They should ask Kurt Vonnegut; his penis is 5" around but only 3" long or something like that.
1 -- Cite? My memory of that measurement is that it applied to one of the characters in Breakfast of Champions.
It does apply to one of the characters in BoC, namely, Vonnegut himself.
Some did report that sex in a relationship was better than sex without commitment.
These survey papers always throw in some negative results at the end.
3 -- right; but BoC is a work of fiction and the Kurt Vonnegut therein is a fictional character. I don't think you can take that statistic as vital.
(Unless you saw it repeated somewhere else besides the novel.)
First, this is old news. All the cool people read this story years ago. Second, everyone must click through the link and read the entire (1 page) thing. I'd do a line by line excerpt of highlights, but every single line's funny in its own unintentional way, and you really just need to go read them all.
I saw it repeated above, comment one.
I'd always heard that girth was the more important statistic. But surely there are enough people here with experience (or friends with experience) to at least give us a sense of whether the result is credible.
I'm pretty sure the "ben wolfon" posting in comment 1 is just a sock puppet for ben w-lfs-n.
Ack -- that would be more/less funny/meaningful without the typo.
I'd always heard that girth was the more important statistic.
Well, I'd assume it is. The stimulation comes from the wang touching the sugar walls, not hitting the cervix.
(since no women seem to be here, I don't see how my statements about this are less than authoritative)
since no women seem to be here
Perhaps Apo or Labs can help out.
If the women here start commenting, you'll know what we think. How else are we supposed to keep you all on edge? (Well, threats of violence, of course.)
The sugar walls? Is that the vaginal equivalent of sugar tits?
16: It's a Prince or Sheena Easton song, isn't it?
Sugar walls is a Sheena Easton song written by Prince. Top 40 ain't what it used to be.
# Blood races to your private spots
# Temperatures rise inside my sugar walls
# Come inside my sugar walls
# Come spend the night inside my sugar walls
# Heaven on earth inside my sugar walls
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar_Walls
Prince was unusual in hiring women to play instruments other than piano. So was Sly Stone. Sure, they probably had sex with them too, but they were probably fun.
If prince didn't have a short narrow penis he was a physical freak, cuz he himself is short and narrow.
17: So it is.
Where I came from there's a place called heaven
That's the place where all the good children go
The houses are of silver, the streets are gold
But there's more where you come from, my sugar walls
(My sugar walls) oooh (my sugar walls)
Blood races to your private spots, lets me know there's a fire
You can't fight passion when passion is hot
Temperatures rise inside my sugar walls.
That's the place where all the good children go
I thought it was where they came from.
If prince didn't have a short narrow penis he was a physical freak,
This being Prince, why should the physical be any different from the rest of him?
26 -- Yeah but note that "those studies that relied on self-measurement consistently reported a higher average than those that had staff take the measurements".
The more stuff I have to do, the more distractive unfogged becomes. There must be some law around that.
I'm supposed to be reacquaintaing myself w/that what it's like to be a bat article, yet I find myself returning to the pc to see what others have to say about penis girth.
27: Sure, but I imagine that there's a lot more monkey business and fudging of results when it comes to length than width. Where exactly does that ruler go now? Except for outright lying, where's the wiggle room when you're measuring width?
Where's the wiggle room
It's the new annex ATM -- just across from the Banana Lofts.
28: I saw Nagel give a talk a few years ago that, if I remember it correctly, basically ignored everything written in response to the article, while affirming at great length that what the article said was right. Not very helpful.
where's the wiggle room
Between the sugar walls, of course.
My wrist is barely over 6.25 inches around.
33: There's an image I didn't need.
Annie: the basic point is that it's totally awesome to be a bat. Sonar!
31: Hmm. I'll be writing a paper around the article and my next step will be to find good stuff written in response to his article. This post, however, had me thinking that 'What is it like to be a dick?' might be a good paper topic, but, on further reflection, that's probably been well-covered in the literature. Although 'What is it like to have a dick?' might be interesting if written from the female perspective.
