Eep.

So, symbolically, my wife is my boner? Isn't that kind of gay? I'm so confused.

A-ha! Now I have a science-reason for telling The Ladies that they owe me a bone. A sexual bone.

I was hoping for a scientific explanation for this predicament. I appreciate the colorful spins on Judaic myths, but science has to be more interesting. Like a disease or a mutation or inbreeding.

CSB:

My lawyer brother recently got to work on a case that involved a man suing a woman for sexual assault. Apparently, they'd met in a bar, gotten hammered, gone back to her place and started banging. After a time, she wanted to be on top, and after initially refusing (solid deuce, deuce and a half type) he relented and let her. As the activity became more vigorous and the "stroke" became longer, on one repetition, his dong left the comfy confines of her insides without her noticing, and as she returned for the downward motion, the end of his schlong got "caught" in a "fold of skin" in that area. (Yeah.) As such, with significant mass coming down on it and nowhere to go, the spongy tissue inside his member gave way with an audible *SNAP*, causing him to bleed internally in the "twig" and has resulted in him not being able to get an erection any more. I didn't know that you could break a penis without a bone in it, but there you go.

/apparently this happens more frequently than you'd think
//not that you'd want to think about it

DrunkenBob: I was hoping for a scientific explanation for this predicament. I appreciate the colorful spins on Judaic myths, but science has to be more interesting. Like a disease or a mutation or inbreeding.

Well we lost the bone due to Early Man's tool making ability. On the bright side, those early dildos did allow us to triumph over the Neanderthal. That's why those guys stagnated. They got to the spear and figured that'd do, while early us was figuring out ways to stick them in our lower holes. French caves with dildos on the walls and prehistoric velour on the floor. Science everywhere.

Dr Dreidel: If, for every mistranslation "accepted" by Biblical scholars, a nickel was donated to Israel, they'd never need another dime from the US.

And if the world ever simply forgot all about this Abraham guy, Israel wouldn't need a dime from anybody.

cgraves67: So, symbolically, my wife is my boner? Isn't that kind of gay? I'm so confused.

No, symbolically your wife is responsible for your need of viagra

Devolving_Spud: //twisting religious writings to suit my own needs is fun!

the technical term for this is organized religion

Devolving_Spud: It means God wants us all to "give the bone" as often as possible to glorify Him!

//twisting religious writings to suit my own needs is fun!

He did want us to spread our seed...

grinding_journalist: CSB:

My lawyer brother recently got to work on a case that involved a man suing a woman for sexual assault. Apparently, they'd met in a bar, gotten hammered, gone back to her place and started banging. After a time, she wanted to be on top, and after initially refusing (solid deuce, deuce and a half type) he relented and let her. As the activity became more vigorous and the "stroke" became longer, on one repetition, his dong left the comfy confines of her insides without her noticing, and as she returned for the downward motion, the end of his schlong got "caught" in a "fold of skin" in that area. (Yeah.) As such, with significant mass coming down on it and nowhere to go, the spongy tissue inside his member gave way with an audible *SNAP*, causing him to bleed internally in the "twig" and has resulted in him not being able to get an erection any more. I didn't know that you could break a penis without a bone in it, but there you go.

/apparently this happens more frequently than you'd think
//not that you'd want to think about it

CSB! My twig hurts.

grinding_journalist: My lawyer brother recently got to work on a case that involved a man suing a woman for sexual assault.

Which side is he on? 'Cause while that sounds horrific, I doubt you could get an assault claim to stand up.

If you go and study the secret histories the penis is a recent addition. It's the refinement of something leftover from a vegetative pre-humanity. Although you'll never read about that in Sunday school, it's so far from Christian doctrine that Don Quixote could rip from the secret history quite frequently and only a handful of Masons and other lodge members spot the joke.

Let me put it this way: Vegetarian doesn't mean what you think it means.

Ok, got no problem with science and religion coming together for "logical" explanations. However, what I am taking from the article is this:
"most other primates (excepting spider monkeys) have a penile bone, human males lack this bone and must rely on fluid hydraulics to maintain erections."


So...god made humans and spider monkeys in his image...


/do I win?

Moodybastard: Ok, got no problem with science and religion coming together for "logical" explanations. However, what I am taking from the article is this:
"most other primates (excepting spider monkeys) have a penile bone, human males lack this bone and must rely on fluid hydraulics to maintain erections."


So...god made humans and spider monkeys in his image...


/do I win?

Hold on tight spider monkey. You won a Twilight quote!

Moodybastard: Ok, got no problem with science and religion coming together for "logical" explanations. However, what I am taking from the article is this:
"most other primates (excepting spider monkeys) have a penile bone, human males lack this bone and must rely on fluid hydraulics to maintain erections."


