Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

So natural selection takes place when some cause (either intrinsic or external) creates an environment in which certain genetic attributes are favored over others. Then individuals are rewarded whose mutations (i.e. genetic variance) happen to adapt to the new environment. The reward, of course, is increased chance of survival.

Switch gears for a second, to a more sociological phenomenon. Small penises are disparaged in a variety of cultures. More than anything, this manifests itself simply as social pressure to conform to or exceed some arbitrary penis size that is deemed normal/large. The reproductive benefits of a larger penis are essentially null, since any-sized penises can reproduce efficiently. But society holds them in less regard....this is a sociological idea, not a biological imperative, but it creates a change in the environment.

How would this "change" make it harder to reproduce? Women value penis size for whatever reason (societal convention fools them into wanting it, or maybe simply because it stimulates them more, or they imagine that it will). This isn't a rule, but a general trend...you'll find lots of "I don't care about penis size" from women, a fair number of "I want it to be huge", but basically no one will say "I like a toothpick inside me."

And for guys, this pressure can manifest itself as an inability to perform in bed (psychologically based, no biological) or decreased confidence when dating and vying with other potential men.

In other words, small penis'd men are at an evolutionary disadvantage. There's no rational reason to value large over small, at least not as much as our society does. But it happens.

Far from saying "small penises will work their way out of the gene pool" that would require too long a period of time to make any accurate prediction. But it's an interesting way to interpret social ideals in a biological way, and also re-interpret the masculine posturing and bantering that takes place on the subject of penises, and see it in a way where it might be construed as a means toward ensuring greater reproductivity. We may be oblivious of it, but saying that the social phenomenon of disparaging small penises might come from the unconscious programming of our genetic competition isn't far-fetched.

Nor is it terribly likely either. After my observations, such conclusions would need to be investigated to be confirmed or denied. But they remain (I think) a reasonably justified hypotheses.

...

The idea has gestated within me for a few days now, and I wanted to share with someone.

I was thinking about OTF'ing this sh*t, because I don't expect serious responses with penis in the title. But this seemed the most appropriate place. And I knew you'd all look because of the title. Lulz.

31

I believe that small dicked guys are at a social disadvantage, therefore less confidence, therefore, less sex, therefore less small dicked men and eventually, no small dicked men.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
So natural selection takes place when some cause (either intrinsic or external) creates an environment in which certain genetic attributes are favored over others. Then individuals are rewarded whose mutations (i.e. genetic variance) happen to adapt to the new environment. The reward, of course, is increased chance of survival.

Switch gears for a second, to a more sociological phenomenon. Small penises are disparaged in a variety of cultures. More than anything, this manifests itself simply as social pressure to conform to or exceed some arbitrary penis size that is deemed normal/large. The reproductive benefits of a larger penis are essentially null, since any-sized penises can reproduce efficiently. But society holds them in less regard....this is a sociological idea, not a biological imperative, but it creates a change in the environment.

How would this "change" make it harder to reproduce? Women value penis size for whatever reason (societal convention fools them into wanting it, or maybe simply because it stimulates them more, or they imagine that it will). This isn't a rule, but a general trend...you'll find lots of "I don't care about penis size" from women, a fair number of "I want it to be huge", but basically no one will say "I like a toothpick inside me."

And for guys, this pressure can manifest itself as an inability to perform in bed (psychologically based, no biological) or decreased confidence when dating and vying with other potential men.

In other words, small penis'd men are at an evolutionary disadvantage. There's no rational reason to value large over small, at least not as much as our society does. But it happens.

Far from saying "small penises will work their way out of the gene pool" that would require too long a period of time to make any accurate prediction. But it's an interesting way to interpret social ideals in a biological way, and also re-interpret the masculine posturing and bantering that takes place on the subject of penises, and see it in a way where it might be construed as a means toward ensuring greater reproductivity. We may be oblivious of it, but saying that the social phenomenon of disparaging small penises might come from the unconscious programming of our genetic competition isn't far-fetched.