Multiple pwnage.
Sign of a satisfying comment thread.
I just measured my...wrist. Precisely 6.25" around.
Although 'What is it like to have a dick?' might be interesting if written from the female perspective.
I'm not sure about coverage in the relevant philosophical journals, but this question has been widely treated in film.
Annie, surely you've read about the blind boy who uses echolocation?
38: Yes, but was that your...dominant...wrist.
40: He's looking a lot healthier these days.
yeah well this whole circumference thing.
Lotta people lie when they're self-reporting the value of pi.
40: No, I hadn't. That is so neat. Thanks for the link.
but was that your...dominant...wrist
You fucknut, I was measuring my dominant wrist (for you!) when the boss walked into my cube. We both pretended it wasn't happening.
There hasn't been much female response on the size question yet. Are the girls under the mistaken impression that this is a sensitive topic and that feelings might be hurt?
The classical solution was to match the male and female units according to relative size, since there is such a thing as "too big". In the Burnt Njal Saga (ca. 1300) there's a guy who's known to be too large for any woman, so that small children on the street joke about him. He made the mistake of jilting a witch, who put a curse on him.
I think that many blind people use a version of echolocation.
Yes. Attila the Hun, for example, was very sensitive about being called a barbarian. A little tact would have saved a lot of lives, but the Romans didn't think of that.
I suppose that someone who suggest that the penis-girth chart must really be in centimeters would be ridiculed, don't you think?
48: Yes, but far fewer feelings after the briss.
48: Men have feelings?
Between the sugar walls, of course.
I just want to say that "girthy" is one of my very favorite words in terms of comic-dirty use potential.
There hasn't been much female response on the size question yet.
I'm just imagining them all incapable of typing because they're doubled over with laughter.
they're doubled over
Perfect! The experiment can begin.
Thanks so much, Apo. I hate it when no one goes for my low-hanging fruit. So to speak.
45: 7"/6.5" (dominant/non-dominant). It's mildly cheering to know that my...wrist...is bigger than w-lfs-n's.
Anyone for arm-wrestling?
57: According to the article, that's how the ladies like it.
Perhaps the ladies here are too demure. Hopefully they're looking for untraceable computers to post from using new handles.
The ladies are smirking in bemused amusement.
The stimulation comes from the wang touching the sugar walls, not hitting the cervix.
That's sorta like saying "the stimulation comes from touching this part of the penis, not that part." One has varying sensitivity in various areas, people.
I saw Nagel give a talk a few years ago that, if I remember it correctly, basically ignored everything written in response to the article, while affirming at great length that what the article said was right. Not very helpful.
Somehow I assumed that this was about the penis girth article, and was excited that there was finally some progress being made toward actual data.
I can assure you that for me, stimulation does come from touching this part of the penis, and not that part.
I resent it when people speak in the name of me or my penis, especially when they're penisless persons who are not me.
Remember, girls: with me, it's always this part, never that part. No matter what the bondage mistress here tells you.
63 loses something without the illustrative wall-chart and laser pointer.
penisless persons who are not me
Is the last part somewhat redundant, or are there in fact penisless persons who are you?
oh, don't get him started on his laser-pointer.
or pretty soon it will be all about how many milliwatts he's got.
LB, a more sensative and considerate person would have understood immediately.
That's OK, though, since we're working on making you less nice.
63: There are parts of your penis that are numb? Might wanna have that looked into.
oh, don't get him started on his laser-pointer.
or pretty soon it will be all about how many milliwatts he's got.
It's not the wattage that matters to the ladies, it's the applied force.
wait a second, LB--you stole that from Mel Brooks
('you can't Torque 'm ada anything!"
I used to have a multimedia user's manual, but people claimed that it ruined the "spontaneity", whatever that is. It seems to be another one of those things women want you to care about, like flowers, clean sheets, etc., but I never could quite figure it out.
