Slashdot Mirror


Why Men Don't Have Sensory Whiskers and Spiny Genitals

sciencehabit writes "Most male mammals wield a penis covered with spines made of keratin, the same material that forms fingernails, to sweep out competitors' sperm and irritate a female into ovulating. Even chimpanzees, our closest relatives, have penile spines. So why don't men? A new study suggests that this feature disappeared due to a chunk of DNA that went missing after our evolutionary divergence from chimps. The researchers have identified another DNA deletion that may have contributed to humans' bigger brains."

226 comments

  1. That would be useful. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Because I'm good at irritating females, yet somehow it doesn't lead to their ovulating.

    1. Re:That would be useful. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wouldn't be too sure. They seem to all act as if they have PMS when around you.

    2. Re:That would be useful. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Also, either (sensory whiskers or penis spines) would be useful finding one's way around in the dark.

    3. Re:That would be useful. by Meski · · Score: 2

      I'm seeing a new model of condom coming out, real soon now.

  2. The Condom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Furthers this concept.

  3. Wait what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You guys don't have to trim your nails down there? I'm not normal???

  4. Huh? by eln · · Score: 4, Funny

    What, you mean these spines on my penis aren't normal?

    I'd better go see a doctor.

    1. Re:Huh? by darjen · · Score: 1

      Maybe you're actually a chimpanzee.

    2. Re:Huh? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'd better go see a doctor.

      Or a veterinarian.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    3. Re:Huh? by Kelbin · · Score: 5, Funny

      What, you mean these spines on my penis aren't normal?

      I'd better go see a doctor.

      I think it means you should stop shagging hedgehogs.

    4. Re:Huh? by Beefslaya · · Score: 0

      Mod funnay...

    5. Re:Huh? by eln · · Score: 3, Funny

      I think it means you should stop shagging hedgehogs.

      Never!

    6. Re:Huh? by Bovius · · Score: 4, Funny

      These comments are just bristling with penis jokes.

    7. Re:Huh? by markov_chain · · Score: 1

      "Ah well, anyone can make a mistake"
      - a hedgehog, climbing off a hairbrush

      --
      Tsunami -- You can't bring a good wave down!
    8. Re:Huh? by tloh · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What, you mean these spines on my penis aren't normal?.

      Let's hope it stays that way. from the article:

      "The interesting question - which for some reason the scientists didn't want to answer - is whether we could use a gene therapy to replace that deleted regulatory DNA. Basically, we'd add an activation switch to the whisker/spine sequence, flip it to "full blast," and start growing new body parts."

      I for one, do not think man should have his hands in his genes fiddling with himself. But then again, this is slashdot afterall, so...............

      --
      Stay sentient. Don't drink bad milk.
    9. Re:Huh? by adamofgreyskull · · Score: 1

      I'd better go see a doctor.

      Or a veterinarian.

      Or a waxer.

    10. Re:Huh? by sackvillian · · Score: 1

      I for one, do not think man should have his hands in his genes fiddling with himself. But then again, this is slashdot afterall, so.....

      But wouldn't a spiny penis help men to keep their hands out of their jeans?

      Ohhhh, genes you say. . .

      --
      Hey mate, spare a sig?
    11. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it means you should stop shagging hedgehogs.

      If shagging hedgehogs is wrong, I don't wanna be right.

      C'mere, Sonic.

    12. Re:Huh? by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

      If shagging hedgehogs is wrong, I don't wanna be right. C'mere, Sonic.

      Oddly, there *does* seem to be a particularly large amount of Sonic the Hedgehog furry ("spiny?!") porn out there- it was also one of the earliest examples I remember seeing of the phenomena.

      Since I didn't grow up with Sonic (I was already 15 or 16 when it came out and not really into console games) I was kind of surprised, as I'd only remembered it from the original games that were very popular in the early-90s. How seriously could you make a game out of that? (Particularly since this was before everyone knew Rule 34).

      However, I since found out that they did some popular long-running TV cartoons in the 90s (which I hadn't been aware of, having been past kids cartoons at that point). It appears that this is where the characterisation et al comes from.

      Still, Sonic porn...WTF!!!

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    13. Re:Huh? by geminidomino · · Score: 4, Funny

      No need to get prickly. It's all in good humor, you don't have to be a dick.

    14. Re:Huh? by wisty · · Score: 1

      Have you *played* Sonic? It's got more bondage and S&M themes than Prince of Persia; all of it laid on fluffy (or spiky) animals.

      And then there's Tails, the foxy sidekick with two "tails".

    15. Re:Huh? by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      Hi, Christian Weston Chandler!

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    16. Re:Huh? by Arkus · · Score: 1

      Wow, I feel like a noob. Honestly, this is the first time I've heard of the term "Rule 34".

      --
      -- Just my $0.02 worth...
    17. Re:Huh? by IICV · · Score: 1

      I think it means you should stop shagging hedgehogs.

      But I thought the hedgehog can't never be buggered at all?

    18. Re:Huh? by sznupi · · Score: 1

      I'd better go see a doctor.

      Or a veterinarian.

      Or receptive feline female (dare I say... tight pussy?)

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    19. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aw man, you forgot the most important lesson from Discworld! The hedgehog may never be buggered at all!

    20. Re:Huh? by MagusSlurpy · · Score: 1

      Don't get too cocky, your pun wasn't that good.

      --
      My sister opened a computer store in Hawaii. She sells C shells by the seashore.
  5. I don't have spines on my penis by scubamage · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...because I refrain from sex with porcupines and hedgehogs. And I didn't even have to RTFA.

    1. Re:I don't have spines on my penis by tomhudson · · Score: 4, Interesting

      ...because I refrain from sex with porcupines and hedgehogs. And I didn't even have to RTFA.

      You mean like these 2 Russians

      Anton, 32, and Yevgeny, 30, residents of St. Petersburg, were spending their vacation in the United States with a group of friends, Life.ru website reports.

      At some point in their journey, the two got hold of a booklet listing the weirdest US laws. Since they were in Florida, their attention was drawn to a Florida law prohibiting sex with porcupines.

      After a good deal of whiskey, the Russians felt curious about what might have prompted the law, and went in search of the animal.

      Within one hour, a porcupine was found, and Anton and Yevgeny were drunk and brave enough to take off their pants and approach it.

      The next morning, both were standing at the Cedars Sinai clinic in Los Angeles, where amazed doctors plucked porcupine needles from their penises.

    2. Re:I don't have spines on my penis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Even chimpanzees, our closest relatives, have penile spines."

      You don't have to RTFA, but if you're going to comment, at least read the fucking post.

    3. Re:I don't have spines on my penis by tgd · · Score: 0

      You have no idea what you're missing ...

    4. Re:I don't have spines on my penis by g0bshiTe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why if they were in Florida were they taken to Cedars in CA?

      --
      I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
    5. Re:I don't have spines on my penis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it's a good thing that you gave that up.

    6. Re:I don't have spines on my penis by scubamage · · Score: 1

      So wait, chimpanzees have sex with porcupines and hedgehogs? Those poor, stupid buggers!

    7. Re:I don't have spines on my penis by tomhudson · · Score: 2, Insightful
      They were tourists, not residents of Florida. Tourists have been known to travel from place to place, and I guess after their little escapade, they were in a hurry to leave Florida, since if they had gone to a Florida hospital, they would have been arrested.

