The Shape of Things to Come

[OrionzRevenge]

I'm very interested in why evolution favored the things at hand in our everyday world today. Thus, nothing gives me more pleasure than laying a huge slab of science on the table to be grappled with, and a recent article in Scientific American: Secrets of the Phallus: Why Is the Penis Shaped Like That? is just the sort of Meat & 'Tators thing I like to toy with.

Passages From: Secrets of the Phallus: Why Is the Penis Shaped Like That?: Scientific American

First, despite variation in size between individuals, the erect human penis is especially large compared to that of other primates, measuring on average between five and six inches in length and averaging about five inches in circumference. (Often in this column I’ll relate the science at hand to my own experiences, but perhaps this particular piece is best written without my normally generous use of anecdotes.) Even the most well-endowed chimpanzee, the species that is our closest living relative, doesn’t come anywhere near this...

If you have never been a Stand-Up guy and Rooted for evolution, if this doesn't make you want to wave the flag then nothing will.

...I once spent a summer with a 450-pound silverback gorilla that was hung like a wasp (great guy, though) and baby-sat a lascivious young orangutan that liked to insert his penis in just about anything with a hole, which unfortunately one day included my ear.

Richard Pryor would be so Proud.

In addition, only our species has such a distinctive mushroom-capped glans, which is connected to the shaft by a thin tissue of frenulum (the delicate tab of skin just beneath the urethra). Chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans have a much less extravagant phallic design, more or less all shaft. It turns out that one of the most significant features of the human penis isn’t so much the glans per se, but rather the coronal ridge it forms underneath. The diameter of the glans where it meets the shaft is wider than the shaft itself. This results in the coronal ridge that runs around the circumference of the shaft.

I like to call this the Twiki Effect.

Question: Is it just me, or was Buck Rogers Selling Sex in the 25th century???
Question: Can you provide more recent examples of the Subliminal Serpentine???

Magnetic imaging studies of heterosexual couples having sex reveal that...

Some men are born to science (a few may have been born of science), but others have it Thrust upon them. I truly applaud the focus and the connectedness to keep it all together while being positioned inside the MRI Doughnut.

Gallup and coauthor, Rebecca Burch, conjecture that, “A longer penis would not only have been an advantage for leaving semen in a less accessible part of the vagina, but by filling and expanding the vagina it also would aid and abet the displacement of semen left by other males as a means of maximizing the likelihood of paternity.”

Ok, no more denial, size matters and evolution knows it. Statistics indicate that Arab and African Gene stock provide what nature deems the ideal size for the human beast. However, due to issues with frost-bite leading to dick loss and thus, gene loss. Nature has had to compromise in northern climes.

This “semen displacement theory” is the most intriguing part of Gallup’s story. We may prefer to regard our species as being blissfully monogamous, but the truth is that, historically, at least some degree of fooling around has been our modus operandi for at least as long we’ve been on two legs.

Proving the point that humans went Bi-pedal not just to have 2 feet on the ground, but to have two in the air as well.

So how did natural selection equip men to solve the adaptive problem of other men impregnating their sexual partners? The answer, according to Gallup, is their penises were sculpted in such a way that the organ would effectively displace the semen of competitors from their partner’s vagina, a well-synchronized effect facilitated by the “upsuck” of thrusting during intercourse. Specifically, the coronal ridge offers a special removal service by expunging foreign sperm. According to this analysis, the effect of thrusting would be to draw other men’s sperm away from the cervix and back around the glans, thus “scooping out” the semen deposited by a sexual rival.

This fully supports two IRL hetero observations that...
A: It is the man's Job to take out the trash.
B: Men really don't like sloppy seconds.
Further, women have no desire to sire off-spring lacking this gene.

These questions were meant to determine whether penile behavior (my term, not theirs) could be predicted based on the men’s suspicion of infidelity in their partners. In the first of these anonymous questionnaires, both men and women reported that, in the wake of allegations of female cheating, men thrust deeper and faster.

Often called Angry Sex or Revenge Fuck, this only supports what people have long observed: Nature likes it rough.

The article researchers detailed at length the methods they used to reach their conclusions and I find the results compelling and insightful. However, in my mind as per the question as to why guys have a mushroom head at the end of a long shaft there is still a gapping hole that begs to be filled.

As theory I would advance the following:
ITEM: Human infants are helpless for a longer time than any other.
ITEM: Unlike most creatures, human females are receptive to sex at any time (they choose) and not just during estrus every 28 days. (for animalistic humor, I will refer to this as the Lunar Cycle)
ITEM: Woman often ignore the lunar cycle and dole out sex as a reward or embargo sex if the guy has upset her. I will call this the AssHole Effect.
ITEM: The nearly universal observation that, in a relationship, sex isn't everything but if it is bad the whole relationship is limp.

