Evolution theory of the big penis mating attraction to women

Correct me if I’m wrong, but concerning mating, doesn’t the theory of evolution say that women tend to prefer bigger because it represents a better chance to get pregnant to them (in their subconcious)? I’m not sure I understand the logic behind this theory. Aren’t small, average, and large men all equally capable of having children?

I heared something like that to.

somebody explain?

anonymous07128 mentioned the same thing in this post. Maybe he will elaborate on the theory for us.

Im just guessing here….

Perhaps the sperm has a shorter route to travel when the tunica is longer and therefore a higher probability of getting pregnant than sperm that has to travel a longer route. A bigger dick might also correspondingly have a stronger PC muscle and thereby a stronger ejaculation force thereby further increasing the probabilities.

Similiar reasoning goes for why most men like women with wider hips or the hour glass figure. Its because they have more physical advantage in giving birth than a woman with narrow hips. Evolution installs these subconscious desires in us and we seem to act on them even if we are not aware of them on a conscience level.

That’s interesting because I’ve read otherwise. A book I read said that there was no difference in impregnation due to size. It’s claim was that penis size is just a secondary male trait like a square jaw, hairy face, wide shoulders and pectoral development. Very-roughly on average these all indicate a “superior” (note the quotes!) hormone profile and therefore a better adaptability and ability to provide.

Having a penis is a primary trait, but its size is a secondary one. And, for those who wonder, the best indicator of adult penis size yet found is preadolescent free testosterone levels.

Evolution, being like it is, has caught onto this trick and over the years has found ways to make penis size depend less and less directly on this hormonal profile (although it seems the correlation is still pretty strong). Like the probiscus monkeys who select male mates on nose size, so the males have evolved outrageously large noses out of proportion to whatever original pupose they served as a “dominance marker”.

…or so the story went.

busted bus

Another interesting thought is that all those other physical attributes (chest,nose,shoulders etc.) are clearly in the open for all women to see and select but a mans penis size is not in the open for all to see and so how does she really know what is big and what is not big aside from casual knowledge and therefore it must alter the selection process in some manner unless the men all walk around naked.

Thank goodness for bulges and tight jeans!!! :)

In nature, it’s generally the rule that a big, floppy, unretractable penis is a *major* disadvantage, as it’s just one more thing to aim for in close-quarters combat, whether with other humans or with animals. I mean, look at gorillas- theirs are smaller than ours! Animals that have large dongs also usually have a method of retracting it at least part way when not in use so as not to become something for some carnivore to chomp on first…

If there is any evolutionary ‘bent’ toward bigger phalluses in humans, it’s social. Period. Of course I don’t have the corresponding PhD to back that up, but it simply makes the most evolutionary sense.

In fact, one could argue that the biological disadvantage conferred by naturally being big is obvious; if it conveyed significant evolutionary advantage, then being “big” would be the norm. (But then you have a paradox, and demonstrates that this issue is all relative in the first place).

You could also say that perhaps this disparity was what caused man to invent liqour, as well. Thank goodness for virgins everywhere that there is such a thing as drunk, horny chicks. Can I get an Amen?

Good point Lurky…

It really is all relative. Someday in the future when the average male penis is say 10 inches some poor guy will be complaining that woman laugh at his 8 inch penis when the gold standard that everyone is shooting for is like 13 x 9 or there abouts.

Did you ever see furniture from the Victorian Era? You will see how quickly humans have evolved in size.

Supersizeit’s mention of why men like wider hips made me think of something —I was watching a show on tv the other night(not sure if it was primetime or 20/20 or what). It had 5 sets of identical twins- 2 female twins in their 20s, 2 female twins in their 40s, 2 female twins in their 50s, 2 male twins in their 40s and 2 male twins in their 50s-that had grown up separately from each other. They had been separated as babies and didn’t find out about each other until long after being adults. In all cases, despited having a completely different upbringing, the twins were very much alike in everything they liked, wore, way they laughed, stood, etc. The 2 male twins in their 40s had even been raised in different countries with different cultures and yet were very much alike. The program said that experts have decided that 50% of what we do is genetic and 50% is environment.

