Why men who are obsessed with their cock's size should relinquish patriarchy ;-)

According to Carole Jahme, female "power" (read: choice) might endow males more efficiently than any penis-enhancing trick will do - at least on the long run.

Incidentally, this is the best argument I've seen supporting the claim that our paleolithic ancestors thrived under matriarchical or gender-equal rule:

The larger human penis suggests that hominids needed to keep females with choice sexually satisfied. Ancestral females would have experienced a sexual freedom denied in Western cultures today and it has been suggested that our ancestors went through a period of matriarchy and enhanced female choice.

Views: 6649

Replies to This Discussion

Yes lord and master, let us all bow down to your wisdom, feminists are wrong and patriarchy is correct. Thank you so much for setting women straight. What would we do without you? Get a life will ya.

That is not an answer, is it?

You accuse me of not being here to "honestly discuss", but you fold every time you are asked for evidence.

Of course your male friends haven't told me that they bragged to women about their penis size. "So I was talking to this chick last night and told her I'm hung like a phone pole". That'd be a weird conversation.
Actually, guys would have no difficulty holding that conversation.

As far as I know, the human penis is quite an evolutionary mystery. Considering the body size of a human male, the penis is huge, especially when you consider the fact that the human penis does not have any bones in it to support the structure.

It has been suggested that the penis size of males might be selected for by females, potentially because a big(ger) penis shows that the male is virile and healthy enough to survive and function with a body part that is needlessly big for it's original purpose.


In that respect you can compare it to to elephant seals inflating a membrane in their nose to impress females of the species (or to impress males of the species?). The elephant seal does not have a direct benefit for it's own survival to be able to do so, but it is an indicator of relative gene strength which increases the chance of mating and procreating it's genes. Only an individual with genes that are well adapted to survival could carry such a burden.


One of the problems with a research such as this, is that it is highly speculative. It could be that such and such selective criteria caused such and such adaptations, it is however in no way proof. It is an interesting argument though, and matriarchy could very well have played a role in the evolution of the human penis. As to which role and which other factors are factors too is a very difficult subject to research.


Whether or not matriarchy was common enough to influence human evolution is difficult to proof as we have very limited information on whether such a system has existed in the past.

Thanks for the excellent write-up.  I fear, however, that it will fall on deaf ears.

Even as an asexual-identifying person, I suppose that makes sense.

But for me, the only way that could work is if sex with casual partners is common--which harkens back to the Minoans--sex with one another was worship, it actually came well before the judeo-christian obsession with controlling sexuality. I suppose then, specifically, men might be "used" more often for procreation based on penis size. But as well, for children and birth, any man would is kind and caring would do.

Monogamy is very controlling, but it also keeps down the sheer amount of jealousy some people get over the idea of their partner with anyone else--something I notice people have only because they're obsessed with one perfect person, rather than someone who fulfills one specific purpose, such as child-rearing or companionship.

One problem with this idea is that it would never work today and a lot of people can't possibly envision a time when sex is always casual or just part of religion as much as prayer/meditation is today.

Although, today women aren't the gatekeepers of sex--yeah, we choose our partners, but a lot more than men, we don't get to choose our partners outright--we compromise. If a guy really wanted to stop sex, he can get away--even the weakest guy can, but me? Not so much, especially not if I'm with someone I've talked to/made friends with. If I run away/punch/slap him for trying to have sex with me, that ends the friendship there--women are supposed to be accommodating in today's culture, and as much as a past where women are choosing everything would be nice to think about, I simply think it was more polygamous, or at least, an understanding of "certain men are for certain things", much like Japanese culture was not too long ago--sex with wives was for procreation, sex with Tayuu and Oiran was for recreation.

Sex in Minoan society, or at least, the ability to participate in procreation, was guaranteed, at least on some level, for all men. It goes hand in hand with the way humans have always lived in a group, some people have more kids, but people who are barren can still be "fathers and mothers" because you can care for the children of others.

I've heard about the ancient ritual sex and how utopian it was, but I think it's probably just as idealized as most other aspects of pre-Judeo-Christian religion and probably had its good and bad points that varied from culture to culture.


There was one practice where every female had to have sex with one guy in devotion to some goddess. So they would wait at a temple until a guy chose her. If the female was not chosen she would wait for years and years. So, the woman was required to have sex with whatever guy chose her.




Update Your Membership :



Nexus on Social Media:

© 2019   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service