>>11713570>Variation in penis size exists because in ancestral times it was not the size of your genital which got you laid but more important factors, e.g. protection, resources, status. Women as sexual selectors reproduced with men who could support their childrenYour source says their variation explanation is theoretical and it's almost the crux of the entire paper.
It's main discussion where it transitions from background info to argument seems to be:
>The proposed theoretical framework, and particularly the ancestral neutrality model discussed above, can be applied in understanding the observed variation in penis size. More specifically, female choice has been identified as one main selection force responsible for shaping the human penis. Evidence indicates that this selection force operating on penis size in ancestral human societies had been weak so, alleles that predispose for a larger or smaller than an assumed optimal size would experience weak negative selection pressure and would remain in the gene pool.This predicts that the size of the human penis would exhibit considerable variation.This is wrong as the penis shape that scoops out the most competitors sperm is more naturally advantageous and it's well known, hence an undesirable megadong that hurts females would obviously outweigh her "lack of negative selection pressure for tiny penises" and thus the megadong trait should persist... however, in the paper this female choice mechanism that is acknowledged to be a weak pressure is coupled with one we know is a strong pressure but the conclusion is that penises are variable because no pressures forced them one way or the other? Yeah right, that's blatant cherry picking. The prediction from this should have been that large penises should have persisted.
*highly related promiscuity argument below bc it didn't fit
That's also the only time in the paper it bothers to mention "theoretical"... it's a pretty shit paper.
