Slog
News & ArtsMonday, July 2, 2012
Sex What a Piece of Work Is Man
Posted by Dan Savage on Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 8:20 AM
Jesse Bering explains why your dick—or your partner's dick, or the silicone dick you and your partner keep in your nightstand—looks like that:
If you were to examine the penis objectively—please don’t do this in a public place or without the other person’s permission—and compare the shape of this organ with the design of the same organ in other species, you’d notice the following uniquely human characteristics. First, despite variation in size between individuals, the human penis is especially large compared with that of other primates. When erect, it measures on average between five and six inches in length and about five inches in circumference. Even the most well-endowed chimpanzee, the species that is our closest living relative, doesn’t come anywhere near this. Rather, even after correcting for overall mass and body size, chimp penises are about half the size of human penises in both length and circumference. In addition, only the human species has such a distinctive mushroom-capped glans, which is connected to the shaft by a thin tissue of frenulum (the delicate tab of skin just beneath the urethra). Chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans have a much less extravagant phallic design—more or less all shaft. It turns out that one of the most significant features of the human penis isn’t so much the glans per se as the coronal ridge it forms underneath.
...
This “semen displacement theory” is the most intriguing part of Gallup’s story. Since sperm cells can survive in a woman’s cervical mucus for up to several days, if she has more than one male sexual partner over this period of time, say within forty-eight hours, then the sperm of these two men are competing for reproductive access to her ovum. So how did nature equip men to solve the adaptive problem of other men impregnating their sexual partners? The answer, according to Gallup, is that their penises were sculpted in such a way that the organ would effectively displace the semen of competitors from their partner’s vagina, a well-synchronized effect facilitated by the “upsuck” of thrusting during intercourse. Specifically, the coronal ridge offers a special removal service by expunging foreign sperm. According to this analysis, the effect of thrusting would be to draw other men’s sperm away from the cervix and back around the glans, thus scooping out the semen deposited by a sexual rival.
Click through to read the rest of the excerpt from the brilliant Jesse Bering's new book—Why Is the Penis Shaped Like That: ...And Other Reflections On Being Human—over at HuffPo.
3
So the head of my penis is a glorified wet-vac specializing in jizz.
Good to know.
Also, not that I have ever gotten out the tape measure, but 5 inches around does seem like a lot to be the average. This would mean that according to the writer, the average penis is just as big around as it is long. Seems incorrect.
Good to know.
Also, not that I have ever gotten out the tape measure, but 5 inches around does seem like a lot to be the average. This would mean that according to the writer, the average penis is just as big around as it is long. Seems incorrect.
5
I caught that, too. I've been with at least 100 different men and have yet to experience 5" circumference.
7
We as humans suck at estimating circumference - when your average human estimates the circumference of an object, they usually come up with a number closer to its diameter.
8
Meh. I don't believe it for a minute. Only a human male would go to such lengths to create a story about the genius of his own penis.
10
Sparrows remove a competitors sperm from a female with their beak. But I have to say, size is relative. I've seen baboons penis that looks in proportion to their size.
11
Hey Dan, before you go calling it a brilliant book, I just want to check, did you read the retardedly argued part Bering includes about why you should trust theists over atheists? It's not just that I don't like his conclusion, it's that he makes a shockingly stupid argument.
http://www.salon.com/2012/07/01/dont_tru…
http://www.salon.com/2012/07/01/dont_tru…
13
@10 "Sparrows remove a competitors sperm from a female with their beak."
I'm going to go back to bed and... ruminate on that for a while. Little sparrows, with their sharp beaks, 'round my wobbly bits...Hmm...
I'm going to go back to bed and... ruminate on that for a while. Little sparrows, with their sharp beaks, 'round my wobbly bits...Hmm...
14
@12: This guy seems to be part of the school of "if it sounds science-y, it must be a scientific argument!" His interpretation of the studies cited in that article was just abysmal.
18
Wait, which method are we using to define the "average" size here? Using the proper formula is very important.
20
This is why my life is weird.
One of the opening conversations in At Home With the Webbers (a weird movie about reality TV from 1993 now available on Netflix) is about the shape of the penis, and how it is so large and shouldn't have a head. AND, it's Jennifer Tilly and Robby Benson (whom you may know as Nick Peterson from Ice Castles) discussing this after her statues with overly enlarged phalluses gets rejected by a gallery.
