Thought on how much size matters

Years ago I quit pumping for several months and after that I got a girlfriend who appeared not to mind my 6.5 erect size. After a few months she told me something about my not being very big, so the day after, before she come at my apartment after work, as usual, I spent the whole day pumping my penis to a record size (it was red and swollen, but about 8x7). As she touched it, she got completely excited, I started fucking her and she lost her mind. Right afterwards, she said she did not know what I had done, but she knew it was a looooooooooooot better. I left her the day after and now know for sure she prefers a big one.

How much time a week do we spend having sex?

For this amount of time, for the vast majority of women’s minds and bodies and men’s egos, size matters. Alot.

For the rest of the time it only matters to the person who’s penis it is.

You know, that is an excellent point.

Also from Geoff Miller’s book The Mating Mind

“Male scientists have traditionally view the penis as a sperm-delivery device or a symbol of dominance in male competition. They neglected to consider the possibility that the penis evolved through female choice as a tactile stimulator. One popular theory, developed in the 1960’s, was that human penile displays evolved to intimidate rival males rather than to attract females. This is an odd idea, given that in most ritualized threat displays males advertise features related to fighting ability. Dominate gorillas intimidate subordinates with their awesome muscles and sharp teeth, not their one-inch penises. I suspect that heterosexual scientists find it difficult to think of the penis as something that evolved though sexual choice because it felt good inside one’s body.”

“Sexual selection works on the principle of all else being equal. Given two otherwise identical hominid males, if female hominids consistently preferred the one with the longer, thicker, more flexible penis to the one with the shorter, thinner, less flexible one, then genes for larger penises would have spread. Given the relative large size of the modern human penis, it is clear that size mattered. If it had not, modern males would have chimp-sized sexual organs.”

“Female hominid may not have preferred thicker, longer, more flexible penises per se. They may simply have liked orgasms, and larger penises led to better orgasms by permitting more varied, exciting, and intimate copulatory positions.”

MX

Thanks for that extra bit from the book, I was pleased to see because it seems to fully support my contention in post 27

Women don’t actively seek bigger dicks to the extent that they won’t mate with anyone that isn’t well hung. I think most women just see it as a nice bonus if their life partner has a big fat cock.

I believe most women are way more into clitoral stimulation than intercourse. I think it is likely that competition over penis size really started to heat up when men started walking erect (as opposed to walking with erections ;) ). Then, for the first time, the penis was really on display and developed an important social meaning.

Also, as our brains evolved, we men became more able to imagine that women might prefer those long, penduous appendages. Those of us with smaller penises became intimidated, while those with larger ones became “cocky.” The cocky ones were more able to approach females without fear of rejection or ridicule, and, consequently, were more successful at passing on their big, swinging dick genes.

Following a different thought, I believe that women view a big dick as a type of fashion accessory. Some women are impressed by diamonds. A big dick is like a diamond in that it is a useless adornment whose best purpose is to impress others.

If we hadn’t started walking upright we’d probably all have huge red backsides by now instead of pendulous appendages!

Oh I really hope it’s more than that! I can think of some much better purposes for it. If I use my ‘above waist’ brain.

I’ve got a lot of thoughts on this topic, plus some info to share from the third of the Channel 4 penis documentaries, so I’ve divided it up with headings to make it less of a slog for those who are interested:

Evolution or Why I\’m Screwed

Personally, I don’t believe penis size is related only to mating or sexual intercourse— I’d be more inclined to believe that it has a lot more to do with other factors.

The penis may have grown in response to the vagina & surrounding structures elongating when we began to walk erect— a longer penis might then have been more successful because it delivered the sperm to the cervix and/or fornix more efficiently (I’m not saying that that’s absolutely why the penis grew, just that it’s an example of how other factors might be influential)

Our bodies have a very long evolutionary history, and parts of the body evolve at different rates (which doesn’t help to simplify things)…

E.g. Bone & bone-structure in comparison with the natural chemicals used in the body’s functioning:

Some might argue that we’re meant to eat meat because of the shape of our teeth, but if you look at the digestive system, including the digestive enzymes, it suggests we’re not that well-equipped to eat meat where it counts— these systems are, arguably, evolving faster than our skeletal system.

