While I’m on the subject of sex toys (as I was), Fusion magazine has a good article on the latest generation of them. The main thrust (huh huh) of which is that their designs are moving away from the conventional penis shapes towards whatever works or (in some cases) looks most stylish.
As an engineer I’m a fan of this approach. The optimization should be towards orgasms or aesthetic appeal, not badly replicating nature. After all, we don’t make automobiles in the shape of horses or houses that look like caves. We evolve both form and function.
Of course you don’t necessarily need cleverly designed toys to have fun. Sometimes just a few everyday items from your kitchen will do.
Wow – some of those look like abstract sculptures. Then again a lot of abstract sculptures look rather phallic so maybe the inspiration flows both ways.
Being a biologist I like to think evolution has already ‘designed’ the penis to perfectly fit its function – although how much of its function is ‘female pleasure giver’ and how much is ‘sperm delivery system’ is another (contentious) debate.
I’m definitely not a biologist, but I always thought evolution ‘designed’ things to be just good enough for purpose in the current situation. i.e. There’s a lot of local optima rather than perfect global optima. I certainly have a fair number of body parts that don’t seem all that perfectly ‘designed’ š Not sure if the penis should number among them or not!
-paltego