PE debunks darwinism

Maybe this thread will reach those nurds at Havard or Oxford ☺

We all want a bigger penis even those nurds over there.

That's why darwenism is BS because a male in his million years of evolution, desperately wanna change the penis more then ANYTHING else on their body, but still the everage penis is a size nobody wants! Hahaha

For example evolution claims that if a species want claws to climb a tree because they still move on the belly and crawling on the ground, then if you wait long enough and every generation is admiring the claws so that they can climb and grab the fruit in the tree, this wil eventually happen in thousands and thousands of years.

Well this species (us) want a bigger penis for 100.000 years more then we want the bloody eyebrows bro!

So how did that not worked out and still we have average 5 inches erect penises.

Put that in your bigdictionary right there!

FullBloodArab said:

Maybe this thread will reach those nurds at Havard or Oxford ☺

Whe all want a bigger penis even those nurds over there.

That's why darwenism is BS because a male in his million years of evolution, desperately wanna change the penis more then ANYTHING else on their body, but still the everage penis is a size nobody wants! Hahaha

For example evolution claims that if a species want claws to climb a tree because they still move on the belly and crawling on the ground, then if you wait long enough and every generation is admiring the claws so that they can climb and grab the fruit in the tree, this wil eventually happen in thousands and thousands of years.

Well this species (us) want a bigger penis for 100.000 years more then we want the bloody eyebrows bro!

So how did that not worked out and still we have average 5 inches erect penises.

Put that in your bigdictionary right there!

Click to expand...

Not to be a downer but you are forgetting the guys that have 9 inches without PE or even 10 inches, they are definately not common but the total amount of them is scary.

Some of those guys wish for a smaller penis believe it or not. Think about being a 14 year old boy with a 10 inch penis and scared to have sex because girls will be scared, probably never succesfully had intercourse because of it until much older.

I remember when I was 11 I started to have size anxiety because some of my friends had already lost their virginity, I imagine it can also be the other way around anxiety about being too big. When I finally lost it at 17 was the first time I was comfortable with my size. Turned down sex so many times because of anxiety.

Just wish and keep looking at it boys! Then maybe our children will get a bigger penis because of us!

FullBloodArab said:

Just keep looking at it boys! Then maybe our children will get a bigger penis because of us!

Click to expand...

Yeah I get your point! Just saying some people of young age suffer from too big penis! Also I'm from the country in the world who is in my own opinion absolutely morally corrupt and rotten when it comes to sex. Just realize in 5th grade we have sexual education in school and people come from the national association of sexual enlightenment and teach the 11 year old kids about condoms and p-pills and with the assumption at this age people should and do start having sex. How do you think that makes a young guy feel about his penis size if he hasnt even hit puberty fully and is underdeveloped, you get condoms for free and get home and try one on and it's way too big. It really gives you mad anxiety. legal age of consent is 15 but if two younger kids have consentual sex it is considered normal and legal...

enrikxl said:

Not to be a downer but you are forgetting the guys that have 9 inches without PE or even 10 inches, they are definately not common but the total amount of them is scary.

Some of those guys wish for a smaller penis believe it or not. Think about being a 14 year old boy with a 10 inch penis and scared to have sex because girls will be scared, probably never succesfully had intercourse because of it until much older.

I remember when I was 11 I started to have size anxiety because some of my friends had already lost their virginity, I imagine it can also be the other way around anxiety about being too big. When I finally lost it at 17 was the first time I was comfortable with my size. Turned down sex so many times because of anxiety.

Click to expand...

I don't think you understand the (fairytale) evolution in the human species

enrikxl said:

Not to be a downer but you are forgetting the guys that have 9 inches without PE or even 10 inches, they are definately not common but the total amount of them is scary.

Some of those guys wish for a smaller penis believe it or not. Think about being a 14 year old boy with a 10 inch penis and scared to have sex because girls will be scared, probably never succesfully had intercourse because of it until much older.

I remember when I was 11 I started to have size anxiety because some of my friends had already lost their virginity, I imagine it can also be the other way around anxiety about being too big. When I finally lost it at 17 was the first time I was comfortable with my size. Turned down sex so many times because of anxiety.

Click to expand...

Im not forgetting anything. We're talking about the science of things and we can't use your single story of what you've experienced and take that as something.

Buy the way. A male with 9 inch penis has a 7 inch penis at 14 for example.

