boredom + green stuff = hmmz

[cb1202]

Ok so I have been thinking about this one for a while, and I have talked to a few friends just to see what they think, and so far it has offended a lot of people. Therefore I decided to get some other view points on this.

Disclaimer: If you do not believe in evolution do not post, thanks and please don't be offended.

My basic idea is that modern medicine is actually hurting the human race. With a vast amount of previously untreatable illnesses now being treated those people are living and reproducing. So take for example cancer: many scientists agree that many types of cancer are genetic, and if the people who got cancer did not have modern medicine to help them then they would never have been able to reproduce. The same can be said about Diabetes and other illness. With all of these diseases no longer being *as* life threatening as they were in the past the rate at which they are passed on is greatly increased. In evolution the strongest survive long enough to reproduce, and now with medicine the "weakest" can survive and reproduce. So instead of the natural evolutionary process I feel we are continuing to pass on bad genes and treating the side effects.

While I think it is great that modern western medicine can treat almost every illness I am mainly thinking about things in the long term for the human race. If everyone has an equal chance of surviving and reproducing then how is the human race improving? What traits mean someone will be able to reproduce? I mean you can't even decide if someone is healthy by looks because they probably have a fake nose and teeth. I just think there is no sort of challenge for modern man to face in order to improve itself. If we continue to pass on bad genes then I think we are doomed to fail.

everyone lives = everyone reproduces = everyone fails

[timtadams]

So take for example cancer: many scientists agree that many types of cancer are genetic, and if the people who got cancer did not have modern medicine to help them then they would never have been able to reproduce.

not quite. People usually reproduce before certain cancers are developed and fatal. without the help of modern medicine. right? thats what i thought...

But really, you are saving lives, as you say. The child may get sick as they grow up, but if it werent for the medicine/whatever that person would never had even had a chance of a life. And not all of the children will get sick.

So you save a heap of lives. Only a proportion of those pass on bad genes. And then only a proportion of those get sick from the genes. And then only a proportion of those cant be saved (as we know they can be since their parents were). So really, you save more lives than end up dying. In fact you are giving more people a chance of living at all

[Garrett]

well you talk about evolution... medicine has evolved too... hence 'modern' medicine.

So when someone falls ill what do you do? You generally try to make them feel comfortable (lets say it's someone you care about for argument sake, I didn't mean that you'd automatically out of the kindnes so of your heart just start taking care of random sick people)....

So over time our methods to make a person more relaxed *evolved* and then we started finding out what made a person sick and started treating them for that until things are where they are today.

So we're evolving as a species and so our tools and methods evolve. 1 of 2 things is going to happen a) we just keep refining our methods of making people comfortable while they are ill and that gets better and may be one day we are able to cure/stamp out/reverse the illness or b) the illness gets bred out anyway. as we didn't stop any illness we just improved the peoples quality of life that would have been sick anyway.

To let poeple just decay without helping them doesn't define us very well as a species. Not treating disease doesn't help our evolutionary cause. Also, Mother Nature will always be there to throw curve balls and come up with new ways to make us sick as she attempts to find balance.

Even if you don't understand, when you fall sick, I will attempt to make you comfortable until you pass on or evolve enough to beat the sickness back.


/thread

[DarkSider]

I had a similar thought about this a good while ago.
The thing is it's not all about survival of the fittest, compare say lions where it applies that rule and we're no match against a lion in a 1:1 fight however we could decimate their entire species in a very short time if we wanted.
Medicine also helps people "below standards" survive and they might get to reproduce, tho you have to also considerate they are less likely to succesfuly reproduce like a healthy & sane pearson.
Without medicine an epidemy could destroy entire cities making no discrimination between victims how fit or weak they are (plague). Without medicine a small infection that can easly be treated now could leave health marks that would affect your entire life.
Not only it helps the health of a person but it also makes ppl know what compassion is, feel the pain of others, make us better persons since we're ready to help those in need instead beeing ruthless orcs and leaving behind anybody who can't keep up with the standards.
Without medicine, human race would probably be a small specie made of pretty strong individuals sort of neanderthals with alot of emphasis of body strength and health but i imagine larger comunities would be a rarity due to the need to break up from diseases or just staying together and all supporting the consequences witch might be fatal. It's not always true what doesn't kill you makes you stronger btw :p

[Garrett]

what doesn't kill you makes you weak enough for others to overtake you :D

[harriergirl]

I don't think it's a question of medicine, rather a question of reproduction rights. Ie should we let people with known genetic illnesses reproduce. Do we let a mom have 8 babies that are all going to be sickly.

