Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Why Men Don't Have Sensory Whiskers and Spiny Genitals

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the we'd-need-different-pants dept.

Science 226

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."

cancel ×

226 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

That would be useful. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35445384)

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

That would be MORE useful. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35445670)

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.

Re:That would be useful. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35446066)

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

Re:That would be useful. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35446844)

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

The Condom (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35445412)

Furthers this concept.

Wait what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35445456)

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

Huh? (4, Funny)

eln (21727) | more than 3 years ago | (#35445462)

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

I'd better go see a doctor.

Re:Huh? (1)

darjen (879890) | more than 3 years ago | (#35445648)

Maybe you're actually a chimpanzee.

Re:Huh? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35446226)

Maybe you're actually a chimpanzee.

We call those niggers 'round these parts, y'hear?

Re:Huh? (5, Funny)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 3 years ago | (#35445652)

I'd better go see a doctor.

Or a veterinarian.

Re:Huh? (4, Funny)

Bovius (1243040) | more than 3 years ago | (#35446564)

These comments are just bristling with penis jokes.

Re:Huh? (5, Funny)

Kelbin (1787356) | more than 3 years ago | (#35445862)

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.

Re:Huh? (0)

Beefslaya (832030) | more than 3 years ago | (#35446116)

Mod funnay...

Re:Huh? (3, Funny)

eln (21727) | more than 3 years ago | (#35446234)

I think it means you should stop shagging hedgehogs.

Never!

Re:Huh? (1)

markov_chain (202465) | more than 3 years ago | (#35447002)

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

what do you mean no spines? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35445478)

Am I the only one with them?

I don't have spines on my penis (2, Funny)

scubamage (727538) | more than 3 years ago | (#35445482)

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

Re:I don't have spines on my penis (4, Interesting)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 3 years ago | (#35445542)

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

You mean like these 2 Russians [mosnews.com]

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.

Rule 34 (1)

srussia (884021) | more than 3 years ago | (#35445690)

Don't click on those URL shorteners!

That's NOT a shortened url. (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 3 years ago | (#35445936)

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 [slashdot.org] .

Re:That's NOT a shortened url. (1)

snspdaarf (1314399) | more than 3 years ago | (#35446036)

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

Re:That's NOT a shortened url. (3, Funny)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 3 years ago | (#35446392)

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

"Hello, my name is Peggy."

Re:That's NOT a shortened url. (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#35446840)

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

Re:I don't have spines on my penis (3, Insightful)

g0bshiTe (596213) | more than 3 years ago | (#35445822)

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

Re:I don't have spines on my penis (2, Insightful)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 3 years ago | (#35446014)

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).

Re:I don't have spines on my penis (2)

nschubach (922175) | more than 3 years ago | (#35446580)

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?

Re:I don't have spines on my penis (2)

billcopc (196330) | more than 3 years ago | (#35446038)

In Soviet Russia, space-time bend you.

Re:I don't have spines on my penis (1)

jfengel (409917) | more than 3 years ago | (#35446074)

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.

Re:I don't have spines on my penis (3, Insightful)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 3 years ago | (#35446316)

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.

Re:I don't have spines on my penis (1)

vux984 (928602) | more than 3 years ago | (#35446422)

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

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

Re:I don't have spines on my penis (0)

nschubach (922175) | more than 3 years ago | (#35446722)

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.

Re:I don't have spines on my penis (0)

Curunir_wolf (588405) | more than 3 years ago | (#35446916)

...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!

Re:I don't have spines on my penis (1)

nschubach (922175) | more than 3 years ago | (#35447000)

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

Re:I don't have spines on my penis (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35445554)

"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.

Re:I don't have spines on my penis (1)

scubamage (727538) | more than 3 years ago | (#35445918)

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

Re:I don't have spines on my penis (0)

tgd (2822) | more than 3 years ago | (#35445686)

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

Re:I don't have spines on my penis (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#35446856)

He's missing the point, at least.

Re:I don't have spines on my penis (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35445860)

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

Only reason this made front page... (4, Funny)

g0bshiTe (596213) | more than 3 years ago | (#35445508)

The phrase "wield a penis" appears in it.

Duh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35445510)

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.

Obvious answer (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35445522)

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

Re:Obvious answer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35445598)

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

We didn't evolve from Chimps... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35445524)

...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.

Re:We didn't evolve from Chimps... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35445568)

Does that make the dildo a common ancestor to GPS?

Re:We didn't evolve from Chimps... (2)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 3 years ago | (#35445632)

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.

Re:We didn't evolve from Chimps... (4, Informative)

Intron (870560) | more than 3 years ago | (#35445636)

...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.

Re:We didn't evolve from Chimps... (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 3 years ago | (#35445722)

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.

Occam's Razor (5, Interesting)

argStyopa (232550) | more than 3 years ago | (#35445570)

...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?

Re:Occam's Razor (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35445684)

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.

Re:Occam's Razor (1)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 3 years ago | (#35445888)

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.

