ceg1526: [quote author=kurios link=board=health;num=1076897413;start=0#14 date=02/20/04 at 10
13]First of all there will be exceptions to every theory so the fact that there are hairy hung guys doesnt discount LABearz' observation.
I too have seen hairy hung guys BUT too generalize most of the younger guys I have seen who seem to get hit by an early pubertal hair wave(-legs, chest and belly-) dont seem to be particularly well hung. *Maybe early bloomers are most affected by the either hair or hung alternative[/quote]
Genetics, genetics, genetics. Grab one from column A, one from column B, and one from column C. I think that the traits (hairy vs. non-hairy, hung vs. non-hung, early vs. late bloomers) we're considering are independent of each other.
For this set of three dual-option traits, there would be eight alternatives. If there is no "deadly" characteristic (i.e.: have the hung gene and you die
in vitro) or outside force (i.e.: women only mate with hung men at the expense of the non-hung genes and skew the gene pool), then an even 12.5 percent of the population would be in each of the 8 sets.
I haven't done a survey to prove they are independent, nor do I want to (I can't imaging going up to the guys in the gym and asking whether they were late bloomers or not). Let the government fund the study.
Additionally, these traits are continuums, rather than either/ors. We've had many threads on what is hung vs. non-hung. And when is a guy hairy vs. non-hairy? We can identify end members (Cousin It, Sinead O'Conner), but the boundary is poorly defined.
Going back to the original question, the hung guys I've seen in porn recently seem to be shaved, so even if a hung guy was hairy, he could masquarade as non-hairy.
Take care
Ceg