Men are bigger and physically stronger than women. This single difference is apparent as soon as puberty hits and sexual interest and preferences start to really develop. It is something that heterosexual people notice. Biologically speaking a larger male would be better able to protect you and any children you might have together. Studies have been done that prove where a woman is in her fertility cycle, depends on the type of male she finds attractive. The closer she is to the time she can conceive, the more her body naturally selects a big, strong, masculine and muscular male.
Biology is a funny thing, isn’t it? A woman’s body changes and hormones alter to the point it changes how you perceive the potential ability to decide who you have sex with. It also changes how a woman smells. Her pheromones are altered and this means she sends out unconscious signals to men about her ability to conceive his child. This means that when a woman is ovulating, men find her much more attractive than if she wasn’t. His perception changes because his body recognizes the fact she can get pregnant and it wants that to happen. So his hormones alter how he perceives how she looks, making her more attractive to him.
Endless studies have been completed that prove both of those human realities. It serves to form the basis of the idea that some things are hardwired into our brains and when it comes to sex, desire and procreation we are manipulated on a large scale by biological urges we have no control over and could not change even if we wanted to. Whether we decide to act on these primitive urges is irrelevant. The point is, they are there. Our bodies respond and our brains light up like Christmas trees when we see someone who we are attracted to and our body recognized a potential mate.
The fact that we choose not to have sex, when our bodies are screaming for it, has largely developed because we had to develop rules when we started living in social groups. Our Neanderthal ancestors needed a way for us to cohabitate safely and to not have the males fighting each other over access to fertile females and to have the females have mates who would take care of them and their offspring, wile she was busy rearing them, and could not. This is how pair bonding developed and why there is a phenomenon called “the 7 year itch”. Typically by this age, the child a pair bonding was created for will be past the point of danger for survival and there would be no further need for that couple to remain together.
The union would have served its biological purpose and it naturally disintegrates on a biological level. It’s why so many modern marriages fall apart at this point. It’s because the brains and bodies of both the man and woman are hardwired to end the union. Both people in the same place of not wanting to stay together at the same time, means a higher instance of divorce, as opposed to when at least one person in the marriage is willing to fight to keep the monogamous marriage intact. Again, it is a well studied and documented fact supported by statistical data that marriages fail around this time frame and there is a biological reason why it happens.
Monogamy was created in large part to ensure that males would be providing resources and expending energy as well as risking his life, to ensure that HIS biological children survived. If he felt threatened that the child was not his, he could simply move on and start over again in a matter of months with a new mate. Meanwhile, the female would be left in the life threatening position of raising her offspring with no protection or assistance from a male, plus she would be in the position of not having a mate to defend her from the attention of other males when she was fertile and sending out biological signals that she needed sex to get pregnant.
Add a few thousands of years of human development and nothing really changes until the very recent history where men live longer than 25 because they aren’t maiming each other when fighting for land, women and social standing. We have modern medicine and intervention, so women aren’t dying in childbirth and babies are able to thrive and survive childhood. Infections and disease no longer claim people at alarming rates and so what we are left with is a population explosion and a world now filled with a copious number of sexually viable adults who have very long reproductive lives.
The fact is as a species we are not as sexually promiscuous as our potential would allow us, simply because it has impacted by social conditioning by some degree. We have made rules around sex which include but are not limited to: how old we should be before we start having it, the fact it should take place between consenting adults; that in many cultures it is expected that people form not just pair bonds of commitment, but be legally bound to each other in marriage and that by definition that marriage should be monogamous. It is generally accepted that men have more partners than women.
Now you have a toxic brew of unused hormones that are being swirled around like a fine red wine in a deep glass, throbbing through our systems and there is no recourse to act upon them in the open and be authentic about your true sexual nature without suffering the stereotypes our society has formed about promiscuous behaviour and having multiple sexual partners. Unlike Dolphins and Bonobo primates, people do not have sex for recreation whenever and with whomever they feel like. Our societal rules frown upon it.
One of the things that fascinate me about this whole sexual selection process is that we develop sexual preferences on top of our biological ones, that impact who we want to have sex with. All animals have their own courtship rituals and the males normally develop secondary sexual characteristics that exaggerate and are passed to their offspring because they are successful at fathering more than another male who does not share those same preferred traits.
This exact same selection process occurs in humans as evidenced by the increase in height in the general population at a rate that can not solely be contributed to better nutrition or natural selection. An example may be that women prefer taller men to procreate with as they want those genes passed onto their own potential offspring. Another example is penis size. If you compare the male penis to that of other animals, the human penis is much larger than it has to be, in order to do the job of simple impregnation. The clear evidence of a preference in a taller height and a larger penis size, is simply evidenced by the result of men being taller and by in large, developing a larger endowment, because those are two secondary sexual characteristics that women are choosing in potential partners.
This is not just something that is localized to one geographic area of the world. Look at the statistical data available over the last 100 years and you can see the evidence of these two preferences yourself. Women worldwide have practiced the art of selective breeding through mate section to ensure that their offspring would have the greatest chance of being sexually more attractive to others and thus propagate their gene pool forward another generation. It doesn’t matter if that woman is in Indonesia, Sudan, Iqaluit, Peru or North America; her sexual preference is for tall men with a large penis. Individual preference aside, this is the rule and not the exception.
By comparison, most men will have sex with any woman who will let him. He may not have a repeat performance with her if she was not to his initial sexual appeal, but it will not stop him from at least having sex the first time with her. This is a generalization based on the nature of most men and of course there are some exceptions to the rule. For the most part, a man does not mentally calculate the chances of impregnating a woman who offers herself for sex to try and determine if she has the necessary traits he might find desirable in a mother to his offspring. His preference may be for a 5ft 8 blond who is voluptuous, but he is not going to say no to sex with a 5ft 2 brunette who is skinny.
A man does not think about women in terms of raising his children until he feels an emotional connection to her. This is when he starts to determine if the traits she exhibits would work for his creation of a “family” as opposed to a simple sexual partner. Otherwise, for men, sex is a recreational pursuit driven by his basic biology to take as many chances as he can to potentially breed any available woman who offers, in the hopes his seed takes root and his genetic material is passed to the next generation.
I have often thought what a woman’s choices in mate selection mean in relationship to the men who do not measure up when it comes to height or penis size. Hundreds of thousands of years have gone into women developing a preference for bigger men on such a large scale that it has impacted the genetics of humans. I feel that due to the recent history of women being allowed to have greater public sexual freedom; choices to have sex with multiple men, sex before marriage, that women are exposed to penis size difference with much more frequency than they ever had at any point in human history. Once we donned clothes for modesty sake or moved to climates where covering up meant survival and new opportunity to explore and live in colder climates, it meant that women had to rely on men’s other attributes, besides penis size, to base her selection of him as a possible sexual partner and mate. But sexual liberation meant that she now could compare a mans penis to his height or muscle mass. She could determine if she wanted to be with a shorter man with a bigger penis or a taller man who was perhaps better looking but with a smaller endowment.
A man can hide his small penis behind the bravado of confidence when he is tall. He can impress everyone with his height, his work ethic, his good job and all the toys that come with power and privilege of his particular station and social peers. But what happens when he is naked and exposed? What happens to his credibility and confidence when he is at the gym and other men see his small penis in the showers? What happens when he dates and impresses a woman and then he becomes intimate with him and she sees that he is far less impressive than she was led to believe by viewing all of the other secondary sexual characteristic he has. What happens when it is discovered that the only huge thing the man actually possesses is the disparity between what people assumed he had and the reality of what he does have, between his thighs.
Finally, why is it so important?