One of the opening conversations in At Home With the Webbers (a weird movie about reality TV from 1993 now available on Netflix) is about the shape of the penis, and how it is so large and shouldn't have a head. AND, it's Jennifer Tilly and Robby Benson (whom you may know as Nick Peterson from Ice Castles) discussing this after her statues with overly enlarged phalluses gets rejected by a gallery.
21
You guys are confusing circumference with diameter. The diameter would be about 1.6 inches. Thanks @9.
22
5 inches circumference is definitely average. That's a bit over one and a half inch in diameter.
The action of the glans is kind of old news for me, but it's always nice to read about it.
The action of the glans is kind of old news for me, but it's always nice to read about it.
23
Chimpanzee females also have multiple sex partners, so one wonders why a pronounced glans never evolved in that species. I suppose the answer could be that the genetic variants that underlie human penis shape just weren't present in chimps for natural selection to act upon. Or that chimp males took a different evolutionary route to deal with sperm competition--they have massive testes compared to humans. I'm not going to dismiss the author's ideas outright, but we need some more evidence before I view this as case closed.
25
Here's a rebuttal to the article I linked to in #11 in case anyone cares: http://www.salon.com/2012/07/02/dont_tru…
27
I suppose if anything should be phallocentric it's the phallus; nevertheless, this is a silly idea. Even if the "competing" men are one right after the other, thousands of sperm from guy #1 are going to manage to get too far up into the uterus to be affected by guy #2's magic mushroom of a penis before it would have a chance to get in there. I suspect the evolution of the human penis has a whole hell of a lot to do with pleasing women and therefore ensuring successful reproduction. We have uniquely bipedal pelvises and genital morphology; why WOULDN'T the penis evolve to match?
28
OuterCow: Just because he makes one crap argument doesn't say anything about his other arguments: they have to be taken on their own merit. Take, for example, Jonathan Haidt. Brilliant social psychologist, ridiculous political theorist. And thanks for the second link...very helpful to have that balance. And I totally agree with you about Bering's religion argument. His conclusion doesn't follow. There could be lots of other factors at play.
31
That's not what "upsuck" is, and all this smacks vaguely of just-so story to me, and also I hate evopsych and Sex at Dawn and all that bullshit. But otherwise, hmm, in.... teres...ting ?
32
I read the Huffpo article and here is my question for the researcher, Gallup: Were the imitation human-like phalluses (not sure of the plural there) circumcised?
Does anybody know if the original study used circumcised or uncircumcised, or both, types of dildos?
Considering his hypothesis about the "scooping" effect of the coronal ridge, I would think an uncircumcised penis would be less likely to remove previously-placed sperm than a circumcised one. Unless, perhaps the foreskin retracts enough during thrusting, but even then I would think with the pulling-out motion, the foreskin would recover the ridge, preventing the same "scooping" effect.
If uncircumcised penises don't have the same "scooping" effect, what does that say about Gallup's hypothesis? After all, circumcision is a relatively "new" behavior on our part and the penis was already fully evolved prior to the beginning of circumcision only 3,000 years ago.
In order to truly test this idea, you either need to repeat the study and use dildos that represent uncircumcised penises in addition to the ones that represent circumcised penises, or you need to repeat the study but using actual human participants.
Have the sperm-like substitute inserted into a woman prior to the study, then measure the amount that is displaced after intercourse with her partner. You would have to make sure you had an equal number of circumcised and uncircumcised penises to see if Gallup's hypothesis holds up for uncircumcised penises.
Does anybody know if the original study used circumcised or uncircumcised, or both, types of dildos?
Considering his hypothesis about the "scooping" effect of the coronal ridge, I would think an uncircumcised penis would be less likely to remove previously-placed sperm than a circumcised one. Unless, perhaps the foreskin retracts enough during thrusting, but even then I would think with the pulling-out motion, the foreskin would recover the ridge, preventing the same "scooping" effect.
If uncircumcised penises don't have the same "scooping" effect, what does that say about Gallup's hypothesis? After all, circumcision is a relatively "new" behavior on our part and the penis was already fully evolved prior to the beginning of circumcision only 3,000 years ago.
