Skamall |
|
| CITAZIONE J.Diamond (1991) considers the theory of testis size to be "one of the triumphs of modern physical anthropology" .like most great ideas, the theory of testis size is simple: species that copulate more often need larger testes, and species in which several males routinely copulate with one ovulating female need even bigger testes. CITAZIONE through generations, male gorillas eveolved impressive muscles for their reproductive struggle, while their relatively unimportant genitals dwindled down to the bare minimuum needed for uncontested fertilization. conversely, male chimps, bonobos and humans had less need for oversized muscles for fighting but eveolved larger, more powerful testicles and, in case of humans, a much more interesting penis.
himans fall in the middle ground between gorillas and bonobos on the tesicular volume/body-mass scale. those who argue that our species has been sexually monogamous for millions of year point out that human testicles are smaller than those of chimps and bonobos. those who challenge standard narrative (like us, for example) note that human testicular ratios are far beyond of the polygynous gorilla or the monogamous gibbon.
so, is the human scrotus half-empty or half-full? CITAZIONE a one-man/one-woman system reduces competion among males, as the pool of available females isn't being dominated by just few men, leaving more women available for less desired men. but a mating system in which both males and females tipically have multiple sexual relationships running in parallel reduce male mating competion just as effecively, if not more so. and given that both of the species closest to us practice multimale-multifemale mating, this seems by far the more likely scenario. |
| | |
