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: 19631

Replies to This Discussion

I don't think the statues were aimed at women's pleasure per se.  Well, perhaps not those statues.  Dildos go back considerable millennia through numerous cultures.  I wonder how the various shapes and sizes throughout the ages stacked up against the chart in the original post.

hmm, yet another interesting anthropological topic, "dildos through the millennia" ;)


I have not read up on that topic... Will get right to it. I think you're onto something there. I've never owned any, so they are not the first thing that come to my mind but I can certainly see the relevance.

I've never owned any, so they are not the first thing that come to my mind


All the better then, I believe they're not supposed to be of any help with mental masturbation.

Ya unfortunately, I have yet to perfect the art of mental masturbation... the only time I come without physical input is in my dreams, even that's pretty rare! :P

"So that's what an uncircumcised penis looks like!"  I felt like a bit of an idiot."


I had that very moment in my mid twenties, on a beach by a lake with a bunch of naked people lounging after a hard day of treeplanting. I found it very hard not to stare as it seemed so odd to me. I've read a lot of people mentioning that an intact penis "appears" smaller, I guess because of the narrowed tip. Could it be that the optical illusion of a larger penis was yet another contributing factor in the beginnings of circumcision's popularity? Now years later, I've become accustomed to intact foreskins, and now look upon a cut foreskin as the oddity. Circumcision also creates the illusion of constant readiness, whereas an intact foreskin hides the glans until the appropriate time.


Tribal society males have long been using other various devices and modifications to make phalluses look larger and/or erect.


There are very few studied cases of recent evolution in humans. As a lactose intolerant person, I've been quite interested in the evolution of lactose tolerance among different peoples spontaneously. Some scientists see it as a rare example of "adaptation" vs random evolutionary fitness.


I think if universities were to invest additional effort into investigating the evolution of male genitalia, we'd see some interesting surprises. The problem really is that there are so few serious studies.

What kind of evidence might there be? Can't be much fossil evidence, other than frozen. Which would have to be thawed and attached to some kind of stimulator simulator.

Young Frankenstein? (So Mel Brooks was ahead of his time.)

Sorry. It's hard difficult to be too serious.

Haha good point. But still it brings into question; did women prefer smaller penises in the ancient world?


I see the OPs argument as being flawed and trying to bring evolution into the argument shows they have not studied enough into this... 

So what kind of first-hand facts or opinion did women (or matriarchal society) add to the bible or other "documentation", especially wrt to preferences of penis size?

I'd rather say that the case isn't clear yet, in terms of evidence. So the best information to go with seems to be common sense, and documented opinions of personal experience.

There is no more shreds of evidence that women prefer small penises than there is evidence that god exists. Evolution was my area of university study for many years, I have wasted zero years studying the bible however (other than what was imposed upon me as a young student), and I'm not going to begin now... Most scientific evidence points to female choice, that is not solely an "opinion". As for a religious social selective process de-emphasizing larger males, we may have no hardcore proof, for the moment, that males' genitalia have been reduced in size these past millennia, but you can at least see the mechanism is sound and possible.
I was asking Adam. But thanks. ;)

As I was replying to Adam. You're welcome ;)

So what the book is saying is that the women liked big penises and the man had a small penis so he fooled himself into believing he rejected them. How is that not proving the point that women like big penises?


© 2015   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service