And again of course nobody whats a 15inch penis. Learn to read better.

Im talking about more then 5inch average is all we get with 100.100.000 of evolution to hope for bigger.

Just like we have wished for a longer underarm to wipe our asses and we've got those (according to the Darwin fairytale) we also wished for a slightly longer and thicker penis and we've got 5inches.

Well we got 5,7-5,8 inches nbpel. On avarage and I agree it doesn't match up with the vagina with 7 inch depth and that is evil nature.

enrikxl said:

Well we got 5,7-5,8 inches nbpel. On avarage and I agree it doesn't match up with the vagina with 7 inch depth and that is evil nature.

Click to expand...

If you say that's nature then your are an evolutionist. So explain my thread (you know that nature (when it creates something) is used as another word for God by atheists) invention and letting the inventor out of the questions that's what they do.

If its just a phrase you did without thinking. Then we'll wait for the comment of an evolutionist (atheist)

Darwin was a retard

FullBloodArab said:

If you say that's nature then your are an evolutionist. So explain my thread (you know that nature (when it creates something) is used as another word for God by atheists) invention and letting the inventor out of the questions that's what they do.

If its just a phrase you did without thinking. Then we'll wait for the comment of an evolutionist (atheist)

Click to expand...

thats a long jump to take, no I don't say im an evolutionist I meant nature as in how things are! I pray and have done since a young age when in need and I'm convinced someone is listening.

FullBloodArab said:

If its just a phrase you did without thinking. Then we'll wait for the comment of an evolutionist (atheist)

Click to expand...

Did someone call for a contrarian? :D I've got two things I'll give you to think about, not really related to each other.

The first thing to consider is...

FullBloodArab said:

That's why darwenism is BS because a male in his million years of evolution, desperately wanna change the penis more then ANYTHING else on their body, but still the everage penis is a size nobody wants! Hahaha

For example evolution claims that if a species want claws to climb a tree because they still move on the belly and crawling on the ground, then if you wait long enough and every generation is admiring the claws so that they can climb and grab the fruit in the tree, this wil eventually happen in thousands and thousands of years.

Well this species (us) want a bigger penis for 100.000 years more then we want the bloody eyebrows bro!

Click to expand...

Evolution is not driven by 'desire.' This fundamental misunderstanding of the mechanics is leading to a lot of confusion. The fact that we all 'want' bigger dicks has no effect whatsoever on what sort of children we create, and the theory of evolution doesn't claim that. Actually, evolution is a fairly random process, and many things have to happen just right. That's why it's so friggin' slow!

A mistake is made in creating offspring. If the mistake (just a random mutation, and probably harmful or deadly) helps the new offspring breed more (not 'be happier,' or 'live a better, longer, more fulfilled life,' or 'be a better person') then that mutation will be passed on to the next generation and specimens with that mutation may eventually out-compete specimens without it. If the mutation does not help the offspring breed more, then it will probably disappear or remain rare, since it was just a one-off mistake in the first place and most of the species is producing offspring that do not possess the mutation.

For example, if a bunch of brown bears go to the Arctic, they'll have trouble hunting. The seals can see them against the snow a mile away! Life is rough. One day, two bears get it on and something goes wrong in the development of their little cub. Cub is born all white! Fortunately for Cub, she happened to get the rare mutation that's actually useful! Cub can get a LOT closer to her prey before the chase begins, and because of that she's able to hunt much more easily. Fortunately, the other bears don't seem to mind that this one is a different color, so the mutation is a net positive that allows her to successfully birth and raise a lot more cubs than the other bears, who are still brown and having real trouble catching those damnable seals. The generation she produces is also white, and like their mother they out-breed their competitors because they out-compete for resources (seals). Over time, polar bears are all white. (Notice how many things had to come together for that mutation to take. It had to happen randomly in the first place, AND it had to be beneficial in some way that could potentially aid in childbirth and child-rearing, AND the other bears had to accept it and not just kill the unfortunate mutant. There are probably other factors I'm leaving out!)

For another example, two humans get it on and a mistake happens in the development of their little child. When the egg and sperm meet, the fertilized egg begins reproducing cells with an extra chromosome 21! Oops! This mistake (a random mutation, and remember these are usually harmful or deadly) means that Child is born with down syndrome. Child may still be a wonderful person, and may live a happy and fulfilled life, but Child also has severe developmental delays, impaired intellect, and serious health problems that all make it very difficult for Child to compete with his peers for mates, and the resources to birth and raise children. Child's seed, carrying the extra 21st chromosome, doesn't get passed on to the next generation and down syndrome remains rare.

