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: 28096

Replies to This Discussion

[...] the distinctions between flaccid/erect size.


I don't know if these are universal terms, but we call them "growers" and "showers." If you are a grower then that means you are considerably smaller flacid than when you are erect, and that your flaccid state is not a direct indication of your erect state. If you "show" then that means your flaccid and erect sizes are more similar.


I forgot about the "too big" complaint for women after birth. I've heard that as well, it's just that as a 23 year old I'm not surrounded by any close friends with children or wives yet. The idea of a big vagina that requires vaginal rejuvenation surgery is one of the many things that turns me off the idea of child birth. I see it as a very unglamorous and unnecessary (as of recent times) process.


That Trinidad dancing you mentioned is fascinating. Close dancing is popular in clubs here as well, but that certainly sounds a lot closer than what I would be used to. Also, if the purpose or intention of the dance is similar to the Trinidad dancing then it certainly has never been mentioned, although I do like the idea. I find men who can close-dance decently in a club a turn-on, although based on my ex-boyfriend, whom I mentioned, it is a myth that dancing skill is an indication of sexual skill, since his dancing was mediocre at best. I only point that out because I used to be a firm advocate of that theory, being a lover of club dancing myself.


[...] considering penis size to be an aphrodisiac [...]


I never really thought about it from an aesthetic point of view before, but now that I think about it I would definitely say that simply seeing a larger penis elicits more of a sexual reaction from me than seeing a smaller one, which nearly elicits a feeling of pity or disappointment and certainly isn't an aphrodisiac in any way (speaking purely from an isolated topic point of view without the other factors such as skill, attraction etc involved). This is not to say that having a bigger penis automatically means you'll be a good in bed, or that men with smaller penises can't be sexually attractive, although my reaction to penis size certainly implies some ingrained biases in this regard. Either that or it is generally accepted that on a purely physical level penis size is directly proportional to level of sexual enjoyment.


Oh how I wish dancing skills were directly transferable to sexual skills :(

I have been known to be led astray by great dancers...

I know right!? That would be so incredible if it were true. It would uncomplicate that "guessing" aspect of life without being crude or slutty.

Sexual selection via dancing? This has got to be the best species ever!

Male dance moves that catch a woman's eye


Tho my own personal experience, which is vaster than this single study, hints that dancing ability among caucasians is not a reliable indicator of great sex, this could be an artefact from our society discouraging men from dancing for pleasure. Dancing in the Caribbean takes on a whole new meaning. Dancing ability can also be correlated to fitness... Erections are highly dependant on circulatory health (recent studies of ED). In this regard, general fitness can be a reasonable indicator of erectile function.

The Kama Sutra recognizes three categories for men and women:  Men; hare, bull, and horse.  Women; deer, mare, and elephant.  It recommends hare-deer, bull-mare, and horse-elephant combinations as the best, and hare-elephant, and horse-deer as the least favorable.

Does it offer a way of determining which ones you or your partner are?

How does it classify them?

Is there any explanation for people who fall out of the three classifications per gender?

Does it say anything about same-sex couples or multi-sex (LGBTI) couples?


Just curious, I find this fascinating.

Does it offer a way of determining which ones you or your partner are?


Just kick them in the groin area and listen. Neigh? Horse. Trumpet? Elephant. Etc.

Haha, sales of "Hey Babe, I'm small (please don't kick)" T-shirts go up.
One would think for males, at least, the criteria would be obvious.  As for females, one size fits all, but some are more accommodating, you just have to try it on.  Remember, dudes, this is a religious text written thousands of years ago.

The penis size thing is one more piece of mental ammunition that women use to belittle men (no pun intended). Women have been self conscious about their own bodies for years - breasts too small, hips and thighs too big, etc. etc. And they know that men are very visual and assess them right away, without even getting to know them.

In my experience, i've encountered women who are a lot looser vaginally than others. But do men go so far as to make charts and over-analyze women with huge stretched-out vaginas vs. nice small tight ones? Hardly.

Now odor and taste...whole other story.

Apparently the stretched out vaginas aren't preventing men from cuming... whereas only 30% of females experience vaginal orgasms... Yes there might be additional reasons why vaginal orgasms are so uncommon, but penis size is a relevant factor.


© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service