Thought on how much size matters

Sorry for the double post.

I will stick with my opinion. A big penis will not create, break or prolong a relationship. A big penis will make you better in sex, and give you more confidence but it will not change who you are.

I hear you gamecity. This is not a new concept, but rather a recurring theme that goes around, and around, and around, and around….

Some believe it. Some don’t.

If I have not said it before: Welcome to Thunders.

Sorry if was being monotonous goonbaby, I just have never heard of that logic I originally posted and thought some might find it interesting.

Hey, as far as I am concerned, the jury is still out on the matter.

My wife an I were virgins when we met and neither of us have slept with anyone else. I have hangups about my size; that’s why I’m here.

You are among friends.

If variety is the spice of life…then monotony is what makes up everything else. Don’t worry too much about posting something that has already been sorted out. It happens. The matter isn’t settled or anything. Just for grins check out some of the “Similar Threads” listed at the bottom of your screen.

Use the search tool when you can…but if you have a new question or perspective about an old issue, sometimes a new thread is the best way to get it on everyone’s radar.

I’m here for that exact reason. Your opinion is just a valid as anyone else’s. You got a story to tell?

Aren’t we all just narcissists to some degree?
We are people who want to overachieve, Myer Briggs would say that 90% of the people on the this forum are NT rationals, yet NT rationals are only 10% of the population.

We may need to psychologically assess ourselves, anyone know if an MBTI study has been done here in Thunders?

Except perhaps at nudist camps or swinger events, there really is no opportunity for women to chose a mate on the basis of penis size.

Even buying into the “bad boy premise” for married women, there still must be the opportunity to “see” without consequences if evolution

is going to select towards bigger penises. Maybe that’s what loinclothes are all about - but then again I wouldn’t want to run naked through

a berry patch.

In short, unless greenhouse warming gets a lot worse, the natural selection forces on penis size have been played out.

I see Twatteaser has gotten to you too. I took the test some months ago…INTP. Heavy on the intuitive.

Maybe we can enlist Remek to make a third PE survey and incorporate some Myers Briggs stuff.

Better yet, Jungalist, why don’t you start a MBTI thread? You would get my post…you may even summon the Seer.

All people have some degree of narcy to them. Some more than others. I don’t think overacheivement is the true motivator of this. I think more people buy into the perceived deficits that marketing and advertising sells them. It is more of a ironclad keep up with the joneses from hell here. The grass is always greener and they attribute the physical concrete length of a wang to be the sole or majority determiner of happiness with the people they care to bang.

People are more unhappy than what they admit actually. Perhaps a BDD starts to germinate in one’s mind combined with the consumeristic nature of society?

I bumped a MB thread that was old.

Yes this would be true if women got pregnant every time they had sex with a man for the first time. But more times than not it’s after some sort of courtship and usually after marriage. At that point they have had plenty of time to see a know what a mans packing. I am not sure why some of you are hell bent on proving women just got to have a man with a bigger penis or they aren’t satisfied. It just isn’t true.

Has anyone mentioned arranged marriages and the girl/woman moving in with the boy/man’s family when she was old enough to screw was the norm for thousands of years? Adult women and men choosing each other out of love hasn’t been the norm for most of our history.

I thought Humans have relatively exceptionally large penis’s compared to the rest of the animal kingdom. That may infer that it has played a key role in natural selection…?

Women don’t see the size of your penis until you are undressed therefore its questionable that it would play an initial role in the natural selection process, however one cannot discount that a healthy sexual relationship is a contributing key factor in the longevity of many good relationships. Sexual dissatisfaction has been known to be a key factor in many divorces.
To that end we can ask what role does size play in this so called “healthy sexual relationship”? After all a penis that’s large enough to penetrate should be sufficient size to pass on the genes. The gorilla has a penis that’s on the average less than 2 inches when erect and you would think that maybe a longer penis would allow sperm to travel less distance and thereby increase the chance of passing on those genes but there you have it…less than 2 inches when erect! greater quantities of sperm can also increase those chances and would seem to indicate larger testicle development. Gorillas are known to keep harems and are rarely challenged for their females.

