Straight Dope Message Board

[toefungus]

Common sense tells us that if women actually preferred large penises then evolution would have stepped up to the plate and made it universal.

[Chronos]

It seems to me that generally, by the time a woman learns the size of a man's penis, she's already made her decision concerning mating with him.

[cochrane]

I'm gonna step up to the plate and link to what I assume is the column:

https://www.straightdope.com/columns...all-genitalia/

[Telemark]

The OP shows a misunderstanding of both evolution and women.

[elbows]

Evolution ‘steps up’? Since when?

[brainstall]

When men display their penises (penisi?) like peacocks display their extravagant and colourful tails, perhaps then size will become a determining factor in a woman's decision to allow them to pass that evolutionary trait on. Until then, as Chronos pointed out, mating decisions are made on the total package, not the one between a man's legs.

[Elendil's Heir]

It's Greek to me.

[Broomstick]

Originally Posted by toefungus

Common sense tells us that if women actually preferred large penises then evolution would have stepped up to the plate and made it universal.

Male humans have proportionally larger penises than any of the other primates. Ya'll already DO have large penises compared to our close evolutionary cousins.

But consider that women want men with penises, not baseball bats. At a certain point "large" becomes "painful", which probably would be selected against.

[AHunter3]

Ours is bigger proportionally than that of most male animals. I have no idea whether it's because women like to look at them or are fond of the large ones. There may be evolutionary advantages to a longer hallway, so to speak, between clitoris and uterus. Maybe less likelihood of the stuff dribbling back out before the swimmers get their act together.

[Shakester]

Originally Posted by brainstall

When men display their penises (penisi?) like peacocks display their extravagant and colourful tails, perhaps then size will become a determining factor in a woman's decision to allow them to pass that evolutionary trait on. Until then, as Chronos pointed out, mating decisions are made on the total package, not the one between a man's legs.

The plural of penis is penises. In English, words that end in sibilants become plurals by adding "ES". One box, two boxes. One dish, two dishes. One penis, two penises. (ETA: I know there are a handful of exceptions, I don't need them pointed out, thanks.)

Since the word isn't from Latin, making up fake Latin plurals for it just makes you look foolish. The word comes from Greek, and the Greek plural would be "penes", pronounced "pee-knees". Except that it's well and truly been absorbed into English and we just use the standard English plural: penises.

[Exapno Mapcase]

A bunch of pee-knees.

[running coach]

Originally Posted by Broomstick

Male humans have proportionally larger penises than any of the other primates. Ya'll already DO have large penises compared to our close evolutionary cousins.

But consider that women want men with penises, not baseball bats. At a certain point "large" becomes "painful", which probably would be selected against.

Post/username.

[Inner Stickler]

Originally Posted by AHunter3

Ours is bigger proportionally than that of most male animals. I have no idea whether it's because women like to look at them or are fond of the large ones.

Given the propensity towards neuroticism, I sort of wonder if it isn't that the men with larger penises simply felt more confident and 'bedded' more women on average than their smaller-endowed contemporaries.

[AHunter3]

Originally Posted by Inner Stickler

Given the propensity towards neuroticism, I sort of wonder if it isn't that the men with larger penises simply felt more confident and 'bedded' more women on average than their smaller-endowed contemporaries.

I seriously doubt that —I think the sense that "a bigger penis is better" is a notion that is only acquired socially. It's not universal, no matter how often you may have heard to the contrary. (Likewise the obsession with breast size, btw).

For that matter, the notion embedded in "bedded" — that it's a male accomplishment, that it's something that the guy does — could use some unpacking and reexamination, although I'll grant that he's a participant and even if we assume active agency on her part, his interactions with her probably do benefit from confidence. I'd think more confidence would come from a sense of tenderness and sensuousness though.

[Inner Stickler]

I put it in quotes specifically because of the implications. I'm not sure what sexual politics were like 1,000 years ago, much less 10,000 or 100,000 years ago but I have a hard time imagining that prehistorical woman had so much say in her choice of partner that a preference by women for larger dongs would have had that much of an effect, evolution-wise, or that she would care that much about the size compared against ability as a provider and protector.

[Ambivalid]

Slightly tangential but I've always been a bit confused as to how information was collected when determining average penis sizes for males of a particular group. Self-reporting? Yeah, I can't imagine it'd be anything but strictly objective. Do men get their penises measured at the doctors? If so, do they get their flaccid penis measured? If so, what useful info does that provide? And if not, do the doctors measure an erect penis? If so, how does a doctor sexually arouse their patient enough to get a boner to measure? I've always heard term like "the average American male has a penis length of..." and have been baffled as to how they could know this.