Thus, the penis is also designed to provide sensual pleasure and is a powerful part of the social / relationship dynamic that allowed mankind to pile on the grey-matter and become the Thinking Ape. Human infants are so helpless for so long because of the time it takes to wire up that massive brain, and with privative man this could only come to pass if the female was willing and able to motivate the male to provide for her and her child. Further, the Lunar Cycle provides for propagation of the genes, and the AssHole Effect balanced against the pleasure that a Tool's tool can provide, allowed women to manipulate a man to do her bidding with a feed-back loop to prevent her from being too thrifty with reward as to break the males conditioned response driving him.

In Humans, sex is both Tool and and Toy... and always has been.

Any thoughts ?

 

[Shimmy]

+1, couldn't agree more.

 

[FC3S]

While some of the gaps you feel in wreak of bullshit, I otherwise agree with most of this.

 

[OrionzRevenge]

Celebrating the 200th. Birthday of the second most famous INTP, and observing the 150th. Anniversary of the publication of Origin of the Species, I guess I'll continue to make my observations about evolution's role in everyday life here in this thread.

The Darwinian POV: I start nearly any observation I make about the human condition or everyday life with the following filter: What I am looking at has co-evolved on this planet for 3.5 Billion years. Thus, I ask why was this selected for (especially if it seems counter-intuitive).

The Great Danger here is to keep an objective scientific Frame of Mind as history records various groups such a Nazis, Marxist, and Capitalist twisting Darwinian Ideas for political gain. So too, one must resist emotional reactions to cloud your vision. A recent example that illustrates this was a study that demonstrated people of African Gene Stock have a higher ratio of quick burst muscle fiber over endurance muscle fiber vis-a-vis people of European Gene Stock. Which explains the IRL observation that White Guys can't Jump... but they win Marathons. This report was greeted by an emotional protest that it diminished the achievement of athletes of African ascent. ...Curiously, I don't recall hearing anyone blame losing a marathon on same. The other proviso is that Evolutionary Science is based upon statistical odds and that a single individual can plot anywhere on the graph.

I'm most interested in the emerging Science of Evolutionary Psychology and the physical attributes that relate to same. Thus, let's look at another Article: Infidelity--It may be in our genes. Our Cheating Hearts
Infidelity--It may be in our genes. Our Cheating Hearts - Time Magazine - 15AUG94

Consider the crafting of primate testicles--specifically, their custom tailoring to the monogamy, or lack thereof, of females. If you take a series of male apes and weigh their testicles (not recommended, actually), you will find a pattern. Chimpanzees and other species with high "relative testes weight" (testes weight in comparison to body weight) feature quite promiscuous females. Species with low relative testes weight are either fairly monogamous (gibbons, for example) or systematically polygynous (gorillas), with one male monopolizing a harem of females. The explanation is simple. When females breed with many males, male genes can profit by producing lots of semen for their own transportation. Which male succeeds in getting his genes into a given egg may be a question of sheer volume, as competing hordes of sperm do battle...

The relative testes weight of humans falls between that of the chimpanzee and the gorilla. This suggests that women, while not nearly so wild as chimpanzee females (who can be veritable sex machines), are by nature somewhat adventurous. If they were not, why would natural selection divert precious resources to the construction and maintenance of weighty testicles?

So next time you wish to brag about what a huge pair you have, consider what this says about your grandmothers.

A man who hasn't had sex for, say, a week will have a higher sperm count if his wife was away on a business trip than if she's been home with the flu. In short, what really counts is whether the woman has had the opportunity to stray.

This meshes well with the Items in the OP about Revenge Fucks. Ladies if you want him to Man Up then keep him guessing.

With men too, clues from physiology help uncover the mind. Consider "sexual dimorphism"--the difference between average male and female body size. Extreme sexual dimorphism is typical of a polygynous species, in which one male may impregnate several females, leaving other males without offspring. Since the winning males usually secure their trophies by fighting or intimidating other males, the genes of brawny, aggressive males get passed on while the genes of less formidable males are deposited in the dustbin of history. Thus male gorillas, who get a whole haremful of mates if they win lots of fights and no mates if they win none, are twice as big as females. With humans, males are about 15% bigger--sufficient to suggest that male departures from monogamy, like female departures, are not just a recent cultural invention.

T&A to birth and nurse big headed babies or Pecs and ceps. The science suggest that visual sex appeal is secondary to cheating and succeeding at it.

There are vanishingly few anthropological examples of systematic female polygamy, or polyandry--women monopolizing sexual access to more than one man at once. So, while both sexes are prone under the right circumstances to infidelity, men seem much more deeply inclined to actually acquire a second or third mate--to keep a harem.