Nor is it terribly likely either. After my observations, such conclusions would need to be investigated to be confirmed or denied. But they remain (I think) a reasonably justified hypotheses.

...

The idea has gestated within me for a few days now, and I wanted to share with someone.

I was thinking about OTF'ing this sh*t, because I don't expect serious responses with penis in the title. But this seemed the most appropriate place. And I knew you'd all look because of the title. Lulz.

31

Do you have small penis? cry


....

Seriously though -
In ancient Greece, small penis was better than big. Only savages were portrayed with small penis.

And thickness is more important than lenght. And no, noone wants a toothpick inside them. What the hell would be the point if you can't feel it?

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
What the hell would be the point if you can't feel it? You won't know someone raped you in your sleep.

Originally posted by Violent2Dope
You won't know someone raped you in your sleep.


LOLZOMGWTFGTGBRB!!!1111oneoneone

Originally posted by lord xyz
I believe that small dicked guys are at a social disadvantage, therefore less confidence, therefore, less sex, therefore less small dicked men and eventually, no small dicked men.


I don't have to worry about it.

OMG I LOVE THE PENIS !!!!!!!





dd







8=======D

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
LOLZOMGWTFGTGBRB!!!1111oneoneone http://img483.imageshack.us/img483/853/vegetadancegq1.gif

Lexington Steele ain't got nuthing compare to mine. 313

Seems too naive of a theory yet. For one there might be a general trend for guys with small penises to achieve in order to make up. They might overcompensate and create more offspring on average. There are all sorts of factors not taken into account.

So that's what this thread was about? I started reading it, but then my mind wandered and I couldn't finish it.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
So natural selection takes place when some cause (either intrinsic or external) creates an environment in which certain genetic attributes are favored over others. Then individuals are rewarded whose mutations (i.e. genetic variance) happen to adapt to the new environment. The reward, of course, is increased chance of survival.

Switch gears for a second, to a more sociological phenomenon. Small penises are disparaged in a variety of cultures. More than anything, this manifests itself simply as social pressure to conform to or exceed some arbitrary penis size that is deemed normal/large. The reproductive benefits of a larger penis are essentially null, since any-sized penises can reproduce efficiently. But society holds them in less regard....this is a sociological idea, not a biological imperative, but it creates a change in the environment.

How would this "change" make it harder to reproduce? Women value penis size for whatever reason (societal convention fools them into wanting it, or maybe simply because it stimulates them more, or they imagine that it will). This isn't a rule, but a general trend...you'll find lots of "I don't care about penis size" from women, a fair number of "I want it to be huge", but basically no one will say "I like a toothpick inside me."

And for guys, this pressure can manifest itself as an inability to perform in bed (psychologically based, no biological) or decreased confidence when dating and vying with other potential men.

In other words, small penis'd men are at an evolutionary disadvantage. There's no rational reason to value large over small, at least not as much as our society does. But it happens.

Far from saying "small penises will work their way out of the gene pool" that would require too long a period of time to make any accurate prediction. But it's an interesting way to interpret social ideals in a biological way, and also re-interpret the masculine posturing and bantering that takes place on the subject of penises, and see it in a way where it might be construed as a means toward ensuring greater reproductivity. We may be oblivious of it, but saying that the social phenomenon of disparaging small penises might come from the unconscious programming of our genetic competition isn't far-fetched.

Nor is it terribly likely either. After my observations, such conclusions would need to be investigated to be confirmed or denied. But they remain (I think) a reasonably justified hypotheses.

...

The idea has gestated within me for a few days now, and I wanted to share with someone.

I was thinking about OTF'ing this sh*t, because I don't expect serious responses with penis in the title. But this seemed the most appropriate place. And I knew you'd all look because of the title. Lulz.