So...god made humans and spider monkeys in his image...


/do I win?

Then why don't we have tails, dammit?

penis bone penis bone penis bone penis bone penis bone penis bone penis bone penis bone penis bone penis bone penis bone penis bone penis bone penis bone penis bone penis bone penis bone penis bone penis bone penis bone penis bone penis bone penis bone penis bone penis bone penis bone penis bone penis bone penis bone penis bone penis bone penis bone penis bone penis bone penis bone penis bone penis bone penis bone penis bone penis bone penis bone penis bone penis bone penis bone penis bone penis bone penis bone penis bone penis bone penis bone penis bone penis bone penis bone penis bone penis bone penis bone penis bone penis bone penis bone penis bone penis bone penis bone penis bone penis bone penis bone penis bone penis bone penis bone penis bone penis bone penis bone penis bone penis bone penis bone penis bone penis bone penis bone penis bone penis bone penis bone penis bone penis bone penis bone penis bone penis bone penis bone penis bone penis bone penis bone penis bone penis bone penis bone penis bone penis bone penis bone penis bone penis bone penis bone penis bone penis bone penis bone penis bone penis bone penis bone penis bone penis bone penis bone penis bone penis bone penis bone penis bone penis bone penis bone penis bone penis bone

The huge missing piece in this story is this: Did the Hebrews actually know that humans lack a baculum that other mammals do have? Is there any evidence that they had such an interest in anatomy?

Furthermore, even if they did know, is there any evidence that they would expect humans to have a baculum just because dogs do? Unlike modern biologists, they had no reason to think that dogs and humans are distantly related. Without that connection, this may be a purported answer to a question nobody was asking.

Theaetetus: grinding_journalist: My lawyer brother recently got to work on a case that involved a man suing a woman for sexual assault.

Which side is he on? 'Cause while that sounds horrific, I doubt you could get an assault claim to stand up.

He was "on" the dude's side, but he was just doing research/documentation, he wasn't the trial lawyer.

He, and his other lawyer advised the dude not to pursue things in trial, esp. since the lady's homeowner's insurance (dunno why it was homeowners) agreed to settle. He wanted to push it in court- they assumed he just wanted "revenge" on the lady. He lost, of course- the case hinged on the fact that the sex was mutual and consensual. Apparently he tried to play off the "she wanted to be on top" thing as evidence of non-conensuality, but the defense just fired back with "well, if you were that concerned, why didn't you just stop?"

So now, there are public records of this guy's busted boner. Probably wasn't the desired outcome.

Moodybastard: Ok, got no problem with science and religion coming together for "logical" explanations. However, what I am taking from the article is this:
"most other primates (excepting spider monkeys) have a penile bone, human males lack this bone and must rely on fluid hydraulics to maintain erections."


So...god made humans and spider monkeys in his image...


/do I win?



Brings a whole new world of meaning to the phrase.

What does this have to do with penis gourds?

DjangoStonereaver: Why the Hell is Discovery Magazine running a piece of creationist pseudo-science?

You might need to read more closely.

The article isn't claiming that God actually took the human bacula (instead of a rib) to make Eve, and that this surgery was then mysteriously inherited in some Lamarckian fashion on the grounds that men clearly have all their ribs but lack a bacula.

The article is proposing that the myth has been misinterpreted, that the myth was not created as a mythical explanation of the non-missing rib, which makes no sense, but that the myth was created as a mythical explanation of the missing bacula. Ancient myths are full of mythological "just so" stories about the natural world.

The article is about where the myth came from, not where the bacula went to.

That was actually an interesting theory, and certainly makes the story of Genesis more interesting. That aside, I wonder at which point in the evolution of our species that the bacula started to recede (punny...) until it was eliminated all together? What is the evolutionary advantage to not having one? As the article said, human males rely upon "hydraulics" for erections... maybe I am just out of it, but I am having a hard time thinking of a reason outside of some sort of inconvenience for man.

Oh, the writer of the article really needs to learn to use smaller paragraphs. I hate schlepping through long ones online almost as much as the two-sentences-per-paragraph that other writers use.

/eloquence in writing is slowly dying...

Anastacya: That aside, I wonder at which point in the evolution of our species that the bacula started to recede (punny...) until it was eliminated all together? What is the evolutionary advantage to not having one? As the article said, human males rely upon "hydraulics" for erections... maybe I am just out of it, but I am having a hard time thinking of a reason outside of some sort of inconvenience for man.