Humans have the largest penis of all primates however chimps have larger testes which is probably attributed to the fact the the chimps are more promiscuous than gorillas and humans thereby increasing the competition to pass on the genes. Larger testes creates greater quantities of sperm and thereby increases the probability that the chimp will pass on his genes. Setting aside good sexual technique for a moment, I’m of the opinion that humans mental development would tend to make humans place a higher value on the pleasure aspect of sex (as opposed to just reproduction) than other primates and I think a greater skin surface to surface skin contact and pressure would increase this pleasure quotient correspondingly. It could then be argued that evolution has allowed the human penis to grow in accordance with that theory.

Consider yourself to be part of a special breed here at Thunders with the knowledge do what otherwise is thought to be impossible by the vast majority in society. You can adjust your penis size as it relates to the averages. Take full advantage of that rare edge because the numbers are all relative anyway… meaning that there will always be an average in any situation. In a world where the average male penis is say 12 inches, the guy with an 6 inch may feel very inadequate and vica versa a world where the average male penis is 3 inches, the guy with a 6 feels very endowed… Keep that in mind when you start you next PE session.

@ the talk earlier about Greek statues:

I believe that the penises on the Greek statues are somewhat smaller than what we would think they would be because I believe Greeks idolized smaller penises. I read somewhere, that, in a culture where it was believed the sun was actually a god racing a flaming chariot around the earth, it was also believed that smaller penises were better, because the semen would be “fresher” and more fertile when they entered the woman and shit because they didn’t have as far to travel. I’ve only read this once, but it seems very believable for that time period.

RE: Geoff Miller’s book The Mating Mind
An incredibly smart man just got around to taking some condensed notes (i.e., copying the passages that most resonated with him to a file).

He thought these excerpts might interest me, even if they’re a little disjointed pulled from the context. I wanted to share them with you people. I DID NOT COME UP WITH THESE NOTES MYSELF, a smart friend took these. You can tell I didn’t write it anyhow, since there is NO cursing.;)

***

Sexual selection often creates an evolutionary positive feedback loop that is highly sensitive to initial conditions. It therefore tends to produce extravagant traits that have high cost and complexity, yet these traits are often unique to one species, and absent in closely related taxa. By contrast, natural selection for ecological utility tends to produce convergent evolution, where many lineages independently evolved the same, efficient, low-cost solutions to the same environmental problems. The human brain fits this profile of sexually selected ornaments.

The book’s theory of mental evolution is more testable than most, because the heritable sexual preferences of our ancestors are probably still manifest in modern mate choice, so they can be assessed as selection pressures independently of the courtship adaptations they are posited to have favored.

Even relatively simple nervous systems (e.g., insects, fish, frogs) suffice for mate choice — but that the more complex an animal’s brain, the more intelligent its mate choice could be. As mental complexity increased, the discriminatory power of mate choice would increase, so sexual selection would command ever more importance in evolution, reaching its zenith in human evolution. Darwin did not attempt a one-way reduction of psychology to biology, but saw psychology as a driving force in biological evolution.

In the 1970s there was a runaway revival of mate choice theory in evolutionary biology. Yet this revival has gone largely unnoticed in mainstream psychology, neuroscience, and the social sciences, which still view survival of the fittest as evolution’s bottom line, and which therefore have trouble seeing any evolutionary rationale for those aspects of human nature most concerned with self-ornamentation, display, status, ideology, fashion, and aesthetics.

Human brains make particularly good fitness indicators because their growth depends on about half the genes in the genome, thereby summarizing a huge amount of information about mutational load. Brains are also good indicators of nutritional state and general health, because they have such high energetic costs.