[Exapno Mapcase]

Masters and Johnson were doing research on people, involving real erections and real sex and real measurements, starting over 60 years ago.

[AHunter3]

Originally Posted by Inner Stickler

I put it in quotes specifically because of the implications. I'm not sure what sexual politics were like 1,000 years ago, much less 10,000 or 100,000 years ago but I have a hard time imagining that prehistorical woman had so much say in her choice of partner that a preference by women for larger dongs would have had that much of an effect, evolution-wise, or that she would care that much about the size compared against ability as a provider and protector.

I wasn't around at the time either, of course, and like so many people I have a tendency to select material that reinforces my preconceptions. But, having said that, there does appear to be a reasonable body of anthropological literature suggesting that our ancestral hunter-gatherer-clan females were entirely in possession of "choice in the matter", probably far more so than they again had until the 20th century and the modern feminist movement.

I agree with you that his ability to bring in his share of the food (and perhaps a general tendency to look fit and cute in the sunlight) probably weighed a lot more in the woman's choices than the size of his boy-parts. But who knows?

[Chronos]

Quoth Shakester:

Since the word isn't from Latin, making up fake Latin plurals for it just makes you look foolish. The word comes from Greek, and the Greek plural would be "penes", pronounced "pee-knees". Except that it's well and truly been absorbed into English and we just use the standard English plural: penises.

"Penis" is, in fact, Latin, and it forms its plural in the same way as most Latin words ending in -is. Which is, as you say, "penes", but the Latin pronunciation of that would be more like "pay-nase".

You might have been conflating it with "octopus" and "platypus", which both look Latin (in that -us is a common Latin noun ending) but which are actually Greek. Therefore, the standard Latin pluralization rules (which would replace the -us with an -i) don't apply there.

It should perhaps also be noted that while most -is Latin words go to -es in the plural, there are a lot of them with more complicated pluralization, and some that don't end in -is in the singular and still follow those rules. In particular, the plural of "clitoris" is "clitorides".

[Darren Garrison]

Originally Posted by Ambivalid

Slightly tangential but I've always been a bit confused as to how information was collected when determining average penis sizes for males of a particular group. Self-reporting? Yeah, I can't imagine it'd be anything but strictly objective. Do men get their penises measured at the doctors? If so, do they get their flaccid penis measured?

Well, it is a pretty complex equation...

[sbunny8]

I'm reminded of an example of bad science from 2012.

First, the so-called "scientists" didn't bother to make a hypothesis and design an experiment to test it. They just threw together a survey of a few dozen questions and looked for correlations between the answers. This is an example of p-mining, which is a really lousy way to do science, and a major reason that science is currently facing a replication crisis. Lo and behold, the "researchers" found a strong positive correlation between two of the questions, specifically women who answered "yes" to the question "Do you believe that you're more likely to have an orgasm when you're with a partner who has a large penis?" and women who answered "yes" to the question "Do you have lots of orgasms?". Then the clueless mainstream media wrote headlines like "Science proves that larger penises means more orgasms!". Bullshit. What the study allegedly showed is that women who SAID they had lots of orgasms also tended to say that they BELIEVED penis size was important. They didn't even try to ask the women who claimed to have lots of orgasms whether their partners had big penises or not. Even if they had asked that question, it would still be self-reporting and subject to observation bias. And that still doesn't address whether this result is repeatable or simply the product of random chance in a small statistical universe. And even if all that was true, it still wouldn't show cause and effect, just correlation.

It's a damned shame that people waste time feeling insecure about their bodies. Then some bad science and clickbait headlines have to play into people's insecurities and make them feel worse.

Originally Posted by Ambivalid

Slightly tangential but I've always been a bit confused as to how information was collected when determining average penis sizes for males of a particular group. Self-reporting? Yeah, I can't imagine it'd be anything but strictly objective. Do men get their penises measured at the doctors? If so, do they get their flaccid penis measured? If so, what useful info does that provide? And if not, do the doctors measure an erect penis? If so, how does a doctor sexually arouse their patient enough to get a boner to measure? I've always heard term like "the average American male has a penis length of..." and have been baffled as to how they could know this.

