See title
I’m reminded of a joke I heard a long time ago (copy/pasted from elsewhere online)
The American Government funded a study to see why the head of a man’s Penis was larger than the shaft. After 1 year, and $180,000, they concluded that the reason that the head was larger than the shaft was to give the man more pleasure during sex.
After the US published the study, the French decided to do their own study. After $250,000 and 3 years of research, they concluded that the reason the head was larger than the shaft was to give the woman more pleasure during sex.
The Irish, unsatisfied with those findings, conducted their own study. After 2 weeks, a cost of around $75.34, and many pints of beer, they concluded that it was to keep a man’s hand from flying off and hitting himself in the face.
Bravo. Had not heard that one before.
It makes me feel uncomfortable that someone would actually believe something so fuckin stupid
so you just found some crazy study online by some academic kooks and, rather than apply an ounce of critical thought, you just believed it.
smh
Interestingly, the main author is respected
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_G._Gallup
Edit: not saying I buy the premise of the article though
Edit 2: every reply from the above commenter gets 5 upvotes in 2 minutes, while all my comments get 5 downvotes in 2 minutes… nice job being subtle lol
that doesn’t really mean much with regard to the validity of the study, though
I can’t open the link, it’s not loading for me for reasons unknown. So I’ll take the title at face value, and say that as a theory or hypothesis it sounds plausible. Penile adaptations to outcompete other males isn’t unheard of, the most well known example is canine knots.
Again, that’s not what my point is. I’m just disputing the characterization you made
Edit: every reply from the above commenter gets 5 upvotes in 2 minutes, while all my comments get 5 downvotes in 2 minutes… nice job being subtle
deleted by creator
The comment called the authors “kooks.” I am disputing that characterization. As you say, this has nothing to do with the study.
Edit: 5 downvotes in 2 minutes… wow, is this breaking any rules that the person has so many accounts and manipulates votes?
lol, who told you that?
lmao, this is a theory, and this study hasn’t only not been peer-reviewed, it doesn’t seem to have gained much of any traction in the academic community in the last 20 years.
if I paid 600 college students to fuck each other, yeah, I’m going to find that one penis is going to squish out the cum from the last penis, but that doesn’t prove that it evolved specifically for that purpose. isn’t simple displacement, and a task that could be as easily performed by a dildo or fist or anything else that you shoved into the jizz-filled cavity.
don’t believe everything you find on google.
Your comment hasn’t been peer reviewed, so I’m gonna take your advice and not believe you.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
A theory is the most solid thing science can produce. What you’re wanting to say is hypothesis. Also, OP should provide the relevant section of the original review by Baker and Bellis 1995
What you’re wanting…
it always amuses me when random strangers on the internet believe that they can read my mind and know what I want.
i said “theory” because that’s what I meant, and it has more that the one definition you gave.
ITT: a lot of “either/or”
I’m not sure that evolution cares one wit about any of our theories. If it means I’m the dad and I’m the dad more often… then it will be favored.
If I enjoy it more, she enjoys it more or it means that my sperm have increased likelihood of winning… that’s all that matters.
And when I say “or” above, it can include any of those things. It need not be exclusive.
It feels like bullshit. Didn’t MythBusters debunk this?
Debunked by NutBusters actually.
A scoop is a scoop.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/watch?v=s1HXpOVfV18
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source, check me out at GitHub.
Hah, pipe.
I think you’re confusung dragonflies with people. We are not dragonflies.
