this post was submitted on 26 Jul 2023
-30 points (25.8% liked)

Asklemmy

43898 readers
1434 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Cloak@lemmy.ml
mekhos@lemmy.ml
tmpod@lemmy.pt
14specks@lemmy.ml
-30
The male penis's head is designed to remove other males' semen from the vagina during sex... how does that make you feel? (lemmy.one)
submitted 1 year ago by MJKee9@lemmy.one to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml
NSFW 61 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

See title

top 46 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Fondots@lemmy.world 40 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm reminded of a joke I heard a long time ago (copy/pasted from elsewhere online)

The American Government funded a study to see why the head of a man's Penis was larger than the shaft. After 1 year, and $180,000, they concluded that the reason that the head was larger than the shaft was to give the man more pleasure during sex.

After the US published the study, the French decided to do their own study. After $250,000 and 3 years of research, they concluded that the reason the head was larger than the shaft was to give the woman more pleasure during sex.

The Irish, unsatisfied with those findings, conducted their own study. After 2 weeks, a cost of around $75.34, and many pints of beer, they concluded that it was to keep a man's hand from flying off and hitting himself in the face.

[–] MJKee9@lemmy.one 2 points 1 year ago

Bravo. Had not heard that one before.

[–] jeffw@lemmy.world 27 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It makes me feel uncomfortable that someone would actually believe something so fuckin stupid

[–] MJKee9@lemmy.one 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] adroidBalloon@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

so you just found some crazy study online by some academic kooks and, rather than apply an ounce of critical thought, you just believed it.

smh

[–] jeffw@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Interestingly, the main author is respected

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_G._Gallup

Edit: not saying I buy the premise of the article though

Edit 2: every reply from the above commenter gets 5 upvotes in 2 minutes, while all my comments get 5 downvotes in 2 minutes… nice job being subtle lol

[–] adroidBalloon@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

that doesn't really mean much with regard to the validity of the study, though

[–] Mothra@mander.xyz 5 points 1 year ago

I can't open the link, it's not loading for me for reasons unknown. So I'll take the title at face value, and say that as a theory or hypothesis it sounds plausible. Penile adaptations to outcompete other males isn't unheard of, the most well known example is canine knots.

[–] jeffw@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Again, that’s not what my point is. I’m just disputing the characterization you made

Edit: every reply from the above commenter gets 5 upvotes in 2 minutes, while all my comments get 5 downvotes in 2 minutes… nice job being subtle

[–] adroidBalloon@lemmy.ml -3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I’m just disputing the characterization you made

how does opining on one of the author's reputability have to do with the integrity of the study or its findings? that's like saying Teslas are good cars because you happen to like Elon Musk.

[–] jeffw@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

The comment called the authors “kooks.” I am disputing that characterization. As you say, this has nothing to do with the study.

Edit: 5 downvotes in 2 minutes… wow, is this breaking any rules that the person has so many accounts and manipulates votes?

[–] adroidBalloon@lemmy.ml -4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

you haven't disputed anything. all you've done is to disagree and link to a Wikipedia article that does nothing to contradict my assessment.

[–] jeffw@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I apologize if my comment was not clear. You’re correct, just posting a link is not sufficient. However, the lead author, Gordon Gallup Jr, created the mirror test (see https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/neuroscience/mirror-test#:~:text=A%20concept%20of%20self%20has,differentiate%20themselves%20from%20other%20individuals.)

His work is pretty vital in our understanding or primate cognition. See his recent paper for an update: https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2019-57425-001

A quick google search gives look as: “a crazy or eccentric person.” He probably is quite eccentric, but I’d say “crazy” is a bit much. Merrimack Webster uses “one whose ideas or actions are eccentric, fantastic, or insane.” Feel free to share why you specifically think his writing demonstrates insanity

Edit: 5 downvotes in 2 minutes again, to nobody’s surprise

[–] adroidBalloon@lemmy.ml -3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

so, after citing other works which have no bearing whatsoever on this one, you agree that he's kooky.

are you trolling for any particular reason or just because you're bored?

[–] jeffw@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I’m sorry, as I’ve stated from the beginning, this work is most likely not accurate. However, I don’t think exploring odd theories makes someone a “kook,” no. He’s a scientist exploring and publishing a review of the research.

Again, your comment stated that the authors are kooks. I stated the lead author is quite respected and then provided evidence backing my comment. Again, if you have specific evidence or quotes as to why you think this man is crazy, I’m all ears.

[–] adroidBalloon@lemmy.ml -4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Again, your comment stated that the authors are kooks.

Again, if you have specific evidence or quotes as to why you think this man is crazy, I’m all ears.

ah, I've identified the problem-- either you're illiterate, or you think I'm stupid enough to be distracted by your obvious trolling to notice you're trying to put words in my mouth.

enough with the Sealioning

Sealioning (also sea-lioning and sea lioning) is a type of trolling or harassment that consists of pursuing people with relentless requests for evidence, often tangential or previously addressed, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity ("I'm just trying to have a debate"), and feigning ignorance of the subject matter. It may take the form of "incessant, bad-faith invitations to engage in debate", and has been likened to a denial-of-service attack targeted at human beings. The term originated with a 2014 strip of the webcomic Wondermark by David Malki, which The Independent called "the most apt description of Twitter you'll ever see".

[–] jeffw@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

so you just found some crazy study online by some academic kooks and, rather than apply an ounce of critical thought, you just believed it.

My apologies again. What does “academic kooks” mean to you?

[–] adroidBalloon@lemmy.ml -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

moe Sealioning

Sealioning (also sea-lioning and sea lioning) is a type of trolling or harassment that consists of pursuing people with relentless requests for evidence, often tangential or previously addressed, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity ("I'm just trying to have a debate"), and feigning ignorance of the subject matter. It may take the form of "incessant, bad-faith invitations to engage in debate", and has been likened to a denial-of-service attack targeted at human beings. The term originated with a 2014 strip of the webcomic Wondermark by David Malki, which The Independent called "the most apt description of Twitter you'll ever see".