31

in modern society, penis size has nothing to do with evolutionary pressures

i suggest you research alcohol effect on foetal development for an idea of one major factor determining adult penis size...

its actually part of the problem known as foetal alcohol syndrome..albeit the exposure that effects the foetus is a very small window late in foetal development which effects penis size

I've heard that in the evolutionary chart. Mens penis will increase to a size of a horse lenght in the next 300 years.

Oh, well...I guess you fellas are gonna have to wait till you can come near mine.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Oh, well...I guess you fellas are gonna have to wait till you can come near mine. So mine's gonna shrink?

Originally posted by Violent2Dope
So mine's gonna shrink?

*adds cold water*

Now it will...

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
*adds cold water*

Now it will... Fool, I possess a cosmic fire penis, water evaporates at the touch.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf


Oh, well...I guess you fellas are gonna have to wait till you can come near mine.

not that long...til saturday night down a badly lit alley with the change they got from a cigarette machine in a dingy bar where they picked you up

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
OMG I LOVE THE PENIS !!!!!!!


When I first read the title, I thought you were the threadstarter.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
When I first read the title, I thought you were the threadstarter.



AhAHAHAAAAA


SO DID I ! I thought this was one of my OLD threads

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
AhAHAHAAAAA


SO DID I ! I thought this was one of my OLD threads You like t3H buttsecks.

Now that's sad.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Now that's sad.


hysterical2


I KNOW !!!! LOL

Originally posted by Violent2Dope
You like t3H buttsecks.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
OMG I LOVE THE PENIS !!!!!!!


http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s167/Secretus74/CaptainPicard-1.jpg

My cock is huge.

Just ask AC, he gags on it all the time.

Filthy wench.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Do you have small penis? cry


....

Seriously though -
In ancient Greece, small penis was better than big. Only savages were portrayed with small penis.

And thickness is more important than lenght. And no, noone wants a toothpick inside them. What the hell would be the point if you can't feel it?

You'd like mine.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
I've heard that in the evolutionary chart. Mens penis will increase to a size of a horse lenght in the next 300 years.

Oh, well...I guess you fellas are gonna have to wait till you can come near mine. I'l leave the coming near your penis to the women...

Originally posted by Creshosk
I'l leave the coming near your penis to the women... That's right, now come to mine, you little tramp.

Originally posted by Violent2Dope
That's right, now come to mine, you little tramp. You need me to find you a hooker made out of asbestos?

Originally posted by Creshosk
You need me to find you a hooker made out of asbestos? We serve food here sir.

Originally posted by Violent2Dope
We serve food here sir. I no longer need to eat now that I've acended my mortal coil. You are a being made of cosmic flame. I am one made of a different sort of energy. And while I no longer have biological urges mentally I'm conditioned the same way to appreciating the aesthetics of the females of the species that I previously belonged to or compatable semblences of them. Now while I appreciate your preferences towards my former gender, I'm affraid I don't share them. So you'll have to pardon me if I politely decline your request for copulation.

Originally posted by Creshosk
I no longer need to eat now that I've acended my mortal coil. You are a being made of cosmic flame. I am one made of a different sort of energy. And while I no longer have biological urges mentally I'm conditioned the same way to appreciating the aesthetics of the females of the species that I previously belonged to or compatable semblences of them. Now while I appreciate your preferences towards my former gender, I'm affraid I don't share them. So you'll have to pardon me if I politely decline your request for copulation. LOL WHAT!?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Seems too naive of a theory yet. For one there might be a general trend for guys with small penises to achieve in order to make up. They might overcompensate and create more offspring on average. There are all sorts of factors not taken into account.

Agreed. Life isn't a closed system where we can isolate these factors from others. Taken alone, however, I think it has considerable merit. Place it into a real-life setting, and other influences would certainly intervene. That's part of the reason I shied from making any predictions.

