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: 35984

Replies to This Discussion

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! :)

in another 10-20,000 years, the male form would see an increase

Oh come on now, that only seems like a long time!


© 2021   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service