Some studies use self-reporting, but they have to figure out ways to counteract the subjects' tendency to exaggerate. One useful trick is to have the subject use unfamiliar units of measure, such as centimeters for people in the US. Other studies have a doctor measure flaccid penises and then compare that result with self-reported answers of both flaccid and erect, which allows the researches to estimate how much exaggeration is happening and correct for it. Other studies have the doctor gently stretch the penis, on the assumption that stretched flaccid size is roughly the same as erect size. I'm not aware of any studies where the doctor sexually aroused the participants.

If self-reporting results in an average of 9 cm flaccid and 15 cm erect, and doctors measure 8 cm flaccid and 13 cm stretched, it's a pretty safe bet that the actual erect average is pretty close to 13 or 14 cm.

It's also important for the participants to measure the same way (along the top, not the bottom).

[John W. Kennedy]

Originally Posted by brainstall

When men display their penises (penisi?) like peacocks display their extravagant and colourful tails, perhaps then size will become a determining factor in a woman's decision to allow them to pass that evolutionary trait on. Until then, as Chronos pointed out, mating decisions are made on the total package, not the one between a man's legs.

If you insist on using Latin (no, it’s not Greek), then penes. But most people just use penises.

[Thudlow Boink]

Speaking of penis size: Adding Dick Sizes To Historical Strategy Game Introduces Some Complications

[constanze]

Originally Posted by Chronos

It seems to me that generally, by the time a woman learns the size of a man's penis, she's already made her decision concerning mating with him.

For how much of human history have the majority of women and men be able to choose their Partner freely according to their liking, anyway?

Didn't most cultures have arranged marriages, either:

- to prevent Close relationships (inbreeding)
- to strengthen alliances
- to increase Money/ power/ Farmland
- because "Young People are foolish, thinking only with their hormones, but marriage Needs to last, so cool-headed elders will look for compatible mates"

That's where I have Problems seeing Evolution being much of a factor, compared to General health, being well-respected in Society, being good at getting rich etc to better able to Chose a desireable mate.

OTOH, once civilisation was established, some cultures allowed men to have women on the side.
Some civilisations tried to Limit the number of childbirths (the romans believed a certain herb worked that way).

[constanze]

Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase

Masters and Johnson were doing research on people, involving real erections and real sex and real measurements, starting over 60 years ago.

And wasn't one of their results that while flaccid penises differed in length, erect they were more or less same size?

[constanze]

Originally Posted by toefungus

Common sense tells us that if women actually preferred large penises then evolution would have stepped up to the plate and made it universal.

In Science, "common sense" doesn't Count for anything, you want Facts and evidence. (Often turns out to contradict common sense).

One often-cited example from AP Biology is length and colour of a bird's beak when feeding the Young. The Young chicklings pick on the beak of the parent who then Feeds them. The more they pick, the more Food they get.
So scientists built dolls of birds with different shaped (longer, bigger...) and coloured beaks, and measured which model got most picks from hatchlings.
Turned out that for a common bird, the "ideal" beak was 15 cm Long, and striped orange/ White alternating.
So why does the real bird's beak look nothing like that?

Because the adult bird Needs the beak for things besides getting picked at. The final design is a result of a compromise of several functions, not Maximum for one function.

Similar, women don't look at penis sizes when choosing a mate for life (or at least for the next 20 years until the kid is grown). They look for somebody who brings home Food, is Minimum nice so she can tolerate him hanging around farting, doesn't get into fights with others over nothing (leaving her a widow) etc.

[Vinyl Turnip]

Originally Posted by Ambivalid

Do men get their penises measured at the doctors?

Of course; it's a standard part of the exam. The doctor locks the door, lights a candle, turns off the lights... surely I'm not the only one here who gets an annual physical!

[Exapno Mapcase]

Originally Posted by constanze

And wasn't one of their results that while flaccid penises differed in length, erect they were more or less same size?

I think so, but I can't find that in a quick search.

I did find this info from Kinsey, which, unfortunately, is self-reported although it falls exactly into the range of everything else I've read.

Penis size FAQ and bibliography

The answers to the following questions are based on original research data collected by Dr. Alfred Kinsey and his research team.

Q. What is the range of erect penis length for most men?
A. 5–6.5 inches*

Q. What is the average circumference?
A. 4–5 inches*

* Gebhard and Johnson, 1979, p. 120

How did the Kinsey researchers measure penis size?

