http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016...ily_2016-12-14&et_rid=41087911&et_cid=1054718
Did early Homisapiens have a bone in the penis
Did early Homisapiens have a bone in the penis
Penis with bone
- Thread starter timojin
- Start date
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
Early Homo sapiens were virtually indistinguishable from modern sapiens. There's no chance that there would be such a major difference between them.
The question that you want to ask is whether our ancestral species had it, such as Homo habilis.
Wouldn't it be amusing if Homo erectus had it?
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
As so often with magazine articles, the lazy headline is not borne out by the text of the article itself.
There is no explanation of why humans lost this bone during evolution. All there is is a description of the evolutionary advantage of having one, in polygamous primates - which it says humans were not.
What is lacking, surely, is any explanation of why it might have been advantageous not to have a bone in the penis, if mating practices were not polygamous. Considering all the talk today about the "bonding" function of sexual congress, one might think that long mating times would still be a good thing for the stability of human couples (important, given the long period of helplessness of human young) and thus a bone would still on balance be an advantage rather than a disadvantage.
I suppose a bone might have been a snag if males wore tight-fitting briefs, but I would assume that during the relevant evolutionary epoch this would not have been a factor.
There is no explanation of why humans lost this bone during evolution. All there is is a description of the evolutionary advantage of having one, in polygamous primates - which it says humans were not.
What is lacking, surely, is any explanation of why it might have been advantageous not to have a bone in the penis, if mating practices were not polygamous. Considering all the talk today about the "bonding" function of sexual congress, one might think that long mating times would still be a good thing for the stability of human couples (important, given the long period of helplessness of human young) and thus a bone would still on balance be an advantage rather than a disadvantage.
I suppose a bone might have been a snag if males wore tight-fitting briefs, but I would assume that during the relevant evolutionary epoch this would not have been a factor.
Well a mild research on this is not so flattering for men. The conclusion is that for a man of today's its a matter of just 2 minutes, so no bone is required...
Viagra extension and need for longer duration is palpable in present era men, so can we say that bone is going to come back in few million years.
Viagra extension and need for longer duration is palpable in present era men, so can we say that bone is going to come back in few million years.
The convergence of two human penile developments (the coronal ridge and a unique distal ligament) led to a larger / thicker organ. Which in turn could have influenced selection by females in favor of males with 100% haemodynamic dependent erections, as opposed to those traditionally implemented / supplemented by baculum (bone).
The new shape enabled plunger-like removal of a previous mate's semen from the vaginal canal. An alternative or addition to the previous tactic of prolonged occupation for deterring / impeding another waiting male.[1]
The new, sturdy arrangement of tough elastic fibers and blood-gorged tissue resisted crumpling during intercourse despite lack of os. The impressive circulation feat perhaps also signaled a fit or healthy reproductive candidate.[2]
Along with the novel or stand-out appearance, both changes contributed to size enhancement; and thus the resultant female choice consequences (in complex conjunction with other somatic factors) which gradually led to the os penis becoming anatomically passé.[3]
- - - - - - -
[1] Why Is the Penis Shaped Like That? PW Talks with Jesse Bering: http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/...ped-like-that-pw-talks-with-jesse-bering.html
Gordon Gallup sets the record straight on the semen displacement theory: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/bering-in-mind/the-misunderstood-penis/
- - - - - - -
[2] How Did Man Lose His Penis Bone?: https://blogs.ucl.ac.uk/researchers-in-museums/2012/11/26/how-did-man-lose-his-penis-bone/
J Androl: Although there is no os in the human glans, a strong equivalent distal ligament is arranged centrally and acts as a supporting trunk for the glans penis. Without this important structure, the glans could be too weak to bear the buckling pressure generated during coitus and too limber to serve as a patent passage for ejaculation, and it could be too difficult to transmit the intracavernosal pressure surge along the entire penis during ejaculation. Given the common histologic nature of the distal ligament, which is associated with the tunica albuginea and serves a similar function as the os penis observed in the dog and the rat, one may ask whether the healing process of a tunica may take as long as that required in a bony structure. Further research is required to answer this question. --Distal ligament in human glans: a comparative study of penile architecture
- - - - - - -
[3] Penis size interacts with body shape and height to influence male attractiveness: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3637716/
Does Size Matter? Evolution and the Primate Penis: https://blogs.ucl.ac.uk/researchers...-size-matter-evolution-and-the-primate-penis/
The new shape enabled plunger-like removal of a previous mate's semen from the vaginal canal. An alternative or addition to the previous tactic of prolonged occupation for deterring / impeding another waiting male.[1]
The new, sturdy arrangement of tough elastic fibers and blood-gorged tissue resisted crumpling during intercourse despite lack of os. The impressive circulation feat perhaps also signaled a fit or healthy reproductive candidate.[2]
Along with the novel or stand-out appearance, both changes contributed to size enhancement; and thus the resultant female choice consequences (in complex conjunction with other somatic factors) which gradually led to the os penis becoming anatomically passé.[3]
- - - - - - -
[1] Why Is the Penis Shaped Like That? PW Talks with Jesse Bering: http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/...ped-like-that-pw-talks-with-jesse-bering.html
Gordon Gallup sets the record straight on the semen displacement theory: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/bering-in-mind/the-misunderstood-penis/
- - - - - - -
[2] How Did Man Lose His Penis Bone?: https://blogs.ucl.ac.uk/researchers-in-museums/2012/11/26/how-did-man-lose-his-penis-bone/
J Androl: Although there is no os in the human glans, a strong equivalent distal ligament is arranged centrally and acts as a supporting trunk for the glans penis. Without this important structure, the glans could be too weak to bear the buckling pressure generated during coitus and too limber to serve as a patent passage for ejaculation, and it could be too difficult to transmit the intracavernosal pressure surge along the entire penis during ejaculation. Given the common histologic nature of the distal ligament, which is associated with the tunica albuginea and serves a similar function as the os penis observed in the dog and the rat, one may ask whether the healing process of a tunica may take as long as that required in a bony structure. Further research is required to answer this question. --Distal ligament in human glans: a comparative study of penile architecture
- - - - - - -
[3] Penis size interacts with body shape and height to influence male attractiveness: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3637716/
Does Size Matter? Evolution and the Primate Penis: https://blogs.ucl.ac.uk/researchers...-size-matter-evolution-and-the-primate-penis/
Last edited:
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
Homo sapiens is by no means the only species of mammal without a baculum, although its presence is indeed much more common than its absence. Cattle, horses and lagomorphs (rabbits and their relatives) also lack the baculum.
Oddly enough, all of the other primates (the other species of apes, as well as monkeys, lemurs, tarsiers, etc.) have it.
Last edited:
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
OK. So what evolutionary explanation is given, in the case of homo sapiens?
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
I haven't seen one.
Just a guess, but the fact that copulation is a much longer and more elaborate process for humans than it is in most other mammals, means that the penis becomes erect due to the various kinds of foreplay in which we engage. Perhaps we simply don't need that little bone.
Because of your age and we don't have abone
That is why they promote viagra and celis
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
The original article suggested the opposite: the bone had value to prolong copulation, preventing mating with rivals.
Little is right. In the gorilla it is but a few millimeters.
http://www.lastwordonnothing.com/2012/07/13/tgipf-what-the-baculum-said/