      It's in the paragraph immediately under the part I quoted:

      Had the two not fled from Florida quickly enough, they would have had to face the law they had breached.

      California *probably* doesn't have a law about sex with porcupines (Note to self - ask Charlie Sheen).

    8. Re:I don't have spines on my penis by billcopc · · Score: 2

      In Soviet Russia, space-time bend you.

      --
      -Billco, Fnarg.com
    9. Re:I don't have spines on my penis by jfengel · · Score: 1

      Damn, I hate those "dumb laws" lists. Usually, it starts with an innocuous law like "No having sex with animals". Then some genius says, "No animals? Does that include porcupines? Hey, everybody, Florida says you can't have sex with porcupines!" knowing that everybody else is dumb enough not to go looking for the actual law. Instead, they go with "Gosh, those Floridians are stupid. One of 'em must have tried to have sex with a porcupine, and their legislators tried to ban that, rather than writing a nice, sensible law about sex with animals."

      In other words, everybody involved is stupid, including me for having taken the effort to be irritated by that fact.

    10. Re:I don't have spines on my penis by tomhudson · · Score: 3, Insightful
      If you think that's bad, there was a debate a few decades ago that went on about the law prohibiting sex with dead people.

      One legislator pointed out that could be interpreted differently from the obvious intent - like "my [spouse] is dead in the sack", as opposed to deceased.

      So they wasted time debating the differences between "dead" and "deceased", instead of just rewording it ...

      Or like the municipal bylaw up here that tried to ban massage parlours, by defining "massage" as "the manipulation of another person's body" and making it a crime for "someone who is not licensed to practice massage." Really bad definition, since it would ban pretty much all physical contact, include those same stupid politicians shaking hands during elections, or doctors setting broken bones, or you wiping your kid's runny nose.

    11. Re:I don't have spines on my penis by vux984 · · Score: 1

      Usually, it starts with an innocuous law like "No having sex with animals".

      Would this be the same florida that failed to pass anti-bestiality laws as recently as last year?

      2009 --- http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/legislature/article982771.ece
      2010 --- http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/criminal/why-the-state-legislature-failed-to-pass-a-law-banning-bestiality/1092905

      I can't offhand find any statute that specifically addresses porcupines; but its possibly some local thing... or perhaps its completely fabricated.

    12. Re:I don't have spines on my penis by nschubach · · Score: 2

      Off-Topic, I know... but I have yet to find the entertainment value in the whole Charlie Sheen debacle. Why must people continue bringing it up?

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    13. Re:I don't have spines on my penis by nschubach · · Score: 0

      I'm trying to be careful how I word this, but... Why the hell does anyone care if Jim-Bob wants to prod his sheep? Do you think that someone else doing it will force you to do it? Is it because you think animals should be protected from people and there MUST be a state law specifically stating that? I can't see myself getting all worked up that a state hasn't passed such a law and that it's somehow a rampant problem anywhere that a law must be drafted immediately.

      I'd might even go so far as to say that I'm curious (not really) how often this happens to determine if spending that legislation time worrying about the 0.02% (random guess) of people in the state that participate in such actions.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    14. Re:I don't have spines on my penis by blair1q · · Score: 1

      He's missing the point, at least.

    15. Re:I don't have spines on my penis by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 0

      ...worrying about the 0.02% (random guess) of people in the state that participate in such actions.

      Please, I hope it's not that prevalent! That's somewhere around 6,800,000 people running around buggering sheep (or whatever they think will stand still for it). If they're all in Florida, that's 1/3 of the population. It's also means there are more sheep-fuckers in the U.S. than sheep!

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    16. Re:I don't have spines on my penis by nschubach · · Score: 1

      Not sure how you read "0.02% of the people in the state" to mean "1/3 of the population of the state"...

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    17. Re:I don't have spines on my penis by Illicon · · Score: 1

      Uhm... That would be 2%. There's a 100-fold difference.

    18. Re:I don't have spines on my penis by Kittenman · · Score: 2

      Please, I hope it's not that prevalent! That's somewhere around 6,800,000 people running around buggering sheep (or whatever they think will stand still for it). If they're all in Florida, that's 1/3 of the population. It's also means there are more sheep-fuckers in the U.S. than sheep!

      I live in New Zealand, you insensitive clod!!

      --
      "The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
    19. Re:I don't have spines on my penis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the linked article, they manage to have sex with a porcupine while in Florida, and yet are admitted to a hospital in California, several thousand miles away.

      How does one travel, coast-to-coast, with quills on one's genitals?

      I'm leaning towards fabricated.

    20. Re:I don't have spines on my penis by larry+bagina · · Score: 1

      So, after trying to fuck a porcupine, they rushed to a hospital 3 time zones away?

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    21. Re:I don't have spines on my penis by dmmiller2k · · Score: 1
      --

      "No matter how cynical you get, it is impossible to keep up." -- Lily Tomlin

    22. Re:I don't have spines on my penis by The+End+Of+Days · · Score: 1

      It's disgusting how the whole human race doesn't defer to your sensibility, isn't it?

    23. Re:I don't have spines on my penis by tomhudson · · Score: 2

      No, they went to the hospital 3 time zones away the next day. They were probably planning on visiting California anyway - maybe to try to have sex with the buzzards in Death Valley or something ... you'd have to ask them. The story makes clear that their problems didn't end when they finally returned to Russia, either.

    24. Re:I don't have spines on my penis by adamofgreyskull · · Score: 0
      He probably misread it as "0.02% of people in the states". 0.02% of Floridians is 3600 by the way. Which is still way too fucking high. Hell, 1 would be too many.

      I'm more concerned by the fact that he didn't actually address your point. I.e. "If Jim-Bob wants to bugger his own sheep, why the hell shouldn't he be allowed to" and, "Why legislate against it?" There are laws, or should be, to stop animals being raped by people who should know better. If they don't, they should be punished. You may say "why waste time legislating against it?", well, why waste time writing any law? So that you can prosecute people who commit, what a vast majority agree should be, a crime, committed against another living being. So that you don't waste time in court and appeal, arguing about whether the sex-act caused torment/harm in order to prosecute based on some other animal cruelty law. If you think sex with animals isn't common enough to warrant legislation in its own right, Here, have some examples. From a state that has put so much time and energy into preventing same-sex couples from getting married it's a bit fucking much for them to turn around and say that there are more pressing issues to deal with than making rape of an animal illegal. Granted, the state has a lot of problems, but stilll...

      I think the real problem is how fucking stupid some of the people involved are:

      Rich's legislation would target only those who derived or helped others derive "sexual gratification'' from an animal, specifying that conventional dog-judging contests and animal-husbandry practices are permissible.

      That last provision tripped up Miami Democratic Sen. Larcenia Bullard.

      "People are taking these animals as their husbands? What's husbandry?" she asked.

      Some senators stifled their laughter as Sen. Charlie Dean, an Inverness Republican, explained that husbandry is raising and caring for animals.

      Bullard didn't get it.

    25. Re:I don't have spines on my penis by Bengie · · Score: 2

      It's also means there are more sheep-fuckers in the U.S. than sheep!
      Sharing is Caring. Hey Jeffry, pass me that sheep when you're done.

