Big builds on women vs small builds indicate in general?

Do you think there is a correlation between women’s builds and how much they can handle in bed? I guess the best way I can try to explain my question is by example:In general, does a woman with a big overall build like Serina Williams tend to have a higher size level she can handle in bed over a woman who is not built nearly as big.

For some reason I’ve always figured this was so, but on the other hand I do hear of guys saying they hook up with a 4’11 woman with a small frame and then fall in. So I know there are exceptions. But does the overall build size of a woman tend to indicate?

Beenthere,

I don’t feel that there is a correlation between the two, no more so than with males.

I’m fairly petite but can handle an 8 inch in length and around 6 in girth without too much trouble. I know women bigger (build wise) who can’t take that much. That would be like saying that a tall, big build man would have a longer penis than a man of medium height and build. And as we all know here, that isn’t the case.

Thanks for your reply. I see you are a moderator so I feel better now that perhaps my question wasn’t out of line. I have things I’ve wondered about for a long time and I’ve never known a place like Thunder’s Place where I can actually find out in a frank way some things concerning men and women and sex. This place isn’t overrun with political correctness about everything and I like that.

I’ve been able to see here at Thunder that many men think about many of the same things I think about and their experiences and opinions are very much like mine in many instances.

Perhaps my thinking that someone like Serina Williams could naturally deal with more than most women is mistaken. When I look at her I see very big hips, and very thick strong thighs and a very thick big strong looking butt. When I look at her build I get the impression I would need to have quite a penis to have any effect on her at all. I’ve always thought in this way in general in such cases. I’ve noted what you said though and will try to keep it in mind. Thanks again for replying.

I’m curious if other men think this way in general when looking at women. What’s a bit difficult is that builds like hers attract me the most but yet I’m the most insecure about hooking up with.

Alright Beenthere, I had to reply to this for a few reasons:

1) I love big round ass cheeks! (I saw a 35-40 year old woman in the supermarket Friday night with a FUCKING AMAZING big round ass. But that’s another story for another time.)

2) With all due respect to the SunShineKid, I disagree completely with her post. The post is subjective and doesn’t compensate for differences in individual ‘endowment’ variances.

Example: Among males there are below average, average, endowed, well-endowed and very well-endowed categorizations.

I am 70” (5’10”-5’11”) tall and I’m in the very well-endowed category (~9.5”). But if I was 78” (6’6”), I would be ~10.58”. And if I was 84” (7’), I would be ~11.39”, if I had the same penis-to-body height ratio.

If I was 65” (5’5”) I would be 8.82” with my penis/body height ratio. Obviously, the more above my body height I would be, the larger my penis would be. And the more below my height, the less inches of penis I would have.

Now let’s say that I was average-endowed (5”). I would be 5.57” at 6’6”. And 5.99” at 7’. And 4.64” at 5’5”.

And this is why I disagree with SunShineKid. Height does affect penis size. But different men are differently endowed, so individual level of endowment has to be kept in mind. As the example above shows, men with the exact penis/ height ratio would have different sizes with different heights.

Now as this relates to your question about women with full/ powerfully built hips, thighs and butts: Have you ever heard the saying ‘she has breeding hips’?

I’ve had sex with women of pretty much all body types. A few 6’ers, a few 5’ ers. Some BBW’s. A few thin girls, but not many. I prefer women with a healthy build so I haven’t been with any women with 12 year old boy body types.

So the fact that I have a ‘well traveled penis’, I think I am qualified to say this: Women can be categorized the same as men. Very small, small, average, above average, deep and very deep.

And while SSK is right in that you can’t just look at a person (male or female) and know their endowment, the specific ‘size’ would be bigger if the person was taller (and the reverse if shorter).

I’ve meet 4 women who were in the very deep category. One was about 5’8” and the others were 5’5”-5’6”. I knew a woman who was ~5’9’-5’10” who you could barely get a finger in. And one of the 6’ers was in the below average category for her size (her ass wasn’t the Serena Williams type though). But any of them would have been bigger or smaller if their heights were different with their same endowment.