Just because something was necessary to the survival of the species at one point in our evolutionary history doesn’t mean that it’s necessary now.

Another example is the Appendix— in the human body it no longer works— maybe because we developed the mental capacity to remove the bones and seeds from our foods thereby rendering the Appendix unnecessary to the survival of the species— so the genes for a working Appendix no longer had to be passed-on in order for the species to survive (or maybe we evolved some other system that rendered the Appendix non-functional after we developed the capacity for taking the bones and seeds from our food.)

I totally agree with both of you— that penis size is way down the list of factors. The only way it can be of advantage is within an individual’s specific social situation (i.e. should I pick “Ideal Man 1” with the 6-inch dick or “Ideal Man 2” with the 7-inch dick) and even then, more or less everything else would have to be absolutely equal for her to pick “Ideal Man 2”.

It’s also been shown that a lot of the time women actually look outside of the marital relationship when looking to get impregnated— you might have the right social-contacts and resources to attract her as a mate, but that doesn't mean you’ve got the genes she wants. (She might choose an alpha male, but she screws a beta male or vice-versa).

Taken to their logical extremes, all of our actions can be traced back to the survival instinct and our personal beliefs as to what’s good or bad for our personal survival.

A related point that’s very interesting— most women are more likely to orgasm if they feel safe. Increase the feeling of safety that a woman feels both in your presence (regardless of whether she likes you because you’re ‘bad’ or ‘dangerous’) and in the environment in which you’re making love, and you increase the chance of of her orgasming.

This, along with the ability to provide her with the feeling that her and her offspring have a better chance of survival with you is — I believe — part of the reason why status-symbols are an aphrodisiac…because they relate directly to the survival instinct— they show you to be able to provide and to protect. They show you to be “closer to the centre of the network”, an indispensable cronie— one of the gang. It’s why ‘power’ is an aphrodisiac.

The average woman complains about men and how they behave, but she doesn’t want the alternative as a life-partner, even when it’s offered to her on a plate— she wants a man that ‘runs with the crowd’, and to run with the crowd you have to be average— a ‘typical male’ (and studies have shown that the average woman will choose a man with what she considers to be ‘average’ facial features over a handsome man with unusual features.)

Next time you think you’re having difficulty figuring out a woman think “How is social-status playing a role in this situation?” If you can answer that question you can understand why she’s doing what she’s doing, and why you're doing what you're doing.

Social-status is the translation of the survival-instinct into modern culture.

You can free yourself from it, but mark my words— if you do…you’re gonna be lonely.

As far as I’m concerned, at this point in our evolution it’s all about the evolution of thought in the face of intense competition. Build a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door; develop an intellect that can devise a better survival method, be it a weapon or a political ideology and you make yourself a ‘better choice’ for a mate in terms of your ability to guarantee the survival of your partner and their offspring.

As for interior design, folk art, craft, and fashion— if they have to be explained in an evolutionary context they could be considered the extreme elaboration of the social-display ritual. The stuff you do when you’ve already ticked all the other boxes on Maslow’s list of needs.

Looking at life in these terms (and these are my beliefs) I’m absolutely screwed— I may as well tie weather balloons to my armchair and float off into the wide blue yonder. There’s no one in my ‘socio-economic class’ who would consider me a potential mate and there’s no way I’d want to feel responsible for bringing children into my socio-economic/socio-political environment (all I have is my Cinderella fantasy & a strong argument for assisted-rational-suicide).

Culture

It’s a cultural thing— the Romans and ‘antique’ Greeks found large penises to be ‘comical’, and it was often considered vulgar and base to have a large penis because it was considered beastial. The belief was that the more refined you were the less like an animal you were— large cocks were considered animalistic and denoted lower status— large cocks were probably ridiculed as you might ridicule someone exhibiting explicitly undesirable social traits. (Hey it’s not Jeff Foxworthy, but you get my point, right? “When she wants nothing to do with you ‘till she’s seen you in sweats— you may just have a large Penis”)

According to the social commentators interviewed for the third Channel 4 penis documentary the nearest equivalent — the porn star — is a kind of modern day hero-come-freakshow. The modern equivalent of the midway’s siamese twins to be championed for celebrating the ‘driving thrust’ of the virility of our species— Models for our masturbatory culture where we don’t make love anymore— but just use our cocks and cunts to wank each other off. Consumable hyperreality to be devoured along with our big-macs and pop-tarts.