Does the word "girthy" make anyone else automatically think of meatloaf? (The food, not the musician.) Greasy, gravy-covered meatloaf. I'm really not sure why. I think may signify some sort of psychological problem.
Well, normal people think of hot, throbbing gristle, Brock, but whatever.
76- These dudes come to mind when you hear the word "girthy"? I think that's even more weird, honestly.
Wow, Brock, you slept with Throbbing Gristle? All of them?? Damn.
I love that they actually calculated this as if it were a statistical sampling.
I have no idea what motivated 78.
It seems that a valid test would need four guys. Perhaps testing the short-narrow guy would be unnecessary, but maybe some girls prefer that.
You just said that the band Throbbing Gristle came to mind when you heard the word "girthy", so I just assumed that you must have, you know, assessed their girth personally somehow. Did you only see pictures?
80 -- you said Emerson's reference to Throbbing Gristle was weird, thereby implying that you had better knowledge about their girthiness or lack thereof.
79 -- this study is basically the same method as the Lancet study right?
Pwned! and by a man who uses slashes to signify the vowels in his name no less!
82- I didn't say that, Emerson did.
I figured this paper was written by a grad student, but apparently not. Dr. Russell Eisenman (1940-) is an assistant professor at University of Texas-Pan American. And here's his photo (girth not depicted).
86- Holy. Fucking. Shit. I almost can't believe that. I didn't think there was anyway in the world this was written by a grad student; I thought for sure it was undergrad, one who drempt up this inane survey as a "study" for some class assignment, and for which he hopefully received at best a barely-passing grade.
How on earth could this have been written by a professor? (I would again encourage anyone who hasn't yet clicked through and read the entire link to do so.... it's that bad.)
(Also wondering if you have any personal knowledge about the girthiness of Meatloaf.)
dreamt it up, even.
87- but 83 says something different than your 82.
82, not "your 82". I didn't realize I was being attacked unfairly from both sides now. And 89 suggests you haven't even read 75.
What makes 86 extra icky is that they surveyed women considered by the two males to be sexually active, based on the males' prior social experience and knowledge of the females.
"You seem kinda slutty. Want to answer some survey questions? It's for science."
And 92 suggests you haven't even read 91.
88: Check out the reviews:
Eisenman's paper breaks new ground in the area of female sexuality. It also has a practical usefulness. I already quoted his results to a male patient who had feelings of inadequacy because he thought his penis was not long enough to satisfy women. I recommend acceptance of this paper without revision. It is well written.
I think we're beyond irony here. We've entered some sort of ironic hall of mirrors.
88: The PDF copy has the reviewers' comments too. They liked it.
I get the picture of that as the result of a negotiation between a creepy professor and moderately resistant research assistants:
"Come on, we're not going to go out and ask girls if length or girth is more important! They'll all think we're just perverts!"
"It's for science, boys. You must know some of them who've been around the block a couple of times, and won't mind telling you what gets them hot... take good notes."
95- I'm really starting to think this is all some sort of elaborate joke/internet prank. It's just too absurd to be true.
Isn't "throbbing gristle" the preferred name for peckers everywhere? (The link confines the term to Hull, England).
the preferred name?
to find that out, I think you'd have to do a survey, wouldn't you?
do a survey
Descriptivist!
I didn't say that, Emerson did.
But in 77, you said:
These dudes come to mind when you hear the word "girthy"? I think that's even more weird, honestly.
which can be read to imply that you have personal knowledge of the girthyness of "these dudes" (i.e. Throbbing Gristle), even if you do think that they lack girthyness.
Drink more coffee, BL.
Two of the Gristle are ladies. Perhaps they should be polled on the girth-length question.
Dr. Russell doesn't just write about girth, though, he's got other research interests. That's right: the awesome destructive power of feminism.
