sexualenhancement.org

Thanks Zane. My take on it is that there’s no reason why cul de sac orgasms would EVER have to replace clitoral orgasms, because well endowed guys can deliver clitoral ones just as easily as small guys. But clitoral orgasms often HAVE TO replace cul de sac orgasms, because few guys can bottom out in the average girl’s vagina and therefore MUST resort to only inducing clitoral ones. This in itself suggest who the “best lover” would be - the guy who can produce both, not the guy who can just produce one.

I’m sure every woman is different in her preferences. Some might prefer tongue action to penetration, but then again some women might even prefer women to men.

I guess it’s about the numbers. Would most women like to have a man with the ability to deliver multiple cul de sac orgasms (that are so powerful the women shriek, moan, and perhaps cry) while “making love” and who also can deliver single, powerful, clitoral orgasms, or would most women prefer a man who could only offer clitoral orgasms? The ability to have orgasms during actual “love making” seems to be a little bit more of an intimate and bonding experience for most women rather than just relying on oral sex.

Well that’s my take for whatever it’s worth.

I find clitoral orgasms more intimate and bonding than vaginal orgasms. I can have vaginal orgasms with anyone.

Actually I wasn’t laughing, I was quite serious. The smiles were grins, not laughter.

Bonobo behavior may be a good model for pre homo sapien behavior.

I am aware of the approximate monetary requirements for your study. Actually my estimate was higher than what you quote. The anthropological angle was intended to get you to consider attempting to get federal funding. A NSF grant for the study of the “The Effects of Diet on Sexual Behavior in pre Homo Sapien Species” would be quite reasonable.

makyen

Well I’ve got a pretty high-up NIH scientist on my side; if he can’t get me funding I suppose I can try that. Not going to name names, don’t want to get in a mudfight again. I’m open to all advice; I appreciate it.

I do think it’s interesting that many cultures have “loss of paradise” myths associated with the onset of agriculture.

Again, you are making several assumptions that are not necessarily valid. These include, at least: That cul de sac orgasms will occur with a larger penis. That most sexual encounters lasted long enough to produce vaginal orgasms and/or cul de sac orgasms.

No, they don’t address the main issue that I was raising. They assume that the various pre homo sapien species "millions and millions" of years ago had the reasoning capability to make a plan spanning a multi-decade period of time. For the purposes of this discussion, I would be willing to grant that Homo Sapien, and Homo Neandertalensis did have that capability. I might grant that Homo Erectus had that capability. Earlier than that, you will have to convince me.

They further assume that single male - single female was the dominate social structure over "millions and millions" of years. I highly doubt that this is true. It is not true for many/most of the primates.

The hypotheses assume that the requirements for female orgasm have remained effectively constant over "millions and millions" of years. Given that it has been demonstrated that such can change over very brief periods of time as a result of dietary changes this assumption is fallacious.

For the hypotheses to be true they have to explain: "Why was the male penetrating the female for long enough to produce any orgasm?" Is your claim that if the penis even touches the cul de sac it will immediately product an orgasm?

Bonobos, a close relative of Homo Sapien, have an average copulation time of 13 seconds.1 Is that really long enough to produce a cul de sac orgasm?

References?

The only things I have seen talk about the relative size of the testes. All of those state that the size of Homo Sapien Sapien testes are not proportionally largest vs. the penis of other primates.

Assumed a female preference for a larger penis. Assumed that a larger penis has been the cause of additional mating opportunities.

What they assume is that genetics is the only, or at least vast majority, of what determines penis size. Given that by PE one can change the size of your adult penis by more than 100% it is shown that this assumption is not necessarily true.

There is a reasonable indications that the average penis size in the US has declined within living memory (Conversation with a Pediatrician: are penises getting smaller?). This indicates that the average size of the "BORN" penis has declined within living memory. There are also statements that indicate that the size of one’s penis has only a small amount to do with paternal genetics.

These both indicate that environment plays a major role in determining penis size. Environment may, in fact, be dominant. It has certainly been demonstrated that genetics is not preeminent under average circumstances.

References?

No, they did not cover the ones that I mentioned in this post, nor in my previous post.

Their main problem is that they assume the things they want to have change will have changed over "millions and millions" of years. Then they also assume, without stating such, that the things that they want to remain constant, did remain constant over "millions and millions" of years. This is when the things that they want to have remained constant over "millions and millions" of years have been demonstrated to change over a period of days, or, at most, less than 100 years.

I should also mention that they are not theories. They are, at best, hypotheses.

The hypothesis is presented as justification for what those presenting it desire for the future. It appears to have been generated by asking the question "What history is consistent with the future I desire?"

Maybe there is some basis for a genetic drift towards a larger penis over "millions and millions" of year, but this hypothesis does not explain it.