So 1) even assuming that humans have been pre-occupied with penis size for millions of years, (though like many problems this could well be one we've manufactured in our recent history of overwhelming material success and comfort), that has nothing to do with whether we get larger penises than we have. Like it or not, those eyebrows may have made it much easier to produce offspring than a bigger dick would have done. 2) We actually do have MUCH larger penises relative to our size than most other primates, so I wouldn't be so quick to assume that we haven't been growing larger over time, precisely because we are upright and display genitals and mates may be attracted to larger wangs.

The second thing to consider, completely different, is...

A Christian can also believe in the theory of evolution. These things are not mutually exclusive! For all you know I could be an atheist, a Christian, or a Hindu! It only requires that one believe in the existence of God, the divinity of Jesus Christ His son, and God's use of evolution as the mechanism for creating and diversifying life.

Now, that would require a non-literal reading of scripture. You'd have to believe that God didn't literally create the universe as it exists today in just 6 days. Whether fundamentalism is the only true path is another discussion entirely, and I fear I may be boring you with this post.

It's false to claim that the eyebrows where more beneficial for men then the penis for survival.

This species wanted the penis more then anything else in the body (from ape man to neanderthal, according to this fairytale)

The hand became smooth and soft nails and not so hairy anymore with sharp claws etcetera BECAUSE THE APE MEN didn't want and need those any more.

It's not that you had two ape man

1) ape man with smooth normal hands and 5 fingers

2) ape man with harsh claw hands with 3 fingers

Number 1 wasn't there to survive so that number 2 will vanish. They adapted.

Like I said before, first they moved like a worm on the belly and then transformed to climb because of the food and then transformed again to no claws because now they've learned to make tools. Then didn't have to use the claws anymore. Get it? That's the 'wish' part.

And of course in between species where vanished. But the (wish)transformation did happen with OUR line of species that didn't vanished but changed with the time.


Some vanished with the time but some changed with the time.

The change was the desire. Why would something that crawls like a worm want claws? And eventually got them. WHO told them that there is benefits in that?

If not their brain (that wished for that) then what was?

Again, you're confusing the mechanics of evolution. You're saying the theory is "if desire then evolve," and that's not how it works at all. In my example above, the polar bears didn't "desire" to be white. They're just stupid bears! And no human "desired" down syndrome, or cystic fibrosis, or Huntington's disease. These mutations happen because the process of copying DNA can go wrong, creating new traits. On rare occasions, those mistakes actually help the new generation to breed and raise young more successfully so that what started as a mistake gets passed on as a useful new trait that may someday become common to all/most of the species. Usually the mistakes mean your mother miscarries and you are never born at all. See the examples given in my first post.

Now, we are social creatures and we have to be successful in a social environment. Because of that, desire for a trait can make the trait beneficial for breeding. So if females like eyebrows, (perhaps because they want to more easily see how their larger, stronger, and more violent mates are feeling), then the fact that females like eyebrows could make it a great trait for breeding when the mutation occurs. Maybe a much more important trait than a slightly larger penis! But even there the desire is only one component.

In short, I agree that evolution as you currently understand it is false. I just think your science teachers were terribly confused. :D The mere fact that we desire a trait does not mean we evolve to have it. There is no direct connection. I think everything else we disagree on grows from that fundamental misunderstanding of how evolution works.

EDIT: re-arranged for clarity

Brawn Johnson said:

Again, you're confusing the mechanics of evolution. You're saying the theory is "if desire then evolve," and that's not how it works at all. In my example above, the polar bears didn't "desire" to be white. They're just stupid bears! And no human "desired" down syndrome, or cystic fibrosis, or Huntington's disease. These mutations happen because the process of copying DNA can go wrong, creating new traits. On rare occasions, those mistakes actually help the new generation to breed and raise young more successfully so that what started as a mistake gets passed on as a useful new trait that may someday become common to all/most of the species. Usually the mistakes mean your mother miscarries and you are never born at all. See the examples given in my first post.