Don’t underestimate the power of simple communication— In modern society it’s difficult to do or have anything even slightly unusual without everyone knowing about it. Don’t underestimate the power of the bush-telegraph (pun intended)— there’s no way you could hide the fact that you’ve got an eight-inch cock from girls in your environment.

Women talk…have you not noticed?

If there are two or more ‘girl-friends’ together and they’re not talking, you can be sure they’re watching you.

There’s a saying I believe whole-heatedly: “It doesn’t matter how far-away a woman is— talk about her and she’ll hear you.” … ((I’m not sure if you look like Michelle Pfeiffer or if she looks like you (I happened upon you today, purely by accident).))

Or should that be…

((I’m not sure if you look like Meg Ryan or if she…etc. etc. you get the point))

For want of a better word it’s the creation and propagation of a myth— the prominent myth about penises being the idea that bigger is somehow better. The big cock is a female fantasy and as such might get you laid more often if you’ve got a big-one, but there is a size at which the drawbacks outweigh the advantages and beyond which most women probably wouldn’t want to have regular sex with you.

As I wrote in another thread the best way to tell what size women like is to look at the size of the sex-toys they buy— the biggest selling sex toys are either average size or slightly smaller (often about the right size to stimulate the g-spot).

[/QUOTE]Amongst other techniques, advertising uses sex to sell sex— it uses sexual imagery presented in very specific ways designed to circumvent your conscious mind and pattern your subconscious with the beliefs that you and your potential partners must have certain products, use certain services and exhibit certain behaviours to be worthy of a relationship (For further reading see: textbooks for degrees in art-direction and advertising)

I don’t have the words to express just how vile and repugnant I think modern advertising actually is.

Personally, I’m not sure there is a dichotomy (if a dichotomy exist I’m sure it’ll be purely theoretical).

I’m not sure that it is, even now. How do you define ‘love’ in that sense.

If size wasn’t an issue, normal, every-day chicks wouldn’t be buying up huge frigging dildos.

Thank you, Mr. F, for a well-written essay :-)

No problem :leftie: I’ve had a stressful few days and kind of needed to vent.

I’m not sure if it’s a post an essay outline or a rant.

The Romans, however, valued men with large penises in the army. In fact, a large penis was a consideration for promotion. The Romans assimiliated a few cultures but primarily founded theirs upon the Etruscans and the Greeks, whom they conquered but also immensely admired. The Romans had a dichotomous relationship with the penis. There were cults dedicated to penis worship, a common woman’s prayer asked the gods to give their sons and husbands great potency, there were even penis festivals. On one hand, large penises were important and thought of as “manly”. The average Roman appreciated a large phallus, men and women alike. If you look at Roman statuary you will see that they have average-sized genitals (unless you’re considering fertility statuary) for the most part. On the other hand, the Romans adopted the Greek aesthetic but made it their own. The penises of the Greek statues are smaller and of some of the Roman statuary from sculptors seeking to emulate the Greek style. The average Roman was poorly educated and wouldn’t know Greek aesthetics if the Pathenon hit them on the head. The Roman aristocracy however, learned Greek, dressed in Greek fashion, and encouraged Greek arts. Little has really changed; all over the world people emulate American culture but our upper class buys European cars, travels to and has at least part of their education take place in Europe, learns to speak French (and sometimes still Greek and Latin), and wears British gentlemans’-style clothes and French dresses. The aesthetic of an upper class in a culture is always different from that of the culture’s lower classes. Thus, the art comissioned by the upper classes generally reflected the taste of those classes while more vulgar art was representative of the lower classes. Same is true in Rome. The Roman aristocracy brought in Greek tutors (preferably Athenian) to teach their sons literature, history, Greek, art and aesthetics, arithmatic and geometry, philosophy, rhetoric, etiquette, geography, astronomy and other sciences. Upper class girls might sit-in on some of these but few Roman women of the upper class had fathers who thought it worthwhile to educate a woman beyond reading, writing, etiquette, and running a household. These tutors were largely the reason that the Romans were thought of as not likeing large penises.