[Calling them theories is not your fault. There is a general lack of understanding regarding the difference between a hypothesis and a theory. Scientific method . I am guilty of sloppy statements is this regard also. I will be attempting to be better about this issue.]

makyen

After having been on my diet for seven years, I can have a cul de sac orgasm in under ten seconds. It has to be a fast thrust, but I can hit it like clockwork. Even if I’m thinking of something non-sexual, I don’t need foreplay, it’s automatic. So my diet has given me, at least, the ability to have sex like a bonobo. Typically I do have more than one at a time though.

Speaking of bonobos and women….this link is interesting:

http://www.seed magazine.com/ne … for_monkeys.php

I should mention my diet also has given me the ability to have much more transcendent sex than I thought possible—it has broadened both ends of my sexual experience. But that’s why I have put on a lot of weight—a suburban mother of two can’t be going around having rampant bonobo sex.

I think men’s penises are getting smaller because of all the estrogen-like substances in the environment and in foods.

Human males do have the biggest penises:

"One characteristic among primates has been clearly targeted for possible selection by Fisherian female choice—male penis size. Primate males living in groups with many females and many males, groups in which promiscuity is the mating rule, have long penes (Dixon 1978). Male chimps, in fact, use their penis for display toward estrous females. Because a longer penis would give a female pleasure (note that the human male has the longest and thickest penis of any primate), female choice might have been a factor driving penis length to extremes among primates." (Small, Meredith F. (1993) Female choices: Sexual behavior of female primates. Cornell Univ. Press, Ithaca, 1993 pp. 109)

Also this link:

http://www.evoy age.com/BillsEs … HumanPenis.html

Again, evolutionarily speaking this seems to indicate early man lived in a society filled with promiscuous females, which also supports my diet hypothesis.

Judging by the questions you’ve asked it seems like you don’t fully understand the idea of "natural selection" or "sexual selection". Your following comment in particular indicates this: "They assume that the various pre homo sapien species "millions and millions" of years ago had the reasoning capability to make a plan spanning a multi-decade period of time. "

This is not about planning or scheming or even thinking about your choices. This is about "mother nature" encoding your instinctive impulses so that you "trend" in certain directions. It’s like members of a species are genetically programmed to desire things (and thus select them) which is thought to contribute to the survival of the species.

Refer back to the link I provided about a recent study: http://channels .netscape.com/m … amen&floc=wn-ns

The first sentence says it all:

"Women don’t realize they’re doing it, but they subconsciously prefer the aroma of dominant men when they are at the most fertile stage of their menstrual cycle….. women who were ovulating at the time rated the ‘dominant’ men as the sexiest, and this correlation was particularly true for women who were in an exclusive relationship."

THIS is an example of sexual selection. "they don’t realize they’re doing it, but they subconsciously prefer ….". All your questions about "lasting ability" or "PE" etc.. are "mistaking the trees for the forest". That would be like saying "These guys whose aroma they prefer are ‘assholes’ and in all likelihood they’ll find that out and never actually go home with any of them anyways". It doesn’t matter whether they go home with them or not. Their preferences are real, and so maybe only 1 in 10 will actually go home with one of these Alpha Males, some in committed relationships (See Twat Teaser’s post).

The point is they "trend" towards that type of guy during ovulation (their most fertile period).

Anyway, Zane was kind enought to provide some links (thanks Zane!) to show that this is a real theory. The best place to find out about this is Discovery Health Channel which shows programs on Sexual Evolution all the time. Here’s a couple other links:

http://www.unm. edu/~psych/facu … mate_choice.htm

Darwin (1871) assumed that genitals evolve purely through natural selection for fertilization ability, but Eberhard (1985, 1991) has demonstrated a substantial role for female choice in the evolution of male genitalia. The human penis is a prime example: men have the longest, thickest, and most flexible penises of any living primate. Gorillas, orangutans, and chimpanzees have very thin `filiform’ penises less than three inches long when fully erect, and made rigid by muscular control combined with a baculum (penis bone). By contrast, human penises average over 5 inches long and one and a quarter inches in diameter, and use an unusual system of vasocongestion (blood inflation) to achieve erection(Sheets-Johnstone, 1990; Short, 1980). The size and flexibility of the human penis is more likely the result of female choice than sperm competition because sperm competition generally favors large testicles, as in the small-penised chimpanzee (Baker & Bellis, 1995; Harcourt & Harvey, 1984; G. Parker, 1984; Smith, 1984).

