Got a bit of flack a few times because I wear custom tailored pants that may or may not delineate my shape. However as I understand it, form fitting dress clothes are the norm in Europe and Asia so I’m not sure why it’s such a big deal in the US.
Is your boss a man or a woman?
If you had a big package your boss probably wouldn’t mind you showing it off.
Exactly how “form fitting” are these pants…?
Are you wearing yoga pants?
You need a better tailor.
And please, board shorts when in the US. Thank you.
Everyone comments on the enormous size of my package.
Glad to be black!
I wear a mankini to work and have never had any comments. Maybe it’s just you.
In primates, there seems to be a correlation between monogamy and phallus size, the more promiscuous, the larger the member.
Do you think that carries over to humans?
If there is indeed a positive relationship between ape promiscuity and dick size, it sort of makes sense, since a more promiscuous male primate would need to impress females at a higher frequency. So, they would have high utility for the correct fixings.
Among humans, it makes less sense, since for the duration of civilization, wealth and social status have probably been the driving factor in having choice of mates. Cinderella ends up with a rich prince, not an otherwise average man who has a huge dong.
But man has evolved very little during civilized times compared to pre-historic periods.
If you are comparing one modern human male to another modern human male, and assume the richer, more charismatic male is the desireable mate, then their dick size is probably only a minor factor and human physical evolution over the past thousands of years probably doesn’t matter.
If you are comparing humans in general to other primates, then that is different, and the evolution of the human species probably does matter. Which of these two scenarios were you addressing?
In any case, human promiscuity is deeply affected by religion and societal institutions. Since most successful humans are married to a single person for most of their lives, the quality of a long term mate is probably a better measure of success than the number of mates.
Humans have the largest man-part size-to-body ratio of all primates. I watched a show that talked about that and it said it is because we are bipedal. Thus, the woman’s “target area” is harder to reach than for baboons and the like, so our schlongs have grown longer and wider to accommodate.
Bipedalism is also why human birth is exceptionally painful for women. Our pelvis has not adapted in a way that can allow easy passage for a baby and simultaneously be good for bipedalism. Apparently walking upright easily is more of an essential survival skill for our ancient mothers than not dying in childbirth, so we have not evolved a way to give birth without substantial labor pains. But if you look at how Gazelles and Girraffes give birth, it looks no more painful to them than taking an extra large dump. I don’t know if that’s also the case with other primates, though the theory would predict so.
It’s interesting (though understandable) that men’s schongs would have evolved to accomodate bipedalism by now, but the process of giving birth hasn’t. One more thing for women to feel shortchanged by, but perhaps full body orgasms make up for it somehow. Too bad we men don’t get to have some of those.
I think there is a correlation. Gorillas are the largest primate I think and they have tiny little nub dicks. Why? Because only the alpha gorilla gets to mate. Gorillas were probably selected for overall size and less so dick size.
Chimps and humans are on the other end of the scale and are historically less monogamous. It stands to reason that the more competitive the sexual ecosystem of a species, the larger the wang should be. Sort of an arms race, if you will. Well, mine does look like a baby’s arm at least, so there’s that.
I like the way you think.
From Wikipedia. Another theory. Homo also has by far the largest penis of the great apes, and this may be sexually selected in much the same way as the larger testicles of Pan. It has been suggested the evolution of the human penis towards larger size was the result of female choice rather than sperm competition because sperm competition generally favors large testicles and a small penis, as in the chimpanzee.[18] However, penis size may have been subject to natural selection, rather than sexual selection, due to a larger penis’ efficiency in displacing the sperm of rival males during intercourse. A model study showed displacement of semen was directly proportional to the depth of thrusting, as an efficient semen displacement device.[19]
Well, this Wikipedia thing does support the argument that promiscuity is related to dick size, since promiscuous animals would have more need to displace the semen of rivals.
Not sure if I would want to be the sloppy seconds though. It seems kind of gross…
Data point - I have a female friend who told me she once dated a dude who was 3" fully hard. She said the guy was perfect in every way (looks, personality, career, etc.) except for his ridiculously small package. She had s3x with him once and decided it wasn’t going to work out when she couldn’t feel him inside her. That was a few years ago and she said to this day he’s still single despite seeming like the perfect catch.
I had heard this before, maybe even by you on this site (not criticizing, I still feel it interesting). The thing that’s interesting to me is how women could evolve so that it isn’t as painful. Even beyond how they bodies would change (which is interesting enough), it is interesting to think about how modern society would nurture or hinder that evolutionary response.
At least in a time before modern medicine, women died in child birth at a much higher rate than today. It seems like that was a pretty strong evolutionary signal that would have eventually lead to female bodies to change over time so that they don’t experience such pain; i.e., women with body shapes that are less likely to lead to death during child birth would have more children because they live longer. On the other hand, humans are slightly different from other primates because women go through menopause. Compared to a hypothetical human species that didn’t have menopause, these women who live longer would have fewer children and thus not as quickly outpace the women who died early. As a result, an argument could be made that the human species might be slower to make such an evolutionary change.
Of course, due to modern medicine, women in developed countries don’t die as often in childbirth. It seems like this would bypass the evolutionary signal. You could think of it that each woman individually is better off. They live through child birth and are able to have more children (if they want to). However, it means that women as a whole will continue to have the pain of pregnancy and the risk of dying in child birth in the future. Alternately, you could imagine that parts of the world where the women are more likely to die during child birth have a greater likelihood of evolving.
Along the same lines, I was thinking lately about how birth control affects evolution. Compared to times before birth control, there is now likely a longer period between when people in developed countries meet initially and have babies (at least for people who didn’t grow up in the same village or were neighbors their whole lives). I’m not sure of what the impact of that will be (let alone whether it is a positive or a negative), but it seems significant.
Cosmetic surgery/braces/lasik surgery might also be considered along the same lines.