All that having been said, women with ‘breeding hips’ GENERALLY can take more. But I’m sure you’ve seen extreme penetration videos where a waif is being fisted.

It is my ‘well traveled penis’ opinion that women with ‘breeding hips’ GENERALLY can take more. But what a woman can take and what she finds pleasurable are two different things, and they vary from woman to woman. Apparently SSK is in the above-average to slightly deep category (no offense SSK).

I said I was going to cut down on the 5000 character posts, but sometimes it just happens.

And if you really like asses, you have to start watching the Spanish station. You might not understand what’s being said (I should have paid more attention in Spanish class). But Latins value a big shapely ass (the US is more breast oriented), they show close-ups of asses on their regular daily programming. It’s must see for ass men.

I watch the Spanish channel!! Concerning big hips, in The Nutty Professor movie Eddie Murphy called them “child bearing hips”. I forget which character he was made up as when he said that.

I was once watching Serina Williams playing tennis in an event on tv that Chris Evert was helping commentate. I think Serina Williams was number one or number 2 in the world at that time. Suddenly Chris Evert says that Serina Williams is “fat”. Ha! Serina Williams is in top condition and has a small waist and Chris Evert said that anyway. It reminded me of the video and song from years ago called “Baby Got Back”. In the video 2 smallish females in the video call this well built woman fat. I think some people think that unless a woman is smallish built that she is fat.

I would suspect there’s a small correlation between height and size with women, given the male case (http://www.size … com/result.html ), but, as with penises and heights, the relationship is probably too weak to detect in the sample size any individual might experience. Practically speaking, this would mean that the build of the woman you’re interested in would have little value in predicting her size, so I wouldn’t let that factor intimidate you.

By the way, anonymous, what are you getting at with your #2? If I understand it, you’re assuming that penis size correlates perfectly with height in order to demonstrate that penis size correlates with height. Am I missing something? It’s an empirical question, and the survey linked above is the only source I know that has investigated it.

beenthere, I came to this site with the same theory in mind. I felt that aside from a woman’s sexual history, if she has not given birth, that her vagina should somewhat correlate to her overal frame size. I was reasoning this way due to the fact that the vagina is internal.

Also, In Miss. Deborah Addington’s book on vaginal fisting, she states that "a five foot tall petite woman will usually have a smaller vagina than myself". She is six foot tall.

Upon becoming a member of this site I posted a thread questioning this theory. Everyone seems to have examples proving that this theory is incorrect. In my experiences, the size of the girls vagina did not correlate with her height, but with the size of her pelvis. The woman with the largest vagina that I have experienced had a set of birthing hips with a low bodyfat percentage. I’m not talking about wide hips due to higher amounts of bodyfat by any means.

It seems here that the most common height stated of a woman having a large vagina is about 5’3". Which means absolutely nothing. Ironically on the forum (that is set up just like this one) https://www.butch-femme.com , a butch states on a "strapon size" thread that the largest vagina that she had experienced belonged to a femme that was 5’3" tall. She said that she could have fit a picnic table in there and then some. They talk about size prefences for vaginal penetration on that thread. One member mentions how one inch made such a difference.

That thead and others on fisting are not for someone to read that is already paranoid about their inadequacies. They speak about size in a purely functional point of view since the objects can be switched or changed. They already have lovers with "the more important" qualities. They do ackowledge the impotance of other factors still, but much pysical size info can be seen there.

View at your own risk, and please do not pose as a woman there and mess up the validity of their information.

I still feel that a woman with a larger healthier pelvis may have more room to accomodate things "comfortably".

As it was pointed out before, a woman’s pain/pleasure threshold may vary greatly even if they can accomodate anything.

I would love to find accurate studies about the size of the vagina. hhhmmm!

