Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

bugsbunny04 · Feb 15, 2004, 03:33 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Pooeypants,)

pssss, we didn't evolve from gorillas.

<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Well, I don't believe we evolved from anything, but that is not the point.

What is it that we did supposedly evolve from? Monkeys, Apes? I'm fairly certain the only primates that don't have a larger averge length of long wang (wouldnt that be and interesting name for a Chinese person, I've met folks named Long, and folks named Wang, I even new a Vietnamese gentleman named Tai Tach, but never a Long Wang) are chimps and they are about the same or only a little smaller. Plus, all primates (yeah, all of em) tend to have a much high length of equipment:hight ratio than humans so ok, Hairlessness and reletively to height smaller genitals

**Pooeypants** · Feb 15, 2004, 05:27 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (bugsbunny04,)

Well, I don't believe we evolved from anything, but that is not the point.

What is it that we did supposedly evolve from? Monkeys, Apes? I'm fairly certain the only primates that don't have a larger averge length of long wang (wouldnt that be and interesting name for a Chinese person, I've met folks named Long, and folks named Wang, I even new a Vietnamese gentleman named Tai Tach, but never a Long Wang) are chimps and they are about the same or only a little smaller. Plus, all primates (yeah, all of em) tend to have a much high length of equipment:hight ratio than humans so ok, Hairlessness and reletively to height smaller genitals<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Your beliefs are irrelevant, the data speaks for itself. And seeing as you don't know which species we evolved from, it would seem that you've dismissed evolution without looking at the evidence. You can choose to ignore the science, but the facts will not change.

bugsbunny04 · Feb 15, 2004, 06:20 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Pooeypants,)

Your beliefs are irrelevant, the data speaks for itself. And seeing as you don't know which species we evolved from, it would seem that you've dismissed evolution without looking at the evidence. You can choose to ignore the science, but the facts will not change.

<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

First of all, I believe I stated rather explicitly that my beliefs are not at issue so, what is your point?

Second, do you have any idea how long it has been since I was a Freshman in high school? Since then I have dedicated the space between my ears to mechanics, balistics, physics, chemistry, history and art. Pardon me if my memory of Biology 9 is not perfect, and I don't remember which primates are supposed to be closest to us whether we evolved from them or not . This is not even a debate about evolution, that debate is on the other thread. This is a debate about whether humans or primates have (relative to their height) bigger peckers. And unless your indian name means "very well endowed", I don't really see how the facts give a leg to stand on, much less a 3rd one.

Atomica · Feb 23, 2004, 04:03 pm

Or maybe the reason our breasts buttocks and genitals are larger might mean that was how God created us!

bugsbunny04 · Feb 23, 2004, 04:27 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Atomica,)
Or maybe the reason our breasts buttocks and genitals are larger might mean that was how God created us!<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I'm not sure I know WTF you are going with that statement but somehow I think I would probably agree if you expanded upon it.

Rohien · Dec 13, 2004, 02:58 pm

I will add what I've heard about human genetalia being visible at all times. I have heard that this is to encourage monogomous relationships between males and females. With females breasts being visible at all times, it would keep their partners interested and help keep them from straying. This would be benificial as we all know, in order for the male to protect the ever-growing family and help with the responsibilities of finding food, shelter, ect. And also, humans are capable of becoming pregnant throughout the year, whereas other animals have only a specific season, which I imagine would correlate to the young being born in an advantageous warmer season, which humans I suppose don't need, since they have blankets, fire, and other means of keeping their young warm.

Scribbler1 · Dec 13, 2004, 06:42 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Rohien

I will add what I've heard about human genetalia being visible at all times. I have heard that this is to encourage monogomous relationships between males and females. With females breasts being visible at all times, it would keep their partners interested and help keep them from straying. This would be benificial as we all know, in order for the male to protect the ever-growing family and help with the responsibilities of finding food, shelter, ect. And also, humans are capable of becoming pregnant throughout the year, whereas other animals have only a specific season, which I imagine would correlate to the young being born in an advantageous warmer season, which humans I suppose don't need, since they have blankets, fire, and other means of keeping their young warm.

Where did you hear THAT? That is a strange theory to say the least. For example, if a female's breasts were visible to keep her mate from straying, you're assuming everyone ELSES breasts, which are on the outside as well, would simply go unnoticed?
As far as as time of year goes, animals in general go through a preprogrammed, instinctive period which would seem to be why they give birth at certain times. We usually reproduce cause it feels good ALL year round.

BTW, welcome to Volconvo, Rohien.

