It has long been politically correct to state that it's "not the size but the motion" that counts. Women have so long been under the thumb of religion and patriarchy and most women have learned that lying to "your man" is much more fruitful/profitable than denigrating him because of his lack of penis volume. And what good would bitching about penis size do anyway, it's not like a guy can change it. It is a done deal and it's simply not worth bitching about it once in a couple context.
However, that being said, that point of view in no way dictates that biologically speaking, the penis size is unimportant. The vagina is an elastic structure and responds differently to various shapes and volumes. In addition, most studies indicate that the the penis size to total body ratio is a fairly good indicator of female sexual selection in nature. And Homo sapiens males are very well endowed indeed in this regard, favoring a view that in Homo sapiens females do exercise choice (evolutionary speaking).
However, as in the another post on this forum regarding Homo sapiens brains getting smaller since agriculture, the fact that Homo sapiens have migrated to non tropical climes, began wearing clothes all the time and the advent of religion, female choice has been near totally emasculated. 20,000 years is long enough to create reproductive bias dimishing the value of a large penis. But this bias does not imply necessarily that the female vagina has had time to 'adapt' to lesser selection.
The following graph, in parallel with Adriana's comment on this board agrees that women's response to penis size is variable. It also demonstrates that "bigger" is not "better" in the absolute sense. But what it does support is that size is relevant. The important number to consider is that accross the board, beyond races and nationalities and age, the average male is between 5.5" and 6" in length erect. So when women are asked if they 'fake orgasm' and stats reveal that a whopping 50% of females have faked it and when we look at where that 'average' size fits on this graph, we can guess at the 'faking it' motivations. Our size range is simply incompatible. As for girth, I think we can simply say that if your fingers touch when holding the penis in your hand, it is on the narrow side. A mere little can of Redbull is 7" in circumference, and a regular soda can is close to 8".
in another 10-20,000 years, the male form would see an increase
Oh come on now, that only seems like a long time!
I was thinking "nowadays", actually. I wouldn't go as far as claiming that Women's Lib completely obliterated what we owe to evolution, yet I find it strange that we, as introspective animals living in a society where sexual equality is guaranteed (theoretically, at least), still seem unable to overcome our most primal nature once in a while.
Maybe that 21st century humans don't talk sex often enough. Or freely enough. Come to think of it, only people with low hormone levels should be allowed to talk about sex.
we've been "overcoming our most primal nature" for a few millennia thanks to religion's obsession with "elevating" man from the dirtiness of nature. I see women's lib as a return to how things in nature would naturally occur. We've also not been talking enough sex for a few thousand years.
It all relates nicely to the "original sin" of knowledge, keep women in the dark so that we may be more obedient. As long as women do not talk (at the very least) of these things, women remain subjugated.
In the US, people talk a lot about sex but of all the places I've lived, they are the most sexually repressed people I've seen...
Yet, the repression is expressed psychologically or emotionally, but not physically. All sex frequency studies show that people in the USA get more frequent sex than other countries. Not only is the frequency increased, but practices such as heterosexual anal penetration are much more common.
I had a friend who once posited that the USA was schizoid on this topic, implying people's words are not reflected in their actions. There are certainly a lot of contradictions.
I am sorry to tell you, but this is historically incorrect. Look at any pictures of naked men in ancient Greece you will see that smaller penises were actually socially preferred. Even before the Greek era ancient manuscripts still alludes society preferring smaller penises (I am not saying that 7 inches is big or anything, but that smaller penises were socially preferred):
“In the same way, I became disgusted with Oholibah and rejected her, just as I had rejected her sister, because she flaunted herself before them and gave herself to satisfy their lusts. 19Yet she turned to even greater prostitution, remembering her youth when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20She lusted after lovers with genitals as large as a donkey’s and emissions like those of a horse. Ezekiel 23:18–20
So please do not talk about evolution when, for some massive civilastions, smaller penises have been preferred.
and so the bible proveth my point :)
So if the manuscript I quoted was not semetic in origin it would be creidble?
I think thou is forgetting that thee Bible is a book which thou can see what the culture and society was like...
"...this way, they can look better to women by comparison :-)"
I suppose those Catholic leaders deciding to modify such art by concealing the genitals found the comparison a lot less flattering. This, perhaps, explains much of the warped Catholic views on sexuality.
Random anecdote, but I took a trip through Europe with my mother when I was about sixteen. Somewhere in Wien, probably in the Kunsthistorisches Museum, there were statues of naked men aplenty. They all had incredible physiques, but their manhood was a little off. I couldn't figure out why the sculptors had made them so small and with such an odd shape. About three statues in it suddenly hit me: "So that's what an uncircumcised penis looks like!" I felt like a bit of an idiot. Moments later, my mom made a comment to the effect of "They certainly weren't boastful about some things."
I'll be honest; I felt a little better about myself in comparison to the statues.