Re:Occam's Razor (1)

GooberToo (74388) | more than 3 years ago | (#35446088)

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.

Re:Occam's Razor (1)

aliquis (678370) | more than 3 years ago | (#35446338)

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.

Re:Occam's Razor (5, Insightful)

joocemann (1273720) | more than 3 years ago | (#35445994)

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.

Re:Occam's Razor (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35446062)

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 :)

Re:Occam's Razor (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35446586)

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?

Re:Occam's Razor (4, Insightful)

mdielmann (514750) | more than 3 years ago | (#35446986)

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".

Re:Occam's Razor (1)

DerekLyons (302214) | more than 3 years ago | (#35446812)

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.

Re:Occam's Razor (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35447024)

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?

Obligatory "The Tick" (1)

h.ross.perot (1050420) | more than 3 years ago | (#35445592)

"How do you know I don't?"

" ... irritate a female into ovulating" ...??? (5, Insightful)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | more than 3 years ago | (#35445594)

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.

Re:" ... irritate a female into ovulating" ...??? (1, Insightful)

Antisyzygy (1495469) | more than 3 years ago | (#35445792)

So they are always irritated?

Re:" ... irritate a female into ovulating" ...??? (2)

Pieroxy (222434) | more than 3 years ago | (#35447104)

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

So they are always irritated?

Wow. You are sharp.

Re:" ... irritate a female into ovulating" ...??? (1)

joocemann (1273720) | more than 3 years ago | (#35446028)

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

Re:" ... irritate a female into ovulating" ...??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35446434)

Also note: PMS is not normal.

Summary, FYI (1)

AdamThor (995520) | more than 3 years ago | (#35445668)

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.

Re:Summary, FYI (1)

Antisyzygy (1495469) | more than 3 years ago | (#35445784)

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.

Re:Summary, FYI (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35445890)

And what does you spiny penis detect?

Re:Summary, FYI (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35446456)

You mom is ovulating.

Re:Summary, FYI (1)

tverbeek (457094) | more than 3 years ago | (#35446170)

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.

Re:Summary, FYI (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35446536)

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.

Re:Summary, FYI (1)

SleazyRidr (1563649) | more than 3 years ago | (#35446558)

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

Re:Summary, FYI (2)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#35446884)

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

Re:Summary, FYI (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35446614)

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

Re:Summary, FYI (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#35445854)

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.

Re:Summary, FYI (-1)

InsaneProcessor (869563) | more than 3 years ago | (#35446126)

Yet another scientific guess that is reported as a valid conclusion. This is typical. Until you can prove that man ever had that DNA, you cannot prove that it was lost.

Hmmm, yes. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35445870)

I've always wondered about this.

copied direct from the BBC, AGAIN !!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35445910)

copied direct from the BBC, AGAIN !!!

Re:copied direct from the BBC, AGAIN !!! (1)

Brannoncyll (894648) | more than 3 years ago | (#35446138)

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

Why men don't... (1)

ittybad (896498) | more than 3 years ago | (#35445922)

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

God created humans different than animals? *shock* (1, Funny)

metalgamer84 (1916754) | more than 3 years ago | (#35446158)

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

Intelligent Design aka Creationism perhaps?

Re:God created humans different than animals? *sho (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35446476)

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

Re:God created humans different than animals? *sho (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35446530)

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...

Re:God created humans different than animals? *sho (1)

serviscope_minor (664417) | more than 3 years ago | (#35446662)

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.

Re:God created humans different than animals? *sho (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35447078)

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.

Pearly penile papules (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35446174)

I got pearly penile papules [wikipedia.org] does that count?

Humans are wierd (0)

doconnor (134648) | more than 3 years ago | (#35446196)

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.

Re:Humans are wierd (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35446378)

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).

Re:Humans are wierd (1)

Curunir_wolf (588405) | more than 3 years ago | (#35447088)

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.

Re:Humans are wierd (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 3 years ago | (#35446582)

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

So do a lot of monkeys.

Spines and whiskers on same switch... (1)

aevan (903814) | more than 3 years ago | (#35446252)

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

Re:Spines and whiskers on same switch... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35446426)

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

Well, that's because... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35446402)

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.

Why? (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 3 years ago | (#35446526)

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

Hmmm... (1)

WillyWanker (1502057) | more than 3 years ago | (#35446648)

Spined for her pleasure?

Eve (1)

brettz9 (969574) | more than 3 years ago | (#35446720)

So Eve was created from a ribbed?

Pearly Penile Papules (5, Interesting)

deimios666 (1040904) | more than 3 years ago | (#35446750)

Still in the genepool only very diluted: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Hirsuties_coronae_glandis [wikimedia.org]

Mod parent up! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35447008)

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.

Re:Pearly Penile Papules (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35447010)

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 :(

Oh you evolutionists (0)

jason777 (557591) | more than 3 years ago | (#35446764)

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

Well this is a thorny subject... (3, Funny)

gestalt_n_pepper (991155) | more than 3 years ago | (#35446814)

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.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?