From "Heterophobia: Sexual Harassment and the Future of Feminism"
Daphne Patai, who has previously taught in women's studies programs, gives us a different view of what feminism, or at least a major part of it, is really like. What she presents is a situation so bad, so disturbing, that all feminists need to come to grips with it, unless they are content to have a major part of their movement be antimale, antiheterosexual, and often unreasonable. One of Patai's major contributions is to point out that there exists what she calls a Sexual Harassment Industry (SHI)....
He's also given a seminar entitled: The Sexual Harassment Seminar: A Cultural Phenomenon of Indoctrination into Feminist Ideology. I'm sure it's a laugh riot...
I haven't read this paper yet, but I did notice the abstract references The Mustache himself: John Stossel. A good time promises to be had by all, with Men, Women and Sex Differences:
The Attitudes of Three Feminists
- Gloria Steinem, Gloria Allred and Bella Abzug.
Texas Pan-Am ranks right behind Harvard in something or another, I'm sure, but it's not prominent in most areas of scholarship and science.
106: I know, and thank you, but I just thought that maybe it didn't sink in the first time and Brock needed to hear it again. I also typed it out very slowly for him.
Neil -- what's the story on that website (theabsolute.com, where the Eisenman paper is)?
108: Also your spelling of "girthiness" is nonstandard.
In another episode, our hero Dr. Russell writes to the NEA Higher Education Journal to tell us how hard it is to be a white male in academia today.
And here's a promising discourse on evolutionary psychology and sexuality.
109: I have no idea. Probably it's for the same sort of people who think Stossel is a investigative journalist.
109 again: A little bit of digging has unearthed Genius News, The Newsletter For Dangerous Thinkers Who Have Some Weird Issues
From 111:
As the man ages, he fears that his genes will not be as good. Just as men in general desire youth, attractiveness, and health in their female partners, so that their genes will be good ones and will be spread into future generations, so too the aging man seeks this. But, he seeks it even more so than usual, as he fears, perhaps unconsciously, that his genes are not as good now as they once were. To make up for this, his partner must have excellent genetic potential. The way to achieve this is to balance his aging with her youth.
What the hell do they think happens to women's 'genetic potential' as we get older? It's the same genes. My mother's DNA didn't deteriorate between when she got pregnant with my older sister and with me.
(This one weirds me out because it's so bizarre: "I must have sex with young women so that my children will share in their superior qualities. After all, if I had sex with older women, my children might be born... old?")
I just measured my...wrist. Precisely 6.25" around.
Are you kidding? I just measured myself at 8.25" dominant, 7.75" non-dominant.
The bit quoted in 113 is beautiful in its use of the comma.
Chopper -- of course you have big ... wrists ... I mean you ride motorcycles right?
As far as that goes, the move to low-wage labor in many areas of agriculture (processing) was part of a modernization. Big cntralized chicken factories are state-of-the-art, but they use a lot of minimum wage labor compared to the old mom-and-pop family farm operations. Modernization doesn't always replace low-skilled with high-skilled; sometimes it replaces small, fairly skilled operators (craft or guild or family farm types) with unskilled.
103 et seq.: WTF? M/tch, your 82 said:
You just said that the band Throbbing Gristle came to mind when you heard the word "girthy"
But I didn't say that. Emerson did. 83 makes sense as a joke; 82 makes no sense at all.
This is starting to feel irritatingly like y-fun.
You know, about Throbbing Gristle, I was okay with Genesis P-orridge getting titties put on him and all that because, hey, whatever floats your boat and rock stars get special license anyhow. But when he started turning into Carol Channing, well, that really was just a bridge too far.
My mother's DNA didn't deteriorate between when she got pregnant with my older sister and with me.
Actually, they probably did a little. As we walk through this vale of tears we accumulate mutations. Ideally our germ line (the gametes) is isolated from these effects, but no sequestration is perfect.
None of this justifies Dr. Russell’s weirdness. I’m just being pedantic.
I’m just being pedantic.
That's the other thread.
My mother's DNA didn't deteriorate between when she got pregnant with my older sister and with me.
Yes it did. DNA damage accumulates during human aging, including damage to ovarian cells.