Men were asked: "How long is your penis, measuring on the top side from your belly out to the tip?" They were each given a pre-stamped card to take home, and instructed to mark the length on the card when flaccid and when erect. Approximately 2,500 men participated.

[smithsb]

I'm pretty sure that early on in our evolution, the guy who got the most gals was handier with his club than handier with his penis.

[constanze]

Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase

I think so, but I can't find that in a quick search.

I'm pretty sure Cecil himself answered the question about penis length once in an older column, refering to the Masters/Kinsey Report (including the "measure along the top" hint), but I can't search columns right now.

Anybody remember?

[constanze]

Originally Posted by smithsb

I'm pretty sure that early on in our evolution, the guy who got the most gals was handier with his club than handier with his penis.

Are you referring to:

a man who's a good hunter = makes sure his mate and offspring have enough to eat

a man who's a good protector = defends his mate and offspring against tigers etc.

a man who's a good fighter = kills all other possible suitors from his tribe? (The last would backfire, because humans are social animals: we Need a Group of 20-40 People for cooperation to survive).

Of course, penis length (or size of erection) is not correlated at all to viability of sperm:
Men can have an erection and still be infertile (non-moving sperm)

Men can have Trouble with erections (except for morning Wood) and still be very fertile (moving sperm),

yet for hundred of years men thought that erection = virility = fertility (and blamed women for not producing children , or male offspring).

[Thudlow Boink]

Originally Posted by constanze

I'm pretty sure Cecil himself answered the question about penis length once in an older column, refering to the Masters/Kinsey Report (including the "measure along the top" hint), but I can't search columns right now.

Anybody remember?

Maybe this one: Does average human penis length vary among ethnic groups?

[constanze]

Originally Posted by Thudlow Boink

Maybe this one: Does average human penis length vary among ethnic groups?

Yes, thank you - that was what I remembered. Esp. the second paragraph:

White males had an average flaccid penis length of 4.0 inches, whereas the average black male’s detumescent member measured 4.3 inches. But when erect, the average white penis was 6.2 inches long, whereas the average black’s was 6.3 inches — still longer, but not by much. (Average circumference for whites was 3.7 inches; for blacks, 3.8.)

[Exapno Mapcase]

Originally Posted by constanze

Yes, thank you - that was what I remembered. Esp. the second paragraph:

Averages of 6.2 or 6.3 inches are not quite comparable of the earlier Kinsey statistics I quoted with a range of 5 - 6.5 inches. I'd assume that the average of that range would be much lower. I wonder where Cecil got his numbers from?

[Ambivalid]

Originally Posted by smithsb

I'm pretty sure that early on in our evolution, the guy who got the most gals was handier with his club than handier with his penis.

And don't you think there may be relevant correlations to these two traits?

[Sicks Ate]

Originally Posted by constanze

And wasn't one of their results that while flaccid penises differed in length, erect they were more or less same size?

"Growers vs. Showers"

[Ambivalid]

Well if those claims of 6.3 inches as the average man's penis length is to assumed to be correct, then that says some interesting things things on a few different levels re my experiences with swinging.

We didn't involve ourselves in the swingers lifestyle for too long, maybe 6-8 months, but one thing that was true across the board with every single man in our little swingers encounterswas that he had a pretty severely undersized, below average penis length when fully erect.

This also correlated roughly (say 70%) with the noticeable disparity in age and physical attractiveness of these couples (and this are aggregate approximations, not examples of any one event). 90 percent of these noticeably odd pairing were of those with the woman being the one who was young and gorgeous, while the man always seemed to be a socially inept, shy, awkward man about 10-15 years her senior. I only remember one vivid example of it going the other way, and it was with a couple we had chatted with a bit only e and at parties.He was basically a gorgeous, Greek Adonis sculpture and was friendly and soft-spoken. He and my gf hit it off well and being the team player that am (and probably a bit guilty that up till this point, being a "team player" had been the entire extent of her experiences swinging) I made a good faithed effort to engage with the woman (who turned out to be wife, not gf, and had already given birth 7 times in their marriage). I REALLY to make this happen and let my gf get a taste of what I had tasted already. I just could not. I was fundamentally unatrracted to her sexually, period. This was after making out and groping too.

All this just poses some interesting thoughts into what motivates each partner to decide to try swinging. And honestly, I don't see any of them good, healthy motivations. At least not long term.

