View Single Post
  #26  
Old 04-12-2011, 08:42 AM
MrFarFromRight's Avatar
MrFarFromRight MrFarFromRight is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Smack in the middle of The Spanish Revolution!
Posts: 483
Default

From another thread, explaining one theory from this book:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magdlyn View Post
The head of the human male corona is extra large and works as a squeegee to scrape out another man's semen. Not mentioned in the book is the idea that women's watery ejaculate is produced to wash out semen, to make way for something better that just came along.
I've got to admit to the shameful fact that I've never actually had sex with a woman right after another man has. So I can’t speak from personal experience of shifting another man’s sperm with the head of my penis. But for several years now I have been getting the occasional erection, and so I've had some opportunity to consider its shape. And I also seem to remember that a woman’s vagina feels (more or less) tight around it. [I'm not the most sexually experienced of men: perhaps other couples have found this not to be the case?]

It therefore seems quite plausible to me that if I were to slip my erect penis into a vagina that had just received a delivery of another man’s ejaculate, I would actually be pushing some of it (perhaps even most of it) even further inwards. So far in fact (ahead of the head, so to speak) that my penis couldn’t hope to scoop it back out on subsequent thrusts.

[An analogy occurs: the famous maternal injunction to her children before leaving them at home alone: “Now, don’t go sticking beans up your nose!” I invite you to ignore her (well-meaning but naïve) advice (as did one of my brothers on a memorable occasion) and push a bean far up your nose with your finger... Now (Have you done it yet? Is the bean in place?): try to hook it out again with that same finger. (This pastime offers the potential of hours of entertainment. My brother was eventually taken to casualty. Apparently, the more experienced doctors stand by with an instrument rather like a crochet needle to use on the children of those mothers who proffer this injunction to their offspring.)]

So – while I have no difficulty in accepting that if 6 men ejaculate into the same vagina during the same playtime, it’s quite plausible that the healthiest spermatozoa have an edge on the rest of the field in reaching the ovum and successfully negotiating a union – I respectfully submit that this theory that penis #6 has squeegeed out a determinant amount of its rivals’ offerings doesn’t really hold water. Or other fluids.

Anthropology – and most especially prehistoric anthropology – offers wonderful scope for inventing pleasing little theories. (Pleasing to the inventor.) Allow me to offer an example from the evolutionists:

The Desmond Morris (“Tarzanist”) school of evolutionists reasons thus:
a) Our female primate ancestors (and our present-day female primate “cousins”) have flat chests.
b) Human males find large breasts sexually attractive (when it’s human females who wear them).
c) Human females (generally) have (more or less) large breasts. (Larger than most men’s anyway.)
d) The obvious inference is that female proto-humans evolved large breasts in order to sexually attract proto-human males.
e) This evolution probably occured when the males began to hunt and the females to become gardeners. Hunting was so much fun (and the males so resented being told to eat up all their cabbage) that the females needed to invent an attraction to get the men to return to the fixed-abode females. (“Hey! Let’s grow bazoomas! That’ll keep the boys from wandering too far...”)

Elaine Morgan (see my earlier comment on this thread) says: “Bullshit! You’ve got it arse-backwards!” (Actually, she uses more refined language. But she is rather scathing about this Tarzanist argument.) “Human females don’t have large breasts because human males find them sexy: Human males find large breasts sexy because human females have them.” (In case you’re wondering, human females grew large breasts for an entirely different interest-group... their children. And it was a case – as all evolutionary changes – of increasing the chances of survival of the genes of the ones with that mutation. How and why? Read the book: it’s fascinating!)

Coming back to the book's penis squeegee theory. If it is correct, wouldn’t this imply that the last male to deposit his offering becomes the most likely to father the future child (and pass his genes on to future generations)?

But I would guess (I have a right to propose my own whacko theories, don’t I?) that the last male tdho is precisely the champion wimp, the furthest from alpha, the least aggressive, the milquetoast who has to wait until the tough guys have all had their shot. Or maybe he’s the strong, silent type, polite to a fault, who allows less well-mannered bozos to jump the queue? So the genes that would predominate among today’s humans would be either those of the unaggressive wimp or those of the principled, polite, generous pacifist.

Or maybe they’re the genes of a multi-orgasmic stud who - after making his contribution to all of the females in the group - was still up for another round, when all the other males were already snoring or lounging around the campfire, inhaling the post-coital smoke of a burning weed. (So he was #1 and #7 for several females.)

Looking around at the great majority of my species (and – in the case of the last option - judging from what I've read) I rather doubt it...
__________________
If I can't dance, I want no part in your Revolution.
- Emma Goldman Anarchist and Polyamorous par excellence
The person who says something is impossible should not interrupt the person who is doing it.
- old Chinese proverb
And the day came when the risk to remain tight in a bud was more painful than the risk it took to blossom.
~ Anais Nin
I'd rather have a broken heart / Than have a heart of stone.
- from "Boundless Love (A Polyamory Song)" by Jimmy Hollis i Dickson
Reply With Quote