• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    31 year ago

    So I actually have no dog in this fight but I read this

    If you believe in evolution then you can agree that foreskin exists for a biological function, right?

    Counterpoint: that was before “pants.”

    Good question though, most of the animal world has retractable peni, why’d we lose that ability? Now I’m curious.

    Also, shouldn’t the religious oppose it because it is fucking with “God’s creation?” Frankly them supporting it seems like flawed logic to me.

    • jerry
      link
      fedilink
      61 year ago

      No, mutations are mutations, they have no purpose, some are beneficial and are prioritized by evolution.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        31 year ago

        So you’re saying we lost retractable penises “just because?”

        Cause I looked into it, and it seems that since we walk upright there’s less of a chance at scraping it on the ground, so we can trade dicksheaths for extra room in our hips which would likely help moving around on two legs, which makes sense.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      31 year ago

      Let’s note here that evolution doesn’t care for “functions” or “utility” as much as it cares for “reasons”. We won’t be the first nor the last animal to get screwed in a shitty trade-off that natural selection deemed necessary. Humans are notorious for being born far more defenseless than most other mammals - evolution forced it upon us because otherwise our larger heads would kill far too many mothers.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      21 year ago

      I hadn’t even thought about pants as being a compounding factor. It seems unlikely that cavemen had better cleanliness education than we do but smegma build up would be a problem even for them… Unless underwear/pants are what cause it to build up.