Now, we are social creatures and we have to be successful in a social environment. Because of that, desire for a trait can make the trait beneficial for breeding. So if females like eyebrows, (perhaps because they want to more easily see how their larger, stronger, and more violent mates are feeling), then the fact that females like eyebrows could make it a great trait for breeding when the mutation occurs. Maybe a much more important trait than a slightly larger penis! But even there the desire is only one component.

In short, I agree that evolution as you currently understand it is false. I just think your science teachers were terribly confused. :D The mere fact that we desire a trait does not mean we evolve to have it. There is no direct connection. I think everything else we disagree on grows from that fundamental misunderstanding of how evolution works.

EDIT: re-arranged for clarity

Click to expand...

I thought I had given you a question at the end ☺

FullBloodArab said:

I thought I had given you a question at the end ☺

Click to expand...

Ya know, FullBlood... I'm beginning to think you aren't actually reading my posts.

FullBloodArab said:

If not their brain (that wished for that) then what was?

Click to expand...

This question is based on a false premise. The entire post leading up to it is an incorrect explanation of evolution. So I can't answer this question without pretending that everything leading up to it is correct, which I will not do. (Because it is not correct).

To help illustrate what I'm telling you, imagine I wrote a thread about how I'd debunked PE. Imagine I write that PE is obviously fake, because DLD spent 10 years hitting his dick with a hammer, and after all that it actually got 2 inches shorter. Imagine that, at the end of this post, I ask "so if PE is real, then why did DLD's dick get smaller?"

You couldn't possibly answer that question, because DLD's dick didn't get smaller, and he didn't spend 10 years hitting it with a hammer. That's not what PE is at all. You would have to correct my understanding of PE, and then I would realize that the question itself is nonsensical.

Similarly, I have tried to correct your understanding of evolution. When you understand how the theory actually works, you will understand that the question itself is nonsensical. I already agree with you 100% that the theory of evolution as you currently understand it is incorrect.

This is correct that christianity is not wholly in line with evolution. Most Christians believe in science and all the new discoveries they feel they have made. I personally need much more proof than the proof I have been given. And we all should have that concern. Remember Darwin said if there’s any gap in any of my work the work is worthless. There are gaps all over the place. With these discussions should be done with respect and humor as no one knows the truth of it all. So having differing opinions should not put people against one another but help one another I understand the parts they are confused about. When were able to talk things through civilly we see that we have much more in common then we don’t.

Brawn Johnson said:

Ya know, FullBlood... I'm beginning to think you aren't actually reading my posts.


This question is based on a false premise. The entire post leading up to it is an incorrect explanation of evolution. So I can't answer this question without pretending that everything leading up to it is correct, which I will not do. (Because it is not correct).

To help illustrate what I'm telling you, imagine I wrote a thread about how I'd debunked PE. Imagine I write that PE is obviously fake, because DLD spent 10 years hitting his dick with a hammer, and after all that it actually got 2 inches shorter. Imagine that, at the end of this post, I ask "so if PE is real, then why did DLD's dick get smaller?"

You couldn't possibly answer that question, because DLD's dick didn't get smaller, and he didn't spend 10 years hitting it with a hammer. That's not what PE is at all. You would have to correct my understanding of PE, and then I would realize that the question itself is nonsensical.

Similarly, I have tried to correct your understanding of evolution. When you understand how the theory actually works, you will understand that the question itself is nonsensical. I already agree with you 100% that the theory of evolution as you currently understand it is incorrect.

Click to expand...

I see where your problem is. And that is that you have an limited understanding of evolution, because you only think in terms of 300milion gapes. (Mutate in another species)

I told you above how an 10/20.000 evolution would be according to this fairytale. (A change in the species it self, without crucial changed needed for survival)

And that is that there is evolving in something you don't need anymore and something you need. Without extinction involved because it's not a CRUCIAL change. In this image you see explanations of highest ranked researchers. About why we lost our bodyhair. Not because of crucial benefits so that the others will extinct if they didn't have this changes.

("Not as effective" is used in the text, an indication that it's a slightly small advantage) not depending if the offspring will survive or not, because the fitness is not crucial in this change.

A bigger penis is what 10..000 a male is wishing for. Not a change for survival. Because a 4inch erection is sufficient for offspring


The other option in the text tells us that the 'appearances' would make a species to change. Not because there was once 2 of them to choose from. But the male attractiveness toward a female. So only appearance, no crucial thing for survival. Because of the volcanic eruptions trough the globe or heat increase or could weather changes etc.