The truth is. I don't want to be the one to make that decision, but as a human I have an obligation to help the offspring do the best that they can and comfort them in life.

[cb1202]

So take for example cancer: many scientists agree that many types of cancer are genetic, and if the people who got cancer did not have modern medicine to help them then they would never have been able to reproduce.

not quite. People usually reproduce before certain cancers are developed and fatal. without the help of modern medicine. right? thats what i thought...

But really, you are saving lives, as you say. The child may get sick as they grow up, but if it werent for the medicine/whatever that person would never had even had a chance of a life. And not all of the children will get sick.

So you save a heap of lives. Only a proportion of those pass on bad genes. And then only a proportion of those get sick from the genes. And then only a proportion of those cant be saved (as we know they can be since their parents were). So really, you save more lives than end up dying. In fact you are giving more people a chance of living at all


Well if humans were anything like most animals in the wild any kind of injury or sickness would lead to death. While taking care of each other has helped us completely dominate the entire plane, I think that if we keep treating illnesses without finding a cure then cancer/genetic illness rates will just keep going up. If the child was not strong enough to make it to the age of reproduction then it should not be able to reproduce. I will say that most illnesses that would cause a child to die at a young age such as the flu/small pox are not genetic and do not fit my argument. Those are caused by living so close to other people. I wonder what could be done to stop those who have known genetic illnesses from reproducing. That is probably one of the most controversial parts about this discussion. Who is going to tell a person they can't have a baby?

A possible solution to the problem would be to get healthy donors to donate sperm and eggs and then artificially impregnate all those who have been deemed unfit to reproduce. They would still be able to raise children, it just would not be their own child. Their are so many moral issues with this however that I doubt it would ever get anywhere

[TheNamelessWonder]

TLDR version: Eugenics for the win!

[timthetyrant]

Well if humans were anything like most animals in the wild any kind of injury or sickness would lead to death.

Firstly we are not animals, secondly thenamelesswonder is right, this thread is pushing towards eugenics, which is a crime against humanity (its a kind of genocide i think) Hitler's Final Solution ring any bells? just because he decided to kill people off instead of removing thier reproductive rights doesnt make it any different.

Our ability to think and solve problems is a big part of what we are as a species, so what we achieve with our thoughts developes us as a species, so medicine is a part of who we are, removing that is like saying that ants shouldnt have ants nests, because a single disease has the ability to wipe it out due to all the ants (in that nest) being closely related. Ants have a strong sense of community and that is part of what defines their species.

im not really worried about our evolutionary processes, i think it would be better if a virus came and wiped humanity out, the world would be a better place then, but i am more worried about our impact on the evolutionary processes of other species. human society has become a factor in the environment that many species have to adapt with, if they dont adapt we tend to put a rifle in its face, survival of the fittest? my ass. more like survival of what can adapt to humanity. We are the top of the food chain, no doubt about it, and we are outcompeting all of the apex predators in the world and driving them to extinction, let alone killing one every time we see them, shark numbers are decreasing because we are out fishing them and killing them, they have been around for millions of years and dominating the ocean for a lot of that, and now in the last thousand years their number have been SEVERELY reduced due to their inability to adapt with humanity. Humanity in itself is a major extinction event. why cant we make ourselves extinct?

Ummm. i seem to have gone off topic.. but i'll leave that their for you to think about or let the mods delete it or sumthn.

[BlackWolf]

I think this thread is hilarious. Based on pure misunderstanding and misbelieves and then followed by uhh so gentle and wise writings of other bush players, whom actually surprised me that they can write such way. rofl.

cb1202: Your basic understanding of medicines is false. You compare this to cancer which you say that many doctors believe to be genetic. Ofc its genetic because it is miswork of your cells. It also mean that your childs have certain percentages higher possibility to get same cancer aka. it is possible that those same cells will miswork the same way.