Two theories from wiki:
It has been speculated that the loss of the bone in humans, when it is present in our nearest related species the chimpanzee, is because humans "evolved a mating system in which the male tended to accompany a particular female all the time to try to ensure paternity of her children"[2] which allows for frequent matings of short duration. Observation suggests that primates with a baculum only infrequently encounter females, but engage in longer periods of copulation which the baculum makes possible, thereby maximizing their chances of fathering the female's offspring. For humans, it is almost impossible to tell when the female is fertile so frequent matings would be necessary to ensure paternity.[2]

The evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins also speculated in 2006 that the loss of the bone in humans, when it is present in our nearest related species the chimpanzee, is a result of sexual selection by females looking for honest signals of good health in prospective mates. The reliance of the human penis solely on hydraulic means to achieve a rigid state makes it particularly vulnerable to blood pressure variation. Poor erectile function betrays not only physical states such as diabetes and neurological disorders but mental states such as stress and depression.

So, (1) lack of need for long duration intercourse, and (2) additional evidence of fitness.

Ribbed. For Eve's pleasure.

grinding_journalist: Theaetetus: grinding_journalist: My lawyer brother recently got to work on a case that involved a man suing a woman for sexual assault.

Which side is he on? 'Cause while that sounds horrific, I doubt you could get an assault claim to stand up.

He was "on" the dude's side, but he was just doing research/documentation, he wasn't the trial lawyer.

He, and his other lawyer advised the dude not to pursue things in trial, esp. since the lady's homeowner's insurance (dunno why it was homeowners) agreed to settle. He wanted to push it in court- they assumed he just wanted "revenge" on the lady. He lost, of course- the case hinged on the fact that the sex was mutual and consensual. Apparently he tried to play off the "she wanted to be on top" thing as evidence of non-conensuality, but the defense just fired back with "well, if you were that concerned, why didn't you just stop?"

So now, there are public records of this guy's busted boner. Probably wasn't the desired outcome.

Homeowner's insurance covers injuries to people while on property. It's usually a small amount though, and I'm sure there are all kinds of exceptions. Penis injury must not be one of those exceptions. Good to know, I guess.

czetie: The huge missing piece in this story is this: Did the Hebrews actually know that humans lack a baculum that other mammals do have? Is there any evidence that they had such an interest in anatomy?

Furthermore, even if they did know, is there any evidence that they would expect humans to have a baculum just because dogs do? Unlike modern biologists, they had no reason to think that dogs and humans are distantly related. Without that connection, this may be a purported answer to a question nobody was asking.

Well that's on you, not on them actually. Ancient people spent far more time looking at the insides of people and animals then you or I have any reason to. The assumption that they didn't know about physiological structures within humans and animals is absurd because they saw it personally on a frequent basis while the knowledge of anatomy that the average modern person has is mainly academic. One doesn't need to know anything about science to make coherent statements about the world which are both objectively and culturally significant, which is how humans have been thinking about things for 99% of our history so far. You're not wrong, but also asking a question which the ancient Hebrews wouldn't need to ask for themselves.

Theaetetus: The evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins also speculated in 2006 that the loss of the bone in humans, when it is present in our nearest related species the chimpanzee, is a result of sexual selection by females looking for honest signals of good health in prospective mates. The reliance of the human penis solely on hydraulic means to achieve a rigid state makes it particularly vulnerable to blood pressure variation. Poor erectile function betrays not only physical states such as diabetes and neurological disorders but mental states such as stress and depression.

See, this is the kind of nonsensical "just so" story that annoys me. If females value "honest signals of good health", the payback for males from being able to fake signals of good health would be huge. If humans did have a bacula, Dawkins' speculation would work just as well the other way around. The moment evolutionary pressure suppressed the bacula in some men, the payoff of having a bacula would restore it in others.

Dawkins really should know better.

Anastacya: That was actually an interesting theory, and certainly makes the story of Genesis more interesting. That aside, I wonder at which point in the evolution of our species that the bacula started to recede (punny...) until it was eliminated all together? What is the evolutionary advantage to not having one? As the article said, human males rely upon "hydraulics" for erections... maybe I am just out of it, but I am having a hard time thinking of a reason outside of some sort of inconvenience for man.

Oh, the writer of the article really needs to learn to use smaller paragraphs. I hate schlepping through long ones online almost as much as the two-sentences-per-paragraph that other writers use.

/eloquence in writing is slowly dying...

Might have to do with upright walking. A protruding penile bone would be an opportune target to get ripped, chopped off in a fight, hunt, etc.

Doc Batarang: czetie: The huge missing piece in this story is this: Did the Hebrews actually know that humans lack a baculum that other mammals do have? Is there any evidence that they had such an interest in anatomy?