Originally posted by jaden101
in modern society, penis size has nothing to do with evolutionary pressures

i suggest you research alcohol effect on foetal development for an idea of one major factor determining adult penis size...

its actually part of the problem known as foetal alcohol syndrome..albeit the exposure that effects the foetus is a very small window late in foetal development which effects penis size

You're talking about abnormalities. I'm talking statistical trends. And people most certainly do have variance in penis size based on hereditary factors.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Do you have small penis? cry

It's hard to tell, because the only real exposure most men have to penis size is porn films, which paints a slanted picture of the average size. But no, it's not huge, but I haven't had any complaints.




....

I'd also like to cite as an example the peacock. Colorful, exuberant and large tail feathers are desirable in males by females. Thus, the evolutionary trend has been toward more colors, more vibrant colors, and larger feathers. Eventually this decreases mobility, however, and also makes them easier to spot for predators. It's a double-edged sword. They have more children but also die more often.

So it's entirely possible for a trend to continue like this that is actually antithetical to the normal evolutionary ideals of survival and procreation.

But it would eventually become stunted in humans, because at a certain point penis size would become a painful detriment to women....so the upper range of penis size wouldn't be limitless.

This thread ain't gangsta in the least.

Well I'm black.

That's really all I'm going to say on the matter.

To clear up any confusion, last I heard the average size of a penis was somewhere between 5" - 5 1/2".

Originally posted by BackFire
To clear up any confusion, last I heard the average size of a penis was somewhere between 5" - 5 1/2".

Nah...it is more like 5.5" to 6".

That was the old one, but it turned out that men lied and added half an inch when saying how big they were. So they'd say they were 6" when they were 5 1/2", and so on. Thus, they dropped the average a bit.

Seriously? I thought the average was larger than that...

Originally posted by BackFire
That was the old one, but it turned out that men lied and added half an inch when saying how big they were. So they'd say they were 6" when they were 5 1/2", and so on. Thus, they dropped the average a bit.

No...I read about this in Muscular Development magazine...they actually measured their erect penises.

However, you could site some sources and I will be like "lol, I lose" and bake you some cookies.

http://wwwu.edu.uni-klu.ac.at/amiklaut/dr_nick/answer19.htm

Originally posted by dadudemon
No...I read about this in Muscular Development magazine...they actually measured their erect penises.

However, you could site some sources and I will be like "lol, I lose" and bake you some cookies.

lol, nah it's cool, you are probably right. I heard it a while back and it may very well could be BS, I suppose.

Originally posted by BackFire
lol, nah it's cool, you are probably right. I heard it a while back and it may very well could be BS, I suppose.

Here is an interesting article...

http://www.mansized.co.uk/answers/answer.phtml/15/142/



The study I was referring to was supposed to be end all of penis size...being the most accurate of all the studies done because in previous studies...men knew what they were "signing up for" and only those confident in their size woudl volunteer...this other study...and for the life of me I can't remember which university conducted the study...concluded that the average penis size was between 5.5 and 6 inches and there was no difference between blacks and whites and only a small difference between orientals and blacks/whites.

true, it might be DISLIKED. just like most men dislike small breast, but in the end people have to grow out of those and actually END UP WITH SUM1 and have sex/have kids. it is in THIS part that stops it from being an evolutionary pressure. i dont think there is anything to suggest that beautiful people or people with larger penises or bigger breast etc etc have LESS children then other people.

anyhow, the EVOLUTION of the penis is a misleading title. i was thinking of a thread more on the lines of "how did the eye evolve" or sumthing.

Originally posted by Blax_Hydralisk
Well I'm black.

That's really all I'm going to say on the matter.

shifty

Slightly on-topic, but do girls feel socially disadvantaged by small breast size? Anyone ages 25-30, go out and about and look at the chest sizes of the girls walking around nowadays. They appear about twice as large as they did ten years ago.

