If woman prefer a bigger dick than why am I small?

I would wager that humans are the only animals to ever have sex for any reason other than pleasure.

Here you go:

http://www.snop es.com/critters … ld/pleasure.htm

.

Yes, my statement above reflects this part of the page:

For all we know, some species may not feel pleasure during copulation — they may have no conscious hedonic states comparable to those of humans, that is — but surely no other species has any awareness of an association between sex and reproduction. In this sense — looking at creatures’ intentional states — humans are the only species to ever have sex to reproduce (e.g., when a couple wants a child and uses all manner of techniques to try to conceive…).

This could only be written by a person who has never had a dog or cat as a pet. Dogs and cats love to be petted because they obviously “feel” petting as a sensory pleasure. There is no reason to think the frontal lobes added sensory pleasure to the mammalian repertoire, ditto for emotions. No hedonistic awareness? Then why does my dog lick his dick so often, even to the point of orgasm at times!

Non awareness of the connection between sex and reproduction, of course, IS WHY SENSORY PLEASURE IS REQUIRED TO ENCOURAGE SEX.. Geez! Humans have no such automatic association either, but must learn from their society or logical deduction.

Yeah, really! That should be obvious!

Dude, the non-human animal kingdom encompasses a whole more than dogs and cats :p I’m agnostic on the matter — there isn’t any definitive test for phenomenal consciousness, of course — but most people’s intuitions do draw a line at some point… which brings me to:

It is not obvious why any feelings at all should be necessary to drive sex or any other behavior; many find the idea of a normally-behaving human without any consciousness perfectly logically coherent. It seems to be just a brute empirical fact of the world that certain brain states are associated with certain subjective sensations. Besides, even if we ignore such philosophical niceties, there are plenty of organisms in the world that reproduce sexually just fine without, according to naive intuition, any feelings, pleasurable or otherwise, at all. Even if you were to grant pleasure to ALL animals, what about sexually reproducing plants? Is "sensory pleasure" required to drive their mechanisms of "sex"? Surely you draw a line somewhere?

By the way, when I said “I would wager that humans are the only animals to ever have sex for any reason other than pleasure,” my point was that the only “reason” (if by “reason” we mean to refer to some conscious intentional state) that non-human animals are likely capable of, with regard to sex, is pleasure-seeking; and in this sense, many very simple animals probably have no “reason” at all for their sexual and other automatic behavior. Antecedent causes, yes, but not reasons.

Of course pleasure would be perceived differently by different organisms with very different brains, but in general, satisfying a bioligically programmed instinctive urge is pleasurable in some way: Eating, drinking, even breathing. (If you don’t think breathing is pleasurable stop for a little while and then see how much you enjoy it!)

Sure, I never thought for a minute that ALL sexual reproduction is motivated by pleasure. I was talking about mammals whose brains are quite similar to humans except for the frontal lobes.

I am also aware that "wack-job" behaviorists like Skinner don’t even think HUMANS are conscious!

But, if the Chinese don’t have to compete with 7” very often then, short will do!

You forgot Dolphins bro.

I love your avatar gameofinches, ha ha ha Kurt Cobain must have singed “heart shaped ass”!

Yeah, looks great, but I’ll have to wait until my PE has been effective to make any practical use of it.

Lloyd: I’m sure that you may pleasure this babe with what you already have, you just have to be more confident that’s the very point of this exercises.

I doubt that it was an arbitrary liking first. It seems logical that women that liked smart and hung men were able to proliferate their genes better and thus, became the norm in the gene pool. A large unit and complex brain are qualities that have costs to produce. If these didn’t produce any survival advantages then they would be an overall negative and could very well possibly be weeded out.

And secondary sexual characteristics have a lot to do with survival. The visual indicators in a man (body hair, deepening voice, muscle development etc) are all either signs of advantageous traits or themselves directly. Increased testosterone is part of the reason for the deeper voice and hair. Testosterone causes men to be aggressive and enables them to gain muscular strength — two things that were very important for survival. I’m sure the list goes on.