It happens to the sperm-producing cells too.
you ride motorcycles right?
I've never ridden a motorcycle. The nickname is motorcycle-free in origin.
(This one weirds me out because it's so bizarre: "I must have sex with young women so that my children will share in their superior qualities. After all, if I had sex with older women, my children might be born... old?")
As you get older, it's not like your children are more likely to be short or have congenital diseases. Your genome doesn't change. But it is more likely that complications will arise during the pregnancy, or that chromosomal mutations like the Down Syndrome mutation will take place.
I'm working on a translation right now for the Steiff Club. Just thought you all might need to know that.
You know, the real problem with men in science is that their work is so ideology-driven and unscientific. And it gets published, because it's so hard for women to get jobs these days that no one dares to stand up to the PC masculinity police.
119, 121: I knew someone was going to be pedantic like that. Yes, mutations accumulate, yes, the risk of certain genetic problems goes up. But grossly, two siblings born at different points in their mother's lifespan are still going to genetically resemble each other very strongly.
122 -- I was going on the basis of your photo, the one with the sombrero.
126: Not that I wasn't, in fact, inaccurate, and everyone being pedantic is right. But it certainly doesn't sound as if that's what Russell was talking about.
Your genome doesn't change.
Well, yeah, it does. That's what you said in 121 and you were right that time.
My hunch is that the effects of direct damage to the genome will be harder to detect than the decay of other parts of the reproductive system. The best place to look would probably be birth defects that corralate with paternal age, since most of what the father contributes is genetic. I was able to quickly find a study associating paternal age with cleft lips and cleft palates. There's probably more out there.
Plus, the evopsych crowd never seems to realize that the DNA of *men* also deteriorates with age, thereby giving women who are nearing the end of their reproductive lifespan really strong incentives to have flings with poolboys, hot young athletes, and their best friends' sons.
Plus, the evopsych crowd never seems to realize that the DNA of *men* also deteriorates with age, thereby giving women who are nearing the end of their reproductive lifespan really strong incentives to have flings with poolboys, hot young athletes, and their best friends' sons.
We all recognize it; that's why we don't understand when we you look askance at our attempts to remove the poolboy's girlfriend from the field, thereby opening up your line of attack.
I believe #132 is in the wrong thread.
No, no, it's just threaded the other way. Because of its girth.
Some did report that sex in a relationship was better than sex without commitment.
And this didn't give the professor a freakin' clue that his study group might be, well, giving answers that were not particularly objective? Then there's the relative experience factor and the, ahem, level of expertise exhibited by their partners...
I realise that my frame of reference dates back to my university days in the late Eocene, but I don't recall college boys being GIB enough that all that much was attributable to the length or width of anything. But I do recall that one was supposed to reassure one's partners that they had the biggest and bestest appendage one had ever seen, lest their masculine egos be crushed forever. [Or, if one were a Perpetual Virgin, like my room-mate Patty, one was supposed to stare wide-eyed at said appendage, blush delicately and declare that one never imagined it could be so huge, as one had [ha!] only see such things on statues at the museum.]
129: There's a distinction that I want to make, and that I think Ned was trying to make, that I'm not actually certain is a valid one (I suspect it isn't). There's the genome you're carrying around from birth -- eye color, height, tendency toward being an endurance athlete rather than a sprinter, whatever, and on that basis you're either a genetically desirable partner or you aren't (or, you know, more or less so). Then there's the possibility of random damage to that genome due to aging. I want to say that you still have the same genome reagardless of your age, there's just a larger chance that something will have damaged it, but I wouldn't go to the mat over that being a genuine distinction.
(I still get the impression that he's talking about the superior desirability of 16-year-olds rather than 32-year-olds, in which case the higher odds of aging-related genetic damage really aren't a significant issue.)
I do recall that one was supposed to reassure one's partners...