Species-unique courtship adaptations are far outnumbered by the psychological adaptations for social intelligence, foraging, predator avoidance, etc., shared with other primates. Yet we still need some explanation of why small, efficient, ape-sized brains evolved to huge, energy-hungry handicaps spewing out useless behaviors such as flirtatious conversation, music, and art.

Sexual selection works like a venture capital, extending a line of reproductive credit to potential useful evolutionary innovations before they show any ecological profitability. The obsession with survival selection is analogous to the early twentieth century corporate session with production as opposed to marketing and advertising. Business has had its marketing revolution in the last half-century; it is time for evolutionary psychology to recognize that creative social behavior is to the opposite sex what products are to consumers.

The bower is part of the bowerbird’s extended phenotype — a genetically evolved display constructed outside the body. Human aesthetic behavior also functions as an extended phenotype. The idea that beautiful artifacts carry information about the fitness of their makers makes sense. An artist’s manifest virtuosity (manual skill, access to rare resources, creativity, conscientiousness, intelligence) is the major criterion of beauty in most cultures. This view was eclipsed in aesthetic theory by 20th-century modernism (which rejected the concepts of the beauty and virtuosity), but remains relevant to most popular culture, interior design, folk art, craft, and fashion.

The hidden genetic benefits of altruism could have been reproductive: conspicuous magnanimity and other moral behaviors became sexually attracted because they were good fitness indicators. Their reliability was guaranteed by the costs of altruism, under the handicap principle. Only the fit could afford to be generous.

Almost all complex acoustic signals in other species evolved as courtship displays through sexual selection: frog croaks, bird song, whale song, etc.. Human verbal courtship serve an analogous function, with mutual advertisement of capacities for speaking, listening, thinking, remembering, storytelling, and joke making.

Once language evolved, much more of our mental life became subject to sexual selection. Verbal courtship could reveal whole new areas of mental functioning — personality, intelligence, beliefs, desires, past experiences, future plans — that are hidden in the more physical courtship of other species. As language gave a clearer window on the mind, the mind became more easily shaped by mate choice. This sexual selection feedback loop between mate choice, language ability, and creative intelligence was probably the mainspring of human mental evolution.

Since vocabulary size is highly correlated with general intelligence, and is highly heritable, it appears to function as a reliable indicator of heritable mental fitness. People are generally unaware of their sexual preference for large vocabularies, but assortative mating for vocabulary size is higher than for almost any other mental trait.

Primate and human neophilia is especially strong. Partners who offered more cognitive variety and creativity in their relationships may have had longer, more reproductively successful relationships. A good sense of humor is the most sexually attractive variety of creativity, and human mental evolution is better imagined as a romantic comedy than as a story of disaster, warfare, predation, and survival.

Sexual selection for creativity undermines some of the evolutionary epistemology claims about the reliability of human knowledge. Whereas natural selection might tend to favor minds with accurate, survival-enhancing world models, sexual selection might favor minds prone to inventing attractive, imaginative fantasies — as long as fantasy-invention ability remains a reliable fitness indicator. Sexual selection can explain why most people prefer fiction to nonfiction, religious myth to scientific evidence, and political correctness to intellectual coherence.

Good post TT ( even if its not your words) but I think I can summarize that long winded intellectual rant as simply saying that the human brain has evolved to play an ever increasing role as a veritable sexual organ… after all we live in the information age…a world whereby ones ability to decipher information, communicate effectively or at least make sense to another human being can make the difference between taking home that wicked and diabolical bar wench or not and perhaps a chance to pass on your genes. :mwink: Intelligence can be a very sexually stimulating aphrodisiac and a good command of language is a particularly attractive trait to women since they tend to be better in their verbal and communication skills than men and welcome a man who can hold his own in conversation. Well… I would not go as far as to say that the Woody Allen type wins out over the Brad Pitt type on any given day but I think you know what I mean when I say that these days you need more than just good looks to catch a good looking and intelligent woman. :)