Part of that has to do with "uplifting and accentuating" clothing (like cami tops), part has to do with padded bras, part has to do with flatter stomachs (in those cami tops), and part has to do with cosmetic surgery. Take a 34B girl with a flat stomach in a tight cami top. Her boobs really stick out and appear (to the casual observer) as though they're large. Now imagine her in a V-neck sweater or knit shirt that was popular 10-15 years ago. Her chest would be almost invisible.

I think there is greater sociological pressure than ever for girls to appear as though they have a large chest, 'cause there sure as hell hasn't been any evolutionary breakthrough in mammory glands in just one decade.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
true, it might be DISLIKED. just like most men dislike small breast, but in the end people have to grow out of those and actually END UP WITH SUM1 and have sex/have kids. it is in THIS part that stops it from being an evolutionary pressure. i dont think there is anything to suggest that beautiful people or people with larger penises or bigger breast etc etc have LESS children then other people.

anyhow, the EVOLUTION of the penis is a misleading title. i was thinking of a thread more on the lines of "how did the eye evolve" or sumthing.

I was actually having this convo with a friend and breasts came up. You might be able to form a similar hypothesis about them to penises, but they don't directly contribute to reproduction, so it's a trickier situation.

And I could talk about the evolution of the penis, like you expected. It's actually fairly well-documented. Or the eye, for that matter. But it would be a considerable tangent from the topic.

Big dicks don't contribute anymore to reproduction than small ones either.

Women like big dicks for the same reason men like large breasts, it's just aesthetically pleasing and brings them greater pleasure during sex (or it can).

Originally posted by BackFire
Big dicks don't contribute anymore to reproduction than small ones either.

Women like big dicks for the same reason men like large breasts, it's just aesthetically pleasing and brings them greater pleasure during sex (or it can).

I heard on the History Channel that the reason men like big **** is because they tell the instinct/animal part of our brain that the woman who has them will be able to produce a lot of milk and give birth to healthy strong offspring. So it all comes down to the future of the species.

Now going off that, I'm sure women liking big dicks is along the same lines.

From what I know this is a rather new phenomenon, apart from among tribal cultures. Though evolution could occur, I deem it to be unlikely, as in modern cultures sex occurs more in loving relationships, than just promiscuous acts.

I also do not think it has already occurred, as in such times females were seen as only potential child bearers. So, it would be far more likely that the males were doing the picking and choosing.

Originally posted by BackFire
Big dicks don't contribute anymore to reproduction than small ones either.

Women like big dicks for the same reason men like large breasts, it's just aesthetically pleasing and brings them greater pleasure during sex (or it can).

Right, but my hypothesis is a synthesis of genetic and cultural forces. Breast preference could be said to be much more idiosyncratic, cultural, and non-genetic. Like "ideal" body type, which varies in different cultures and over time. But it stimulates pleasure centers in males, so I'm not sure if a case could be made for including genetic factors or not.

Thus the hedging when I mentioned them.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
From what I know this is a rather new phenomenon, apart from among tribal cultures. Though evolution could occur, I deem it to be unlikely, as in modern cultures sex occurs more in loving relationships, than just promiscuous acts.

That's my point. It's a societal force acting as genetic natural selection.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I heard on the History Channel that the reason men like big **** is because they tell the instinct/animal part of our brain that the woman who has them will be able to produce a lot of milk and give birth to healthy strong offspring. So it all comes down to the future of the species.

Now going off that, I'm sure women liking big dicks is along the same lines.

Your assumption linking one to the other isn't supported with any reasoning. It might be true, but tacitly assuming a link isn't logical.

But your hypothesis is just as unsupported as Quiero Mota's assumption.

Originally posted by Bardock42
But your hypothesis is just as unsupported as Quiero Mota's assumption.

How so? He mentioned one phenomenon and said "so this other thing is probably like this." Intuitive similarities don't equal causal links. I've shown how I believe both genetic and societal factors influence the trends I've been talking about, and also cited examples of similar occurrences within animals (the peacock example on the last page). Not proof, but enough to present it as a plausible possibility.