In order to truly test this idea, you either need to repeat the study and use dildos that represent uncircumcised penises in addition to the ones that represent circumcised penises, or you need to repeat the study but using actual human participants.
Have the sperm-like substitute inserted into a woman prior to the study, then measure the amount that is displaced after intercourse with her partner. You would have to make sure you had an equal number of circumcised and uncircumcised penises to see if Gallup's hypothesis holds up for uncircumcised penises.
33
I've heard that squirrels have something similar.
I'd be cautious about drawing conclusions about early human behavior based on this. What we know is what the penis looks like. We may speculate about what that means about human nature. Like @11 I have my reservations about "Sex at Dawn" and other books that make claims about what early modern humans were like. They almost always match the author's preconceived notions about what the modern world ought to be like (or what would sell the most copies).
I'd be cautious about drawing conclusions about early human behavior based on this. What we know is what the penis looks like. We may speculate about what that means about human nature. Like @11 I have my reservations about "Sex at Dawn" and other books that make claims about what early modern humans were like. They almost always match the author's preconceived notions about what the modern world ought to be like (or what would sell the most copies).
34
A US dollar bill is 6.125 inches long. Wrap 5/6 of it into a circle. Seems a touch small to me, but ballpark right for an population-wide average.
35
@32: I hereby declare you a woman.
I'm a man, and I can tell you that the foreskin retracts pretty much all the way just from erection. (I'm cut, so I had to learn this from one of those "what to expect when you're going through puberty" books.)
I'm a man, and I can tell you that the foreskin retracts pretty much all the way just from erection. (I'm cut, so I had to learn this from one of those "what to expect when you're going through puberty" books.)
36
@28 I wasn't trying to poison the well so much as I was taken aback that Dan (an avowed atheist who has more than a few problems with certain religions) would call a book "brilliant" that includes the argument that the religious are more trustworthy.
37
I JUST REALIZED! This is the Savage Love comment thread! We don't have to speculate about this.
My fellow Savage fans, if there is anyone here who has had a multiple-partner-in-a-really-short-period-of-time situation (and sees fit to talk about it, signed in or not) have you noticed this phenomenon? Did the second penis remove fluids placed there by the first penis or does Bering's hypothesis not hold water?
My fellow Savage fans, if there is anyone here who has had a multiple-partner-in-a-really-short-period-of-time situation (and sees fit to talk about it, signed in or not) have you noticed this phenomenon? Did the second penis remove fluids placed there by the first penis or does Bering's hypothesis not hold water?
38
@36 Well did the book say "Religious people are more trustworthy because their godly and virtuous nature makes them less susceptible to deceit" or did it say "Religious people are more trustworthy. We set up a camera next to a bagel basket and found that people who self-identified as religious were more likely to pay for the food they took."
I've seen a study that said that religious people donate more to charity than non-religious people (and that liberals donate more than conservatives; non-religious conservatives donated the least and religious liberals the most).
I've seen a study that said that religious people donate more to charity than non-religious people (and that liberals donate more than conservatives; non-religious conservatives donated the least and religious liberals the most).
39
While I agree with @35's initial sally, I can add as an avid consumer of gay porn (and occasionally of gay dudes IRL) that there's actually quite a bit of variation among uncircumcised penises.
With some, at full erection the skin is stretched taut along the length of the shaft and they closely resemble cut cocks.
With others, even at maximal arousal there's a bit of bunched skin immediately behind the coronal ridge or even partially covering the glans.
In the latter, it's easy to imagine (down, boy!) the foreskin riding up over the glans early in the withdrawal stroke and pulling a quantity of previously deposited semen rearward, where it might be left further away from the cervix as the forward thrust begins.
Re: @27, it's a statistical crapshoot (pardon the turn of phrase). Yes, there will undoubtedly be many sperm cells from the previous copulator within striking distance, but if you as the last ejaculator before the egg looms over the horizon manage to pull your competitors' batter backwards and deposit your own at the front lines, the odds are better that your genes will be the ones passed on. It's like cutting in line at Best Buy on Black Friday.
(Fans self.)
