video: Why Is the Penis Shaped LIke That? And Other Reflections on being human

[admin]

http://youtu.be/Pw6VMVqlg90

An evolutionary biologist discusses assumptions about the "purpose" of the specific shape of the human penis, female ejaculation, and other aspects of sexuality.

[JeffH]

I watched this, and read a recent Huffington Post on same topic. I cannot accept what he is saying. I understand what he is claiming, but it can only take place if circumcised. We are (well, were) born with a foreskin. That is the evolutionary result. Yet they describe a purpose that can only happen (if it really does happen) with a circumcised organ.

The "natural" male, on the withdrawal stroke during intercourse, his foreskin would cover his glans, or at least lessen the effect of the coronal ridge "scooping" out previously deposited sperm.

I'm no scientist, nor have I "studied" the evolutionary purpose of the penis, but you have to question wether these people even know what a foreskin is, or have ever seen one.

If they update the info and explain the same thing specifically in regards to a natural penis (intact), I'm all ears. Absent that, this explanation carries NO merit and appears to try to explain cultural emotions more than anything else.

[Distalero]

Apart from the issue of intact vs circ:

One way to judge a hypothesis (and that's all this is, really) is to look at the reverse of it (if possible). This hypothesis is based in the concept of evolution. In this light the penis is shaped, so goes this concept/hypothesis, to benefit both maintaining the human species in the larger sense (gets sperm/seminal fluid into the canal), and provides more specific benefit to the actual sperm/seminal fluid deposited by "scraping" out any previous deposit. Sort of a local, each-event, sort of control; very much an unwitting control by the depositor, of course, but one that nature has designed for this purpose by providing a scraper on each sprayer. There is always a potential problem, though, with taking one feature of an organ and from that claiming a "purpose" that directs the whole show, in this case the physical act of procreation.

So what's the reverse? Well, you can make a case for the corona in fact pushing ANY deposited fluid INTO the vaginal canal, closer to the os. Why would this be considered important to natural evolution? Variation, and it's strength in the long term. That's the very heart of the concept of evolution. Nature, as viewed by the same concept of evolution, puts all sorts of variation out there, blows the whistle, and the games begin (yeah I'm watching the olympics too ) So why wouldn't that same dictum hold true, ie pushing any and all deposits into "play", as it were, so the strongest sperm, from the strongest deposit, can fight it's way past all the hurdles that face it. Evolution likes that idea apparently.

And, way, way simpler, why couldn't the corona be just a little perk that nature provides to the depositor so he'll do it again as soon as possible, which would fall in line with maintaing the species which is the overall dictum; a perk arising from the corona's pleasure-sensation inducing tissue on the proximal side of it's structure?

Just sayin'.

[mark85]

Nothing pisses me off more than people treating the circumcised penis or circumcised sex as the natural way to be. People have no idea how much circumcision has shaped what we think about sex, sexuality, masturbation, and anatomy. So fucking clueless.

[JeffH]

I really have to make one more point here…

In essence, his hypothesis is that the penis is shaped as it is due to evolutionary psychology. Uh huh, psychology. In other words, feelings, and resultant actions, over time, cause physical adaptations, in this case, the penis. The gist of this particular adaptation is the result of sexual jealousy; not wanting your mate to become pregnant with rival's baby, so you "do" her again (mateguarding) , this time scooping out the competitor's sperm and freshly depositing your own, hopefully reversing the previous coitus.

The original researchers used sex toys to test the theory. Yep. Dildos, fake vaginas, and the best recipe they could find to mimic sperm. Their conclusion? The coronal ridge equipped devices did indeed "displace" the fluid.

To my original point that the coronal ridge could only accomplish this (IF it actually does) if circumcised. Taking place on the withdrawal movement, the glans coronal ridge could trap and pull back fluid trapped behind it. But an intact penis, with it's foreskin, would tend to re-cover the glans on this stroke, effectively negating the effect of the ridge or reducing the effectiveness of the displacement.

The use of dildos to test their theory is the most suspect. Of the dildos that I've seen, all effectively mimic a circumcised penis. None have a moveable foreskin.

Since nature provides the human male with a foreskin, and their "tests" do not simulate nature (only a culturally forced adaptation), there is no credibility in their conclusions that the shape of the penis adapted over evolutionary time to serve their claimed purpose.

Further, and finally, their hypothesis would suggest that if your mate were raped or "cheated", you could "undo" the whole thing by doing her again yourself. Really? So maybe we instinctively know that and mutilate natural males so they can propagate their own. I don't think so.

Excerpt Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1642613.html

[alex-oh]

What this apparently completely mistaken (or intentionally misleading) evolutionary biologist* is actually describing is the effect of the cultural/religious practice of circumcision, not the evolution-provided, natural penis.

He is correct that circumcision may indeed have been designed to pump (other men's) semen out of the vagina. It pumps lubrication out efficiently.

And I think that's the point to make to anyone who mentions this.

*I'm sorry the originator of this "semen displacement theory" nonsense is evolutionary? psychologist Gordon Gallup (of SUNY Albany)