I'm also not assuming that my hypothesis is true. I'm posting it for discussion.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
OMG I LOVE THE PENIS !!!!!!!





dd







8=======D

Shameful.

Why did you quote him? Now we all have to look at that shit.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
How so? He mentioned one phenomenon and said "so this other thing is probably like this." Intuitive similarities don't equal causal links. I've shown how I believe both genetic and societal factors influence the trends I've been talking about, and also cited examples of similar occurrences within animals (the peacock example on the last page). Not proof, but enough to present it as a plausible possibility.

I'm also not assuming that my hypothesis is true. I'm posting it for discussion.

I said they are similar in the way that they both are basically unfounded, they have some characteristics that might make someone say they are reasonable, but they are not logically founded.

He gave an example of liking large breasts for nursing purposes and said, here we have one example that explains why someone likes one big organ, now it could be similar for another organ. It is extremely similar to what you put forth, regardless of whether you believe it or not, as I was just comparing your theories.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I said they are similar in the way that they both are basically unfounded, they have some characteristics that might make someone say they are reasonable, but they are not logically founded.

He gave an example of liking large breasts for nursing purposes and said, here we have one example that explains why someone likes one big organ, now it could be similar for another organ. It is extremely similar to what you put forth, regardless of whether you believe it or not, as I was just comparing your theories.

I didn't oppose his idea of breasts. He made a statement that said something along the lines of "well, penises are probably like that too"...I thought he was forming his own hypothesis of penises based on his observation of breasts, but he made no logical link between the two.

So I think you just misunderstood my intent, which probably made the mistake of not clarifying which part of the statement I was referring to.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
I didn't oppose his idea of breasts. He made a statement that said something along the lines of "well, penises are probably like that too"...I thought he was forming his own hypothesis of penises based on his observation of breasts, but he made no logical link between the two.

So I think you just misunderstood my intent, which probably made the mistake of not clarifying which part of the statement I was referring to. No, I got it, my post still stands.

Ah. In that case, so does mine.



But saying it isn't logically founded seems a bit harsh. It uses a clear form of logic to form a hypothesis. You might disagree, which is fine, but saying it isn't logical seems like it ignores the fact that I base my hypothesis on things that are observed and confirmed. I feel like it's possible based on my evidence, and it actually doesn't extend too far...all I'm saying is that social pressure regarding penis size may have slight evolutionary implications.

And I also admitted that it would need investigation that I don't have the means to follow up on. I'm not trying to prove a point infallibly, but offer a reasonable suggestion.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Ah. In that case, so does mine.



But saying it isn't logically founded seems a bit harsh. It uses a clear form of logic to form a hypothesis. You might disagree, which is fine, but saying it isn't logical seems like it ignores the fact that I base my hypothesis on things that are observed and confirmed. I feel like it's possible based on my evidence, and it actually doesn't extend too far...all I'm saying is that social pressure regarding penis size may have slight evolutionary implications.

And I also admitted that it would need investigation that I don't have the means to follow up on. I'm not trying to prove a point infallibly, but offer a reasonable suggestion.

It is based on an assumption which is not proven.
It disregards all other influences.
It throws out a conclusion without real support for it.

You are right it would need investigation and I don't say it is necessarily wrong, but it is analog to what Quiero Mota put forth, it lacks the same logical steps and it disregards similar influences. It is also based on an unfounded assumption as Quiero Mota's theory. Granted, yours was written in more scientific terms, though that doesn't really justify attacking one theory while putting forth another that could be attacked for the same thing. He didn't even state it as a theory, he just threw out there that it has similarities and one might think that it could have the same or similar causes.

Originally posted by Bardock42
It is based on an assumption which is not proven.
It disregards all other influences.
It throws out a conclusion without real support for it.