It does not mean that they will get that cancer. It is only higher possibility. As most of the cancers on humans are caused by some outside element which then triggers that misbehaviour. Theres some basics of cancers to you. For example too much sun and you get Melanoma, but it doesnt mean your child would be so stupid to spend that much time in sun.

So actually the kind of illnesses there really are that cause problems to possible offsprings and then carry on in the family is very small amount. We are talking now of under 1% of whole population of earth and even in this case usually those illnesses are only numbers of percentages for those childs to get em. On top of it all bigest problems actually in whole genepool are concerning whole countries and huge groups of people together. You really want that lets say Finland shouldnt reproduce because we have higher amount of Diabetes B cases than some other country?

How bout trying to realize what might cause it, our current culthure where you eat and dring sugar from morning to evening, instead of mainly eating vegetables and meat without any addons etc.

[timtadams]

lol, you say gentle and wise

firstly, maybe we seem gentle as we are not jumping down each others throats and flaming, which is what usually happens ;) So gentle is just an illusion formed by comparison :P

And on wise. I didnt think that. Is it because we think we know what we are talking about? Because that is always the case. In every thread. We always think we are right. I think that this same attitude looks 'wise' as it is not in its usual context described in my first point.

Anyway, the example of cancer was bad. I see the point but think its stupid anyway

[timthetyrant]

perhaps a better example would be an STD. perhaps AIDS, it gets transferred to offspring, with modern medicine we can reduce thier effects do one such offspring may continue to breed and with modern trends of promiscuity its a lot easier for STDs to be spread. Protection is always available, but what about the poorer countries where AIDS is more prevalent or in religous groups that dont believe in contraceptive methods. These groups will become weaker or die out, as thier generations continue to spread the disease to other groups and societies, wouldn't it be better if said infected were to be cleansed by holy fire? and this would prevent the spread of coontagions?

i think i have down sum sorta backflip or frontflip into a twist with a handstand landing, maybe i should stop trying to talk smart and become a gymnist

[lavadog]

Timthetyrant, we are animals, whether you like it or not. We're just the most sophisticated animals on this planet.

[timtadams]

Timthetyrant, we are animals, whether you like it or not. We're just the most sophisticated animals on this planet.

yes yes, if you choose to interpret it that way. But i think timthetyrant was just using it in the way he did as we are not subject to the same environmental pressures as every other animal on the planet. So while we may be animals, we are different to all of them in the way we live and are affected by the environment, which is ultimately what this thread is based on.

The meaning of animal can change depending on context:

an·i·mal (n-ml)
n.
1. A multicellular organism of the kingdom Animalia, differing from plants in certain typical characteristics such as capacity for locomotion, nonphotosynthetic metabolism, pronounced response to stimuli, restricted growth, and fixed bodily structure.
2. An animal organism other than a human, especially a mammal.

So while we are humans by the first definition we are not by the second. So it can also be down to a matter of interpretation. So while you may disagree with timthetyrant, it does not make him wrong

[lavadog]

well played sir

well tbf, we ARE the biggest environmental pressure for 99% of the other animals around. :P

But anywho, I see what you mean, didn't read the entire thread, just picked that up from his post :)

[Azzer]

Brushing aside the belief that diseases can only hit you if your parents had the disease, and that this is always the case (ie the belief that it's impossible for somebody with a condition to have a child without a condition, and vice-versa)... [yes there are some things that will almost always be passed down if a parent/both parents/a grandparent had it, but not everything, and random chance always has a big say too, as well as the way a child's raised and the environment they were raised in, how much their immune system gets to build up during youth their diet their fitness etc. ec.]

I have often thought about this from a global population side - the population of earth is too big. Humans wise. There are too many humans. And the amount of humans is rising incredibly. You hear ecologists talking about carbon footprints and how everybody should only be using up "1 earth worth of energy each" - how westerners are usually using anything from "2-10 earths each" etc... but what use is everybody in the world using "1 earth worth" if we double the population of earth down the line. We do just plain and simple have too many people, in many countries, and it causes problems beyond mere ecological ones - society problems, law/crime problems, etc. etc... I even wonder about economy issues, I don't know how world economy works so this might be complete rubbish, but is it possible that the more people we have, the more "Money" each country has to create, reducing the value of that money - as in... if a country only ever had the same global-value worth of money, but it's population increased by 20%... doesn't that mean that the money everyone has is going to be spread a bit more thinly, meaning you either have to create more money (which still has a net effect of reducing it's value), or something else. I don't know, random rambling there typing as neurons fired away in my brain ;)

