Bigger penis.

before i started sleeping over at my bfs home we made each other skype videos of him and his erection and me and my lotion in bed, i guess its porn in a way.

 

OK, I'm grasping at straws here.
Some straws are bigger than other straws....ha...ha...ha.

Some random and worthless questions, thoughts, etc.
Some of which I could easily look-up on the interweb, but how would that encourage conversation here?
Translation: I'm bored, and y'all are about to suffer for it .

What happened to Merlini? Was he part of the sex toy store spam?


Is penis size hereditary?

If my father and I are anything to go by, no. A cannon that fires live loads sometimes produces a toy gun.


Does a longer penis give a better chance of pregnancy, with all respective parts being in working order?

Just think, if the above two were true (which I'm 97% sure they aren't), after enough generations most guys would be hung like porn stars.
And if vaginas didn't evolve to handle the larger penises, guys with smaller penises would be in demand . Women would fantasize about five inchers, instead of twelve inchers.

 

Penis size would be a stronger evolutionary factor if sex was completely free and mating random and frequently multiple times a day. As it is humans have huge penises for apes.

Being that there are other factors involved in mating, penis size may matter a little but other factors can overshadow it and out compete it. For easy example if your mate only has sex with you, your penis size is near irrelevant. If your mate is cheating on you but not on days you have sex, again penis size is irrelevant.

 

Of course it is. What else could it be?

Half your genes came from your mother.

Also, it is extremely typical for a man to overestimate the size of his father's penis, compared to his own.

Surely it does. And that's not the only advantage of having one. For example, it's been shown to increase a man's value in the sexual selection marketplace. This thread is full of other examples.

And the fact that humans have by far the largest penises of any primate (a huge gorilla has only 4 inches) demonstrates that, among humans, larger size in a general way contributes to the ability to attract females, make them pregnant, and produce offspring.

Exactly! I think this paradox probably has a name. If not, it ought to.

Ordinarily, across millenia, any survival-positive hereditary trait can be expected to spread to the entire population. We all have white blood cells, we all have the same number of fingernails, etc., etc.

But intelligence (like penis size) seems to defy those rules.

Raw intelligence is about 80% hereditary. Intelligence surely contributes to an individual's survival. Under the ordinary rules of evolution, we should all be as smart as Stephen Hawking.

But, in fact, perfectly normal humans exist across a wide range of levels of intellectual ability.

There is furious controversy and many theories about this.

One is that birthing babies with huge brains (and skulls) is a very high stress experience that endangers the survival of the mother as well as the baby. Our "normal" babies are born extremely premature compared to other primates, as an adaptation to the big-skull problem. But earlier birth creates other risks from having offspring who are extraordinarily dependent and vulnerable during the first year. Hence, bigger brains both help and hurt survival.

But even with the same skull size, the variation between intelligence in individual humans is much more than would be predicted by the usual evolutionary rules.

The answer to the paradox, I think, is that we are not necessarily adapted to maximize survival as individuals. Rather, we are adapted to maximize survival for our tribe or community. Across millenia of pre-history, individuals did not survive if their family or tribe or community did not survive.

Presumably a human community with a diversity of intellectual levels was more likely to survive than a monoculture where everybody was basically the same. That might put evolution on the side of diversity instead of conformity.

For example, diversity would lead to the division of labor. A community that figures out division of labor would have been enormously better off (enhancing survival for all members) than another one where everybody continued to do everything.

Does this apply to penis size as well as intelligence? I'm guessing that it does.

Penis size is correlated to personality traits like dominance and assertiveness. Perhaps diversity of penis size promotes a diversity of personalities, which would also contribute to the division of labor.

Disclaimer: this is not my field. Practically every point above is disputed by someone.

 

Group selection has been pretty well shot down really as a theory, mathematically it just doesn't work. With something like intelligence, while having a high intelligence is useful, it does not mean its always going to be the most fit. Look at society currently. Smarter people tend to have LESS children, not more. Fitness wise, all that matters is children in the next generation. Issac Newton was a genius but he was also childless, in the end, his brains if anything were harmful to his genetic survival.

There is more than one way to have kids, I personally know some guys with rather small penises, one of those things you see in swinging, and they all have kids. Penis size alone is not the only factor. An ugly man with a huge penis may do better than an ugly man with a average one, but still would he do better (in terms of children) than a good looking guy with an average one? Added we don't know how trends are going, size MAY well be increasing, its not like we have a penis size record for the last 10000 years.

 

It could well be that penis size and shape is like facial structure, one of those things that is simply so widely varying across the species that it's more or less random.

 

I'm enjoying reading the responses,

but

did y'all miss the first part of my post, #122?

I'll be clear.

1. Even if penis size is hereditary, the gene pool will certainly contain a full range of sizes, from cannons to toy guns. What you get is what you get.

2. Penis length is insignificant in pregnancies. The swimmers make it and do their thing, or they don't. Where/how deep the semen is 'deposited' in the vagina doesn't matter.

 

There is a theory that the head of the penis is shaped the way it is, to force out sperm from the vagina. Not yours of course but the guy that was there first. Basically evolved for sloppy seconds. In those situations length could matter. Based on the over all penis length world wide, one would predict the highest level of cuckolding in central Africa and the lowest in Korea.

There is a reason humans have bigger penises than other apes, much like women have breasts. Now breasts are considered due to sexual selection, perhaps the penis is too, but I think there would have to be a little more to it.

 

So in theory my very pronounced glans--I use the term corona, and it is very pronounced--acts as a scoop.

