Quote:
|
Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce
... don't forget that in the 17th century guys were about 5 ft tall, on average.
|
Just cuz a guy's short doesn't mean he sometimes has trouble walking in a straight line
And are we talking just the Meat or the Meat and Potatoes together? If we're talking about the total package then body size doesn't mean much...look at a male rat. His boys are HUGE proportionately. Of course, rats are kinda geared towards making as many babies as they can so he needs a large gene factory. But way back when, having a lot of kids was a good idea too what with farms to manage, kingdoms to inherit and the need for a non-fatal way to prove one's virility and higher infant mortality rates. Wouldn't be surprised if the stuff of a man 17th century and before (especially way before) were a little bigger, or possible the word is 'robust', than the stuff of a man today. Guys today need to try harder; there's fertility clinics and dildos to compete with