So they slowly lost something nevertheless because the female would like that (loosing your hair) so they choose this appearance over the other.

The penis is a important appearance for the female, and it's the penis appearance we talking about. this should have gained slowly according the fairytale you believe in.

how the autonomy of the penis occurred, is not what we discus. But the appearance should have made it change to.

So I tell you again and again and again. There is no (adaption) change to SURVIVE as an requirement. And no change because of misbehaviour (an error) of the dna so that a mutation happen who will survive further as an requirement.

There are changes happening (in this fairytale) without having anything to do with this two.

Read the tittel of the thread again

This is getting interesting (w8)

FullBloodArab said:

I see where your problem is. And that is that you have an limited understanding of evolution, because you only think in terms of 300milion gapes. (Mutate in another species)

I told you above how an 10/20.000 evolution would be according to this fairytale. (A change in the species it self, without crucial changed needed for survival)

Click to expand...

I'm not trying to be a jerk here, FullBlood, but I honestly have no idea what this means. I get that you think I don't understand the theory of evolution... but I'm not sure what you're getting at beyond that.

For instance, even if I correct "gapes" --> "apes" (is that what you meant?) I still don't know what that sentence means. I'm thinking in terms of 300 million apes? Mutate in another species???

Actually, I don't understand A LOT of this post. I'm going to go through it and try to restate what I think you're saying, and then respond to that. Again, I'm not trying to be a dick. I don't want to waste your time and mine replying to something you didn't say.

FullBloodArab said:

And that is that there is evolving in something you don't need anymore and something you need. Without extinction involved because it's not a CRUCIAL change. In this image you see explanations of highest ranked researchers. About why we lost our bodyhair. Not because of crucial benefits so that the others will extinct if they didn't have this changes.

("Not as effective" is used in the text, an indication that it's a slightly small advantage) not depending if the offspring will survive or not, because the fitness is not crucial in this change.

A bigger penis is what 10..000 a male is wishing for. Not a change for survival. Because a 4inch erection is sufficient for offspring

Click to expand...

What I think you're saying:
According to the theory of evolution, you can have crucial changes needed for survival, or changes that aren't needed for survival. For example, in the text you've attached, "highest ranked researchers" made guesses about why we may have less body hair than other land mammals. None of those hypotheses involved changes that were immediately necessary for survival. In fact, the first guess was that humans liked smoother skin, so we evolved because humans liked it.

My response:

1) I'm not sure what you're getting at with the 'necessary for survival' vs 'not necessary for survival.' I never claimed that evolution only produces changes necessary for survival. It's not even close to a point I've made. In fact, the example I provided in post #10 of this thread involved a change that was not necessary for survival. The brown polar bears were surviving, they just weren't able to compete with white polar bears at bearing and raising cubs. If the brown polar bears weren't already surviving, they would not have been able to give birth to the white polar bear and raise it to adulthood in the first place.

2) The text you attached to your last post actually illustrates probably the single most important point I've been trying to communicate to you. I'll quote the first sentence:

"Once hairlessness had evolved this way, it may have become subject to sexual selection -- being a feature in one sex that appealed to another."

I put the first clause in italics for a reason. According to the very hypothesis you posted, FIRST a mutation caused hair reduction. THEN humans selected for that new trait. This is exactly what I'm talking about in post #12 of this thread, and this is what you fail to understand about how evolution works. The mutation didn't occur because we wanted it. It occurred first, a random event, and then it spread because we liked it and selected mates who had the trait. That's crucial. In fact, it sounds like something I've written before...

Brawn Johnson said:

Now, we are social creatures and we have to be successful in a social environment. Because of that, desire for a trait can make the trait beneficial for breeding. So if females like eyebrows, (perhaps because they want to more easily see how their larger, stronger, and more violent mates are feeling), then the fact that females like eyebrows could make it a great trait for breeding when the mutation occurs. Maybe a much more important trait than a slightly larger penis! But even there the desire is only one component.

Click to expand...

I made certain parts bold for emphasis.

FullBloodArab said:

The other option in the text tells us that the 'appearances' would make a species to change. Not because there was once 2 of them to choose from. But the male attractiveness toward a female. So only appearance, no crucial thing for survival. Because of the volcanic eruptions trough the globe or heat increase or could weather changes etc.

So they slowly lost something nevertheless because the female would like that (loosing your hair) so they choose this appearance over the other.