    26. Re:I don't have spines on my penis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why the hell does anyone care if Jim-Bob wants to prod his sheep?

      Best explanation I've heard is that some STDs can jump species. It may never be known if SIV mutated into HIV because humans did it with apes. I seem to recall having heard that at least one of the common STDs is thought to have jumped from sheep.

      Really though, even if there is a valid scientific reason to curtail this behavior; it's illegal because almost everybody thinks it's icky, immoral, and disgusting. When the majority hates something, they will usually make it illegal, unless you can argue that it's a fundamental right.

    27. Re:I don't have spines on my penis by petman · · Score: 1

      Really bad definition, since it would ban pretty much all physical contact, include those same stupid politicians shaking hands during elections, or doctors setting broken bones, or you wiping your kid's runny nose.

      I'm pretty sure doctors need to be licensed in order to legally practice medicine.

    28. Re:I don't have spines on my penis by Nethead · · Score: 1

      .. or putting cuffs on someone that manipulated another persons body.

      --
      -- I have a private email server in my basement.
    29. Re:I don't have spines on my penis by guyminuslife · · Score: 1

      I don't really believe that story.

      First of all, as far as I can tell, there is no law against having sex with porcupines in Florida. A Google search of Florida code shows no hits for the term "porcupine." A search for documents including both the terms "sex" and "animal" doesn't show that bestiality is illegal per se. It is, however, illegal to fuck a porcupine (or animal of any kind) with children present, as it falls under general lewdness laws.

      Of course, that doesn't mean that two drunk Russians would go through the trouble of searching the Florida code for said statute. On the other hand, while this story is widely circulated, it comes from rather...dubious sources. Many cite life.ru, which is in Russian and I can't read it---the most descriptive article I could find is from Pravda. It seems that the English-language articles haven't actually researched this, they've merely been copying from a single Russian-language source. Which might be bogus.

      The image of the "medical record", far from verifying the claim, weakens it. That is not a medical record from Cedars-Sinai. First of all, there are too many typos. ("Docror's name", "blood pleasure"). Second, they would be confidential if they were, and wouldn't be leaked to a news article. Especially not from California to Russia. It looks like a bad attempt to make an English-language medical record by someone who doesn't speak English, and doesn't know what an American medical record looks like. So why would a Russian write his medical records in broken English? And why would "St. Petersburg, Russia" be considered a valid address at a doctor's office in St. Petersburg, Russia?

      (Also, while there *is* a urologist at Cedars-Sinai named Friedman---not "Fridman"---he is a pediatrician.)

      Besides all of this, assuming that someone *did* fuck a porcupine, it seems unreasonable that they would fly across the country before taking the spines out of their penis. Not only that, but the very next morning! What did they do, get wasted, go out in the woods to find a porcupine, fuck it, come back, and pack their bags for the red-eye to Los Angeles? They wouldn't have time, not with the TSA the way it is.

      Speaking of which, I have a hard time believing that anyone who is wasted off their ass can go out into the woods and find a porcupine within an hour, anywhere. Also, porcupines tend to be nocturnal, so they would probably have had to look around at night. Wasted. In Florida, which, by the way IS NOT A NATIVE HABITAT FOR PORCUPINES!

      There's too much wrong with this article. It reeks of bullshit. That being said, it's a funny story, if bogus.

      --
      I don't believe in time. It's a grand conspiracy designed to sell watches.
    30. Re:I don't have spines on my penis by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      Really bad definition, since it would ban pretty much all physical contact, include those same stupid politicians shaking hands during elections, or doctors setting broken bones, or you wiping your kid's runny nose.

      I'm pretty sure doctors need to be licensed in order to legally practice medicine.

      But they would have had to get a separate license for "manipulating the body of another person" aka "massage". Like I said, a really dumb proposal.

    31. Re:I don't have spines on my penis by Paul1969 · · Score: 1

      For sane people, it's a cruelty-to-animals issue.
      BTW, the rate of human-animal sex among adolescent rural males is surprisingly high. Google it sometime.

    32. Re:I don't have spines on my penis by Alsee · · Score: 1

      by Kittenman (971447)

      Ok, I can imagine how it would work with sheep, but wouldn't kittens burst or something?

      Wait.... no.... Please don't answer that.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    33. Re:I don't have spines on my penis by wierd_w · · Score: 1

      That would be syphilis.

      Other bacteriological STDs could theoretically be spread between species as well.

      Wikipedia actually has a page on this subject , which in and of itself is starkly disturbing. (then again, so is my knowing about such page to begin with... However, I attribute this more to the "wikipedia effect" than to sexual degeneracy.)

    34. Re:I don't have spines on my penis by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure doctors need to be licensed in order to legally practice medicine.

      I find it rather sad and amusing that our bodies do not need to be licensed in order to heal themselves.

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
  6. Only reason this made front page... by g0bshiTe · · Score: 4, Funny

    The phrase "wield a penis" appears in it.

    --
    I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
  7. Duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is just one of many things the aliens did to us when they first came to this planet and found the apes to be perfect slaves.

  8. Obvious answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    All the women had sex with the first freak born without them.

    1. Re:Obvious answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only if he got sloppy seconds since he wouldn't trigger ovulation.

    2. Re:Obvious answer by SnarfQuest · · Score: 1

      Who would you prefer to have sex with: someone with nasty sharp spines on his penis, or someone who doesn't? S&M fans need not respond.

      --
      Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
    3. Re:Obvious answer by vegiVamp · · Score: 1

      Funny, but maybe also insightful? Given that the main difference between our species and the rest of the animal kingdom is our ability to think things through, it isn't that far-fetched that women would lean towards males with less spiky dongs, as that would provide them with more enjoyment and less pain.

      --
      What a depressingly stupid machine.
    4. Re:Obvious answer by bar-agent · · Score: 1

      Who would you prefer to have sex with: someone with nasty sharp spines on his penis, or someone who doesn't?

      I'm glad you asked! Let me tell you about this fantasy of mine...

      S&M fans need not respond.

      Dammit! Never mind.

      --
      i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
  9. We didn't evolve from Chimps... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    ...we evolved from a common ancestor. That Ancestor is not a chimp but something completely different in terms of biological classification. That's like saying A GPS device evolved form a defibrillator.

    1. Re:We didn't evolve from Chimps... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Does that make the dildo a common ancestor to GPS?

    2. Re:We didn't evolve from Chimps... by maxwell+demon · · Score: 2

      The summary doesn't say we evolved from chimps. It says we have evolutionary divergence from chimps, which means that we evolved differently than the chimps did. Which obviously is true.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    3. Re:We didn't evolve from Chimps... by Intron · · Score: 4, Informative

      ...we evolved from a common ancestor. That Ancestor is not a chimp but something completely different in terms of biological classification. That's like saying A GPS device evolved form a defibrillator.

      Since nobody suggested we evolved from chimps what is your point? The article says "divergence from" which just implies a common ancestor.

      --
      Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
    4. Re:We didn't evolve from Chimps... by erroneus · · Score: 1

      I knew that was going to come out somewhere and here it is. I too read "divergence from chimps" but you read the meaning wrong. Of course it would be more accurate to say "divergence from a common ancestor between humans and chimps" but it is still accurate to say "divergence from chimps" if you already understand the truth of the details.

