Re: Is white racism nec. all bad?

Frank Forman (
18 Apr 1995 23:28:38 GMT

In <> (Arun Gupta)
>Frank Forman <> wrote:
>>Here's the relevant paragraphs from Rushton's _Race, Evolution, and
>>Behavior_ (p. 167). Too bad you don't have the book yourself.
>> "New focus on penis size has come in the wake of the AIDS crisis.
>>It has become increasingly obvious that one size of condum does not
>>all. Beacuse conduom use is considered an essential element of AIDS
>>prevention, and because condom size is a critical determinant in user
>>satisfaction, both the World Health Organization's _Specifications
>>Guidelines for Condom Procurement_ and the United Nation's
>>International Organization for Standardization have recommended a
>>flat width condom for Asia, a 52-mm flat width for North America and
>>Europe, and a 53-mm size for Africa (e.g., World Health Organization,
>>1991 [Global Programme on AIDS. _WHO Specifications and Guidelines
>>Condom Procurement_. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO]). China is reported to
>>be manufacturing its own condoms--49 mm, plus or minus 2 mm.
>> "In Thailand, where several ergonomic studies have been
>>female prostitutes say that size 52 mm condoms bunch up during
>>intercourse causing irritation and adolescent male users report that
>>even 49 mm slip off during intercourse. Other indications are that
>>52 mm condoms may be too small for some Caucasian and African men. As
>>result of such information, studies are currently underway to
>>typical penis size and shape in various parts of the world (e.g.,
>>[Seattle:] Program for Appropriate Technology and Health [_Adapting
>>Condoms for the Developing World_], 1991)."
>This one is so easy that I don't have to do any work.
>I'm no expert, but this much I do know : any size comparisons
>should be done relative to body-size : ( elephants have larger
>brains than humans etc.) So, Rushton hasn't done anything except
>show that men who are six foot on the average have larger body
>parts than men who are five foot five on the average. Since you
>haven't cited it, I will take that nowhere does Rushton show that
>some races have larger parts (brains, penises) relative body-sizes
>than others.

He did two pages after the one I quoted from. Want he to type it

>Since Rushton's book is on evolution, here is a question for you,
>who have read that font of wisdom. I'll put the question as a
>hypothetical because I don't have a citation to give you at the
>moment (perhaps someone here can help : does Helen Fisher discuss
>this ? )
>Just as humans have larger brains relative to body size than near
>relatives like chimpanzees, orangutans, and gorillas, human males
>also have large penises relative to body size than these animals.
>I think human males win in absolute size as well (it is this last
>that I'm not absolutely certain of.) My question is : If this is
>true, how would this affect Rushton's theories ? Does Rushton deal
>with this or mention it at all in his book ? (I do know Rushton
>believes that the different "races" have evolved to different extents,
>and places them on a scale of less evolved to more evolved. However,
>it would seem that penises small relative body size is closer in
>the evolutionary scale to apes. :-) This, using Rushton's arguments
>on himself, would invert his proposed evolutionary scale :-))

Indeed it would, if penis size were the one and only measure of
evolutionary advance. I've read that man is the sexiest of primates, if
not indeed of all mammals, because of the role of sex in pair-bonding.
You have raised a major problem here, and I want to apply my own poor
powers of ratiocination to them and not just hurl some sarcastic remark
back at you. Be patient!