You are right it would need investigation and I don't say it is necessarily wrong, but it is analog to what Quiero Mota put forth, it lacks the same logical steps and it disregards similar influences. It is also based on an unfounded assumption as Quiero Mota's theory. Granted, yours was written in more scientific terms, though that doesn't really justify attacking one theory while putting forth another that could be attacked for the same thing. He didn't even state it as a theory, he just threw out there that it has similarities and one might think that it could have the same or similar causes.

A hypothesis isn't an assumption. It's a hypothesis. An assumption is believing something is true with no evidence. I don't believe my idea to be true (because it hasn't bee proven/disproven) and I do have evidence, regardless of your opinions on it.

And part of forming a possible hypothesis is having a conclusion, and saying it isn't supported at all again ignores that I do provide evidence, even if you happen to disagree. If you disagree, that's cool...you can say so and it's valid. But saying it's not supported is just a lie. Not supported sufficiently perhaps, but that's again a matter of opinion, not fact.

As for disregarding other influences, I already mentioned it when you brought it up:
Originally posted by DigiMark007
Agreed. Life isn't a closed system where we can isolate these factors from others. Taken alone, however, I think it has considerable merit. Place it into a real-life setting, and other influences would certainly intervene. That's part of the reason I shied from making any predictions.

...

So I really don't know why you're being so critical of throwing an idea out for public discussion. Countering the idea with questions or evidence of your own is fine, but you're responses would be more appropriate for a thread that says, I dunno, "2 + 2 = 8 and I'm right, b*tches."

Originally posted by DigiMark007
A hypothesis isn't an assumption. It's a hypothesis. An assumption is believing something is true with no evidence. I don't believe my idea to be true (because it hasn't bee proven/disproven) and I do have evidence, regardless of your opinions on it.

A hypothesis is a scientific structure an assumption is supposing something because it is ones best guess with the information provided.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
And part of forming a possible hypothesis is having a conclusion, and saying it isn't supported at all again ignores that I do provide evidence, even if you happen to disagree. If you disagree, that's cool...you can say so and it's valid. But saying it's not supported is just a lie. Not supported sufficiently perhaps, but that's again a matter of opinion, not fact.

Yes, it is not sufficiently proven, just as Quiero's assumption isn't.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
As for disregarding other influences, I already mentioned it when you brought it up:


...

So I really don't know why you're being so critical of throwing an idea out for public discussion. Countering the idea with questions or evidence of your own is fine, but you're responses would be more appropriate for a thread that says, I dunno, "2 + 2 = 8 and I'm right, b*tches."

I am not, I just think you are too criticial of Quiero's words, they weren't very illogical, nor are they any different from what your hypothesis, just that he used the word assumption, which can commonly be used that way.

Originally posted by BackFire
To clear up any confusion, last I heard the average size of a penis was somewhere between 5" - 5 1/2".

That's when it's not erected. Once erection happens it could reach up 8 to even 9 inches.

actually, anybody from any race with a penis over 7" erect is in the 99th percentile of length, apparently.

http://www.livescience.com/health/070601_penis_myths.html

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
That's when it's not erected. Once erection happens it could reach up 8 to even 9 inches.


But does size truly matter?

Originally posted by JediSamuraiMRB
But does size truly matter?

nope, women prefer, by far, a penis that falls into the average category, if not just slightly larger

Originally posted by JediSamuraiMRB
But does size truly matter?

Is not the size that matters....it's how you use it.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Is not the size that matters....it's how you use it.




You took the words right out of my mouth.

Originally posted by JediSamuraiMRB
You took the words right out of my mouth.

I rule!



SHUT UP!

Originally posted by JediSamuraiMRB
You took the words right out of my mouth.

I don't think the words were the only thing. whistling

id rather have big balls. My monster cock is nice and all, but id rather have more testosterone.

yeah size dosent matter as long as it is pleasable

hello

Originally posted by babe_89
yeah size dosent matter as long as it is pleasable

can you say vagina?

