If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Why did men evolve foreskins if they are gross?
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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Why did men evolve foreskins if they are gross?
"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? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Odorous foreskins!!! | R. Steve Walz | Solutions | 2 | June 21st 06 01:22 PM |
Odorous foreskins!!! | Roger | Solutions | 0 | June 19th 06 04:26 AM |
Odorous foreskins!!! | [email protected] | Pregnancy | 0 | June 14th 06 07:55 PM |