  10. Occam's Razor by argStyopa · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...because women, generally, don't want them? They by & large run the reproductive sweepstakes, even back in the "me big strong caveman, me conk woman on head" days when "consent" was a little more broadly interpreted.

    And which came first, male lack of spines, or female concealed ovulation?

    When analyzing the genetic record, how can one 'sort out' the distinction between DNA changes that have happened due to mutation, compared to the changes induced by broad and consistent female choice?

    --
    -Styopa
    1. Re:Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But I think these folks are talking about actually sections of DNA gone missing. Many many mutations HAVE been identified like the ability to digest milk as an adult (not yet entire saturated in the human population, and only 7500 years young). Seems to suggest there was some intention of these pieces to have gone entirely off radar.

      Spooky.

    2. Re:Occam's Razor by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      When analyzing the genetic record, how can one 'sort out' the distinction between DNA changes that have happened due to mutation, compared to the changes induced by broad and consistent female choice?

      That seems pretty easy -- the existence of a lack of spines originated due to a mutation, and became dominant due to natural selection. That's pretty much always the case.

      As far as the exact natural selection pressures which led to it becoming dominant, that's harder to say and I have no idea. I would imagine (i.e. wild-ass guess) that whichever came first, lack of spines or concealed ovulation, they were both predated by stronger pair-bonding.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    3. Re:Occam's Razor by joocemann · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The female chooses the mutant. The two things are not separate. The mutant male had no spines, so she chose him. Her sons had no spines, so other fems chose them. Fitness at work.

    4. Re:Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Grunk was born with a deformity, he lacked claws on his penis. All the girls in the tribe went to fuck with him because they enjoyed sex with him much more than with others. A few generations later, spineless penis was dominant in the tribe. And the tribe seemed to be a big happy family, overgrowing nearby tribes, whose women came to this tribe for having fun :)

    5. Re:Occam's Razor by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      I would guess the selection had more to do with females being able to more easily breed with one mate and have another mate take care of her brood. Time and time again, that seems to provide for fairly strong selective bias.

    6. Re:Occam's Razor by aliquis · · Score: 1

      The sucker without the spines got to waste his energy on some girl and kids which wasn't even his own instead of creating some?

      Yeah. I can totally see how that would lead to superior DNA spread.

    7. Re:Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That's all fine and dandy, but considering that presumably, females of other species don't want them, either, why do they still exist there?

    8. Re:Occam's Razor by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      because women, generally, don't want them?

      Keeping in mind that what the scientists are calling 'spines' in the article would be called 'bumps' by any normal people, and keeping in mind the relative lack of sensory nerves within the vagina - why would the female have any reason to choose the spineless mutant over the spined non-mutant? What would cause the proto-human female to make that choice while the proto-chimpanzee (and many other proto-species) made the opposite choice? (Since the genes are linked, you could phrase the question above using 'sensory whiskers' too.)
       
      Occam's often misused razor only work when there is a clear choice of alternatives *and* there is a clear and reasonable 'simplest explanation' to choose over the others. This isn't the case here.
       
      If I had to guess, I find it more likely the change came via sensory whiskers. Once we hunting and eating with our face, and started doing so with our hands, it seems to me that sensory whiskers start to become redundant to senses like sight and smell which operate at a longer range. This could also help explain why some species (the cats for example) have prominent sensory whiskers and why they've become vestigial in the apes.

    9. Re:Occam's Razor by mdielmann · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's all fine and dandy, but considering that presumably, females of other species don't want them, either, why do they still exist there?

      That's something of a presumption, given the fact that condoms can still be bought "ribbed for her pleasure".

      --
      Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
    10. Re:Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because you've never found the g-spot does not mean there's a lack of sensory nerves in the vagina.

      Or do you like having your penis vigorously scraped by fingernails?

    11. Re:Occam's Razor by Rooked_One · · Score: 1

      Or possibly the link they proclaim between the larger brain and lack of penile spines indicates that the "spineless" male figured out how to get more mates.

    12. Re:Occam's Razor by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      No. Meaning, females would have a preference for males without the spines. Thusly, creating a selection bias.

      Why is it everyone has to be a sarcastic prick just because they can't see the bigger picture - or too lazy to think "into" the statement rather than demand extremely verbose and tedious language which is usually not required in the least.

    13. Re:Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Women had a choice of partner then?

    14. Re:Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what the scientists are calling 'spines' in the article would be called 'bumps' by any normal people

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirsuties_coronae_glandis ?

    15. Re:Occam's Razor by The+Great+Pretender · · Score: 1

      ...because women, generally, don't want them?

      Therefore men don't get to have them. Seems to be pretty standard for most guys I know.

      --
      A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.
    16. Re:Occam's Razor by dadelbunts · · Score: 1

      I highly doubt what type of penis women preferd mattered back then. The advantage had to be for the male to either get more mates or impregnate mates better. A womans preference would not have been taken into consideration when sex was brought up.

    17. Re:Occam's Razor by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      But that's the functional purpose of the spines -- to scoop out another male's semen so as to help ensure it is they who are impregnating the female. A male without them would be more likely to be the guy stuck raising someone else's kids.

      It seems like this would have only been advantageous after the development of mostly-monogamous pair bonding. Or after the development of concealed ovulation, so there'd be no obvious sign of fertility and thus copulations with multiple partners would, at least in half-assed theory, be more spread out in time.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    18. Re:Occam's Razor by macs4all · · Score: 1

      That's all fine and dandy, but considering that presumably, females of other species don't want them, either, why do they still exist there?

      That's something of a presumption, given the fact that condoms can still be bought "ribbed for her pleasure".

      Um, I think there is a bit of a difference between "ribbed" and "spiny"...

    19. Re:Occam's Razor by amnesia_tc · · Score: 2

      Not sarcastic pricks, spiny pricks. Can't you even read the damn article title?

    20. Re:Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...because women, generally, don't want them? They by & large run the reproductive sweepstakes, even back in the "me big strong caveman, me conk woman on head" days when "consent" was a little more broadly interpreted.

      And which came first, male lack of spines, or female concealed ovulation?

      When analyzing the genetic record, how can one 'sort out' the distinction between DNA changes that have happened due to mutation, compared to the changes induced by broad and consistent female choice?

      If it was due to evolution, why is the human male the only male "animal" to not have them? This study makes no sense.

    21. Re:Occam's Razor by jamesh · · Score: 1

      That's all fine and dandy, but considering that presumably, females of other species don't want them, either, why do they still exist there?

      That's something of a presumption, given the fact that condoms can still be bought "ribbed for her pleasure".

      I think you'll find that 'spined for her irritation" condoms are somewhat more of a specialty item though, and probably not in particularly high demand.

    22. Re:Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it was due to evolution, why is the human male the only male "animal" to not have them? This study makes no sense.

      Because being smart enough, the "male animal" was more successful in eliminating mutant of other species?
      Think for a moment... if indeed smooth-pricks are related with bigger brains, what are the chances to have two intelligent omnivorous species sharing the same ecosystem?

    23. Re:Occam's Razor by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 1

      Or since we're monogamous... somewhat and men defended their mates they were no longer selected for and was just a weak gene.

