I think I get your point, BioD, but I am not sure there is quite so delicate a balance in male Homo sapiens, or at least not in the same way.  There is nothing biological that would tend to make less likely the possibility that a male owner or driver of a Hummer has impressively large genitalia.  (I do not know if testes size, among human beings, matters as much as penis size, so I just write "genitalia."  The male beetles need to keep coming and coming and coming, in a short space of time, with a large number of females; but that sort of thing is presumably not considered a practical object, however desirable it might seem, by most straight men.  Or even gay men, mutatis mutandis.  Most will be satisfied, I think, with a smaller number of conquests.  And pregnancy is very very far from the point.)

On the other hand, it might very well be possible that male owners and drivers of Hummers tend either to have unimpressively small genitalia, or to believe themselves to have unimpressively small genitalia.  In that case, a simple, elegant experiment could be conducted, involving a deeply personal interview and a brief pants-dropping episode.  Of course, the chances of getting off the ground with such an experiment are not great ...

There is more of interest in this little article:
<<
Simmons says the principle of resource allocation has been demonstrated in other animal studies.

For example, there is some evidence that bats trade the size of their testes for brain power.
>>

So does that mean that we blundering ignoramuses should cease berating ourselves for our doltishness, and count the blessings that we have received?

Chickens are our cousins! So are other sensitive animals! Enough is enough! No more factory farms!

I've always assumed men who drive Hummers (or penis-shaped sportscars, or whatever is the macho status symbol of the moment) at least think their genitalia is below average.

I've never slept with anyone who drove such a vehicle, though, and certainly not with a statistically significant cross-section of such individuals (thank goodness!), so I really couldn't say what the truth of the matter is.  

I can say that the two smallest guys I can comment on drove, respectively, a newish Mercedes and a Freightliner (that only because the company he worked for was too cheap to have Kenworths); the best-endowed had no car at all.  So I guess, anecdotally, that seems to back up the theory...

So, sorry to inflict TMI, but there you have it. :)

That was really great photojournalism.

I've always assumed men in Hummers are making up for a lack of physical presence in the pants--Little D*ck Syndrome (LDS).  Women, on the other hand, drive Hummers in order to make up for a lack of spiritual satisfaction--an unloving husband, perhaps, or an insufficient supply of self-confidence.  Both are filling voids in empty lives and empty souls.

Of course this assumption is totally non-scientific.  I usually try to avoid interactions with Hummer-driving types, beyond occasionally giving them the bird when I pass them on the freeway.

Luckily, my husband drives a Prius.  ;)

(Someone should do a study on the smugness of hybrid car owners.  I wonder which is worse, self-righteous eco-freaks or men with LDS?)

Gosh, BioD, whatever do you have in mind?  Is global masculinity offended and affronted, just because some long-swinging-haired, halter-topped chick is in the driver's seat, with her best pal, a silver-hooved, silver-tailed, silver-maned Pink Pony, in the passenger's seat?  That does not sound like you at all.

Or, rather, do you mean that no woman would ever be so dumb as to choose willingly to drive a Hummer?

In the classic romantic comedy "Pretty Woman" (which happens to have been our dinner-time entertainment last night), Richard Gere co-opts from his lawyer a superficially impressive Lotus; but it has a stick transmission, and he can barely drive it.  After he picks up Julia Roberts on Hollywood Blvd., and she very expertly criticizes his driving, he asks her to drive.  She takes charge behind the wheel; and, as if to spare his feelings, she says the car was made for a woman: "The pedals are close together, and women have smaller feet than men."

Thanks, EcoSpeak, for your insight.  But I am not sure I would define "lack of spiritual satisfaction" quite along the lines that you suggest.

Chickens are our cousins! So are other sensitive animals! Enough is enough! No more factory farms!

I know this makes me a bad bad environmentalist, but I have to say nothing gives me quite as much satisfaction (maybe even of the spiritual variety?) as seeing some guy's jaw drop in my rear view mirror when my old truck leaves his SUV in the dust.

I had to get used to not being looked at when I got my Prius.  I'm not sure, when I move back to New Mexico, exactly what I'll do, because the Prius will barely make it up the dirt road to my house when the road is dry and freshly graded, and when there's been any rain or snow, forget it.  So growing up there I always drove a truck (albeit not a huge gas guzzling one), and I always got a good cross-section of dumb-guy looks, some of them drooling, some of them hostile, some of them just plain bewildered.  It was great.  But not great enough to stop me from buying a Prius, which I drive any time I don't actually need to move large quantities of stuff, horses, etc.

It's rare that feminism and environmentalism are this directly at odds, isn't it?

There have been several studies that show a cross-species correlation between testes size and amount of polygyny, i.e. bigger balls, more ladies and vice versa, and less investment in other areas. Or simply put, if an animal has to put out tons of sperm, the food that the animal eats is going to production of more sperm and not more muscles. Of course, this is not perfect for every species or individual, but it is a general trend. I'm not sure how this applies to hummers (at least SUVs, ;)).

Perhaps vehicle size is like antler size in deer, elk and moose.  The one's with big antlers usualy get the females.