Anyway, the point was... something. What was it? Ah yes, the point was - if we keep desperately trying to cure every illness that can kill people, help lower mis-carriages, have better healthcare around the world, prevent plagues and diseases and viruses, increase the average life-span of everyone (which in itself increases the birth-rate as well as the 'current population')... are we taking away Earth/Nature's natural "balancing act" - one such balancing act being something like "too many people in one area = more chance for a disease to hit = more chance of those people dying and the numbers reducing again to a more balanced and sustainable number". We're preventing nature from doing any natural balancing act on the human population, but we're not increasing the size or capabilities of Earth.

Eugenics is such a horrible world, and China's "1 baby per person" is full of flaws (for example everyone wants a boy there because girls don't have much rights/success there... so if you have a girl you dump it and try again for a boy...) and it's such a hideous thought... but perhaps we do need something - perhaps self-enforced if we're removing nature's ability to enforce it - to help reduce and balance the global population?

[Garrett]

what if we jusut got rid of china? we could produce melamine ourselves and poison from the source rather than overseas!

[Azzer]

what if we jusut got rid of china? we could produce melamine ourselves and poison from the source rather than overseas!

Quick way to knock out 20% of the population at least, might buy us some breathing room, and you can knock out another 17% if we take out India too :P Hell we've almost halved the population in two countries! :D

Random side-note - According to Wiki at least (pffft) - Europe is the only area/continent in the world to have reduced it's population between 2000 and 2005 - I didn't bother checking if it's since gone up. I wonder if that's because of the stringent Eugenics laws we have in place, because of social happiness factors which tends to naturally reduce birth-rates, or just because Europe's so rubbish everybody's moving away.

[Garrett]

nameless legalized your drugs :(

[timthetyrant]

a good example is this "swine flu" thats turning into a "pandemic". I understand its a virus and spread easily (coughing, sneezing) and if it is let loose it could make the ferry man very busy. Now when they say the numbers i just laugh at it, 100 ppl killed in mexico?... Mexico City has 22m ppl (o_0)
But anyways, the ppl in mexico will die and die unless some goodquarintines and hygeine is implemented because of thier lack of medication and facilities, but eventually som1 out there will have an immunity to it and will be unaffected, said person will then probably breed and his/her offspring will carry this immunity. Now the ppl in the developed world who rely on medicine to treat thier illnesses will probably survive, thumbs up for them, but what will happen when all the medicine runs out? or if it mutates with another deadly bug in a person on meds (who wouldve died from the previous bug) and then it becomes a superbug?
Modern medicine is unnatural, mother nature seems to trying to put things back into balance but we keep fighting because we are on the wrong end of the pointy stick. developing a natural immunity would be the natural way to survive this disease but we are too sentimental with fellow humans to allow their death, if only we had equal sentiments towards the natural environment, unlike the brazilians cutting down 10 football fields of the amazon forest/day just so they can play soccer.
Mankind is probably the worst mistake the gods have ever made, we seem to have smeged the smeg outa this planet, and its only gunna get worse. and apparently we are trying to slow down on the damage we have done, but how do we slow down when our population keeps expanding=more power needed=more mouths to feed=more spaces cleared for homes and pastures, and the third world will be the ones to smeg it all up (no offence) as they have the greatest birth rates, when you look at the developed countries birth rates they are all around zero. but the third worlds birth rate is high cause of so many reasons.
This discussion can go so much deeper and the answer probably isnt a good one for humanity,
*do animals have an equal right to life as us?(not according to the bible)
-if a shark kills a human, we kill the shark (even if they are an endargered species, we kill destroy habitats, but ours aren't destroyed) obviously we arent equal.
-does this mean individuals or their speices?
*where do we fit into the grand scales of life?(cause we know we are special, because of our ability to know)
*can we survive without nature?

[Garrett]

well you can't place stock in the bible as any kind of factual basis.

just had to put that out there.

[timtadams]

what if we jusut got rid of china?

then who is gonna buy our metals and coal?