They are also more inclined toward the casual fling. Men are less finicky about sex partners. Prostitution--sex with someone you don't know and don't care to know--is a service sought overwhelmingly by males the world round. And almost all pornography that relies sheerly on visual stimulation--images of anonymous people, spiritless flesh--is consumed by males.

I'm a guy, I'm a Slut, get over it... it's in my Genes.

Many studies confirm the more discriminating nature of women. One evolutionary psychologist surveyed men and women about the minimal level of intelligence they would accept in a person they were "dating." The average response for both male and female: average intelligence. And how smart would the potential date have to be before they would consent to sex? Said the women: Oh, in that case, markedly above average. Said the men: Oh, in that case, markedly below average.

There is no dispute among evolutionary psychologists over the basic source of this male open-mindedness. A woman, regardless of how many sex partners she has, can generally have only one offspring a year. For a man, each new mate offers a real chance for pumping genes into the future.

This explains the IRL observation that women can spend all day in the Mall and not find anything to buy. Yet, a dude can't even fill up the gas tank without gabbing some stupid shit off the store counter.

In our species, then, a female's genetic legacy is best amplified by a mate with two things: good genes and much to invest. But what if she can't find one man who has both? One solution would be to trick a devoted, generous and perhaps wealthy but not especially brawny or brainy mate into raising the offspring of another male. The woman need not be aware of this strategy, but at some level, conscious or unconscious, deft timing is in order. One study found that women who cheat on mates tend to do so around ovulation, when they are most likely to get pregnant.

For that matter, cheating during the infertile part of the monthly cycle might have its own logic, as a way (unconsciously) to turn the paramour into a dupe; the woman extracts goods or services from him in exchange for his fruitless conquest. Of course the flowers he buys may not help her genes, but in the ancestral environment, less frivolous gifts--notably food--would have.

This supports the notion advanced in the OP that woman are sexually receptive not only during ovulation but also extra-estrus for social/relationship reasons.
Lunar Cycle Sex is for Genes. Otherwise it's for things.

Any Thoughts?

 

[INTJ123]

that was funny, and pointless, cuz the conclusion was that we havn't changed at all? why bring up evolution if nothing has changed?

 

[OrionzRevenge]

^^^I'm not sure I understand the question, but IMO looking about at life's limitless forms indicates Evolution is bounded only by the limits of physics and chemistry. So, for me, it is less about how it changed and more about why.
------------------------------------------------------
Simultaneous Post from other site:

This post draws its quotes from:
1,500 animal species practice homosexuality

Firstly, lets take matters in-hand in a do-it-yourself approach.

Masturbation is common in the animal kingdom.

Masturbation is the simplest method of self pleasure. We have a Darwinist mentality that all animals only have sex to procreate. But there are plenty of animals who will masturbate when they have nothing better to do. Masturbation has been observed among primates, deer, killer whales and penguins, and we're talking about both males and females. They rub themselves against stones and roots. Orangutans are especially inventive. They make dildos of wood and bark.

My initial thoughts upon reading this were... OUCH!
However, if one can go against the grain of living vicariously via 'Monkey Do', then the scientific question to ponder is: Was rubbing two sticks together to invent Fire Man's first innovation??? ...or was rubbing one stick to put one out???

So too, I think seeing a Killer Whale Flog the Bishop would be... Killer!!!

1,500 animal species practice homosexuality
((( List of animals displaying homosexual behavior - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia )))

Homosexuality is quite common in the animal kingdom, especially among herding animals. Many animals solve conflicts by practicing same gender sex.

...Homosexuality is a social phenomenon and is most widespread among animals with a complex herd life.

Ok, the reality of this truth has given me hours of ponder over the years as a Darwinist Gay man. Since my deepest personal conviction is that homosexuality is a product of Nature and not Nurture, why evolution would select for what appears a genetic dead-end is something of an enigma. However, as I noted in Post #5, Darwin also spoke of Sexual Selection and much about the world of life around us is counter-intuitive at first glance. Secondly, the statement in the above quote: "especially among herding animals" or the concept of 'The needs of the Many' may not be as obvious to a lone wolf INTP as it should. Yet, heard implies a mutual gene pool that must be protected and propagated, and nature is replete with examples of individuals in a group that support the group without doing Meiosis.

Homosexuality is also quite common among dolphins and killer whales. The pairing of males and females is fleeting, while between males, a pair can stay together for years. Homosexual sex between different species is not unusual either. Meetings between different dolphin species can be quite violent, but the tension is often broken by a "sex orgy".

Reminds me of an old college chum who would chant every time we headed out for the bars...
"We are either going to Fuck or we are going to Fight!" ...Rarely ever, did our lives live up to his rally.

