It has long been politically correct to state that it's "not the size but the motion" that counts. Women have so long been under the thumb of religion and patriarchy and most women have learned that lying to "your man" is much more fruitful/profitable than denigrating him because of his lack of penis volume. And what good would bitching about penis size do anyway, it's not like a guy can change it. It is a done deal and it's simply not worth bitching about it once in a couple context.

 

However, that being said, that point of view in no way dictates that biologically speaking, the penis size is unimportant. The vagina is an elastic structure and responds differently to various shapes and volumes. In addition, most studies indicate that the the penis size to total body ratio is a fairly good indicator of female sexual selection in nature. And Homo sapiens males are very well endowed indeed in this regard, favoring a view that in Homo sapiens females do exercise choice (evolutionary speaking).

 

However, as in the another post on this forum regarding Homo sapiens brains getting smaller since agriculture, the fact that Homo sapiens have migrated to non tropical climes, began wearing clothes all the time and the advent of religion, female choice has been near totally emasculated. 20,000 years is long enough to create reproductive bias dimishing the value of a large penis. But this bias does not imply necessarily that the female vagina has had time to 'adapt' to lesser selection.

 

The following graph, in parallel with Adriana's comment on this board agrees that women's response to penis size is variable. It also demonstrates that "bigger" is not "better" in the absolute sense. But what it does support is that size is relevant. The important number to consider is that accross the board, beyond races and nationalities and age, the average male is between 5.5" and 6" in length erect. So when women are asked if they 'fake orgasm' and stats reveal that a whopping 50% of females have faked it and when we look at where that 'average' size fits on this graph, we can guess at the 'faking it' motivations. Our size range is simply incompatible. As for girth, I think we can simply say that if your fingers touch when holding the penis in your hand, it is on the narrow side. A mere little can of Redbull is 7" in circumference, and a regular soda can is close to 8".

 


In the end, all things said, a larger than average penis - whether oogled or touched - is a major aphrodisiac as it speaks of nearly garanteed satisfaction, with the added benefit of less energy expended.

Views: 17990

Replies to This Discussion

Next thing you know, you'll try to tell me that 'one size fits all' clothing is a myth too.

 

I've never had much interest in measuring until I saw this all laid out on a chart with target zones.  I don't care too much about my size, but undeniably, part of me sees the red zone as a bull's-eye to be hit.  Although, even at an approximation, I'm quite confident that I'm not in the 'A' category.  Such is life. 

 

When I've had this conversation with women before, they've been pretty candid.  I don't have a female vagina myself, but intuitively, it seems to make more sense that size would matter.  I've heard people downplay the relevance of size by drawing comparison to the comparatively small size of fingers or (usable) tongue.  Doesn't seem like a reasonable comparison to me though.  Tongues and fingers are more flexible and delicately controlled, making them advantageous for certain types of stimulation.  Just because these organs are also capable of sexual stimulation doesn't mean they serve the same role as a penis.  But that's drifting on a tangent, I guess.

 

At the very least, again intuitively, size should matter at the extremes.  Too large and too small should present obvious functional problems respectively.  That said, I would think that most people, regardless of gender, would want sex to be more than just 'functional'.  

 

Length, diameter, straightness or curve of the shaft, consistency in width, shape of the head -- these are all physical variables (and I'm sure there are more) that could impact physical stimulation and aesthetic values.  There's no reason for me to expect someone not to have preferences and ideals.  It seems only natural.  

For sure, NOT being into someone is quite disastrous :)

 

But for the sake of this discussion, lets only dare to compare people:

-who are not sexually repressed

-who are into each other

The others don't really count.

Vaginal orgasms are an entirely different physiological reaction than clitoral or other non penetrative orgasms...

 

all my sexual partners have fallen within the enjoyable range

Dare I say you've been lucky? :P

LoL, tho the question has always lingered, for the Shaq... :)

German people have a saying - An der Nase eines Mannes erkennt man seinen Johannes.

Which is why I always thought of Gérard Depardieu and Babs to be very sexy people :)
Don't trust what big nose people say - remember Pinocchio.

LoL ... FTW!

I'm intrigued: why does noone seem interested in crunching similar numbers about female genitalia? The only quantitative/qualitative discussions I've seen so far were all about vagina smell.

My reasoning is that since patriarchal religions have been dominating the world for the last few millenia, the selective pressures exerted on men have been greatly reduced. And men with smaller genitals have had increased access to religiously submissive females (who could not possibly know any better since female monogamy has always been more 'enforced' than male monogamy, and virginity was mandated).

 

I see it in the same vein as medicine allowing a bunch of sick people to reproduce. Individuals whom, were it not for being high maintenance or having costly medical interventions, would not have made it to reproductive age. In today's moralist world, everybody has the 'right' to reproduce, above and beyond what might have been a natural outcome. We have no trouble understanding that farmed salmon which is accidentally released into the wild, being genetically inferior, can weaken the genome of the wild salmon population. Yet we have trouble reaching the same conclusions for ourselves.

 

I would hypothesize that in a world where religion disappears, and women refused be dominated by repressive sexual standards, in another 10-20,000 years, the male form would see an increase.

 

You ask, why not reverse the focus onto the vagina? What would the evolutionary mechanism for that be? Example: women could no longer chose their mate, therefore men no longer 'needed' to be bigger, therefore female vaginas got larger?? I fail to find any mechanism by which this could occur...

I would hypothesize that in a world where religion disappears, and women refused be dominated by repressive sexual standards, in another 10-20,000 years, the male form would see an increase.

 

Billboard idea!

Caption: "Religion: shrinking mens' junk since 3,000 B.C.E!"

I like that, I just can not stop laughing! :)

RSS

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service