      The point of the spines assumes that the females are mating with multiple males within a very short time period. Sociologically speaking that isn't thought to be common in human civilization.

      Instead of multiple matings, we just club the other guy before he gets around to any funny business.

      I would be curious if other mammals with similar social structures where males are prevented from mating by an alpha male have spines.

    24. Re:Occam's Razor by petman · · Score: 1

      So why did female human ancestors preferred males without the spines but the female ancestors of animals like chimps preferred males with the spines?

    25. Re:Occam's Razor by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Why is it everyone has to be a sarcastic prick just because they can't see the bigger picture - or too lazy to think "into" the statement rather than demand extremely verbose and tedious language which is usually not required in the least.

      Isn't it obvious? Clearly there was a selection bias in the form of females/males preferring partners who were "sarcastic pricks"

    26. Re:Occam's Razor by mysidia · · Score: 1

      God wanted the male to not have any spines, because they were an evil mark of the beast, so he caused a mutation to occur.

      Then put the man and wife on an ark with a bunch of animals, and flooded out the rest of the human species that had the sinful spines.

      The potential explanations are infinite.

    27. Re:Occam's Razor by wisty · · Score: 1

      Well, human have sex when the female is not in heat, which is rare. Usually, the female goes in heat; then the dominant male, her mate, or every adult male in a 10km radius (depending on the species) mates with her.

      Humans conceal ovulation (very strange), and have sex whenever the couple wants. Which is not like animals at all.

      Humans have huge brains, and lots of free will. There's no way couples would stick together (and ensure their kids were well trained) if it weren't for sex.

    28. Re:Occam's Razor by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Probably due to no choice as no Chimps were mutated into a lack of spines.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    29. Re:Occam's Razor by yanyan · · Score: 1

      Patent patent patent!

    30. Re:Occam's Razor by vegiVamp · · Score: 1

      There's quite a difference between rubber ridges and bone spikes. To answer the parent's question, though; I would assume that other species' females don't quite think of it as being a pleasureable act more than a strong hormonal urge. Yes, the female (usually) chooses who gets to hump her, but they may not necessarily realise there's a difference.

      One thing that may be related is partner choosing and bonding, though. We humans (at the very least in recent history, probably for a long long time already) tend to first sleep around a bit and try different partners, and later on pick one to keep and have sprogs with - that behaviour allows females to learn that non-spikey cock feels better, and thus increases the chance of her settling with the owner of one of those instead of a maybe slightly better-looking painbringer. Strict monogamous creatures tend to only mate after having chosen a fit partner, and so are stuck with their choice, while promiscuous creatures pick a fit specimen for mating once and then move on, so even if they know the difference, spikiness of the penis is not going to be a major criterium in choosing a partner assuming showing off doesn't feature largely in the mating rituals.

      Might be interesting to study monogamousness of species vs. penile spikiness.

      --
      What a depressingly stupid machine.
    31. Re:Occam's Razor by aliquis · · Score: 1

      The females could still had kept the preference of spiny males to create the kids with and then live with the suckers with no kids.

      But yeah, eventually some reason considering there are none.

    32. Re:Occam's Razor by wierd_w · · Score: 1

      Look at wolves. Social hierarchy, Dominant breeding pair, excludes sex between other members within social hierarchy. No penis barbs.

      Conversely-- Look at lions. Single (or perhaps 2) adult males with usually at least 3x as many adult females. Rigorously enforced sexual dominance within social hierarchy. Penis barbs are present.

      Other possible considerations: Length of copulatory time, (Wolves==Protracted due to enlarged penile swelling; Lions; Short, vigorous, repetitious.) Possible compensatory vaginal stimulation (Penile swelling of male wolf penis exerts protracted tugging pressure against female organs, possible compensatory mechanism in the species? In case of humans, prolonged sexual contact/female orgasm might trigger the hormonal reactions to induce ovulation?)

    33. Re:Occam's Razor by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      Neither, it was stronger sperm that led to better fertilization by the first one in that led to the demise of the spines.

      Female ovulation is far from 'concealed' if you have any clue what so ever to look for, just because modern men don't bother to understand it doesn't mean its not there. Be a little more observant and you'll find the task far easier to accomplish.

      The stronger sperm (think bigger tails) meant that once you had your way with her, it was very difficult for anyone elses sperm to beat yours to the mark, so spines left behind in the vagina were no longer needed to keep other men out.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    34. Re:Occam's Razor by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Humans have huge brains, and lots of free will. There's no way couples would stick together (and ensure their kids were well trained) if it weren't for sex.

      Interestingly, in the last few decades, this has completely fallen apart in many developed countries (particularly the USA). With a divorce rate well over 50%, it's gotten to be pretty rare for couples to stick together and raise their own children; instead, single parents, step parents, and live-in boyfriends are the norm. It's hard to imagine what the effect of this will be in 50 or 100 years, but I don't think it's good. Speaking as someone raised by a single mother, I really wish I had been raised in an old-fashioned two-parent household instead.

    35. Re:Occam's Razor by joocemann · · Score: 1

      I disagree. Humans are notorious for polygamy. It is by the method of concealed ovulation that the species was able to secure more male-support once babies were born because individual males could not be sure if the baby was theirs or not -- thus defaulting to support for the possibility it is theirs.

      Monogamous is a fantasy and still doesn't work --- our dilapitated cultures push for it, but our natural instincts push through and create what only the culture considers a problem.

    36. Re:Occam's Razor by joocemann · · Score: 1

      Monogamy doesn't work and people suffer because of the cultural/social pressures to do so.

    37. Re:Occam's Razor by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Huh? Ever take a look at other cultures? Asians don't seem to have much trouble staying married. Koreans in particular have an extremely low divorce rate.

      Plus, take a look at elderly people who have been married for decades. As soon as one goes (esp. if it's the woman), even if the other one seemed to be in relatively good health before, he or she will die very soon after. People over the age of 40 or 50 or so seem to have little trouble staying married, it's the younger people (18-30) who do.

      The cultural/social pressures to stay married when children are present are what keeps kids from growing up fatherless or in broken homes. If people don't like that, then maybe they shouldn't be so selfish and get themselves pregnant without making sure they're with someone they want to spend the next 20+ years with. In earlier times, parents used to teach their kids (esp. their daughters) these values (which had the effect of keeping her from being saddled with a kid without a good husband first), and now it's "anything goes", and we have a generation or two of screwed-up people as a result. Even worse, you'd think that today's inexpensive and reliable birth control would make out-of-wedlock children rare, but instead they're the norm now, because apparently a lot of people are just plain too stupid to use it.

    38. Re:Occam's Razor by joocemann · · Score: 1

      marriage != monogamy

      I'm surprised you tie those ideas together. The cultural pressures to 'stay married' in asia are greater, and thats why you see less divorce. Cheating, on the other hand, is ubiquitous, and is only seen as bad because of said cultural pressures.

    39. Re:Occam's Razor by bar-agent · · Score: 1

      That's something of a presumption, given the fact that condoms can still be bought "ribbed for her pleasure".

      Um, I think there is a bit of a difference between "ribbed" and "spiny"...

      True, but...have you seen what they put on dildos? Clearly, spines do have some kind of appeal.

