See title

  • Fondots@lemmy.world
    38·
    1 year ago

    I’m reminded of a joke I heard a long time ago (copy/pasted from elsewhere online)

    The American Government funded a study to see why the head of a man’s Penis was larger than the shaft. After 1 year, and $180,000, they concluded that the reason that the head was larger than the shaft was to give the man more pleasure during sex.

    After the US published the study, the French decided to do their own study. After $250,000 and 3 years of research, they concluded that the reason the head was larger than the shaft was to give the woman more pleasure during sex.

    The Irish, unsatisfied with those findings, conducted their own study. After 2 weeks, a cost of around $75.34, and many pints of beer, they concluded that it was to keep a man’s hand from flying off and hitting himself in the face.

  • jeffw@lemmy.world
    348·
    1 year ago

    It makes me feel uncomfortable that someone would actually believe something so fuckin stupid

      • adroit balloon@lemmy.ml
        1614·
        1 year ago

        so you just found some crazy study online by some academic kooks and, rather than apply an ounce of critical thought, you just believed it.

        smh

            • Mothra@mander.xyz
              61·
              1 year ago

              I can’t open the link, it’s not loading for me for reasons unknown. So I’ll take the title at face value, and say that as a theory or hypothesis it sounds plausible. Penile adaptations to outcompete other males isn’t unheard of, the most well known example is canine knots.

            • jeffw@lemmy.world
              108·
              1 year ago

              Again, that’s not what my point is. I’m just disputing the characterization you made

              Edit: every reply from the above commenter gets 5 upvotes in 2 minutes, while all my comments get 5 downvotes in 2 minutes… nice job being subtle

              • adroit balloon@lemmy.ml
                69·
                1 year ago

                I’m just disputing the characterization you made

                how does opining on one of the author’s reputability have to do with the integrity of the study or its findings? that’s like saying Teslas are good cars because you happen to like Elon Musk.

                • jeffw@lemmy.world
                  109·
                  1 year ago

                  The comment called the authors “kooks.” I am disputing that characterization. As you say, this has nothing to do with the study.

                  Edit: 5 downvotes in 2 minutes… wow, is this breaking any rules that the person has so many accounts and manipulates votes?

      • BrooklynMan@lemmy.ml
        275·
        1 year ago

        lmao, this is a theory, and this study hasn’t only not been peer-reviewed, it doesn’t seem to have gained much of any traction in the academic community in the last 20 years.

        if I paid 600 college students to fuck each other, yeah, I’m going to find that one penis is going to squish out the cum from the last penis, but that doesn’t prove that it evolved specifically for that purpose. isn’t simple displacement, and a task that could be as easily performed by a dildo or fist or anything else that you shoved into the jizz-filled cavity.

        don’t believe everything you find on google.

        • TauZero@mander.xyz
          71·
          1 year ago

          Your comment hasn’t been peer reviewed, so I’m gonna take your advice and not believe you.

        • lol3droflxp@kbin.social
          42·
          1 year ago

          A theory is the most solid thing science can produce. What you’re wanting to say is hypothesis. Also, OP should provide the relevant section of the original review by Baker and Bellis 1995

          • BrooklynMan@lemmy.ml
            22·
            1 year ago

            What you’re wanting…

            it always amuses me when random strangers on the internet believe that they can read my mind and know what I want.

            i said “theory” because that’s what I meant, and it has more that the one definition you gave.

  • APassenger@lemmy.one
    71·
    1 year ago

    ITT: a lot of “either/or”

    I’m not sure that evolution cares one wit about any of our theories. If it means I’m the dad and I’m the dad more often… then it will be favored.

    If I enjoy it more, she enjoys it more or it means that my sperm have increased likelihood of winning… that’s all that matters.

    And when I say “or” above, it can include any of those things. It need not be exclusive.