Speechless. can't work out why the men are on roller blades and the women are wearing glasses.

As well as being offensive and insulting, this post is illogical the point of stupidity. Are you twelve?

Hmmm,
So does this mean girls who cum early are less promiscuous? If a roving alpha male has only a few chances of reproducing he would want to maximize his chances by going as long as possible. The long term mate has a higher chance of reproducing, so he is less concerned with how long she lasts for...

clarification: chance of reproducing with the same female

I think the thrusting is done because it feels good,i don't think much about scooping when i'm there. All the responses are very funny and all this stupid story deserves.Thanks for making me laugh people.

So what you're saying is that another session of sex without ejaculation would be a somewhat effective contraceptive, because it would remove the semen? Or does the 2nd suitor simply displace some of the previous semen enabling their own semen's "best runners" to overtake that of the previous suitor which had already began its arduous journey towards the egg.

"Clear evidence of women’s promiscuity throughout evolutionary history is in the size and shape of men’s genitals and what men do with them."

Uh -- wait! There is a common stereotype that women tend to be monogamous or at least non-promiscuous. In a previous post, you claimed that if a stereotype is false, it will not last for long. Yet here you claim that women have always been promiscuous -- starkly contradicting the age-old stereotype: "Higgamous, Hoggamous, women are monogamous. Hoggamous, Higgamous, men are polygamous."

You contradict yourself, man.

Ironically, in this case, the stereotype does have much truth to it -- women do tend to be much less promiscuous than men (unless, e.g., coerced to behave otherwise), and this sex difference likely has biological underpinnings.

To reject these ideas because they a summarized for a blog does not seem wise to me. It is also not sophmoric or immature to tackle these ideas just because the sexual nature of them may be to much for a repressed mind to stomach.

re your article, link given from above article - in particular the section accounting for suicide bombing. Quote:
"
Across all societies, polygyny makes men violent, increasing crimes such as murder and rape, even after controlling for such obvious factors as economic development, economic inequality, population density, the level of democracy, and political factors in the region.

However, polygyny itself is not a sufficient cause of suicide bombing. Societies in sub-Saharan Africa and the Caribbean are much more polygynous than the Muslim nations in the Middle East and North Africa. And they do have very high levels of violence. Sub-Saharan Africa suffers from a long history of continuous civil wars—but not suicide bombings. "

[close quote]
I do realise that you are not ascribing Sub-Saharan violence exclusively to the existence of polygyny in the region. You give recognition to, eg, economic factors in one paragraph, and then go on to select an example of putatively polygyny-related violence immediately afterward - this choice of example comes across as deeply ahistorical. "Sub-Saharan Africa suffers from a long history of continuous civil wars" - yes. But do you really want to pick this one for this discussion? "Politically incorrect" bases of "human nature"? By and large very enlightening indeed - but the above suggests some serious reductionism going on.

I empathize with how hard it must have been to collect this information. Scientist dealing with sexual issues are often painted negatively by a repressed society.

Some readers of this article would rather see the continued suppression of sexual information for fear that people would no longer control themselves. Knowing about other planets didn't make me built a space-ship; it made me understand more about the world about me.

Thank you for the information provided, and may you be able to continue your research unimpeded by closed-mindedness.

How about the basic difference between male & female genitalia? Compared to males, females are capable of multiple orgasms, can go much longer during a single sexual encounter, take much longer to reach orgasm, have much shorter refractory period, ovulate (higher sex urges) for a week every month. Sounds like earliest females would definitely have had multiple partners during a very short period of time even during a single sexual encounter.

Who cares lets just keep having good sex.

WHO'S WITH ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I use to fuck when i was 17 but now i am 19 and i have a problem first my penis was covered but after fucking now my penis has been opened so would i have problem after marriage and all are telling that i cant open vagina of my wife is it true or my son will be weak after bone becoz of loss of sperm from body plz reply and tell me the consultant doctor should i check to a physoitharapy doctor.

My question is if the theory is somewhat true, do chimpanzees and bonobo have similar penis shape? Given that their females are highly promiscuous. What about their penis size? According to this theory, then they must have a more advantageous penis shape and larger size than male humans do..

I LOVE THEM
DO YOU LOVE THEM MY DARLING BECAUSE YOURS IS REALLY NICE

I AM 56 LIVING WITH MY PARENTS AND BLONDE HAIR AND BIG BOOBS AND A NICE BODY AND FOR ALL THE GEEKY BOYS OUT THERE MY NUMBER IS 818-825-7310

for that offer who could give up that offer i mean is that what every man wants in a women biggy boobies!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!i am defennetly calling you abbie.!!!!!!!

wait wait wait... hold on just a minute! before you can start shoving you "highly evolved" penis theories down my throat (haha, i made a funny!), evolution must first be proven to be fact. because in order for ANYTHING in this article to be true, Darwin's theory of human evolution would have to also be true. but the author doesn't seem to concern himself with such data, and just assumes that we have all been brainwashed into believing that the human race created itself. foolishness of a horrible degree!!! when will this propaganda end? have you not the cognitive thought to ponder creation as a scientifically PROVABLE theory? indeed, there are two (if not infinite) sides to every story, and this author, as well as the "scientist" whose research is quoted, are merely giving us one biased side of the story. to recognize this would be the first step in explaining this article. my heart goes out to all who have traded in their faith for mere human ideologies... it truly saddens me. it seems no one knows what to believe in anymore so people just go for what is the most convenient, or what is the easiest to accept. think about it, if we really did "evolve" and there is no "God" then morality and ethics would have no absolute to be based on, and therefore, there is no ultimate truth other than what the government funded "scientists" tell us is true. what a wonderful way to get people to do what you want them to do without having to physically force anything. just get the people to believe that God does not exist and the Government can take God's place. i mean, that's what they've wanted from the beginning, isn't it?

I understand the idea that it might function that way, but before you go about claiming it evolved for that purpose, where's the proof that the thrusting and shape ACTUALLY pull semen away from the cervix? Or at least that the second guy to screw a woman in a short period of time is more likely to be the father of her child if she gets pregnant? Without some kind of support this is just wild speculation.

What a bunch of nonsense.

The evolutionary role of the shape of the penis is to make for greater pleasure during the actual thrusting and thus the male can ejaculate more quickly and enjoy the sex more.

Karina is right, if there was any truth to this, then the more promiscuous bonobos and chimpanzees would have more efficient penises to draw foreign semen back away from the cervix.

But according to this article they don't. "The shape of the human penis is quite distinct from that of many other primate species"

Worst 'discovery' ever.

Why is such a loaded word used here? "Promiscuous" implies that the female has a choice in the matter, when the likelihood (if any of this theory is to be believed) is that women were coerced into multiple-partner situations.

By the way, socialmemorycomplex, There are plenty of reasons for people to be good and ethical without fearing that some god is going to punish them if they misbehave.

The most risible part of this is that obviously a man would logically displace his -OWN- semen during intercourse.

Boom, theory shot down in one hit.

I have never ever read such bullshit in my entire life. Scooping is not for eliminating some others semin, because as long as the semin is in the vagina of a woman all the penis can do is stir it well, not eliminate it. :)))))
Maan! Have you ever had sex... any... at all?! This article was posted to withdraw public atention, not for any other reason. In all this world are promiscuous men and women as well, and this is not in the human nature but in the individual genetic inheritance and, why not, the individual education.
So, wear your penis proud and stop chase green horses, because the penis has this shape to bring us, women, pleasure, and that's it! :))