Rohien · Dec 14, 2004, 02:18 am

Why hello, and thanks for the welcome. I didn't say it was a FLAWLESS theory, but one that intrigued me nonetheless. And to a certain degree it makes sense. Also, I'm not saying that it did keep mates entirely monogomous.. because let's face it, there have been many examples of non-monogomy amidst people.. I just thought I'd throw it in with the rest of the comments. It may have some small part in keeping mates though, because if we developed clothes simultaneously, then that would keep the breasts hidden for the majority of the time. Alright, I'm stretching it a bit now...

Scribbler1 · Dec 14, 2004, 09:39 am

Yes, clothing WAS the great equalizer. First adopted for protection from the elements and then used for everything else from class, nationality and warrior distinction (the Kilt comes to mind for that last one) to the puritainical use for covering the naughty bits.
But the reason these organs (excluding the breasts) are "out there" can be summed up in one word, accessiblility. If they are tucked away inside the body they can't very well be used for procreation, can they?

**Pooeypants** · Dec 14, 2004, 10:14 am

Quote:

Quote by: Scribbler1

Yes, clothing WAS the great equalizer. First adopted for protection from the elements and then used for everything else from class, nationality and warrior distinction (the Kilt comes to mind for that last one) to the puritainical use for covering the naughty bits.
But the reason these organs (excluding the breasts) are "out there" can be summed up in one word, accessiblility. If they are tucked away inside the body they can't very well be used for procreation, can they?

Also, for good sperm production, you need lower temperatures for the testicles, that's why they hang out in a sac of their own.

Rave7pt0 · Dec 14, 2004, 11:24 am

There's a theory that we evolved from a semi aquatic type of ape. We lived on an island or something, separated from our homies in Africa, and we swam and ate fish. Hairless so we could swim, and longer penises so we could reach in the water -- it's a documented phenomenon, I think there might be something to the theory.

Rohien · Dec 16, 2004, 11:24 pm

Hm, true Scribbler 1-
That by having those organs tucked inside the body they wouldn't be directly in view, but there are plenty of other well endowed animals that keep them hidden from view for a lot of the time (I'm thinking a horse here), but yet that doesn't seem to prove a problem in their procreating. Why is it different for humans?

Scribbler1 · Dec 16, 2004, 11:41 pm

The biggest difference is that humans have sex because they LIKE to, and we plave a lot of value on looks. Most anmals, on the other hand have sex because they HAVE to. Being in heat, "rutting" season, Pheromones etc. When the time comes, they just gotta do it. Doesn't matter where anything is, as long as THEY know where.

And please, PLEASE explain how a horse keeps his genitalia hidden?? :) :)

Rohien · Dec 17, 2004, 12:16 am

Haha, are you really that interested? Do you know anything about horses? I will tell you- being the horse-nerd that I am, that they are very large in comparison to most animals I've seen and that it is quite... retractable. I don't know the mechanics behind it precisely. You'd find that out if ever you had to groom a horse... a little tmi I'm sure, but hey- you asked.

Scribbler1 · Dec 18, 2004, 01:14 am

I know I can't ride a horse without busting my butt, and that's about ALL I know about them. However, the horses I have seen close up do not appear to be hiding anything.
I don't think I'll be changing careers to horse groomer anyway. :)

Scribbler1 · Dec 18, 2004, 01:15 am

Quote:

Quote by: Rave7pt0

There's a theory that we evolved from a semi aquatic type of ape. We lived on an island or something, separated from our homies in Africa, and we swam and ate fish. Hairless so we could swim, and longer penises so we could reach in the water -- it's a documented phenomenon, I think there might be something to the theory.

Reach in the water and do WHAT?

Never mind, this is getting too strange.

SlySpy · Dec 18, 2004, 02:20 am

Quote:

Quote by: Rave7pt0

There's a theory that we evolved from a semi aquatic type of ape. We lived on an island or something, separated from our homies in Africa, and we swam and ate fish. Hairless so we could swim, and longer penises so we could reach in the water -- it's a documented phenomenon, I think there might be something to the theory.

:eek:

Zarathustra · Dec 28, 2004, 08:21 pm

How can such a question be raised and debated for 6 pages with no mention of the work of Desmond Morris? Read Naked Ape, Orgaelin. It deals specifically with your questions, in addition to violence between men and how our bodies are optimized for that. It is a good read for people of a naturalistic disposition.

orgaelin · Dec 29, 2004, 05:42 am

More to the point, how can a thread that started in JANUARY still be going a few days before the NEXT January?!?!

faith · Dec 29, 2004, 05:56 am

lol orgaelin, looks like you started something everyone wants to talk about!!