I’ve never really paid much attention to the height of a woman in relation to what I thought she could take. It wouldn’t surprise me if there is a slight correlation there but I’m doubting just how much there could be. Not sure but but I’m thinking Serina Williams is said to be 5’8” tall. So I’ve seen plenty of women walking around in public as taller. But it’s her build that intimidates me sexually while at the same time turns me on. I may be completely wrong but the way my mind works she looks (to me)like she could handle 8x6 quite well and take on much more actually. I have a lot of trouble seeing 5, 6 ,7 inches as being anywhere near enough for her when I look at her structure. I’m being blunt I know but just trying to be honest as to how I have felt. Have you really looked at her build?

She was a guest on Jay leno one night and wore a very short skirt. Jay Leno was falling over himself looking at her. He likes to look at the ladies but he was staring with her.

The definition of the hip is “the projecting, fleshy part of the body around the pelvis”. If I’m not mistaken, its been mentioned by anonymous7128 and also Kojack10 in this thread that pelvis can be something to go by. According to that definition hip size should give a fairly good idea of pelvis size.

I know that many may not feel that pelvis may mean much, but here are a few reasons why I feel a larger pelvis may have more space within. This does not speak for the legths that these women may be able to accomodate by any means, just width.

1. Within the pelvis, the vagina and the uterus are suspended by ligaments. The vagina is surounded by layers of muscle that run at different agles. The location of these connections will be affected by the size of the pelvis.

2. The two bones that run on either side of the vaginal opening are farther apart in some women than in others. These are limiting factors during childbirth, but wider bones may mean that she has a greater ability to accomodate.

I’m sure that small variances in pelvis size will not cause any changes in organ size. I just feel that in most cases the women with larger pelvises have more room if need.

This is all affected by sexual history, pain/pleasure threshold, childbith, arousal, hormones, and the time of the month.

Too many variables come into play.

I still feel that a woman with a short trunk or midsection (ie. the distance from the pubic bone to the belly button theory) may have less of a chance of having room for long lengths. She may be able to strectch and accomodate a large size, if she chooses, but could the woman with a longer midsection stretch further if she had to? We may never know. As for the input I’ve gotten so far. There is no connection or relevance of this either. Still one must admit that other organs such as the Kidneys and small intestines will be closer or lower in a woman with a small midsection even if her vagina is very elastic.

So, I must be off to go read more…..somewheres….about anatomy.

Hellufastud,

I wasn’t theorizing empirically/ observationally when i created the example. The differences in measurements were a mathematical fact.

I was using the length of my penis divided by the average male body height (also just so happens to be my actual body height). Then I multiplied different body heights by the percentage of my body height that my penis is.

Meaning: if i was the very same person who was 8” taller (6’6”) my penis would have increased in the same proportion that the rest of my body did. And if i was 84” tall or 65” tall my penis size would increase or decrease proportionately to my height change, if i had the same level of endowment on the penis measurement continuum.

Think of it this way: In the survey the you cited, 6.4” was average for a 70” male. With that same penis/ body height ratio, if that same male was 84” (7’), he would be endowed (7.6”). But proportionately, at 7’/ 7.6”, would not be endowed. The 7’ male would have to be 8.51” to be endowed, PROPORTIONATELY, using the figures in the study.

An empirical study can only find what it observes. Of course there are tall males who don’t match those numbers, but that just means that they are small for their size.

Dude, that’s the same thing you said before. The idea that your penis would increase in size proportionally to your body (to the extent that it even makes sense to speak counterfactually in this way) hinges on the assumption that there’s a relationship (a 1:1 relationship, in fact) between penis size and the size of the rest of the body — which I take it is the disputed “fact,” the veracity of which can be determined only by observation of actual penises attached to actual bodies of various sizes. Maybe this will help: Suppose we wanted to know if there was a relationship between liver size and height. Well, there’s no super-obvious reason to think that liver size, or penis size for that matter, would strongly covary with bone length — the main determinant of height — so we’d have to go out and measure people’s livers and correlate these measurements with their heights. I suspect one would find a small relationship, as with the penis-height case, due maybe to growth hormone’s dual enlargement of vital organs and bones during human development.

This is way off topic by now, but I just thought your criticism of sunshinekid’s observation didn’t make sense and wanted to share my thoughts with you on the matter.