http://www.evoy age.com/BillsEs … MenFromMars.htm

It is not a scientifically proven fact yet, but science is leaning very heavily in favor of the argument that our human species evolved from the Chimpanzees based primarily on the competitive nature of the male chimpanzee. These males are very aggressive in terms of jockeying for hierarchical positions, and the results of their efforts bear them out — their physical prowess is rewarded with multiple sexual partners, and as a result, the "ammunition," or sperm required to perform this task is found in abundance in the large testicles that males of the Chimpanzee species carry. The major difference between our two species is the modern human female’s refusal to be sexually coerced ("raped") like her Chimpanzee cousin. And as a result, one of the greatest mysteries of evolutionary science yet to be discovered is how the Chimpanzee female transformed her bright physical angeogenital sac — that lights up like a neon sign to signal the optimum time for conception — to one of total concealment in the human female. Perhaps science is still reluctant to publish detailed studies of this transformation for it would focus on the female genital areas — an "area" considered appalling by the conservative fundamentals, but this physical transformation of the female has also brought a transformation in the size of the human male’s testicle and penis sizes. The testicles have been reduced because the human male is not as promiscuous as his chimpanzee cousin, and the penis size has grown because the female has "chosen" the larger penis as desirable to the chimpanzee's pencil-sized penis. This is because the human female no longer "allows" the behavior of being sexually coerced, and because her desire for greater "choice" has driven the natural selection process through sexual selection to our modern state. Perhaps one day soon we will find courageous female scientists "choosing" to publish their own studies on the internet how this physical transformation occurred (hint, hint).

I believe that my understanding of natural selection , ecological selection , and sexual selection is above average. Given that you have mixed and matched them, and stated some erroneous conclusions regarding them, I don’t think you have the differences clear in your mind. Well, OK, it is that you have communicated a lack understanding of the differences, causes, effects, and/or time-frames involved. You also appear to not differentiate between them.

You put forth that the females "fooled" the smaller penis males into a single male - single female bond for the care of the children, while still having offspring with larger penis males. This statement requires many, and various, assumptions. Some of which I have already covered. Given that there are multiple methods though which this situation might occur, and you have not made a claim as to which one you believe happened, to take the opposite position, I have to cover multiple possibilities. One possibility is that to perform this "fooled" thing requires both social structures and the capability for planning that I expect have not existed over the last "millions and millions" of years.
[NOTE: The "millions and millions" of years time-frame is one of the things that clearly indicates you, or the person expressing this "theory", is not fully conversant with "natural selection" and "sexual selection".]

You have shown no relationship between "dominant" and a genetically large penis in pre homo sapien sapien species. Until that is done, the entirety of the "dominate preference" argument is completely useless in this discussion about selecting for a large penis.

I don’t believe that I have argued against the supposition that women prefer dominant men.

I have made statements that attempt to get at a reason why pre homo sapien sapien females would prefer a male with a larger penis. Such a preference is one thing that would result in the sexual selection of a larger penis. I believe there are reasons, you just have not presented any reasons other than cul de sac orgasms. Thus I have made comments about sexual performance and your assumptions regarding it.

Some of the comments I made have been shown to be less important, given the new information of Zaneblue’s statement that she can obtain an orgasm in 10 seconds.

The comments about PE are because you have not demonstrated that genetics are the dominate factor determining penis size. You have merely assumed that to be the case.

She has posted links that are directly contrary to the suppositions upon which the hypothesis you put forward rests.

This one is long. I will not read it in its entirety until, at least, I get some sleep.

Ummm. So? I don’t see how this quote is relevant to the areas in which we are not in agreement.

I am unsure why you have included this link given that, again, much of it is directly contrary to the suppositions upon which the hypothesis you put forward rests.

makyen

I disagree. Anyone who did understand "sexual selection" would NEVER have stated:

You can backtrack all you want, but it’s this aspect that is making this debate tiring.

I’m not going to go back and forth just to educate you about a theory you obviously have no interest in investigating yourself. Anyone can take any sentence that someone puts forth and respond "proof?" and, thus, keep the conversation from progressing. I don’t mind providing sources (as I always do) as long as they are questions relevant to the discussion at hand, but most of these haven’t been. Instead of placing the burden on me to provide proof for every irrelevant bit of skepticism you can come up with, why don’t you do some investigation yourself? There are different theories floating around - some that you’ll find more to your liking. That second link I provided probably does give a few conflicting theories.

BTW, this theory makes a lot of sense to me, but I’m not its creator. If someone makes me see that it’s flawed, or offers a better theory to explain how human penis sizes have grown disproportionately to other primates over millions of years then I’d probably even change my mind.

That example/link was there (as was stated) to help you understand "sexual selection" and how these are more like "mother nature encoding your instinctive impulses" and NOT millions of years of "plotting and scheming" by females, since THAT’S what you indicated was a flaw in this theory. :D

Her second link is part of the theory I’m talking about. Everything in that quote is completely in agreement with everything I’ve said and is the BASIS for the theory of this discussion:

In actually, it seems to contradict YOUR assertions previous to her post:

For instance:

This is getting tiring and boring.