Really? I have *never* been asked to make such an evaluation. Wait, let me rephrase that. I have never been asked in so direct a fashion that I understood to make such an evaluation. The only guy I know who's actually confessed to penis-size insecurity is a friend whom I'm emphatically not dating.
137: JM, you don't ask the women who have seen so many that they've probably encountered lots of outliers.
whom I'm emphatically not dating
Because of his sub-standard johnson?
No one's ever asked me for an evaluation like that, either. Although that may have been due to my practice of carrying a grease pencil around for the purpose of issuing letter grades on the appendage in question. (E.g., "B+!" with a little smiley face.)
More likely because the idea of even seeing his johnson to evaluate whether it were standard or sub- makes me shudder.
139: Gold stars itch after a couple of days.
I never quite got over Sylvia Plath's turkey-neck comparison.
Of course, seeing what she's done, she immediately said "but larger...." But it was too late.
Some turkey necks are pretty darn girthy.
136: The problem is that the first kind of genome, the one you are carrying around from birth and doesn't ever change, doesn't really exist. A lot of people talk about it as if it is real, including a lot of scientists. In fact, a lot of genetic science gets its funding using the image people have of the gene as a fixed, almost platonic, blueprint. Thus we talk about "the" human genome, even though we are all genetically different. And we talk about an individual's unique genome, even though chance mutations actually alter the DNA differently all over the body.
Some of this is an accident of history. It was a big realization that a more or less compelete genetic blueprint was present in more or less the same form all over your body. Darwin thought that genetic information was distributed only to the places it was needed. Correcting Darwin on this one was a big deal, but it's importance can be overstated.
The closest thing to an unchanging genome for an individual is going to be the germ cell line. Extra effort is taken to be sure that the genes that will be passed down do not mutate. This is actually a risk for clones, which use DNA from somatic cells.
Still, it is better to think of genes as just one more cause of events person's life, rather than a master blueprint.
Okay, now I'm curious. A guy whose johnson you've never seen wanted to show it to you for evaluation purposes? That really just seems weird.
I've used turkey necks to catch crabs.
No one's ever asked me for an evaluation like that, either.
Anyone who would actually ASK is beyond gauche. But a kind word now and then...
More likely because the idea of even seeing his johnson to evaluate whether it were standard or sub- makes me shudder.
When explaining this to him, you need to be careful to emphasize that it is because of his various other physical deformities rather than because of your assumptions about his johnson.
I believe that Domina was talking about girl-to-girl scuttlebutt warning about guys' fragility. I don't believe she meant that a penis-judging stage was actually a formal part of the dating protocols, or that guys would ask for evaluations. Ladies just weren't supposed to say "Oh, what a cute little thing!"
But I do recall that one was supposed to reassure one's partners that they had the biggest and bestest appendage one had ever seen, lest their masculine egos be crushed forever.
True -- nowadays we have access to reasonably accurate information on the internets to compare ourselves to...but the next best thing to excelling percentile-wise within the population is excelling within the limited scope of one's partner's experience.
137: That was just the common wisdom 'round the dorm - I've only had a couple of guys invite such an evaluation in my life, and they both did so in a manner that telegraphed the answer they wanted. ["I bet I've got the biggest..."] It always struck me rather like the Wicked Queen asking the mirror who was the fairest one of all.
Off-topic, but I have to share: for Dylan fans only. You must watch the whole thing.
It had damn well better be off the topic of this thread. I'm a Dylan fan, but really.
A guy whose johnson you've never seen wanted to show it to you for evaluation purposes?
No, no, no. We were talking on the phone, and he was going on and on about how he was getting over his suspicion that he had a substandard penis. Of course, the more he talked about how his penis was just fine, perfectly normal, the more obvious it became that he had a complex about it. Other than the sociological element, it was a very boring encounter with male insecurity. I think I started doing the crossword puzzle during it.
That guitar was mighty girthy. Y'know, I'll admit up front that my knowledge of musical theater is quite limited (and I'm sure Drymala is the exception that proves the rule or something), but every Broadway anything I've ever seen has put the uck in suck.
