Common sense tells us that if women actually preferred large penises then evolution would have stepped up to the plate and made it universal.
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.
I’m gonna step up to the plate and link to what I assume is the column:
The OP shows a misunderstanding of both evolution and women.
Evolution ‘steps up’? Since when?
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.
It’s Greek to me.
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.
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.
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.
A bunch of pee-knees.
Post/username. :eek:
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.
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.
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.
Masters and Johnson were doing research on people, involving real erections and real sex and real measurements, starting over 60 years ago.
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?
“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”.