I think this may explain that despite the fact I love big hips on a woman I don’t ever want childern. I was raised up in a big, very dysfunctional family and I think it may have effected me as to not want kids. Also, raising kids requires more time and commitment than I think I’m willing to offer. I’m a bit selfish in wanting to do what I want to do when I want to do it. I don’t think that qualifies me to be a good dad so I think I’m making the correct choice here. Still though, I like big hips which would seem to contradict what I just said about not wanting kids. I believe it boils down to I’m genetically predisposed to want children(because I love big hips) but I’ve overwritten it with my mind because of my environment and because of my desire for freedom. DNA can’t be changed ,of course,so therefore I still love the big hips I’m gentically programmed to prefer.

More importantly, beenthere, your DNA is telling you to pursue those big hips despite your moral afterthoughts. It’s unbelievably strong stuff, biology.

Interesting because it makes me wonder at what point does something that is initially environmental suddenly become something that is adapted to evolutionary process and create a genetic disposition? A kind of critical mass point where change takes place in the genes and carries forward to future generations of humans.

If big a cock did indicate to a female that a male sporting one possesses a genetic advantage over a lesser endowed male, it stand to reason that successive generations would breed males with bigger and bigger cocks until at some point cocks become unusable in the mating process. This would defeat the purpose of cocks to begin with.
Doesn’t strike me as sound theory.

oh, almost forgot….Amen Lurkey!

Its possible that evolution has not had enough time for the genetic advantage to work itself out within a span of time in which we can perceive it. e.g. Over billions of years the continents and land masses of this earth have shifted and changed so many times and many of us might have thought that the land masses were as they are now if it had not been for dedicated scientists uncovering that information. Likewise, its possible that our life times are too short to see the evolution of the penis and its only in modern times that we have really been giving it any real thought and tracking all the data available to us now that we have massive storage capacity in the form of computers. Yet the fact that women can not openly see a mans size as opposed to other male body parts adds a whole new dimension to that equation. Hey Im just speculating here—I don’t claim to be an expert in this area but I suspect this too be the case on just a gut level..

These arguments have no basis in logic. First, Supersizeit, your hypothesis of a bigger average penis being the norm in the future is rediculous. Why? Because you are basing that on a premise which at best is not proven and at worst baseless. You use the example of the average overall size of humans in the Victroian age as compared to now. Fine. But then you attribute this size difference to evolution. This is not a case of evolution. This is a case of better nutrition, medical advances, etc. Evolution is based on survival of the fittest. Therefore, there must be a distinct advantage of one trait over another to facilitate an evolutionary change. For penis size to make an evolutionary leap there would have to be a distinct advantage of larger over smaller. There is no such advantage. Women do not select mates on the basis of there penis size alone. In fact, it is a trait that is low on the list of desires if at all. The biggest factor in contributing to pregnancy would be sperm count and motility, not penis size. Second, in society as it is today, women generally do not see a man’s penis until such time as they have already determed said male to be worthly of sexual contact (i.e. chance for pregnancy). Of all the women I have ever known, not one has ever rejected anyone due to the size of their penis. All other traits come first and therefore there is no evolutionary advantage to having a bigger penis. There are many other factors that may make the man more desirable to a woman. Perhaps some of these traits, such as confidence, might be linked to having a large phallus, but even that is suspect.

Good points Beowulf however if you correctly understand that it is merely a hypothesis then you know that it cannot be based on logic but merely a tentative assumption in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences.
We might have not gathered all the necessary information to prove or disprove the hypothesis.

Main Entry: hy·poth·e·sis
Pronunciation: hI-‘pä-th&-s&s
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural hy·poth·e·ses /-“sEz/
Etymology: Greek, from hypotithenai to put under, suppose, from hypo- + tithenai to put — more at DO
Date: circa 1656
1 a : an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument b : an interpretation of a practical situation or condition taken as the ground for action
2 : a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences
3 : the antecedent clause of a conditional statement