Feb 15, 2004, 03:33 pm	#41 (permalink) (top)
bugsbunny04 Untrained Fodder Location: Alabama Posts: 1,354	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Pooeypants,) pssss, we didn't evolve from gorillas. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Well, I don't believe we evolved from anything, but that is not the point. What is it that we did supposedly evolve from? Monkeys, Apes? I'm fairly certain the only primates that don't have a larger averge length of long wang (wouldnt that be and interesting name for a Chinese person, I've met folks named Long, and folks named Wang, I even new a Vietnamese gentleman named Tai Tach, but never a Long Wang) are chimps and they are about the same or only a little smaller. Plus, all primates (yeah, all of em) tend to have a much high length of equipment:hight ratio than humans so ok, Hairlessness and reletively to height smaller genitals Clean toe caps and a filthy mouth! Low morals and high morale!

Feb 15, 2004, 05:27 pm	#42 (permalink) (top)
Pooeypants Neo Moderator Location: England Posts: 5,549	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (bugsbunny04,) Well, I don't believe we evolved from anything, but that is not the point. What is it that we did supposedly evolve from? Monkeys, Apes? I'm fairly certain the only primates that don't have a larger averge length of long wang (wouldnt that be and interesting name for a Chinese person, I've met folks named Long, and folks named Wang, I even new a Vietnamese gentleman named Tai Tach, but never a Long Wang) are chimps and they are about the same or only a little smaller. Plus, all primates (yeah, all of em) tend to have a much high length of equipment:hight ratio than humans so ok, Hairlessness and reletively to height smaller genitals<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Your beliefs are irrelevant, the data speaks for itself. And seeing as you don't know which species we evolved from, it would seem that you've dismissed evolution without looking at the evidence. You can choose to ignore the science, but the facts will not change. War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is strength Harness the power of Ingsoc, then you can capture someone killed the year before

Feb 15, 2004, 06:20 pm	#43 (permalink) (top)
bugsbunny04 Untrained Fodder Location: Alabama Posts: 1,354	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Pooeypants,) Your beliefs are irrelevant, the data speaks for itself. And seeing as you don't know which species we evolved from, it would seem that you've dismissed evolution without looking at the evidence. You can choose to ignore the science, but the facts will not change. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> First of all, I believe I stated rather explicitly that my beliefs are not at issue so, what is your point? Second, do you have any idea how long it has been since I was a Freshman in high school? Since then I have dedicated the space between my ears to mechanics, balistics, physics, chemistry, history and art. Pardon me if my memory of Biology 9 is not perfect, and I don't remember which primates are supposed to be closest to us whether we evolved from them or not . This is not even a debate about evolution, that debate is on the other thread. This is a debate about whether humans or primates have (relative to their height) bigger peckers. And unless your indian name means "very well endowed", I don't really see how the facts give a leg to stand on, much less a 3rd one. Clean toe caps and a filthy mouth! Low morals and high morale!

Feb 23, 2004, 04:03 pm	#44 (permalink) (top)
Atomica Molten Ash Location: Joplin MO USA Posts: 36	Or maybe the reason our breasts buttocks and genitals are larger might mean that was how God created us! ATOMICA Xtremist In Charge, POLITICAL SMACKDOWN! On Runboard And Network54

Feb 23, 2004, 04:27 pm	#45 (permalink) (top)
bugsbunny04 Untrained Fodder Location: Alabama Posts: 1,354	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Atomica,) Or maybe the reason our breasts buttocks and genitals are larger might mean that was how God created us!<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I'm not sure I know WTF you are going with that statement but somehow I think I would probably agree if you expanded upon it. Clean toe caps and a filthy mouth! Low morals and high morale!

Dec 13, 2004, 02:58 pm	#46 (permalink) (top)
Rohien A tad cynical... Location: Somewhere where it's constantly raining. Posts: 23	I will add what I've heard about human genetalia being visible at all times. I have heard that this is to encourage monogomous relationships between males and females. With females breasts being visible at all times, it would keep their partners interested and help keep them from straying. This would be benificial as we all know, in order for the male to protect the ever-growing family and help with the responsibilities of finding food, shelter, ect. And also, humans are capable of becoming pregnant throughout the year, whereas other animals have only a specific season, which I imagine would correlate to the young being born in an advantageous warmer season, which humans I suppose don't need, since they have blankets, fire, and other means of keeping their young warm.