[harriergirl]

Insert the story line from The Stand here.


I don't think this convo needs to go any deeper tbh. The only humane way to cause change would be to educate as many people as possible and to do that, we need to all take responsibility for our social ills... those two things are an ongoing circle of social betterment imho.

Humanity is not going to stop breeding, although we may breed less. And as humans we are not going to stop caring for our infirm, as that in my opinion lessens part of what what makes us human. No individual or group has the right, responsiblity or the authority to legistlate or dictate otherwise. Nature made humans the way we are, ie: inventive, nurturing, empathetic, inquisitive; and nature will take care of us when we need pruning.

end of really.

[Turnip2k]

The human race is no longer subject to evoloution as the rest of the planets ecosystem knows it, or natural selection. This is because for natural selection to occour, there must be some rejection of a given trait - which we dont really accept as a race.

Our evoloution has become more of a cultural process than a genetic one.

Medicine is just one facet of this - for most western societies, food / water, warmth and shelter are not a concern. Without the ability to obtain / find / fight for any of these in the natural world, we would most probably never get the chance to breed - and the trait which stopped us / made us less able than others to obtain these would not be passed down.

Nature may throw us the odd curveball with a virus outbreak / natural distaster, but on the whole, our ability to survive is now dependant on societies abilities, not just our own.

[BlackWolf]

There is no such thing as "evolution" or "natural selection", it has been proven to be wrong so many times... simplest way to do it is the size of your penis. Based on evolution theories womens would always pick the male with largest penis. Well why the heck we all dont have 20" ones? Because it simply doesnt work that way...

Yeah but to topic... we have now seen bible and all kind of other BS... who cares of your religions... I so hate when people draw religion to this kind of topics... like that Indian or Japanese or anything else would say its god who created us... rofl.

Modern medicine isnt that "awesome" if you start to think of it. We all eventually die anyways. If you then start to think of nature and its population growth models they all go around very few simple mechanics that are in interaction with each others.

Like rabbit, food, hunters, possible out side threaths. Along those lines rabbit population grows and gets smaller. So how does this work on humans... overgrowth-> check, food -> theres people in hunger cause world cant sustain them check, predators -> humans dont have natural predators check, outside stuff -> diseases, natural disasters, global warming check.

To me it seems we are just close to crash... Prepare your bunkers and collect your extra food supplies we are going down!

[lavadog]

There is no such thing as "evolution" or "natural selection", it has been proven to be wrong so many times... simplest way to do it is the size of your penis. Based on evolution theories womens would always pick the male with largest penis. Well why the heck we all dont have 20" ones? Because it simply doesnt work that way...


... ok what? If you're gonna say evolution is BS, at least back that (imo ridiculous) claim up. Penis length isn't a sign of fertility, like bigger hips on females is. Men instinctively tend to go for women with bigger hips (not fat, just a normal female curve), because it has been a sign of fertility ever since we walked this earth. Women don't instinctively go for men with big penises, but for men with certain traits (strong, tall, etc) that will assure their future kids a big chance of survival. As far as I know people with big penises die just as much as people with small ones.

I'd like to read the evolutionary theorem where big penis equals higher survival rate. Evolution has only been "proven wrong" by religious groups, who stick to books written 2000 years ago.

[Garrett]

indeed, quit watching pr0n. women instictively go for providers (remember the whole hunter-gatherer thing?) because they can get penis anywhere.

[No-Dachi]

Would it be spam if all I posted here was: Garret for president?

[MattM]

There is no such thing as "evolution" or "natural selection", it has been proven to be wrong so many times... simplest way to do it is the size of your penis. Based on evolution theories womens would always pick the male with largest penis. Well why the heck we all dont have 20" ones? Because it simply doesnt work that way...



Please tell me this is sarcasm...

[timtadams]

There is no such thing as "evolution" or "natural selection", it has been proven to be wrong so many times... simplest way to do it is the size of your penis. Based on evolution theories womens would always pick the male with largest penis. Well why the heck we all dont have 20" ones? Because it simply doesnt work that way...



Please tell me this is sarcasm...

please tell me you arent that stupid to work it out yourself

[MattM]

There is no such thing as "evolution" or "natural selection", it has been proven to be wrong so many times... simplest way to do it is the size of your penis. Based on evolution theories womens would always pick the male with largest penis. Well why the heck we all dont have 20" ones? Because it simply doesnt work that way...