Furthermore, even if they did know, is there any evidence that they would expect humans to have a baculum just because dogs do? Unlike modern biologists, they had no reason to think that dogs and humans are distantly related. Without that connection, this may be a purported answer to a question nobody was asking.

Well that's on you, not on them actually. Ancient people spent far more time looking at the insides of people and animals then you or I have any reason to. The assumption that they didn't know about physiological structures within humans and animals is absurd because they saw it personally on a frequent basis while the knowledge of anatomy that the average modern person has is mainly academic. One doesn't need to know anything about science to make coherent statements about the world which are both objectively and culturally significant, which is how humans have been thinking about things for 99% of our history so far. You're not wrong, but also asking a question which the ancient Hebrews wouldn't need to ask for themselves.

If anything is absurd here, it's that response. What a bunch of hand-wavy "wisdom of the ancients/connected to nature" nonsense.

Just because people "looked at the insides of people and animals" doesn't mean they knew anything about those insides, what they did, or what they were for (beyond which parts are good eating). Ancient people variously thought that the liver was the seat of intelligence, the brain was primarily a blood-cooling device, and the entrails of birds predicted the future.

People have seen humans and animals bleed for all of our history, and for much more than 99% of that history had no idea why. Most ancient peoples thought that blood vessels carried air around the body, and that the blood was largely incidental to the whole business. Only since the mid-17th century have we had any real understanding of the circulatory system. And that's for something as basic, obvious and universal as blood. And yet your theory is that they noticed that animals had a bacula and humans didn't? And your argument in support of that is that "they must have noticed"?

In addition it wasn't until the later Greeks (4th century BCE) that anatomy was even primarily observational rather than speculative. The idea of cutting up dead bodies (or live ones, as Herophilos did) to discover how they worked would have been absolute anathema to ancient Hebrews.

So basically, given the evidence, you are the one making absurd assumptions. So now it's on you, not me nor them. This is the point where you stop flat-out asserting that the Hebrews knew this stuff because obviously they just had to, and either:

(a) actually point to some real evidence that supports your assumptions, i.e. Hebrews knew of the anatomical difference between humans and dogs and that Hebrews thought it significant that there was a difference in this respect between humans and dogs; or

(b) whine that I'm being mean to you and then call me names.

My money is on (b).

czetie: Doc Batarang: czetie: The huge missing piece in this story is this: Did the Hebrews actually know that humans lack a baculum that other mammals do have? Is there any evidence that they had such an interest in anatomy?

Furthermore, even if they did know, is there any evidence that they would expect humans to have a baculum just because dogs do? Unlike modern biologists, they had no reason to think that dogs and humans are distantly related. Without that connection, this may be a purported answer to a question nobody was asking.

Well that's on you, not on them actually. Ancient people spent far more time looking at the insides of people and animals then you or I have any reason to. The assumption that they didn't know about physiological structures within humans and animals is absurd because they saw it personally on a frequent basis while the knowledge of anatomy that the average modern person has is mainly academic. One doesn't need to know anything about science to make coherent statements about the world which are both objectively and culturally significant, which is how humans have been thinking about things for 99% of our history so far. You're not wrong, but also asking a question which the ancient Hebrews wouldn't need to ask for themselves.

If anything is absurd here, it's that response. What a bunch of hand-wavy "wisdom of the ancients/connected to nature" nonsense.

Just because people "looked at the insides of people and animals" doesn't mean they knew anything about those insides, what they did, or what they were for (beyond which parts are good eating). Ancient people variously thought that the liver was the seat of intelligence, the brain was primarily a blood-cooling device, and the entrails of birds predicted the future.

People have seen humans and animals bleed for all of our history, and for much more than 99% of that history had no idea why. Most ancient peoples thought that blood vessels carried air around the body, and that the blood was larg ...

Jewish Encyclopedia main article on Medicine

Jewish Encyclopedia branch article on anatomy

The second is very instructive as it mentions rules and guidelines for sacrificing various animals as well as mentioning surgery and that there was already a strong tradition of understanding Human anatomy before Talmudic times. A source like this one will also show you the depth and breadth of their possible medical diagnoses along with a strong connection between ancient Hebrew medical practice and Egyptian and Assyrio-Babylonian medical practices.

Of course, none of this is a perfect understanding of what all goes on inside a human body. That wasn't my point at all. The point was that even beside a list of touted erroneous beliefs, the practices and ideas of ancient medicine were still culturally relevant and results oriented. The understanding posited by this article doesn't require an in-depth knowledge of evolutionary processes, only an observed understanding of the differences between humans and various animals. The result is a culturally meaningful metaphor embedded within the story which illustrates that novel observation.

