Why did men evolve foreskins if they are gross?

"George Orwell" wrote in message
...

We all know that women dislike uncircumcised penises.

Unfortunately, many of the skin freaks and Anti-Semites who hang around this
neighborhood are still in serious, prehistoric denial over this simple
truth.

So how the heck did men evolve with a foreskin?

That's been covered many times before (pun intended). Thrashing around in
the trees, it's useful in protecting the head.

You'd think natural selection would weed these foreskins out.

Given another 100,000 years of clothing, that could happen.

On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 16:59:43 -0400, David Z wrote:

"George Orwell" wrote in message
...

We all know that women dislike uncircumcised penises.

Unfortunately, many of the skin freaks and Anti-Semites who hang around
this neighborhood are still in serious, prehistoric denial over this
simple truth.

So how the heck did men evolve with a foreskin?

That's been covered many times before (pun intended). Thrashing around
in the trees, it's useful in protecting the head.

You'd think natural selection would weed these foreskins out.

Given another 100,000 years of clothing, that could happen.

It *might* happen if circumcision was effectively non-existent (though
realistically I suspect that the presence or absence of a foreskin is
rarely a deciding factor in sexual relationships).

However, even if we assume that a short or non-existent foreskin is a
major factor in the probability that a male will pass on his genes,
there's a problem with this argument. If a male is surgically circumcised,
then there's no longer a relationship between his (genetic) foreskin
length and his chances of reproducing. So in countries with a high
prevalence of circumcision, there's no mechanism by which this
evolutionary change might occur.

In contrast, consider countries with a very low circumcision rate. In
these areas, males are typically circumcised due to medical conditions
which may in turn be related to a genetically longer and/or tighter
foreskin. So if these males have a reproductive advantage, then this means
that the genes responsible for long and/or tight foreskins will be more
successful.

"David Z" wrote in message
...
"George Orwell" wrote in message
...

We all know that women dislike uncircumcised penises.

Unfortunately, many of the skin freaks and Anti-Semites who hang around
this neighborhood are still in serious, prehistoric denial over this
simple truth.

So how the heck did men evolve with a foreskin?

That's been covered many times before (pun intended). Thrashing around in
the trees, it's useful in protecting the head.

Thrashing around in trees? You don't realize that mammals that have never
"thrashed around in trees" have a prepuce.

You'd think natural selection would weed these foreskins out.

Given another 100,000 years of clothing, that could happen.
You have no idea how natural selection works, do you?