits ALL holes."