[sbunny8]

Originally Posted by constanze

Are you referring to:

a man who's a good hunter = makes sure his mate and offspring have enough to eat

a man who's a good protector = defends his mate and offspring against tigers etc.

a man who's a good fighter = kills all other possible suitors from his tribe? (The last would backfire, because humans are social animals: we Need a Group of 20-40 People for cooperation to survive).

When smithsb said "the guy who got the most gals was handier with his club", I assumed he was referring to the situation (often depicted in cartoons) where the man hits the woman over the head with a club, drags her back to his cave, and has sex with her unconscious body. In other words, rape.

[toefungus]

Originally Posted by Chronos

It seems to me that generally, by the time a woman learns the size of a man's penis, she's already made her decision concerning mating with him.

Um, the human species is a hundred thousand years old.

Any selection would have happened long before trousers were invented.

[toefungus]

Originally Posted by constanze

In Science, "common sense" doesn't Count for anything, you want Facts and evidence. (Often turns out to contradict common sense).

Similar, women don't look at penis sizes when choosing a mate for life (or at least for the next 20 years until the kid is grown). They look for somebody who brings home Food, is Minimum nice so she can tolerate him hanging around farting, doesn't get into fights with others over nothing (leaving her a widow) etc.

It's almost as if you don't understand evolution.

If women wanted bigger penises they'd pick the biggest one among the multiple guys who were bringing home food.

Or ... they'd pick a guy who brings home food as a partner but sneak off to bang a guy with a big penis.

Either way: The big penis gene gets propagated. All it takes is a preference by females and pretty soon the "bring home the food" guys all have them swinging down to their knees.

I get the impression that most posters are male so I'll point out that it works the other way, too: If men really sought out huge breasts then all women would be massive. Once you get past puberty though I don't think it really makes much difference when selecting a partner. Smaller ones are generally much perkier/prettier IMHO.

[constanze]

Originally Posted by toefungus

Um, the human species is a hundred thousand years old.

Any selection would have happened long before trousers were invented.

One of the earliest piece of clothing was the loincloth. In some tribes, men were a hollow tube (some plant) on a string around their waist which is long enough to encase any penis length.

[constanze]

Originally Posted by toefungus

It's almost as if you don't understand evolution.

Or maybe you misunderstand it.

It's not simply "who has most one-night stands". It's about "who produces more survivable offspring longterm", given a hundred other factors that influence survival. That's why I gave the example of bird's beaks.

If women wanted bigger penises they'd pick the biggest one among the multiple guys who were bringing home food.

If women get to pick at all, depending on society.

Or ... they'd pick a guy who brings home food as a partner but sneak off to bang a guy with a big penis.

It's not about banging the guy, it's getting his babies that counts for evolution. And if sneaking off results in a pregnancy, but that means she gets kicked out by the food provider, women will stop sneaking out.
If pregnancy by sneaking out is passed off without consequences, women will still select the food provider as partner, (cuckoo principle), but sneaking out leaves big penis guys with less procreation possibilities than the regular mate.

Either way: The big penis gene gets propagated. All it takes is a preference by females and pretty soon the "bring home the food" guys all have them swinging down to their knees.

If evolution would work that way, then why hasn't it already? We see some extreme lengths in animals: peacock feathers, antlers in deer, horns in mountain sheep, even when for the species it's counterproductive to waste so much food energy to produce big horns/ feathers only to attract a mate. But not all species go that far - because different pressures make other features more important, or because the too elaborate individuals die off prematurely.

I get the impression that most posters are male

Where do you get this impression from? Do you know every poster personally? Not all nicks are gender-indicative; and those that are may not correspond to the real gender of the poster.

If men really sought out huge breasts then all women would be massive. Once you get past puberty though I don't think it really makes much difference when selecting a partner. Smaller ones are generally much perkier/prettier IMHO.

Again, narrow focus. Until recently, breast size was not an important feature for beauty in most of the world. It's only with Hollywood saturation that most of the world pays attention to it.
In many cultures, fat people were attractive, because they had higher chances of surviving hard periods. At some times, light skin was prized because it meant the person was wealthy enough to not work outdoors. Farmers wanted strong women to help with the fieldwork (again the part where marriages are arranged and personal preference doesn't count at all).

[sbunny8]

Originally Posted by toefungus

Um, the human species is a hundred thousand years old.

Any selection would have happened long before trousers were invented.