      --
      i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
    40. Re:Occam's Razor by macs4all · · Score: 1

      That's something of a presumption, given the fact that condoms can still be bought "ribbed for her pleasure".

      Um, I think there is a bit of a difference between "ribbed" and "spiny"...

      True, but...have you seen what they put on dildos? Clearly, spines do have some kind of appeal.

      Oh, you mean those ones that look kinda like a Barrel Cactus?

      LOL, I guess you got me there! ;-P

  11. Obligatory "The Tick" by h.ross.perot · · Score: 1

    "How do you know I don't?"

    --
    ... I'll have a Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster with a side of Plutonium Nyborg ...
  12. " ... irritate a female into ovulating" ...??? by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Most male mammals wield a penis covered with spines made of keratin, the same material that forms fingernails, to sweep out competitors' sperm and irritate a female into ovulating.

    Human females are different. They get irritated when ovulating. Before, during and after, in fact.

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    1. Re:" ... irritate a female into ovulating" ...??? by Antisyzygy · · Score: 1, Insightful

      So they are always irritated?

      --
      That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
    2. Re:" ... irritate a female into ovulating" ...??? by joocemann · · Score: 1

      Pms happens about a week before ovulation. Menses are not ovulation. Glad to teach you.

    3. Re:" ... irritate a female into ovulating" ...??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also note: PMS is not normal.

    4. Re:" ... irritate a female into ovulating" ...??? by Pieroxy · · Score: 2

      Human females are different. They get irritated when ovulating. Before, during and after, in fact.

      So they are always irritated?

      Wow. You are sharp.

    5. Re:" ... irritate a female into ovulating" ...??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good job, you figured that out.

    6. Re:" ... irritate a female into ovulating" ...??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No actually human females get extremely horny when ovulating. I think you are either confusing terms or confusing female signals.

    7. Re:" ... irritate a female into ovulating" ...??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pms happens about a week before ovulation. Menses are not ovulation. Glad to teach you.

      Teach me what? PMS stands for Premenstrual Syndrome. It occurs a little under a week before menses and about a week after ovulation.

    8. Re:" ... irritate a female into ovulating" ...??? by The+End+Of+Days · · Score: 1

      Happy to learn - that you can't recognize a joke.

    9. Re:" ... irritate a female into ovulating" ...??? by jamesh · · Score: 1

      Pms happens about a week before ovulation. Menses are not ovulation. Glad to teach you.

      Not married are you? PMS happens about a week before menstruation. Ovulation comes a bit after that is finished. PMS is likely related to the drop off in the various hormones at the end of the cycle that triggers the flushing of the uterine lining.

      One theory for the evolutionary cause is that by making the woman grumpy when she didn't get pregnant, she's more likely to split with her current partner and find one that is capable of doing the job. I'm not sure if I agree with that though... anyone who's ever had a pregnant wife would know that they aren't always the easiest to get along with either :)

    10. Re:" ... irritate a female into ovulating" ...??? by PPH · · Score: 1

      or confusing female signals.

      A guaranteed way to irritate them.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    11. Re:" ... irritate a female into ovulating" ...??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're sarcastic, too. ;-)

    12. Re:" ... irritate a female into ovulating" ...??? by bstender · · Score: 1

      lived with the wemmings much?

      --
      look sig is kool
    13. Re:" ... irritate a female into ovulating" ...??? by vegiVamp · · Score: 1

      So is his penis.

      --
      What a depressingly stupid machine.
    14. Re:" ... irritate a female into ovulating" ...??? by joocemann · · Score: 1

      I am married. PMS usually precedes menses by maybe 24 hours, but overlaps the period in time. My point, though, was that ovulation is at a completely different part in the cycle.

    15. Re:" ... irritate a female into ovulating" ...??? by joocemann · · Score: 1

      Jokes don't work when they don't even make sense. Was the joke supposed to be relevant, or a demonstration of ignorance? If the latter, I guess I missed it.

  13. Summary, FYI by AdamThor · · Score: 1

    From TFA: Men don't have spiny penises or sensory whiskers on their faces because some DNA got deleted. Likewise some brain growth. Couple of researchers decided to look at what humans are missing relative to chimps, as opposed to what we have that is extra. They found a buncha stuff but don't really know what it means.

    Except that one area involves penile spines and sensory whiskers. Another area has to do with brain growth.

    Not a lot of actual info here.

    --
    -- "Oh. This guy again."
    1. Re:Summary, FYI by Antisyzygy · · Score: 1

      As a dude with a beard I can tell you that I sort of pick up doors opening (wind and pressure change causes the whiskers to move) and bugs near my face with my whiskers.

      --
      That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
    2. Re:Summary, FYI by hedwards · · Score: 1

      That was my thought when I saw the article earlier. I'm not sure on what basis they concluded that there's a relationship between the two beyond happening in the same large block of time. DNA itself doesn't have to be a specific number of base pairs, but whatever additions or deletions happen can't screw too much with the mechanics or reproduction.

    3. Re:Summary, FYI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And what does you spiny penis detect?

    4. Re:Summary, FYI by tverbeek · · Score: 1

      I want to congratulate you on being the only person (so far) to comment on the "sensory whiskers" part of the story, and furthermore doing so without mentioning penises.

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    5. Re:Summary, FYI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mom is ovulating.

    6. Re:Summary, FYI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a dude with a bearded penis I can tell you that I sort of pick up doors opening (wind and pressure change causes the whiskers to move) and bugs near my junk with my whiskers.

    7. Re:Summary, FYI by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

      I certainly didn't want to read the post where he mentions both his beard and penises.

    8. Re:Summary, FYI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This means neckbeards would have a much wider range of sensory perception than mere ordinary humans. I think more research is required here!

    9. Re:Summary, FYI by blair1q · · Score: 2

      As a bicycle rider let me assure you, both penile spines and extra-sensitive follicles would have a deleterious effect on the sport.

    10. Re:Summary, FYI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can tell you that I sort of pick up...bugs near my junk

      A condom might be a good idea. And a trip to the STD clinic.

  14. That would be MORE useful. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The researchers have identified another DNA deletion that may have contributed to humans' bigger brain."

    Judging from all the penis enlargement remedies being peddle through spam, I am sure somewhere on the planet, there are teams of researchers working on additional deletion to human DNA that would produce bigger PENIS.

    1. Re:That would be MORE useful. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A big one isn't all that it's cracked up to be.

      I envy those men in Japanese porn -- the women can hold the men's like they would hold a cigarette, fits easily into their mouth, etc.

      Seriously, when a woman complains that she is so sore the next day, it is cool the first couple of times, after that, it's just a pain...

    2. Re:That would be MORE useful. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oh, like you'd know.

    3. Re:That would be MORE useful. by theillien · · Score: 1

      How would you know?

    4. Re:That would be MORE useful. by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Duh, he listens to Love Line and Dr. Drew, who is always going on about how he hears many more complaints from women about their partners being too big rather than too small. And also about partners who last too long. Apparently bruising and chafing are bigger deals than a lack of performance which can be made up with extra foreplay.

      So I'm set! =D

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    5. Re:That would be MORE useful. by camperslo · · Score: 1

      Do they end up with a pack a day habit?

    6. Re:That would be MORE useful. by PPH · · Score: 1

      How would you know?

