evolution of the wang

[im a model]

has anyone ever thought of why you have almost no control over your wang? in the evolutionary process, everything comes down to whether or not you have sex to pass on your genes. im 22 and i countinually take generic cialis every couple days (and have for a few years) so that i can rail slots with adequate function. and there are many many other people my age that struggle to get it up (as ive heard from slots ive railed, and when i asked people in my frat if they wanted to buy viagra, like 15% of the chapter found me in private and said they would like some). and this still doesnt address the issue of stamina, which i would assume affects even more people.

so if we have evolved eyes and ears that work so well, and 99% of the population has eyebrows to keep water from dripping into our eyes and many other evolutionary advantages that seem so trivial, how is it that such a hugely important thing in the evolutionary game like sex has evolved to function so poorly?

you can voluntarily hold your breath or close your eyes, so why cant you voluntarily get an erection? why has it not evolved to be as easy as raising your arm? most animals have a penis bone to avoid the problem. (its not often that you watch a nature show where the female wildebeast is like, "whats wrong?" and the male is like, "i dont know... this has never happened before....")

any thoughts on this seemingly tremendous evolutionary blunder?

(and please, if you dont believe in evolution, keep to yourself.)

[swingdoc]

Large part of the sexual dysfunction currently is due to rampant obesity. Also natural selection really hasn't worked well for the last couple centuries at least. If anything, we currently have a bizarre form of un-evolution going. We do our best to keep everyone alive and reproducing.

I can't comment for sure about the lack of actual bone, but I suspect being bipedal and having a bone there would be rather disadvantageous. If it were to break in a fight, you're SOL. Being bipedal certainly increases the vulnerability of your groin.

[knowledgeORbust]

I know evolution doesn't "work" towards any "goal," but there's less and less pressure each day, it seems, for rampant human reproduction. If anything, we've got a population surplus which we're having trouble sustaining. Maybe nature doesn't want us humpin like crazy?

But you still need to see good and stuff.

[slickpoppa]

99% guys don't have a problem getting it up at ages 16-20, which was the most relevant age period during the majority of human evolution.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
and there are many many other people my age that struggle to get it up

[/ QUOTE ]

What percentage would you guess?

[ QUOTE ]
has evolved to function so poorly?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you really think that reproduction is and was suffering due to boner problems?

[ QUOTE ]
you can voluntarily hold your breath or close your eyes, so why cant you voluntarily get an erection? why has it not evolved to be as easy as raising your arm?

[/ QUOTE ]

How often do you need an erection? As often as you raise your arm?

[ QUOTE ]
any thoughts on this seemingly tremendous evolutionary blunder?

[/ QUOTE ]

My thought is that it's not a blunder.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
I know evolution doesn't "work" towards any "goal," but there's less and less pressure each day, it seems, for rampant human reproduction. If anything, we've got a population surplus which we're having trouble sustaining. Maybe nature doesn't want us humpin like crazy?

But you still need to see good and stuff.

[/ QUOTE ]

This happens in many populations of many different species all throughout history. It is certainly no support for the idea that 'evolution doesn't work for humans' or that there isn't any selective pressure.

[thylacine]

See endnotes to Chapter 9, in The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins.

[StumpyJoe]

Are you seriously having a problem getting erections in your early twenties? It's been a while but I'm pretty sure I could have sex several times a day, every day, at that age.

Are you required to perform all day long (porn star)? I'm having a hard time understanding this.

[iversonian]

I don't it's that your fraternity brothers would have trouble impregnating a woman. It's that they'd enjoy sex more if they were able to score some Viagra.

[russellmj]

[ QUOTE ]
... and when i asked people in my frat if they wanted to buy viagra, like 15% of the chapter found me in private and said they would like some).


[/ QUOTE ]

So what? I asked an old guy at work for one of his vig's once and I have no problems. It was just a curiosity thing. Probably like most of your friends.

[React1oN]

How do you eiffel tower chicks w/o getting it up?

[tarheeljks]

it's not an evolutionary problem as long as you can ejaculate

[borisp]

[ QUOTE ]
has anyone ever thought of why you have almost no control over your wang? in the evolutionary process, everything comes down to whether or not you have sex to pass on your genes. im 22 and i countinually take generic cialis every couple days (and have for a few years) so that i can rail slots with adequate function. and there are many many other people my age that struggle to get it up (as ive heard from slots ive railed, and when i asked people in my frat if they wanted to buy viagra, like 15% of the chapter found me in private and said they would like some). and this still doesnt address the issue of stamina, which i would assume affects even more people.

so if we have evolved eyes and ears that work so well, and 99% of the population has eyebrows to keep water from dripping into our eyes and many other evolutionary advantages that seem so trivial, how is it that such a hugely important thing in the evolutionary game like sex has evolved to function so poorly?

you can voluntarily hold your breath or close your eyes, so why cant you voluntarily get an erection? why has it not evolved to be as easy as raising your arm? most animals have a penis bone to avoid the problem. (its not often that you watch a nature show where the female wildebeast is like, "whats wrong?" and the male is like, "i dont know... this has never happened before....")

any thoughts on this seemingly tremendous evolutionary blunder?

(and please, if you dont believe in evolution, keep to yourself.)

[/ QUOTE ]
Ummmm...maybe Darwin isn't so opposed to your and your fraternity brethren's genes staying put for now. (Non sarcastic/arrogant answer: Perhaps your problems in the sack are connected to your insecure referral to the process as "railing slots.")

[im a model]

listen yo, like three people use this account. it appears as though the op is soiling me and valtteris good name. or names. no, i guess its name. as to answer kind of my own question before changing my pass word so michael cant log on anymore and make stupid posts like this in forums other than bbv4life, i dont know. good question.

[CORed]

That's odd. Until I was past thirty, my biggest problem was not getting an erection when it wasn't socially appropriate. Even at 51, I can generally function without pharmaceutical aid, although it does take a little foreplay and usually some direct stimulation to get me "ready" and I'm pretty much "one and done" now.

What are they putting in the water these days, and why hasn't it affected me (unless what I attribute to age is actually what they're putting in the water).

[catalyst]

Maybe a good portion of these people who can't get it up have small dicks and are afraid of the societal stigma/embarrassment that didn't exist thousands of years ago.

[fanmail]

[ QUOTE ]
Large part of the sexual dysfunction currently is due to rampant obesity. Also natural selection really hasn't worked well for the last couple centuries at least. If anything, we currently have a bizarre form of un-evolution going. We do our best to keep everyone alive and reproducing.


[/ QUOTE ]

qft

[SNOWBALL]

[ QUOTE ]

Large part of the sexual dysfunction currently is due to rampant obesity. Also natural selection really hasn't worked well for the last couple centuries at least. If anything, we currently have a bizarre form of un-evolution going. We do our best to keep everyone alive and reproducing.


[/ QUOTE ]

1. a couple centuries is nothing in evolutionary time
2. there's really no such thing as natural selection "not working"

The idea of natural selection developing towards some goal is teleological garbage and I'm surprised that we can't get rid of this idea. How long has that nasty stupid man Herbert Spencer been dead for anyway?