What's always really puzzled me about the whole insecurity about size thing, is wondering how it gets started. I mean, I'm trying to think of a likely circumstance in which a woman is actively rude about the size of a man's erection, and it seems unlikely: by the point in the relationship at which you're looking at a boner, you're probably well enough disposed toward the person you're with to be at least polite. How do guys get started thinking this is likely to be a problem?
"Ladies just weren't supposed to say "Oh, what a cute little thing!""
or compare it to an ingenue's breasts: small, but perfectly formed.
151: reasonably accurate information on the internets to compare ourselves to.
But then you have this guy to fatally depress you. OTOH, just remember that PhotoShop can do wonders.
The problem with Broadway is that the performers enunciate too well, support their voices by breathing from their diaphrams, and smile way too much.
Not only that, but they have a performance tradition which says these are all good things to do.
All this really stands out when they try to do rock music. A voice that can make every syllable of "a modern major general" come out clear isn't going to do dylan well.
Two of the Gristle are ladies.
None of the members of Throbbing Gristle were ladies. One was a woman.
The ancient greeks, FWIW, preferred a small penis. When you find this out, a lot of the jokes in Aristophanes make more sense. Alameida will probably be able to say more.
157: Can't find it now, but didn't you relate some story about disparaging the dick size of somebody (on a boating crew or something) whose dick you'd never seen? And that he didn't take it well?
How do guys get started thinking this is likely to be a problem?
One woman of my acquaintance said she once reflexively snickered at a guy's erect member, because it was quite small. There are also ethnic stereotypes which more or less translate into "you're small" to a lot of guys (back when I was reading a bunch of escort blogs, I read that one of the women had been with a Chinese guy with one of the biggest cocks she'd ever seen, but he thought he must be on the small side). But basically, whenever you have an "X is good" situation, guys are going to think they're not X enough.
I have to think that pr0n is part of the problem. Any potential source of insecurity is Craigslist ads in which women claim to want to date only men with at least whatever inches.
I was going on the basis of your photo, the one with the sombrero.
Man, my Photoshop skills are better than I thought.
By the point in the relationship at which you're looking at a boner, you're probably well enough disposed toward the person you're with to be at least polite.
Not everyone is as nice or as selective as that, LB.
Men can easily be replaced. Note that this is non-erect.
Then there's the Worst Sex Columnist Evar, who encourages men to face up to the fact that desirable women will not want to sex a man with a small penis. In the link, she advises the writer to start pursuing single moms, cuz, you know, they're desperate.
157: I suspect some of it has to do with comparisons made against older males in the household or locker room, some of it from legend and some of it from fiction, porn and things like Sex in the City where the ladies frequently extolled the goodness of "big".
IMX, it doesn't matter how big it is if the MIQ doesn't know what to do with it or with other parts of his body. FTM, one of my room-mates once dated [and dated once] an extremely beautiful woman; he reported that it was like having sex with a corpse - she just lay there, expecting him to be humbly grateful that she deigned to allow him access to her perfect body. It had never occurred to her that active participation would have been appreciated.
161: Sorry; I should have mentioned that explicitly. I kinda thought it was obvious from context.
How do guys get started thinking this is likely to be a problem?
I'm not sure, but it starts early: I seem to recall making "My penis is as big as the Alaska pipeline" jokes in second grade. (NB: It might not have been the "Alaska pipeline" in the joke. Also, it's not really quite that big.)
I don't think it's a serious insecurity though; just something to talk about.
What the fuck is that picture in 170?
159: Doesn't look particularly girthy to me.
who encourages men to face up to the fact that desirable women will not want to sex a man with a small penis
Oh, come on, that's not what she says.
A. There's an old joke about a man trying to get his new wife, whom he supposes to be ignorant, to give an evaluation. The punchline is 'It's like a prick, only smaller.' One former partner of mine told me this joke upon hearing that I was doing a project with another former partner, the latter being something like 5'8" tall. I can't run into him on the street without thinking of this . . .
