Why Men Don't Have Sensory Whiskers and Spiny Genitals 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."
That would be useful. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Do they end up with a pack a day habit?
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Huh? (Score:5, Funny)
I'd better go see a doctor.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe you're actually a chimpanzee.
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Funny)
I'd better go see a doctor.
Or a veterinarian.
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Funny)
These comments are just bristling with penis jokes.
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Funny)
No need to get prickly. It's all in good humor, you don't have to be a dick.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd better go see a doctor.
Or a veterinarian.
Or a waxer.
Re:Huh? (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.
Re:Huh? (Score:4, Funny)
I think it means you should stop shagging hedgehogs.
Never!
Re: (Score:2)
Hi, Christian Weston Chandler!
Re: (Score:2)
"Ah well, anyone can make a mistake"
- a hedgehog, climbing off a hairbrush
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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".
Re:Huh? (Score:5, 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...............
Re: (Score:2)
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. . .
I don't have spines on my penis (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I don't have spines on my penis (Score:5, Interesting)
...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]
Rule 34 (Score:2)
That's NOT a shortened url. (Score:2)
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
Mentioned on slashdot [slashdot.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Re:That's NOT a shortened url. (Score:4, Funny)
I guess I never really appreciated how lonely it could get during the Russian winter...
"Hello, my name is Peggy."
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't think you could get a Russian that drunk.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe banning high wattage light bulbs is enough?
Re:I don't have spines on my penis (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's in the paragraph immediately under the part I quoted:
California *probably* doesn't have a law about sex with porcupines (Note to self - ask
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:3)
In Soviet Russia, space-time bend you.
Re: (Score:2)
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 n
Re:I don't have spines on my penis (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
.. or putting cuffs on someone that manipulated another persons body.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 f
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure how you read "0.02% of the people in the state" to mean "1/3 of the population of the state"...
Re: (Score:3)
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!!
Re: (Score:2)
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.
-
Re: (Score:3)
Sharing is Caring. Hey Jeffry, pass me that sheep when you're done.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He's missing the point, at least.
Only reason this made front page... (Score:5, Funny)
Obvious answer (Score:4, Funny)
All the women had sex with the first freak born without them.
Occam's Razor (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?
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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-a
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Probably due to no choice as no Chimps were mutated into a lack of spines.
Re:Occam's Razor (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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 f
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (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?
Re:Occam's Razor (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".
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Patent patent patent!
Re: (Score:2)
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,
Re: (Score:2)
...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.
" ... irritate a female into ovulating" ...??? (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.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
Pms happens about a week before ovulation. Menses are not ovulation. Glad to teach you.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
or confusing female signals.
A guaranteed way to irritate them.
Summary, FYI (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I certainly didn't want to read the post where he mentions both his beard and penises.
Re: (Score:3)
As a bicycle rider let me assure you, both penile spines and extra-sensitive follicles would have a deleterious effect on the sport.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Spines and whiskers on same switch... (Score:2)
Why? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
oh yeah? I'd say that the males with less spines got more action until they all faded away.
Hmmm... (Score:2)
Pearly Penile Papules (Score:5, Interesting)
Still in the genepool only very diluted: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Hirsuties_coronae_glandis [wikimedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (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".
Re: (Score:2)
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).
Well this is a thorny subject... (Score:4, 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.
There's a lot more going on here (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 [amazon.com] by Tim Birkhead. It will make you relieved to be human.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
In a thousand years... (Score:2)
We'll be puzzling over our lack of elbow talons.
Logical Evolutionary Step (Score:3)
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).
Re: (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.
Re:We didn't evolve from Chimps... (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
So do a lot of monkeys.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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?"
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
When are you going to learn that Darwin doesn't exist!
Quite. He died ages ago.