      We could conduct a Slashdot Poll. Have all the women reply with their preference on........

      ..... Uh. Sorry. This is Slashdot. No women. What was I thinking?

      Still, one wonders exactly what the 'CowboyNeal' option would be.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    7. Re:That would be MORE useful. by The+Archon+V2.0 · · Score: 1

      Still, one wonders exactly what the 'CowboyNeal' option would be.

      "In Soviet Russia, horse rides CowboyNeal"?

  15. Rule 34 by srussia · · Score: 1

    Don't click on those URL shorteners!

    --
    Set your phasers on "funky"!
  16. Hmmm, yes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I've always wondered about this.

  17. copied direct from the BBC, AGAIN !!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    copied direct from the BBC, AGAIN !!!

    1. Re:copied direct from the BBC, AGAIN !!! by Brannoncyll · · Score: 1

      Better than being copied directly from last week's Slashdot listings!

  18. Why men don't... by ittybad · · Score: 1

    Does that mean woman do??? (Hey, its slashdot...)

    --
    No single raindrop believes it is to blame for the flood.
  19. That's NOT a shortened url. by tomhudson · · Score: 1

    Don't click on those URL shorteners!

    No url shortener - I quoted part of the article I linked to.

    Though I *did* leave out this part out, since it wasn't really on topic

    Obviously, the two learned nothing from the story of the Russian man who in January lost half of his penis after trying to force a raccoon into oral sex.

    Mentioned on slashdot.

    1. Re:That's NOT a shortened url. by snspdaarf · · Score: 1

      I guess I never really appreciated how lonely it could get during the Russian winter...

      --
      Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
    2. Re:That's NOT a shortened url. by tomhudson · · Score: 3, Funny

      I guess I never really appreciated how lonely it could get during the Russian winter...

      "Hello, my name is Peggy."

    3. Re:That's NOT a shortened url. by blair1q · · Score: 1

      I didn't think you could get a Russian that drunk.

    4. Re:That's NOT a shortened url. by camperslo · · Score: 1

      Maybe banning high wattage light bulbs is enough?

    5. Re:That's NOT a shortened url. by petman · · Score: 1

      I guess I never really appreciated how lonely it could get during the Russian winter...

      You see, in Soviet Russia, the porcupine shags you.

  20. God created humans different than animals? *shock* by metalgamer84 · · Score: 1, Funny

    Even chimpanzees, our closest relatives, have penile spines. So why don't men?

    Intelligent Design aka Creationism perhaps?

  21. Pearly penile papules by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I got pearly penile papules does that count?

    1. Re:Pearly Penile Papules by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep I have these. I haven't heard any relationship to these spines(which I didn't previously know existed) but it seems pretty likely that they are a leftover remnant of them.

      I'm so unevolved :(

    2. Re:Pearly Penile Papules by kd5zex · · Score: 0

      TMI dude, TMI...

    3. Re:Pearly Penile Papules by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Is there something so sacred about the penis that it can't be talked about rationally?

      As the sibling to my original post says, these are very common, but I've never heard people talk about them.

    4. Re:Pearly Penile Papules by kd5zex · · Score: 2

      Is there something so sacred about the penis that it can't be talked about rationally?

      No, not sacred at all. Although, I would prefer you refer to it as "pee-pee".

    5. Re:Pearly Penile Papules by larry+bagina · · Score: 3, Funny

      The home remedies in this previous version are worth the read.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    6. Re:Pearly Penile Papules by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NSFW!!!!!

    7. Re:Pearly Penile Papules by Whiteox · · Score: 1

      Pee-Pee? Ok then, don't forget the 'Woo-Woo'
      (if you get that reference, then you should be the head of the Institute for the Very Very Nervous).

      --
      Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
    8. Re:Pearly Penile Papules by vegiVamp · · Score: 1

      So that's why furries love me.

      Yes, I actually do have that. Always had it, and never worried much about it, but it's nice to know what it actually is. Thanks :-)

      --
      What a depressingly stupid machine.
    9. Re:Pearly Penile Papules by bar-agent · · Score: 1

      The home remedies in this previous version are worth the read.

      I started reading, and the next thing I knew, I was back on Slashdot, the back button on my keyboard was smoking, and I had a rapidly fading memory of the words "soldering iron."

      --
      i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
  22. Humans are wierd by doconnor · · Score: 0

    Humans have very atypical sex lives because they have sex for social bonding rather then just reproduction. This is just one of several anatomical oddities that humans have related to sex.

    1. Re:Humans are wierd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google for bonobos (also known as pygmy chimpanzees), they've gotten us beaten hands down on that front.

      More likely its related to the fact we're bipedal, so mate in an entirely different position (I read once that human vaginas are amongst the most difficult to access in the animal kingdom, which is why humans have far bigger penises than other great apes relative to body size).

    2. Re:Humans are wierd by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      Humans have very atypical sex lives because they have sex for social bonding rather then just reproduction.

      So do a lot of monkeys.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    3. Re:Humans are wierd by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

      Google for bonobos (also known as pygmy chimpanzees), they've gotten us beaten hands down on that front.

      Not so much. Sure, Bonobos are a great deal more promiscuous and use sex for social bonding as a group, but I think the OP was referring to the pair-bonding required for long-term care of very vulnerable offspring. Bonobos do not have monogamous sexual relationships at all.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    4. Re:Humans are wierd by dadelbunts · · Score: 1

      like penguins?

    5. Re:Humans are wierd by froggymana · · Score: 1

      Don't forget the pigs!

      --
      "To prevent this day from getting any worse, I'll just read ERROR as GOOD THING" 1GJU8xLuDKDxEs4KLf8fAGyptoDsqvEsBT
    6. Re:Humans are wierd by Troll-Under-D'Bridge · · Score: 1
      Weird but not unique. Sex for social bonding appears to be a trait shared with the chimp-like bonobos: From the Wiki:

      The reason Bonobos are perceived to be matriarchal is that females tend to collectively dominate males by forming alliances. The females also use their sexuality to control males.

    7. Re:Humans are wierd by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      The reason Bonobos are perceived to be matriarchal is that females tend to collectively dominate males by forming alliances. The females also use their sexuality to control males.

      So humans weren't the first species to develop "Freshman Dorms?"

  23. Spines and whiskers on same switch... by aevan · · Score: 1

    Wonder if the furry fanciers would be so eager if they knew it came as a matching set...

    1. Re:Spines and whiskers on same switch... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You don't look at a lot of furry porn, do you? The furries would *love* it.

  24. Well, that's because... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    at some point of evolution both genders reached a common agreement: men would drop the penile spines while women would drop the vagina dentata.

    Since then, getting laid has been just a little easier... except for /. population, of course.

  25. Re:God created humans different than animals? *sho by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    or maybe the spines melted off when Xenu of the Galactic Confederacy exploded all them nukes in the volcanoes...

  26. Why? by Dunbal · · Score: 1

    Because human females collectively didn't like it for whatever reason, and selected against it. Nothing more, nothing less. Evolution in action.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    1. Re:Why? by dadelbunts · · Score: 1

      Human females didnt have a choice back then. Them liking or disliking something mattered not.

    2. Re:Why? by /dev/trash · · Score: 1

      oh yeah? I'd say that the males with less spines got more action until they all faded away.