Please tell me this is sarcasm...

please tell me you arent that stupid to work it out yourself

I would invite you to keep quiet about matters not concerning you.

[Forwyn]

There is no such thing as "evolution" or "natural selection", it has been proven to be wrong so many times... simplest way to do it is the size of your penis. Based on evolution theories womens would always pick the male with largest penis. Well why the heck we all dont have 20" ones? Because it simply doesnt work that way...

You're looking at it wrong.

Instead of having some imaginary(and ridiculous) ceiling goal to look at in regards to a certain physical trait, instead compare us to other similar creatures.

Humans have, proportionally, the largest penises of all mammals. Gorillas are around 1-2", Orangutans 3-4", with humans averaging 5-6.5"(I include proportionally because inevitably someone would mention blue/sperm whales, who do have proportionally smaller penises). Do you think it happened by accident?

At this point in our civilization, penis size is likely to stop increasing, so your hypothesis is moot. Penis size is generally one of the last factors a woman will come to know and thus base a relationship on, after financial stability, other positive physical traits(that aren't concealed 24/7?), and personality compatibility.

[timthetyrant]

humans also have a very low sperm count in comparison to other animals, how does that fit into the equation? i remember some quote by some horse breeder/racer "if man was a horse i'ld have it put down." made me laugh casue its something that could be used against men by their counterparts, just like how women cant drive ;)

[Forwyn]

I would imagine sperm count isn't nearly as important as the delivery system in the case of humans.

If the system needed huge tweaking we wouldn't be pushing 7 billion people.

Now, whether or not this may become more of an issue, due to infertile/low sperm count males procreating with modern technology, remains to be seen.

Edit - Just remembered this: people in India caused some problems for condom companies a while back - it was discovered that condoms were failing more often than they should be - the reason is that Indian men are .5" to 1" smaller than the global average. But they've also found that Indian women typically have a smaller vaginal cavity to accommodate this.

[harriergirl]

please don't start talking about vaginal cavities. women are designed for that area to be quite ... flexible, meaning that if they've only ever had Indian Penis, then they havne't been required to stretch ..... that's all.

Penis size has little to nothing to do with why women select mates. this conversation annoys me =P

[Azzer]

I can't imagine penis size has ever been an evolutionary factor. I'd imagine back in caveman times, it was the caveman that could hunt animals, or the caveman that could club the other cavemen on the head hardest, that got picked by the ladies by and large... I doubt they all whipped their penises out and the woman picked the largest one, and the rest walked off dejected. It would have been whichever one could club the others over the head the hardest, or bring back the largest speared wild boar, or defend against predators etc. :P

[Silence]

Dragging back the topic to the original topic of "modern medicine is actually hurting the human race" I'd like to put a new idea out there

I was pondering this issue for a little while unsure where to sway towards. I then considered that in the way of evolution our species have evolved in the sense no longer the fittest survives, only those who are privileged.

It is no longer 'Power = brute force = security' but now 'technology = money = power = security'

Privileged by the definition I am using is power, the access to technology. Not technology in the computer sense, but in the sense of power. Technology being access to things which others do not have, therefore having advantages over our "competitors". For example, a mate would choose the partner based upon the protection which could be provided however as our species has evolved a different kind of protection has arisen, financial security. Which would then lead to be ability to *make* yourself fit.

Lets take a crude example; a poor country will not be able to afford modern medicine, therefore their people will from illnesses which can be resolved in the western world. Based upon my example of the new 'survival of the fittest' medicine is not harming evolution.

Now I really should address the part of the post that says that it is affecting genetic disorders, as I***8217;ve decided to branch out. Illness will occur no matter the gene pool, to wipe out illness entirely is impossible, these diseases evolve and will always attack our systems, so the fittest will adapt and create new drugs to combat the new disease.

So therefore modern medicine cannot possibly be harming our evolution as it is no longer the traditional survival of the fittest, it is now the survival of those who have the wealth to be able to afford and attain the ability to *make* themselves fit. In our post modern society we should abandon the idea of survival of the fittest in the common animal sense and separate ourselves.