 

But average is better than tiny. And that is not a myth.

 

If your comment is directed at me, no, I'm not buying into the myth, or trying to feed it.
I think that my comments in this thread have made that clear.
Perhaps my attempts at humor have fallen short (yes, a play on words).

 

can you tell if a mans more likely to carry a lot sperm or seamen? if his balls are biggest? balls carry his sperm or seamen? i was rubbing lotion into my bf and i saw him shoot out and it reached his chin.

 

I remember one of those seventies new wave science fiction stories the title of which I don't remember where the intrepid main characters are going from one alternative reality to another.
There was one where at the age of fifteen girls were paired up with an older man and boys were paired up with an older woman.
It was explained that after all women reached their peak later so it was a match and men were mature so they wouldn't rush the girls.
After a year or so of being taught the realities of sex and love the kids got to go out on their own.

Not saying this would work at all but I can certainly see where a whole bunch of stupid misconceptions would dealt with.

 

I'm not going to disagree with any of the above. Your words are wise, no question.

And let me stress that I hold you, your writing, your abilities, your perspective in very high esteem.

But all that being said, given your admitted personal endowments, your posting above comes across as extraordinarily patronizing.

Absolutely, that is an emotional reaction, not an intellectual one. I'm not proud of it.

As I have written several times here, it is human nature to discount our advantages and obsess about our liabilities.

Let me give a couple of parallel examples.

It can be said with considerable truth that, as long as your basic needs are being met, it doesn't matter how much money you have. As I grow older, in fact, I can see this in ever greater clarity.

If I inherited a billion dollars tomorrow morning, it wouldn't change my life very much. Maybe I might move to a fancier house. But it would also add a lot of headaches. It would be unlikely to make me significantly happier.

If, God forbid, I'm on my father's schedule, I have only about ten years left. Even with just the resources I have at hand, I am very unlikely to lack anything I need during that time.

Those of y'all who are my age or older have probably noticed the same thing: money just isn't that important.

But that doesn't mean I'd enjoy hearing this same truth from a billionaire like Bill Gates or Sheldon Adelson.

Similarly, as a guy over six feet tall, and the beneficiary of all the unearned advantages that society showers on tall men, I'm not a good spokesman for the idea that short men can be just as successful.

Well, of course they can be. But even the most successful short men I've known would be angered to hear someone as tall as myself dismiss the very real disadvantages they've had to overcome, and which are entirely outside my experience.

When it comes to sex and social attitudes, I'm not sure that greater access to information has been an unalloyed blessing. Unrealistic ideals of sexuality are available in extraordinary detail; the average is much less likely to be portrayed, or generate as much interest.

Still, the average person today is enormously more knowledgeable and sophisticated about sex today than 50 years ago. Many myths and misconceptions and stereotypes have practically disappeared. And yet the seemingly irrational cultural focus on the size of heterosexual penises seems as intense as ever, with deep negatives toward guys on the small side.

It would be wonderful to have a world without prejudice or ignorance or envy, where people are fairly judged on their abilities and "the content of their character." But that isn't the world we have.

You and I have had this same discussion before in completely different contexts (e.g., employment discrimination).

In short, I strongly agree that it's pathologically self-destructive to give up to perceived unfairness, and proclaim oneself a "victim of society". We should all strive to make the best of the cards we were dealt. Surely almost everyone aspires to that.

But it borders on dishonest to sugarcoat the situation facing people who are widely understood to be less worthy because of some bodily characteristic.

 

I didn't think I was addressing, at all, your feelings or experiences, which are yours alone.

Rather, I was writing to confront my own (admittedly toxic) emotional reaction, and seeking to understand and learn from it. That post was not easy to write.

.

--- merged: Apr 2, 2014 at 9:13 AM ---

.

Slightly sardonic take: I read your post as all about me. You read my post as all about you. We're both wrong.

.
--- merged: Apr 2, 2014 at 10:11 AM ---

Yes, I get this. Other guys presume things about your life, things they have no idea about. Envy is ugly and sows mutual resentment.

I grew up before there was much sex education, before the Internet. But unlike you, I was faced with the reality of where I stood, right at the outset.

My first sexual experience, when I was 16, was with a guy whose erect penis was gigantic -- at least double mine in every dimension. I was totally unprepared for this.

The act was unconsummated. I fled, roiled in a stew of wildly mixed emotions that I can't really unpack even today. The other guy was puzzled and hurt. We were classmates, but never spoke again.

 

Having a bigger dick is better, but its perhaps the least important of the male characteristics unless you are a porn star. I've never had anyone ask me how big my dick was, and being I'm not old enough to walk around naked non-stop in the gym locker room only my wife and my swing partners know how big it really is and if I wasn't a swinger, then only she would.

So when it comes down to penis size, its a very personal issue of self worth. Baldness, height, weight, just being ugly are all far more apparent than the biggest or smallest dick out there.

 

So I just read most of this thread to see if I should post here or start a new thread...as has been said, this is the general kind of topic that always (ahem) comes up, sooner later with or without, er, input from women. Sometimes a guy here and there will be willing to give specific info (i.e. length) but usually there are only a few women involved (or at lest posting) and they tend to be vague in their answers (perhaps to spare the fragile male ego)...

So, Ladies...how many inches can you take? Seriously, when does it get to be too much of a good thing?

And I know there is a great deal of human variation but I think there must be at lest a weak correlation between height and, um, depth. So if you wouldn't mind, give us at lest a general idea of your height.