    3. Re:Why? by PPH · · Score: 1

      The next thing you know, they'll object to guys leaving their laundry lying around and breed that out of the species as well.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    4. Re:Why? by dadelbunts · · Score: 1

      They definately reproduced more. That in no way implies that it has anything to do with a female choice. Thats like saying a leopard has spots because we find that pretty, when in reality our opinion on the matter is of no importance.

    5. Re:Why? by Laurence0 · · Score: 1

      This assumes that there are men out there who don't leave their laundry lying around...

    6. Re:Why? by PPH · · Score: 1

      There are. But they all have sex with each other.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    7. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, sexual selection is a fairly powerful evolutionary force.....and it's controlled by female preference. There's a hilarious chapter in a book by an author named Joe Quirk entitled "Sperm are from Men, Eggs are from Women" now called "It's not you; it's Biology!!" discussing how it works, in accurate (and amazingly funny) detail.

  27. Re:God created humans different than animals? *sho by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Even chimpanzees, our closest relatives, have penile spines. So why don't men?

    Intelligent Design aka Creationism perhaps?

    Yeah, maybe if you're FIVE FUCKING YEARS OLD and "well, GAWD did it" is an acceptable explanation for everything...

  28. Hmmm... by WillyWanker · · Score: 1

    Spined for her pleasure?

  29. Re:God created humans different than animals? *sho by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

    So why don't men?

    Er, RTFA? RTFS? FFS. I must be new here.

    Intelligent Design aka Creationism perhaps?

    Don't be stupid. Of course not.

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
  30. Eve by brettz9 · · Score: 1

    So Eve was created from a ribbed?

  31. Pearly Penile Papules by deimios666 · · Score: 5, Interesting
    --
    I think, therefore you are.
  32. Oh you evolutionists by jason777 · · Score: 0

    When are you going to learn that Darwin doesn't exist!

    1. Re:Oh you evolutionists by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

      When are you going to learn that Darwin doesn't exist!

      Quite. He died ages ago.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
  33. Well this is a thorny subject... by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 3, Funny

    Which will no doubt take some barbed comments and pointed insights to thrust ourselves into a much deeper and greater understanding.

    Perhaps twice, after a 30 minute resting period.

    --
    Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
  34. Mod parent up! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Only informative comment in the whole discussion. This mutation is actually not that uncommon at least one in ten men should have it to some degree.

  35. Re:God created humans different than animals? *sho by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This reeks of troll.

    Intelligent Design is retarded. We know why biodiversity exists, and it ain't no magic man in the sky, be he alien, deity, or otherwise.

  36. Thank God. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thank God.

    I hope you all can appreciate the irony of that statement.

  37. There's a lot more going on here by smellsofbikes · · Score: 5, Interesting

    First off, human males *do* have a mechanism to sweep out sperm from other males, consisting of the most visually obvious part of the male penis and protracted mechanical movement. We lost spikes, we evolved something else to do the same function. Secondly, there are many other mammals that have different methods for accomplishing the same thing: male squirrels have something like superglue that forms a plug after coitus, to prevent other males gaining access afterwards. (And female squirrels have claws and quite a bit of expertise in removing those same plugs, as you'd expect in any good arms race.) Likewise, many male lizards and insects avoid the problem by just staying connected until the female is ready to lay her eggs, which puts a whole lot of stress on the female during that period: they both get eaten pretty often.

    But if you really want to get weird, go look at insects like bedbugs, where males practice traumatic insemination: they don't go looking for an orifice, they make one, and let the female's body figure out what to do with the results. Or bees, where the barbs aren't there to stimulate ovulation but to make sure the penis breaks off and acts as a plug that can't be removed.

    And the next step weirder is hermaphrodites, where mating is a contest in which both wish to inseminate the other without getting inseminated, so mating strategies get seriously complicated. (The phrase 'penis fencing' has been used.)

    Anyone who is curious about this should read the brilliant book Promiscuity: the evolutionary history of sperm competition by Tim Birkhead. It will make you relieved to be human.

    --
    Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
    1. Re:There's a lot more going on here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep. That's why guys eat out women -- to suck out any lingering sperm from other men. It's also why women suck off guys -- to reduce the number of sperm that ends up in her stinky pink.

    2. Re:There's a lot more going on here by geekoid · · Score: 0

      "First off, human males *do* have a mechanism to sweep out sperm from other males,"

      the tongue?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:There's a lot more going on here by smellsofbikes · · Score: 2

      That's called felching, and unless you're Gene Simmons you're not likely to be cleaning out the ones that are your actual competition.

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
    4. Re:There's a lot more going on here by juan2074 · · Score: 1

      Also, check out a very interesting book, Sex at Dawn, by Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jethá.

      Yes, you would be amazed how human biology points to sperm competition.

      And our closest primate relatives are not chimps. We are far more like bonobos. Read the book.

  38. Oh that one is easy by Elimental · · Score: 1

    That is when the aliens has sex with the apes

  39. Confused by lazy+genes · · Score: 1

    Is calling someone a spineless bastard a complement?

  40. Re:God created humans different than animals? *sho by geekoid · · Score: 1

    IT's not a troll, he's trying to be funny.
    Just becasue you're sensitive to an issue, doesn't mean every comment about it is a troll.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  41. Re:God created humans different than animals? *sho by Kryptonian+Jor-El · · Score: 1

    Don't be stupid? You are new here

    --
    All your 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 are belong to us
  42. Re:God created humans different than animals? *sho by dadelbunts · · Score: 1

    w.e the earth is only 6 thousand years old. 5 years isnt that short in comparison.

  43. Eugenics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Eugenics not just for Nazis.

  44. In a thousand years... by PNutts · · Score: 1

    We'll be puzzling over our lack of elbow talons.

  45. Good ones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To everyone you commented so far: You guys crack me up HAHAHAHAHAHA. GREAT STUFF!

  46. Good thing I don't have spines.. by abednegoyulo · · Score: 1

    fap fap fap...

  47. Logical Evolutionary Step by rtb61 · · Score: 2

    A logical evolutionary step, where physical capability took second place to mental flexibility. Those groups of human where physical capability took precedence over mental flexibility died out when adverse environmental conditions left them less capable of surviving then the mentally flexible brethren who could throw rocks, start a fire and put on and take off a fur coat.

    The biggest driver for human evolution has likely been the recent (in evolutionary terms 2 million odd years) repeated ice ages giving precedence to mental agility of physical capability (being able to remain in a region and not having to pursue suitable climatic regions whilst stressed and against competition).

    --
    Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  48. rubbed em off generations ago? by bstender · · Score: 1

    or the women preferred men with un-calloused hands, or both

    --
    look sig is kool
  49. What would be the use.... by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

    Knowing the female anatomy, I lack to see the use this would have , scraping some sort of fingernail material around inside of them, some already have a problem with just getting poked in the first place.....without at least being brought out to diner first

  50. When a hedgehog cuts off your hapPINESS by tepples · · Score: 1

    However, I since found out that they did some popular long-running TV cartoons in the 90s (which I hadn't been aware of, having been past kids cartoons at that point). It appears that this is where the characterisation et al comes from.

    In the cartoons, it was Dr. Robotnik who was obsessed with penises.