With some, at full erection the skin is stretched taut along the length of the shaft and they closely resemble cut cocks.
With others, even at maximal arousal there's a bit of bunched skin immediately behind the coronal ridge or even partially covering the glans.
In the latter, it's easy to imagine (down, boy!) the foreskin riding up over the glans early in the withdrawal stroke and pulling a quantity of previously deposited semen rearward, where it might be left further away from the cervix as the forward thrust begins.
Re: @27, it's a statistical crapshoot (pardon the turn of phrase). Yes, there will undoubtedly be many sperm cells from the previous copulator within striking distance, but if you as the last ejaculator before the egg looms over the horizon manage to pull your competitors' batter backwards and deposit your own at the front lines, the odds are better that your genes will be the ones passed on. It's like cutting in line at Best Buy on Black Friday.
(Fans self.)
40
@20, I always get Robby Benson and Peter Gallagher mixed up, but thanks for bringing them both to mind, along with Gallagher's 1982 Summer Lovers.
41
Okay, but why is it so big?
Perhaps this is a sign that women have relatively more power in choosing mates than other female primates. Or that women are more concerned with pleasure. Or maybe men just think too much, and can be emotionally defeated simply by the site of another man's larger penis. That saves us the trouble of monthly punch-battles.
Perhaps this is a sign that women have relatively more power in choosing mates than other female primates. Or that women are more concerned with pleasure. Or maybe men just think too much, and can be emotionally defeated simply by the site of another man's larger penis. That saves us the trouble of monthly punch-battles.
42
@41 "a sign that women have relatively more power in choosing mates than other female primates."
My first impulse was to laugh. Human women are smaller than human men, and the difference in size is more significant than that among other primates. Unless early humans had some enormous cultural taboos about rape and coercion, women did not have more influence about choosing partners than other female primates did.
The size and shape of the penis probably has to do with the fact that we walk upright and are born with large heads (necessitating a certain shape to the female pelvis). Something about that probably necessitates an organ with reaching power. Is the length of the human vaginal canal different from that of other primates?
My first impulse was to laugh. Human women are smaller than human men, and the difference in size is more significant than that among other primates. Unless early humans had some enormous cultural taboos about rape and coercion, women did not have more influence about choosing partners than other female primates did.
The size and shape of the penis probably has to do with the fact that we walk upright and are born with large heads (necessitating a certain shape to the female pelvis). Something about that probably necessitates an organ with reaching power. Is the length of the human vaginal canal different from that of other primates?
43
@37 - I have multiple partners on a regular basis and yes, there is some scooping happening. I generally don't need to put a towel down for single encounters but for anything over that, towels are a necessity since the semen does tend to get pulled out by following penises.
44
Female mate choice is real and likely very important in mammals, including humans.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200…
http://web.missouri.edu/~gearyd/Matechoi…
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200…
http://web.missouri.edu/~gearyd/Matechoi…
45
One more question: has the human penis gotten bigger in the last few hundred or few thousand years? Penises on Greek statues, and on the statue of David, look kinda... Small. Maybe the penis is our finch-beak (in addition to their sparrow-beak...)
46
@45 I think you're confusing a few things there, not the least of which is Ancient Greek art was highly idealized.
Cecil Adams from straightdope.com:
From [the] vast array of XXX-rated artwork we can make a few deductions about Greek aesthetic preferences, genitaliawise (here I mainly follow Kenneth Dover's landmark study Greek Homosexuality, 1978):
(1) Long, thick penises were considered--at least in the highbrow view-- grotesque, comic, or both and were usually found on fertility gods, half-animal critters such as satyrs, ugly old men, and barbarians. A circumcised penis was particularly gross.
(2) The ideal penis was small, thin, and covered with a long, tapered foreskin. Dover thinks the immature male's equipment was especially admired, which may account not only for the small size but the scarcity of body hair in classical art. A passage from Aristophanes sums up the most desirable masculine features: "a gleaming chest, bright skin, broad shoulders, tiny tongue, strong buttocks, and a little prick."
Cecil Adams from straightdope.com:
From [the] vast array of XXX-rated artwork we can make a few deductions about Greek aesthetic preferences, genitaliawise (here I mainly follow Kenneth Dover's landmark study Greek Homosexuality, 1978):
(1) Long, thick penises were considered--at least in the highbrow view-- grotesque, comic, or both and were usually found on fertility gods, half-animal critters such as satyrs, ugly old men, and barbarians. A circumcised penis was particularly gross.