The penis is a important appearance for the female, and it's the penis appearance we talking about. this should have gained slowly according the fairytale you believe in.

how the autonomy of the penis occurred, is not what we discus. But the appearance should have made it change to.

Click to expand...

What I think you're saying: One of the hypotheses put forward by whoever wrote the text you attached is that humans visually preferred less body hair, and so even though less body hair wasn't even useful the trait spread. The penis is an important visual feature for the female, and females prefer larger penises, so therefore if the theory of evolution is correct then we should be getting larger penises.

My response:

1) We return, once more, to what I'm telling you in point #2, above. ONE thing that needs to happen in order for a species to evolve is that the new trait needs to be somehow useful for producing and raising offspring. A new trait could be useful for that just because humans think it's sexy and want to mate with you. I explained that in the 12th post of this thread. That doesn't mean "we want something and therefore we evolve to have it." The mutation happens first, and then it spreads because we select mates with that trait. Over time, the species evolves to have the trait.

Read point #2 again, above. The one that starts with "The text you attached to your last post actually illustrates..."

2) Even if we assume that you are correct, and our desire to have something is itself what drives the entire process in the theory of evolution, you're making some unsupported assumptions about what "we" want and whether we are getting bigger dicks.

What does it mean when a species "evolves"? Does it mean every single member of the species now has the new trait, and to the same extent as every other member of the species?

What does it mean when humans "prefer" a trait and select for it in mates? Does that mean EVERY human has the EXACT SAME preferences? What makes you think you speak for all humans when you say things like "a male in his million years of evolution, desperately wanna change the penis more then ANYTHING else on their body" and "[t]he penis is a important appearance for the female," (the implication being that females prefer penises larger than what we have now on average).

Today, some humans have lots of body hair and others have very little. Is only one or the other sort of person really "human"? Some humans are born with enormous penises, and others are born with (relatively) small penises. (I'll come back to this 'relatively small' business in point #4 of this response). Is someone only "human" if they have a big dick? Is someone only "human" if they have a (relatively) small dick?

Some humans like lots of body hair, and others do not. Some women like enormous penises, and others do not. YOU think bigger penises look better. (And I agree). DLD thinks hairy looks better (I disagree and girls I've been with disagree, but I'm sure there are plenty of women out there who agree with DLD). Different people have different visual preferences! The entire race does not have one, unified opinion!

DLD said:

My Son just knew because it was my job and He was around me all the time in my PE heyday. As much as He knows, which is what I know, He still prefers what God has given Him?

Click to expand...

An example of a male who knows exactly how to make himself bigger, and has a father devoted to the discipline, and still chose to just keep what he's got now. Not even all males want bigger dicks, (certainly not like they want eyebrows), and females are less visually oriented than we are to begin with.

3) Human sexual desire for a trait, even once the mutation has occurred randomly, is SITLL only ONE factor in determining whether the trait spreads.

For one example, humans are pretty obsessed with digitigrade legs, as opposed to the plantigrade legs we have. I say this based on high heeled shoes. Women pretty universally wear high heels to increase attractiveness, forcing them into a digitigrade posture. So why did we lose digitigrade legs in the first place? Why haven't we gotten them back? One reason is that even if we find the form of a digitigrade leg/foot more aesthetically graceful, it also has some serious mechanical drawbacks when you're walking around on just two legs. It's a lot harder to balance, and takes more energy to stay upright. Just try walking around as high up on your toes as you can get all day, and you'll see what I mean.

Even if you disagree with the example above, and you think the high heel thing is nonsense, the principle I'm illustrating holds. A 10" flaccid hang might look awesome (as many of us in this forum believe), but maybe it's not the best thing to have when you're running naked through the forest.

I'm sure you can think of your own examples of things we think look nice, but aren't actually practical. "Form vs function."

4) We HAVE been evolving bigger dicks!! What you're claiming not to be the case... actually probably is the case. Even our "average" penis is larger relative to our size than that of any other primate.

Check it out here.

And here.

For transparency, I will point out that there is some disagreement regarding the length of chimpanzee penises, (some studies have concluded that chimp penises are longer but narrower than human penises). Even the dissenting studies, however, hypothesize that this helps chimps navigate a longer and narrower canal in their female counterparts. It's not because female chimps (who are NOT selective maters) visually prefer pencil dicks.