B. Some years ago, I was watching late night TV with an out-of-town relative -- he liked those loser dating shows, which they didn't have in Germany at the time. Anyway, I remember a scene where the woman demanded that the man pull down his bathing suit. He did so, she looked down, scowled, and said 'that's really not what I'm looking for' and left in a huff. Viewers were unable to see what she had seen.
'that's really not what I'm looking for'
She was probably looking for a hairier man.
175: It's a sea creature called a geoduck (pronounced gooeyduck). Emerson has a fixation on them.
Anyway, I remember a scene where the woman demanded that the man pull down his bathing suit. He did so, she looked down, scowled, and said 'that's really not what I'm looking for' and left in a huff. Viewers were unable to see what she had seen.
This woman is clearly not familiar with the concept of a "grower". She's just setting herself up for disappointment later on if she makes her mating decisions based on flaccid information.
Fine, it's not what she says in that column. But she's suggested to other male advice-seekers that they consider that their dicks might just be undersized. And then that advice that he go for desperate single moms? God, I hate Dr. Dot.
(I think sometimes I only pick up the NYPress to read the angry letters to the editor and to hate on Dr. Dot's advice column. I also enjoy, in a special hatred-filled way, Armond White's film reviews from the fifth dimension.)
In what langugage is "geo" is pronounced "gooey", but "duck" pronounced "duck"?
I wouldn't say that I have a fixation with them. I'd say that I'm not threatened by them.
I'm not threatened by any sessile animal, no matter how girthy.
184: Poorly transcribed Nisqualli.
184: Lushootseed (as transcribed by unskilled English speakers), apparently.
Sorry, apparently the goeduck is not sessile. I bow to its potency.
However, this thing is not a threat at all.
"Scientists speculate that the geoduck's longevity is the result of low wear and tear."
The erect, excited geoguck is just too intimidating to photograph.
192: Is the geoguck a form of Guckert?
I also enjoy, in a special hatred-filled way, Armond White's film reviews from the fifth dimension.
Teo gets the gwíduhq prize for linking.
According to Ask the Sexpert in the Mumbai Mirror: "As far as size is concerned, four inches is more than adequate. The diameter around the penis should be around one inch or so."
Diameter, circumference, who cares? Much less than an order of magnitude difference.
As I was filling out my absentee ballot, it occurred to me that we should demand to know the cock size of all male candidates. And see who decided not to run.
I, for one, am writing in Mary Carey for governor. I said I would and I'm sticking to it.
There must be sugar walls stats out on Mary.
writing in Mary Carey for governor
Toward what end?
The right, I suppose, assuming she's writing it in English.
It's late, but here's the antidote to that horrid Dylan thing in 153.
I'm hearing precious little response to the monstrous dimensions of the evil perpetrated in 153. But thank you Jesus for 202.
(Is the singer in 153 Wehttam Broderick?)
200: Because I cannot, in any form of good conscience, vote for Arnold, Angelides or anyone else who is on the ballot. It's a form of social protest.
205: No, no, no, DE. The protest thread is over here.
I was just looking through our referrer log today and lo.
205: I preemptively absolve you of sin. Hold your nose and vote for Angiledes.
If it helps, he's not going to win.
205: I know he's not going to win; I just feel slimy when I ponder voting for him. And not in a good Chthulu-lovin' kind of way.
It's only the governator position I'm abstaining on; I'm voting on everything else. I've read every fucking word of those propositions over the last couple of weeks, which leads me to the conclusion that propositions should not be allowed on the ballot, ever. And that the writers of the short-form proposition pros and cons should all be hanged for deliberate obfuscation.
I'll pretty much go along with you on the propositions. I'm voting for Angiledes, positively even: I figure at *least* he ought to be able to manage the fucking budget better than Arnold's done.
John Hindræker takes up the issue of penis size -- sadly he dwells on length to the exclusion of girth. (The Editors are back!)