I never said there was 1/1 ratio, between penis size and height. Since you said that i repeated myself, i assume that you caught what i said the first time and you just didn’t understand it (no insult intended).

PERCENTAGE is the issue. Have you ever made pancakes from a mix? They tell you to use, say, 1 cup of milk, 1 egg, etc., etc. for how ever much mix. You can’t double the mix and use 1 cup of milk and 1 egg. The PERCENTAGE HAS TO STAY THE SAME for the final product to be what the pancake manufacturer envisioned.

If i was 8” taller why would my feet and hands stay the same size as when i was shorter? (A point re: the SSK issue: just like vagina size and penis size, hand and feet size is different among different people and GENETICALLY predetermined).

My foot is 11 3/4” at 70” in height. If i was 84” my foot would be 14.09”, because that is the PERCENTAGE of my overall size that my foot is GENETICALLY predetermined to be.

You questioned whether bone size increase would equal soft/connective tissue increase. Why not? My nose, ears and lips wouldn’t be the same size. They would increase PERCENTAGE wise in accordance with what my GENETICS AND HEREDITY PREDETERMINE.

If you don’t think so, watch ESPN tonight and notice the difference in head size between Bill Laimbeer (between 6’10” and 7’) and Kevin Fraiser and Greg Anthony (who are between 5’10” and 6’2”).

7’ers don’t look like ‘pinheads’ because they keep a normal size range in head and body size. And they don’t have tiny noses, ears or lips, because they increase to fall into an normal size range. 7’ers don’t look like cartoon characters is the point, the look like normal people, just taller.

Of coarse some people have bigger ears, noses and lips than others. But that is because that is what their GENETICS PREDETERMINE.

Same thing with penis size. Some guys have large penises in proportion to their height. And his GENETICS would determine that if he was taller, his penis would be the same PERCENTAGE of his height.

I don’t know how tall you are, but the bottom of your posts state that you have a 7” penis. The Penis Survey found that 7” was the average penis size of 78” (6’6”) males. I’m assuming that you are not 6’6”. And if you are not, if you were, do you think that you would still be 7”?

Empirical studies can only find what they OBSERVE. Apparently the tall males in the study were small for their size (based on their GENETIC factors). The same way there are males with 3-4” penises in the 70” height group, who would be less than average, there are males with small penises in the 78” and up height group.

But what constitutes small will still be bigger than what is small in shorter height groups. Once again, apparently, the males they studied had a large number of PROPORTIONATELY small males.

Heh, this is a fun exercise in talking past each other. :) I’ll try again with a different approach, as you have generously tried again for me.

As I remarked parenthetically in my last post, does it make sense to talk about how big your penis would be “if” you were x inches taller or shorter? To be taller or shorter, you’d have to possess a different set of genes or have experienced a different environment during development. In the latter case, it’s extremely doubtful that, say, a nutritional deficiency would affect penis size in exactly the same proportion as it would height. In the former case, why do you suppose that the genes affecting height would necessarily affect penis size as well?

I’m not well versed in biology, but I do know that humans do not possess some distinct set of genes influencing their particular bodily proportions — for example, the length of their penises as a percentage of their heights — and some entirely separate set of genes influencing their overall bodily sizes. These things are incredibly intermingled and complex, and such a model as your thesis depends upon is a reductive caricature nearly as far from reality as the ol’ homunculus in each sperm that expands into a large-scale version of itself during gestation.

You seem to imply that the study’s tall males were not a representative sample, that they must have been skewed toward the small end in the penis department. You draw this conclusion because the tall group’s average penis size is not as much bigger as their heights would predict, IF your theory of a predetermined proportionality between penis size and height, independent of overall body size, is correct. This is not the way science works. When you have a statistically sufficient sample size, as in this case, and the data contradict the predictions following from your theory — in this case, the theory that the penis’s proportion to the rest of the body is independent of height — this is considered a disconfirmation of your theory. Persisting with the theory in the face of contradictory evidence, and no evidence to support it except a priori speculation, is dogma.