Another more complex reason is that Rome didn’t tolerate a homosexual culture as Greece did. As in Greece, Roman men were expected to marry and have wives who would give them sons (preferably) or daughters (generally a disappointment unless you needed a daughter to marry someone or someone’s son whom you would want to influence or unite your family with). Greek homosexuality took a number of different forms but our modern idea of the single, gay, liberated person was unheard of in Greece as much as it was in Rome. You could have your gay relationship so long as you kept the social contract of marrying and reproducing. Yet whereas the Greeks practiced a number of different forms, the Romans didn’t. Their idea of homosexuality was primarily pederasty. Both Greek and Roman culture believed that the man who was penetrated was less of man than others. The man who did the penetrating was just as manly and straight as other heterosexual men. It was ok to have sex with boys because boys were more effeminate in that they lacked body hair, masculine stature, and could be as beautiful to the Roman eye as a woman. Nearly all these boys were imports from conquered countries. A male Roman citizen (boy or man) would never admit to being penetrated by another man lest he lose esteem in the eyes of other men. This was also the case to some degree in Athenian Greece, but not so in other city-states which held to different standards. Greek playwrights, again nearly all Athenian, portrayed “receptive” men as sissies and an object of comedy although the men of Sparta and Thebes were required to live in adolescence and young adulthood in barracks where they were expected to take lovers from amongst the ranks. Again, Greece had regional variations whereas Rome didn’t. Ancient Greece wasn’t a monolithic empire like Rome was. Individual city-states ruled themselves and what linked them together was Hellenic culture. Boys in both cultures were given a pass until they entered adolescence in which case they were expected to become penetrators and reject advances from men who wanted to penetrate them. Either way, penetrating a Roman male citizen of any age was a no-no.

Following this, a Roman male could have a large penis and not be ashamed of it since he never risked (in theory) being penetrated. In Greece, most men wouldn’t want a partner with a large penis because of the risk of pain and injury. Also a large penis signified power (sound familiar?) and you wouldn’t want the guy you’re fucking to be bigger than you. Sexual orientation wasn’t a concept in those days. The concept of domination was. Basically, so long as you were the poker it didn’t matter if you poked a man, woman, girl, or boy. Being the pokee was something else entirely.

Greek male statuary was made to an idealized male form appealing to the older males who could afford to commission such pieces. Thus the statuary always depicted young males and lots of pubertal boys, an age bracket the Greeks felt was best since a pubertal male could appreciate the wisdom and personality of an older man and learn from him; sort of a rite-of-passage teacher who could initiate the boy into manhood. Even statues of male gods combined the face of a very mature man with the body of an athletic young man. The Romans however, were more dynamic. Their sculpture tended to reflect reality and in reality men had average-sized dangly penises. Of course there were exceptions, but as a rule, Roman sculpture didn’t always use the ideal form that Greek sculpture did. It depended on the context, the purpose, and the audience.

Both Greek and Roman households had herms outside their homes. Herms were statues of average ot oversized to enormous, erect penises. There was even herm jewelry displaying erect penises. These were good-luck charms so don’t think that either culture entirely disdained the symbolism behind the large penis. Like today, large penises were more fertile and more powerful in the popular mind.

And FYI, I majored in Art History and took Classics courses up to the point that required me to learn Latin and Greek (gah!).

Mr. Fantastic and Jason; that’s all really interesting. I thought Thunder’s was going to increase the size of my penis but it’s doing wonders for my general knowledge!

Jason, were you lucky enough to learn modern Greek or did you suffer the agonies of Ancient Greek? Thankfully I flunked Latin at my school, so I avoided having to learn Ancient Greek.

Jason, you always have good stuff to offer. Thanks for that interesting lesson.

Another explanation for Penis size in art…