Dec 14, 2004, 02:18 am	#48 (permalink) (top)
Rohien A tad cynical... Location: Somewhere where it's constantly raining. Posts: 23	Why hello, and thanks for the welcome. I didn't say it was a FLAWLESS theory, but one that intrigued me nonetheless. And to a certain degree it makes sense. Also, I'm not saying that it did keep mates entirely monogomous.. because let's face it, there have been many examples of non-monogomy amidst people.. I just thought I'd throw it in with the rest of the comments. It may have some small part in keeping mates though, because if we developed clothes simultaneously, then that would keep the breasts hidden for the majority of the time. Alright, I'm stretching it a bit now...

Dec 14, 2004, 09:39 am	#49 (permalink) (top)
Scribbler1 Skeptical Patriot Posts: 7,746	Yes, clothing WAS the great equalizer. First adopted for protection from the elements and then used for everything else from class, nationality and warrior distinction (the Kilt comes to mind for that last one) to the puritainical use for covering the naughty bits. But the reason these organs (excluding the breasts) are "out there" can be summed up in one word, accessiblility. If they are tucked away inside the body they can't very well be used for procreation, can they?

Dec 14, 2004, 11:24 am	#51 (permalink) (top)
Rave7pt0 Igneous Magma Location: Jacksonville, Florida Posts: 373	There's a theory that we evolved from a semi aquatic type of ape. We lived on an island or something, separated from our homies in Africa, and we swam and ate fish. Hairless so we could swim, and longer penises so we could reach in the water -- it's a documented phenomenon, I think there might be something to the theory. Rave7pt0.net BlizzLink.com -- Blizzard Entertainment Tournaments and Clans

Dec 16, 2004, 11:24 pm	#52 (permalink) (top)
Rohien A tad cynical... Location: Somewhere where it's constantly raining. Posts: 23	Hm, true Scribbler 1- That by having those organs tucked inside the body they wouldn't be directly in view, but there are plenty of other well endowed animals that keep them hidden from view for a lot of the time (I'm thinking a horse here), but yet that doesn't seem to prove a problem in their procreating. Why is it different for humans?

Dec 16, 2004, 11:41 pm	#53 (permalink) (top)
Scribbler1 Skeptical Patriot Posts: 7,746	The biggest difference is that humans have sex because they LIKE to, and we plave a lot of value on looks. Most anmals, on the other hand have sex because they HAVE to. Being in heat, "rutting" season, Pheromones etc. When the time comes, they just gotta do it. Doesn't matter where anything is, as long as THEY know where. And please, PLEASE explain how a horse keeps his genitalia hidden?? :) :)

Dec 17, 2004, 12:16 am	#54 (permalink) (top)
Rohien A tad cynical... Location: Somewhere where it's constantly raining. Posts: 23	Haha, are you really that interested? Do you know anything about horses? I will tell you- being the horse-nerd that I am, that they are very large in comparison to most animals I've seen and that it is quite... retractable. I don't know the mechanics behind it precisely. You'd find that out if ever you had to groom a horse... a little tmi I'm sure, but hey- you asked.

Dec 18, 2004, 01:14 am	#55 (permalink) (top)
Scribbler1 Skeptical Patriot Posts: 7,746	I know I can't ride a horse without busting my butt, and that's about ALL I know about them. However, the horses I have seen close up do not appear to be hiding anything. I don't think I'll be changing careers to horse groomer anyway. :)

Dec 28, 2004, 08:21 pm	#58 (permalink) (top)
Zarathustra Man of Tradition Location: near Philadelphia Posts: 97	How can such a question be raised and debated for 6 pages with no mention of the work of Desmond Morris? Read Naked Ape, Orgaelin. It deals specifically with your questions, in addition to violence between men and how our bodies are optimized for that. It is a good read for people of a naturalistic disposition. "Is not everything in flux now? Have not all bridges and railings fallen into the water? Who can still cling to "good" or "evil?" Woe to us! Hail to us! A thawing wind blows! Preach thus in every street, my brothers."-Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra

Dec 29, 2004, 05:42 am	#59 (permalink) (top)
orgaelin Igneous Magma Location: Midlands UK Posts: 704	More to the point, how can a thread that started in JANUARY still be going a few days before the NEXT January?!?! "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." - Albert Einstein

Dec 29, 2004, 05:56 am	#60 (permalink) (top)
faith Molten Ash Location: uk Posts: 128	lol orgaelin, looks like you started something everyone wants to talk about!! Live and love for today! There may be no tomorrow!