[–] jeffw@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

I really do apologize that I came across that way. I want you to know that I’m not some shill. I was being genuine and I really tried to back that up. Ig it’s just another misunderstanding on social media. I hope you have a good day though

Edit: odd how I had no downvotes and then I come here 5 minutes after the reply comment and I have 5 downvotes and the reply has 5 upvotes…

[–] hsl@wayfarershaven.eu -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Please stop discussing upvotes and downvotes. Your last three comments have included references and it's repetitive. If it bothers you, why not join an instance that doesn't use downvotes?

[–] jeffw@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

This person is stalking me across all my posts. Idk what to do other than bitch about it. Everything, no matter how innocuous, got to -5 within minutes. Your comment isn’t really helping. Someone is literally being a creep and stalking me and all you have to offer is “maybe you should leave”? Thanks, victim blaming is always so helpful.

[–] hsl@wayfarershaven.eu 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Dude. Karma isn't a big deal on Lemmy. If you don't like downvotes, use an instance that doesn't use them. This community is for discussing questions, not using Lemmy. Next comment about this will be a community ban.

[–] jeffw@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Sorry, didn’t mean to break any rules. It just hurts that any helpful reply I give on a thread is immediately buried. I will not mention it again. This is not sarcasm, but I know it might sound that way-Thanks for all your time spent helping to grow Lemmy

[–] hsl@wayfarershaven.eu 1 points 1 year ago

Try one of the support communites for more info on this.

[–] BrooklynMan@lemmy.ml -2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

curious as to why you left all the trolly comments and removed the comments from the person being trolled?

edit: they clearly are seasoning:

Sealioning refers to the disingenuous action by a commenter of making an ostensible effort to engage in sincere and serious civil debate, usually by asking persistent questions of the other commenter. These questions are phrased in a way that may come off as an effort to learn and engage with the subject at hand, but are really intended to erode the goodwill of the person to whom they are replying, to get them to appear impatient or to lash out, and therefore come off as unreasonable.

as a mod, if you’re looking to foster communities for open discussion rather than a place that will become toxic, punishing people for being targets of trolls while leaving trolls alone isn’t the way to go.

[–] jeffw@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

I don’t get how I did anything close to sealioning lol. I made a point with sources and asked for an explanation as to why someone disagreed with me

[–] hsl@wayfarershaven.eu 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I read through the thread a few times and while at first glance, it looked like one person was trolling, my conclusion in the end was that it was actually the other person. That's why I deleted those posts.

I seriously considered removing the entire thread but my thought was that it would remove transparency. I'm not always going to get this right but I'll do my best and listen to the follow-up comments.

[–] BrooklynMan@lemmy.ml -3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

i read through it, too. it's pretty textbook sealiong, and I don't see how you don't see that. as for transparency, that's what the modlog is for.

if your stance is to punish the victim, I'll know to see clear of this community myself. since fostering a toxic atmosphere is your goal, this isn't a community I want to be a part of

[–] hsl@wayfarershaven.eu 1 points 1 year ago

I'm confused as to how we got from "I reviewed the whole thread and tried to make a fair call that protects the users in the community" to "if your stance is to punish the victim and foster a toxic atmosphere". I'm here to help, so please take me at face value.

[–] adroidBalloon@lemmy.ml -4 points 1 year ago

you know exactly what you're doing, and it's no misunderstanding. you're intentionally trolling. if you have any genuine intentions, you'll simply stop. by replying to this comment, you confirm that you're trolling.

[–] BrooklynMan@lemmy.ml 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

lol, who told you that?

[–] MJKee9@lemmy.one -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] BrooklynMan@lemmy.ml 21 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

lmao, this is a theory, and this study hasn't only not been peer-reviewed, it doesn't seem to have gained much of any traction in the academic community in the last 20 years.

if I paid 600 college students to fuck each other, yeah, I'm going to find that one penis is going to squish out the cum from the last penis, but that doesn't prove that it evolved specifically for that purpose. isn't simple displacement, and a task that could be as easily performed by a dildo or fist or anything else that you shoved into the jizz-filled cavity.

don't believe everything you find on google.

[–] TauZero@mander.xyz 6 points 1 year ago

Your comment hasn't been peer reviewed, so I'm gonna take your advice and not believe you.

[–] lol3droflxp@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

A theory is the most solid thing science can produce. What you’re wanting to say is hypothesis. Also, OP should provide the relevant section of the original review by Baker and Bellis 1995

[–] BrooklynMan@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago

What you’re wanting...

it always amuses me when random strangers on the internet believe that they can read my mind and know what I want.

i said "theory" because that's what I meant, and it has more that the one definition you gave.

[–] chahk@beehaw.org 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It feels like bullshit. Didn't MythBusters debunk this?

[–] andrew@lemmy.stuart.fun 5 points 1 year ago

Debunked by NutBusters actually.

[–] APassenger@lemmy.one 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

ITT: a lot of "either/or"

I'm not sure that evolution cares one wit about any of our theories. If it means I'm the dad and I'm the dad more often... then it will be favored.

If I enjoy it more, she enjoys it more or it means that my sperm have increased likelihood of winning... that's all that matters.

And when I say "or" above, it can include any of those things. It need not be exclusive.

[–] Raisin8659@monyet.cc 4 points 1 year ago

A scoop is a scoop.

[–] hal_5700X@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1HXpOVfV18

[–] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/watch?v=s1HXpOVfV18

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.

[–] tsz@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

Hah, pipe.

load more comments
view more: next ›