(2) The ideal penis was small, thin, and covered with a long, tapered foreskin. Dover thinks the immature male's equipment was especially admired, which may account not only for the small size but the scarcity of body hair in classical art. A passage from Aristophanes sums up the most desirable masculine features: "a gleaming chest, bright skin, broad shoulders, tiny tongue, strong buttocks, and a little prick."
47
Guys, everyone have a look at @43. An anonymous poster has commented on personal experiences with multiple penises.
Greeks deliberately used understated genitals for cultural reasons. Oversized genitalia were associated with barbarians. If you look at the subject matter, Greeks sculpted Greeks with modest wangs but they sculpted non-Greeks without. (M's David was a Jew sculpted by an Italian.)
@44 The ScienceDaily article is about mammals in general choosing by scent. Among land-dwelling mammals, humans have unusually poor noses. The other one I will have to find time to read.
Greeks deliberately used understated genitals for cultural reasons. Oversized genitalia were associated with barbarians. If you look at the subject matter, Greeks sculpted Greeks with modest wangs but they sculpted non-Greeks without. (M's David was a Jew sculpted by an Italian.)
@44 The ScienceDaily article is about mammals in general choosing by scent. Among land-dwelling mammals, humans have unusually poor noses. The other one I will have to find time to read.
48
In my opinion, Jesse Bering is far more of an evo-psych hack than a genius. His articles at Slate made me want to throw things until I decided to stop reading them.
And I agree with the skepticism here. So there's a ridge around the head of the penis. Why would that displace the already-present sperm in one direction (out) but not the other (in, which presumably comes first)? I just don't get it.
And I agree with the skepticism here. So there's a ridge around the head of the penis. Why would that displace the already-present sperm in one direction (out) but not the other (in, which presumably comes first)? I just don't get it.
49
@48 is right. I'd buy this if someone did a study showing that penises routinely remove previous sperm (or simulated sperm) from the vaginal canal, though. It wouldn't be the first time that volunteers have stepped up and gotten down for science.
50
Evolutionary psychology is all bullshit.
There is no proof the glans actually can remove semen and given the fact that usually the glans stays inside the vaginal canal throughout the entire act of coitus (at least, I've never heard of guys completely pulling out after thrusting), it seems unlikely there would be enough (or any) significant evolutionary advantage to this purpose of the glans.
At best, I think it might have limited utility, if the woman had JUST had sex with another guy, perhaps. But since humans don't have overt ovulation (and therefore, females don't need to have a ton of sex in a short amount of time to get pregnant), I still have to call BS on this.
There is no proof the glans actually can remove semen and given the fact that usually the glans stays inside the vaginal canal throughout the entire act of coitus (at least, I've never heard of guys completely pulling out after thrusting), it seems unlikely there would be enough (or any) significant evolutionary advantage to this purpose of the glans.
At best, I think it might have limited utility, if the woman had JUST had sex with another guy, perhaps. But since humans don't have overt ovulation (and therefore, females don't need to have a ton of sex in a short amount of time to get pregnant), I still have to call BS on this.
51
Thanks for that, OuterCow. I was trying to remember why Bering's name sounded so familiar. It was because I read the Salon thing after seeing the link on P.Z. Myers' blog Pharyngula.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Portland Voters Are Stoopid by Goldy
-
An I-5 Bridge Over the Skagit River Has Collapsed by Paul Constant
-
Rightwing Anti-Gay French Activist Commits Suicide at Notre Dame Cathedral by Dan Savage
-
Why They Break Windows by Unpaid Intern
-
Spoiled Rotten: Star Trek Into Darkness by Paul Constant
-
Usually When I'm Sent a Photoshopped Image of a Gun Pointed At Me... by Dan Savage
-
There Are No Atheists In Foxholes by Dan Savage
-
Tornado Truthers by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Did You Think I Was Going To Tell You Not To Come Out? (PLUS: Help Free Kate!) by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Have You Ever Heard of...? by Dan Savage
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (51) RSS