Originally posted by inimalist
actually, anybody from any race with a penis over 7" erect is in the 99th percentile of length, apparently.

http://www.livescience.com/health/070601_penis_myths.html

"Eighty-five percent of women reported being satisfied with their partner’s penis size, compared to only 55 percent for men."

Only 55% of men are satisfied with their partner's penis size. . .

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Is not the size that matters....it's how you use it. "It's not the size of the boat, its the motion of the ocean. But it's awfully hard to get to England in a motor boat."

Originally posted by Bardock42
A hypothesis is a scientific structure an assumption is supposing something because it is ones best guess with the information provided.



Yes, it is not sufficiently proven, just as Quiero's assumption isn't.



I am not, I just think you are too criticial of Quiero's words, they weren't very illogical, nor are they any different from what your hypothesis, just that he used the word assumption, which can commonly be used that way.

Fair enough. Perhaps my criticism of Mota's brief comment was overstated.

Though I'm using a "scientific structure"...I'm citing evidence to support a possible hypothesis. It may be wrong, but to call it un-scientific would imply that I'm using nothing but heresay and assumptions (as I defined the word earlier). And no, it's not proven. But I never said it was.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Fair enough. Perhaps my criticism of Mota's brief comment was overstated.

Though I'm using a "scientific structure"...I'm citing evidence to support a possible hypothesis. It may be wrong, but to call it un-scientific would imply that I'm using nothing but heresay and assumptions (as I defined the word earlier). And no, it's not proven. But I never said it was. Did I say unscientific? If I did that was stupid. Though I am pretty sure I didn't.

These words:

A hypothesis is a scientific structure an assumption is supposing something because it is ones best guess with the information provided.

...seemed pretty overt in saying that you considered my idea more an assumption than anything resembling science. Maybe I'm wrong, but meh.

Still, we're obviously in disagreement about the plausibility of the idea, which is fine, but for some reason I've had to defend my delivery, not the idea itself in a normal debate. So I'm actually just a bit drained from the whole thing, because this was intended to be a much lighter topic than you and I turned it into.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
These words:

A hypothesis is a scientific structure an assumption is supposing something because it is ones best guess with the information provided.

...seemed pretty overt in saying that you considered my idea more an assumption than anything resembling science. Maybe I'm wrong, but meh.

Still, we're obviously in disagreement about the plausibility of the idea, which is fine, but for some reason I've had to defend my delivery, not the idea itself in a normal debate. So I'm actually just a bit drained from the whole thing, because this was intended to be a much lighter topic than you and I turned it into. Well that was not my intention at all. I was just defining the terms so we were clear on them. I do believe it is not an accurate hypothesis for reasons I have given before, but my problem is not with the hypothesis, it was more with the aggressive nature of your reply to Quiero Mota which I found unjustified.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well that was not my intention at all. I was just defining the terms so we were clear on them. I do believe it is not an accurate hypothesis for reasons I have given before, but my problem is not with the hypothesis, it was more with the aggressive nature of your reply to Quiero Mota which I found unjustified.

You are such a knight in shining armor...rescuing Mota and everything...so romantic...it brings a tear to my eye. cry

Originally posted by dadudemon
You are such a knight in shining armor...rescuing Mota and everything...so romantic...it brings a tear to my eye. cry Thanks, I find myself quite awesome, too.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You are such a knight in shining armor...rescuing Mota and everything...so romantic...it brings a tear to my eye. cry

He means a tear to his one-eyed monster.



...it's ok though. I wank to bardock's posts occasionally too.

313

Originally posted by DigiMark007
He means a tear to his one-eyed monster.



...it's ok though. I wank to bardock's posts occasionally too.

313 That's how it feels to be used and abused, I'm so happy touched

Originally posted by JediSamuraiMRB
But does size truly matter?

Yes.




Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Is not the size that matters....it's how you use it.

Who lied to you?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Yes.






Who lied to you?

http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s167/Secretus74/Picture1.jpg