I read that evidence says humans were upright, relatively hairless, and walking around naked for at least 60,000 years before clothes were invented. Something about DNA evidence from body lice. Before anybody says 60,000 years isn't enough time, allow me to point out that a shorter time than that was enough for people in Europe to develop larger noses and lighter skin. If there was a strong enough reason for penis size to affect the survival of the children, it could have happened.

The bigger picture is that evolution is not just about which individuals can most easily attract mates. It's about which individuals can produce the most viable offspring that survive long enough to reproduce themselves. A mutation may have multiple effects and it will be successful if the net result of all those effects is more viable offspring.

[Chimera]

Natural Selection selected for white skin in the last 7,000 years or so. It is an ongoing process.

[Chronos]

Quoth toefungus:

I get the impression that most posters are male so I'll point out that it works the other way, too: If men really sought out huge breasts then all women would be massive.

They are. Even an A cup is significantly bigger than most female primates have, even among our closest relatives. Though of course some are more massive than others.

As for human penises being larger than most primates, I suspect that that's actually due indirectly to our big heads. Big heads at birth mean that vaginas have to be bigger, and vaginas being bigger mean that penises will be bigger, too.

[John W. Kennedy]

Originally Posted by Chronos

They are. Even an A cup is significantly bigger than most female primates have, even among our closest relatives.

Even more telling, men have the very same size lactation mechanism. Most of the bulk of the human female breast appears to be purely decorative.

[salinqmind]

Originally Posted by Chronos

They are. Even an A cup is significantly bigger than most female primates have, even among our closest relatives. Though of course some are more massive than others.

As for human penises being larger than most primates, I suspect that that's actually due indirectly to our big heads. Big heads at birth mean that vaginas have to be bigger, and vaginas being bigger mean that penises will be bigger, too.

Whut?

Just about any woman giving birth has a vagina that is elastic enough to accommodate a birthing infant. That's the way vaginas are built, they can expand. Whether she is a 5 foot tall waif or a 6 foot tall Brunhilde, their vaginas are basically expandable. (Not that it is comfortable for anyone, not that it has much to do with birthing problems, but a 6 pounder can shoot out of a tiny woman or a larger woman.) Penises can impregnate whether they are 2" shrimps or big-ten-inch porno whoppers. ..... And it's mainly MEN who fret over size, as if bigger is better! Something to show off in the locker room, hey, lookit this!!! I say most women don't want to be pounded by gigantic eggplant size wangs except in porn movies, where is where most men get their information. And if they do need a thing the size of a loaf of French bread stuck up in there to get off, there are places I have heard on the internets where you can buy replicas to seal the deal.

[Chronos]

Again, the comparison isn't between normal men and John Holmes. It's between our closest relatives among the great apes and normal men. Compared to chimpanzees or gorillas, the human penis is, in fact, huge. It's not as huge as a baguette, but that's not what we're talking about.

[smithsb]

Originally Posted by smithsb

I'm pretty sure that early on in our evolution, the guy who got the most gals was handier with his club than handier with his penis.

Originally Posted by sbunny8

When smithsb said "the guy who got the most gals was handier with his club", I assumed he was referring to the situation (often depicted in cartoons) where the man hits the woman over the head with a club, drags her back to his cave, and has sex with her unconscious body. In other words, rape.

Hi sbunny. I was refering to the old comic staple of Og clubbing his woman and dragging her off. I did not carry my thoughts on to the, "actually it's a rape" angle. I apologize for my comment.

I was also thinking of the, "good provider" skill. Should have just gone with that.

[AHunter3]

Originally Posted by smithsb

Hi sbunny. I was refering to the old comic staple of Og clubbing his woman and dragging her off. I did not carry my thoughts on to the, "actually it's a rape" angle. I apologize for my comment.

I was also thinking of the, "good provider" skill. Should have just gone with that.

Author Timothy Beneke used to ask his audience to visualise "a cave man" and then asked what the "cave man" was doing, and people in the audience would describe him dragging the unconscious woman by the hair. And he used this beginning to examine our unquestioned / unspoke attitudes towards rape.

smithsb, in other words, is far from being the only person who has never stopped to rethink that socially-shared tableau and realize that it is a depiction of rape. And (as Beneke points out) it is instead thought of as "this is how we would behave if civilizing influences didn't inhibit us", i.e., the notion holds that (although we don't consciously think of it as rape) we would naturally rape and only cultural inhibitions explain why we don't.