This then leads nicely onto the politicisation of technology such as medicine, but that is staying too much and I am conscious that I***8217;m rambling too much. I hope that makes sense. And thanks for reading

[Forwyn]

please don't start talking about vaginal cavities. women are designed for that area to be quite ... flexible, meaning that if they've only ever had Indian Penis, then they havne't been required to stretch ..... that's all.

Oh really? The maximum depth of the vaginal cavity changes?

Penis size has little to nothing to do with why women select mates.

Thats what I said.

@Azzer, I would agree with you there. A likely explanation to the large proportional size of humans would relate to promiscuity. Cavewoman is with Caveman A, who clubs best out of the pack. But Cavewoman is unsatisfied sexually with Caveman A, so she has sex with Caveman B.

[harriergirl]

please don't start talking about vaginal cavities. women are designed for that area to be quite ... flexible, meaning that if they've only ever had Indian Penis, then they havne't been required to stretch ..... that's all.

Oh really? The maximum depth of the vaginal cavity changes?

(imagine rudimentary illustration of birth here)<<-------This is larger than a penis of any nationality.

Yes it stretches =P

[No-Dachi]

Did your picture get owned tana?

But yes, sure the width of it will shrink/enlargen depending on what's getting put in there/how long since it's been anything but liquid moving in there. But the depth? Not knowing too much of anatomy, I'd think the depth would be pretty consistant.

[harriergirl]

look, i'm just saying that babies are on average 20 inches long, and at one point in the birthing process they are entirely out of the uterus and entirely inside the vagina ...

[Azzer]

look, i'm just saying that babies are on average 20 inches long, and at one point in the birthing process they are entirely out of the uterus and entirely inside the vagina ...

Ahhhh, that's what you meant! Your picture link didn't work, I guess now it was of a foetus/baby :P It's just a white square that says "Visit City-Data.com" in it!

[Garrett]

Oh really? The maximum depth of the vaginal cavity changes?



rofl. don't challenge women on their own bodies.

[MattM]

I can't imagine penis size has ever been an evolutionary factor. I'd imagine back in caveman times, it was the caveman that could hunt animals, or the caveman that could club the other cavemen on the head hardest, that got picked by the ladies by and large... I doubt they all whipped their penises out and the woman picked the largest one, and the rest walked off dejected. It would have been whichever one could club the others over the head the hardest, or bring back the largest speared wild boar, or defend against predators etc. :P

I tried this approach in modern day society. Apparently women just don't appreciate a well-cudgeled wild boar any more :(

[No-Dachi]

This eras women want you to NOT show interest, to tease them, and make them chase you. The society already provides for them, so they've changed their area of interest. Sure, deep down they'll look for someone to be a good father, to be a provider etc, but the tests they put you through to check for these factors are everything but logical...

/rant

[Alcibiades]

I can't imagine penis size has ever been an evolutionary factor. I'd imagine back in caveman times, it was the caveman that could hunt animals, or the caveman that could club the other cavemen on the head hardest, that got picked by the ladies by and large... I doubt they all whipped their penises out and the woman picked the largest one, and the rest walked off dejected. It would have been whichever one could club the others over the head the hardest, or bring back the largest speared wild boar, or defend against predators etc. :P

I tried this approach in modern day society. Apparently women just don't appreciate a well-cudgeled wild boar any more :(

MattM ftw.

[Forwyn]

rofl. don't challenge women on their own bodies.

Look, I'm able to ask a question regarding scientific fact whenever the **** I want, regardless of my gender.

http://www.medical-illustrations.ca/images/1016_female_urogenital.jpg

Now, hopefully you can recognize the cervix without me pointing it out for you.

While the vagina is highly dynamic in depth depending on arousal(going from 2in to 4-8, depending on the woman), there IS a maximum depth, with the brick wall, not getting more scientific, being the cervix.

To state it shortly, maximum depth can adapt a small amount over a long period of time, but maximum depth will not increase a measurable amount for most women in their lifetimes.

Yes, the vagina stretches to accommodate childbirth, notably in width. I'm unaware if the depth measurably changes during said childbirth, but again, its irrelevant to the average maximum depth. Great changes occur during pregnancy and childbirth, and these do not happen in everyday life, so its a bit asinine to apply either here.