For a solitary pair bond animal, such as a Mocking Bird, battles for turf with neighbors is vital to your species survival as it ensures the 'Fittest' will pass on their genes and the weak will perish. However, war among social animals often weakens both groups to a terminal level.

To use a historical analogy, WWI ripped the innards out of a whole generation of Europeans and beget WWII that ripped the innards out of the next generation. Scholars of some repute say this is why immigration into Europe has shifted the old world's geo-political polarity in an irreversible way.

 

[AOA]

Wow, this is one of the few things about evolution I'm actually ENJOYING reading. It's about time we put a little spice in it. Heheheh.

(Continues reading thread.)

... So what, am I supposed to get dear with the crowd because apparently 'this is the way things really are in my world'? LOL. Pathetic.

Y'all got to realize that perhaps evolution never (naturally) meant us to know these 'blessings' - because otherwise it makes our lives normal, again and again and again. Can't have that. Things happen the way they're planned to be, as if life is a real learning experience. I don't see much credibility from what I read, here.

 

[OrionzRevenge]

Recently, PBS aired a 3-part Nova about human evolution. (Good Stuff)

One of the angles they considered was why did humans lose all the body fur and when.
It appears the answer is about 3.3 million years ago the funky monkey decided to walk around in the buff so that he could sweat to stay cool in the heat of the African day. Indeed, while all the big animals tried to stay in the shade, monkey-man could run down his prey to heat exhaustion.

How do they know it was about 3.3 MYA?

The modern human is plagued by two types of lice, namely: head and pubic that reside… well, on the head and in the fig-leafed regions respectively. (What we call body lice is really clothes lice and can be rid of with a change of duds)

It seems once we began to lose body hair the head type of lice headed north into the natty mat-lands. Later, we caught the 'Crabs' that enjoy more musty fruits.

The kicker is we caught said crabs from Gorillas, and by applying the formula (X number of mutations will accumulate in X number of years) to the number of current differences between Kong Crabs and Pantie Crickets... the Gorilla critters in the musk happened 3.3 MYA.

Now, I know. Yes there are numerous ways to affect crab transfer. I mean, who here has not claimed they got them from a toilet seat???

Yet, it makes for some interesting contemplation, and I'm sure your knee-jerk reaction is to think: All men are Sluts, ergo, that slutty-ass monkey-man of mine gave me Kong Crabs!!!

Yet, it makes you ponder the psychology of this epic icon.

Human Pubic Lice Acquired from Gorillas Gives Evolutionary Clues
Pubic Hair Provides Evolutionary Home For Gorilla Lice
The Fuzzy Biologist: Pubic lice and Gorillas
Pubic lice leapt from gorillas to early humans - life - 07 March 2007 - New Scientist

 

[Risen]

An awful lot to read, but I have a couple thoughts on what I've read so far...

I have noticed before that the sexual organs of humans and any other primate (our supposed closest relatives) are significantly different in size. I've never noticed anything about the differences in form, so it's interesting to hear that there are significant differences. If you follow the trends in grouping species (particularly plants), what is the most important factor in determining similarity from phenotopic traits? The sex organs! That is usually the KEY factor in separating one species/genus/family from another, in the anatomy of their sex organs and sexual compatibility.

So, what does it say that Homo Sapiens are so greatly different in that regard? I think it says we aren't nearly so closely related evolutionarily as is commonly perceived. The evidence isn't there. The scientific evidence that shows man evolved directly from apes is absent.

And I really didn't need to hear the tidbit about having a monkey dick stuck in his ear -_-. Geez. And about the penis being designed to remove semen... I dunno. As a nonbeliever in evolution through incremental natural selection (more a believer of sudden and large evolutionary leaps), I don't think those kinds of qualities are due to such micro-level reasons.

 

[OrionzRevenge]

...
So, what does it say that Homo Sapiens are so greatly different in that regard? I think it says we aren't nearly so closely related evolutionarily as is commonly perceived. The evidence isn't there. The scientific evidence that shows man evolved directly from apes is absent.

... As a nonbeliever in evolution through incremental natural selection (more a believer of sudden and large evolutionary leaps), I don't think those kinds of qualities are due to such micro-level reasons.

Well, I think there is a good deal of scientific evidence to indicate that we are very closely related to the great apes. The genes vary by so little if you wink you’ll miss it.

Also, farmers and animal breeders have been making incremental un-natural selection all around us for ages now. So that little ball of lap fur that once was a wolf, or that seedless fruit you enjoy would seem to be proof to the contrary.

I agree with the use of sex organs to often key out which critter is which.
It used to drive me nuts trying to ID Fresh-Water Micro-Inverts back in my lab days.
Cheers!