Your position is just a generic chronological bias. Follow the links and read enough to place the discussion article in its correct context.

czetie: In addition it wasn't until the later Greeks (4th century BCE) that anatomy was even primarily observational rather than speculative. The idea of cutting up dead bodies (or live ones, as Herophilos did) to discover how they worked would have been absolute anathema to ancient Hebrews.

Except you're forgetting that the Jewish people regularly performed surgeries on penises in particular and had probably sliced through at least a few dozen over the first hundred years of their existence. Then some assumed knowledge of animal anatomy through butchering / sacrificing - it's an easy observation that lots of animals have penis bones, but people don't... weird.

I think the article makes sense. And just a couple of weeks ago I was sitting at the dinner table with my fundie parents and my 12 yr old son and some how the rib thing came up... SOOOO wish I'd read this article then!

/can't wait for next time!

You got your religion in my science.

Stop that.

FTFA:
One of the creation stories in Genesis may be an explanatory myth wherein the Bible attempts to find a cause for why human males lack this particular bone.

Yeah, ignoring all manner of Biblical context, and conveniently ignoring the entire history of popular culture from the Levant to the Indus Valley.

The story is simply an alteration of the much earlier stories related to the Gilgamesh epic, etc. In Sumerian, the word for "rib" is the name of the Goddess of the rib area. The Sumerians had Goddesses one each for every part of the body. The name for the Goddess in Sumerian is the same as the Sumerian word for "curve", and not surprisingly, is pronounced "Eve".

I hate it when people write these stupid articles in spite of the fact that the real origin is punching them in the face.

czetie: Doc Batarang: czetie: The huge missing piece in this story is this: Did the Hebrews actually know that humans lack a baculum that other mammals do have? Is there any evidence that they had such an interest in anatomy?

Furthermore, even if they did know, is there any evidence that they would expect humans to have a baculum just because dogs do? Unlike modern biologists, they had no reason to think that dogs and humans are distantly related. Without that connection, this may be a purported answer to a question nobody was asking.

Well that's on you, not on them actually. Ancient people spent far more time looking at the insides of people and animals then you or I have any reason to. The assumption that they didn't know about physiological structures within humans and animals is absurd because they saw it personally on a frequent basis while the knowledge of anatomy that the average modern person has is mainly academic. One doesn't need to know anything about science to make coherent statements about the world which are both objectively and culturally significant, which is how humans have been thinking about things for 99% of our history so far. You're not wrong, but also asking a question which the ancient Hebrews wouldn't need to ask for themselves.

If anything is absurd here, it's that response. What a bunch of hand-wavy "wisdom of the ancients/connected to nature" nonsense.

Just because people "looked at the insides of people and animals" doesn't mean they knew anything about those insides, what they did, or what they were for (beyond which parts are good eating). Ancient people variously thought that the liver was the seat of intelligence, the brain was primarily a blood-cooling device, and the entrails of birds predicted the future.

People have seen humans and animals bleed for all of our history, and for much more than 99% of that history had no idea why. Most ancient peoples thought that blood vessels carried air around the body, and that the blood was largely incidental to the whole business. Only since the mid-17th century have we had any real understanding of the circulatory system. And that's for something as basic, obvious and universal as blood. And yet your theory is that they noticed that animals had a bacula and humans didn't? And your argument in support of that is that "they must have noticed"?

In addition it wasn't until the later Greeks (4th century BCE) that anatomy was even primarily observational rather than speculative. The idea of cutting up dead bodies (or live ones, as Herophilos did) to discover how they worked would have been absolute anathema to ancient Hebrews.

So basically, given the evidence, you are the one making absurd assumptions. So now it's on you, not me nor them. This is the point where you stop flat-out asserting that the Hebrews knew this stuff because obviously they just had to, and either:

(a) actually point to some real evidence that supports your assumptions, i.e. Hebrews knew of the anatomical difference between humans and dogs and that Hebrews thought it significant that there was a difference in this respect between humans and dogs; or

(b) whine that I'm being mean to you and then call me names.

My money is on (b).

How much did you lose?

Reminds me of that whole thing about jesus having "KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS" written on his thigh, and how "thigh" is also used as a euphemism for testicle.

/you may not want such confusing things in your holy book mr prophet, it can lead to hilarious misunderstandings
//or TMI moments
///not sure which applies

czetie: The huge missing piece in this story is this: Did the Hebrews actually know that humans lack a baculum that other mammals do have? Is there any evidence that they had such an interest in anatomy?

Not an interest so much as being observant when mutilating the corpses of their defeated foes.