THIS is the ONLY point you’ve made that is relevant (as far as I’m concerned) to this discussion. This connection stems from the idea that Alpha Males are bigger, tend to be better endowed, are aggressively confident (dominant characteristics), and "cock-sure".

Do ALL Alpha Males have big dicks? I’m not sure (probably not), but that’s the stereotype they seem to enjoy. So women’s attraction to these Alpha Males and the characteristics they are "believed" to posses is one aspect which the author to that original site (which started this discussion) linked together. However, whether Alpha Males actually have large penises or not is perhaps not as relevant as it may seem. What’s important is that people (females in particular) believe they have large penises (stemming from their "cocksure" attitude, height, and large features).

This preference for Alpha Male / large penis size qualities are not necessarily exclusive/or. Maybe women look for either dominant/over-confident qualities and large penis sizes when their evolutional sexual selection desires are in overdrive (during ovulation). They can’t always determine how big a guy’s dick is from inspection (while clothed), but perhaps she can intuitively sense he’s got a large one by his demeanour, over-confidence, and sexually aggressive qualities. Then again maybe hearing that a guy has a large penis from a girlfriend is enough to make her fantasize about straying (irregardless of whether he’s got dominant and overly-confident characteristics).

One thing’s for sure, the size of the human penis has grown disproportionately to ALL other primates over millions of years, so there had to be female sexual selection (based on penis size) going on. Again, see Zane’s provided source since you claim to be in agreement with her:

Next:

Again, I’m not going to PROVE to you that genetics are the key determining factor in penis size, height, hair color, and every other feature on your body even though it is something that’s more or less fact in the science community. If you disagree with that fact then YOU can do the research yourself to prove otherwise. BTW, PE probably is performed by a tiny fraction of a single percent of the population.

You can also try to answer this question yourself as it is the key to this WHOLE DISCUSSION: Why have human penises grown over millions of years to become the largest penises (proportionally) of all primates? Was it "female sexual selection" or something else? Zane and I clearly believe it was "female selection". You obviously think it’s something else.

Let us know what you find. That will make this discussion interesting - other theories, not just arguing for the sake of arguing. Contribute to the discussion, don’t just try to focus on every dotted ‘i’ and crossed ‘t’, and keep redefining your argument to keep the argument going.

Anyway, I’m out of here. Have fun!

How about this theory? Humans did not fuck face to face, we went at it like moneys from the back (monkey style). Shorter guys had more occurances of “drop out” on ejacualtion, longer guys had fewer cases of drop out because they had the length. So more longer guy genes were carried forward?

That theory really spanks my monkey, boss. Is that why Back acne is so repulsive to this day?

Could be Twat, monkeys (non-talking) probably don’t have that problem.

That’s a very good case against female sexual selection. Then again, maybe the women preferred the longer ones (as a result of the short ones slipping out) to ensure they would reproduce (pass their genes to offspring), so “sexual selection” could have actually resulted from this kind of dilemma.

This vaginal positioning is actually closely related to what they were reporting on one of these sexual evolution shows on Discovery Health. They stated that women’s bodies changed. They stopped walking crouched down and instead in the upright position. Their vaginas went from being where their ass is to more upfront yet between their legs which required that the guy’s penis had to be longer than before to deposit sperm closer to the egg. So as a result they “selected” the guys best suitable for impregnating them.

Another interesting thing they stated was that monkeys’ vaginas (being practically on their ass) are in full site and get red and puffy when they’re in heat signalling to the males who respond by getting crazy wild about it. The show stated that once women began walking upright and their vaginas moved more upfront these vaginas became out of view, so they started coloring their mouth lips with paint (lipstick) to attract males.

“That’s a very good case against female sexual selection. Then again, maybe the women preferred the longer ones (as a result of the short ones slipping out) to ensure they would reproduce (pass their genes to offspring), so “sexual selection” could have actually resulted from this kind of dilemma.”

This “preferred” would require thought though wouldn’t it? Gets away from the innate drive idea.

“Another interesting thing they stated was that monkeys’ vaginas (being practically on their ass) are in full site and get red and puffy when they’re in heat signalling to the males who respond by getting crazy wild about it. The show stated that once women began walking upright and their vaginas moved more upfront these vaginas became out of view, so they started coloring their mouth lips with paint (lipstick) to attract males.”

Interesting, but there could have been other reasons also.

Good point. Unless of course “mother nature” foresaw this problem so that when “mother nature” made women’s bodies upright and relocated the vagina, a new little “itch that needed scratching” (:D or something similar :D ) presented itself deep within their vaginas (something only a long guy could reach).

Very true. These are only theories/hypotheses. I suspect we’ll never know the true answer to any of this. It’s fun to see the logic in it all, and shed some speculative light on things that we take for granted (i.e. lipstick).