Jump to content

bigforsmall

Members
  • Posts

    182
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About bigforsmall

  • Birthday 03/12/1970

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

bigforsmall's Achievements

  1. Mine looks like a apple on a stick  and I agree that it might be cultural 

  2. It might be counter cultural for women to admit to liking smaller, so there's an element of conformity (more to do with peer pressure than sex), but we can't just dismiss women who say they dislike big/prefer small and many do. This would never happen with the reverse!. It all comes down to MENS prejudices again. And this "borderline personality"/promiscuity thing?. I'm aware that there's pitfalls to the lifestyle but come on. I'm not sure when nymphomania was dropped from DSM but it must have gone out with the Vietnam war!. This might be an, ahem, "older man's" site-I'm no 20 something myself-but how behind the times can you be!!.
  3. Speaking as a big, even very big guy, I'm not sure about this Scott- I tend to find the "50 types" applies to me too!. I don't know if you know this, but on the SPS sites, smaller guys have a "trick"of showing their limp dicks as " innies"- sometimes they actually press them in themselves. Well, although my flaccid penis can be very big - bigger than your erect size in fact-there are occasions when it can actually look small, and I can even inverted like this!. I don't know if all big ones are like this, but possibly it's linked to the idea of bigger being softer, which you could kind of imply from this thread actually!. It just goes to show that big and small are relative terms!.
  4. That may be true, but that doesn't invalidate what he says, does it?.At the end of the day, sex is important to not women- and that includes issues of performance, like hardness, and stamina. Ive argued before on here that in an ideal world, females would reclaim their own sexuality, and stop relying on men ( i.e. the clitorus is all a woman needs to climax: Germain Greer said that women suffer from a lack of narcissisism), but just look at the reaction, much of it from a woman. We don't live in an perfect world
  5. That's what I meant, but I'm not an expert on those studies, maybe they are watertight. I just thought judging by all the controversy over the regular penis size data- i.e Veale etc- which there's much more of!, we could do with some more research. I know there was some correlation between finger length though.
  6. I'm as keen as you to debunk a lot of these myths Scott, but I do wonder if there isn't a grain of truth in this. Even though I recognise there's no hard scientific evidence, I'm thinking here in terms of common sense: generally speaking, a bigger/taller person is proportionaly larger, i.e. in terms of their head, limb length, hands and feet etc. Of course there are exceptions, but more research needs to be done here. Also, think of the penis size of a blue whale, horse, or elephant!. Are there examples of small penises amongst these mammals?. Of course the great apes have relatively small ones, in terms of their body mass ( although they are short in stature). Again, me need more hard evidence. In my case the cliche is spot on, my being well over 6', with size 11/12 (UK) feet, and big boned ( although quite slim) and a penis 8+ x nearly 6".Of course that alone proves nothing.
  7. Who says they never come themselves!?.
  8. As a matter of fact Scott, a number of the things stated above, in response to my topic-including the remarks by @canuck45 concerning the "stroke" the penis makes during intercourse, his ideas about anatomy etc- are doubtful at best, and I had better refrain from saying exactly what I think regarding the long series of posts from a certain member ( no pun intended),that you address!. Unfortunately what seems to be happening on the forum is that I make a post- always in defence of the smaller or average sized amongst us- but that that seems to be the most incendiary and controversial line to take of all!. Then I am forced to either "abandon"( to quote one user) my thread or- when I finally respond- I, rather than those who have become so heated, or even , one could say, unreasonable- seem to get the blame!. The really interesting question, I believe, is exactly why all of this keeps happening in a site ostensibly devoted to supporting men with smaller dicks!. This seems to happen even when my original post is light-hearted, and/not really about the controversial subject, in this case average penis size!. I am actually still considering whether or not I'm going to respond to this at length, or simply let it go. For the time being though, let me say something regarding what the op, @goldenboy has claimed. The main study in question, not named but actually Veale etc al (2015), has it flaws certainly- foremost amongst them the conflagration of BP and NPB penis lengths- but you are entirely correct to defend it. Moreover the idea that view or idea that the average penis size is- or is close to- 6"( whether BP or not), is entirely without any foundation whatever. Of the reputable, modern studies: CalSD-5.64" (NBP-4.88") Phosphine(so called)-5.46" Herbenick et al-5.57" Veale et al-5.16" Of the remaining serious, modern studies which have even a claim to be discussed at all, Lifestyle Condoms (2001)-5.88",had a sample size of only 401 men, and of these only 300 were able to obtain an erection!. Western Average ( 2001)-5.71"(which related only to North America), likewise used only 491 subjects. Hungfun (2013)-5.76",was a more serious meta study, but was more floored than Veale: ITSELF using a mixture of NBP and BP figures. Even Habus et al (2015)-5.65",was conducted in Saudia Arabia, and so subject to exactly the criticism @goldenboyhimself is using!. While on this subject incidentally, it has to be said that this view- always parroted in the subculture, often now in connection to attacking Veale- that there is a racial element to size, i. e. "Asians are smaller"(related of course to the idea that "Europeans are larger" but blacks are "largest of all") is simply a nonsense, and is honestly bordering on being casually racist. In fact a first year philosophy undergraduate could tell you that this view is a completely circular argument: the studies are inaccurate, because the mean average is "bought down" by Asians, and yet the only evidence we have- i. e. those self- same studies- informs us that thee is NO real difference in mean penis size due to race!. This is reminiscent of a post I saw recently on the subreddit fetish site "small penis humiliation" by a man parading his 6.5" sexual organ for the purposes of humiliating smaller men, and for his own Sadistic schadenfreude, i. e."This is average, don't be fooled by all these scientific studies"! There is one simple reason for the above racial/racist ideas, for people criticising studies in general, and Veale in particular, for people saying that to defend the idea that smaller sized penises are not unusual, is having "an agenda",and for people to attack the view that they are as advantageous ( or more so), than large, and that is the fetishistic obsession with size- and internalised or externalised dislike of small- that exists in the boring and clichéd mythology of the internet/urban subculture.
  9. There's a good intentions behind it Scott, I agree, but a few myths too. I don't think the obsession with size really comes from women at all- it's a slightly sexist idea. Remember before the interweb?. Well, 6" was certainly thought of as being large back then!. Any size obsession that does really is largely the result of pornography on line- but also a certain web culture that- I have to say it- is sometimes fueled by smaller men themselves:watch this space for moe on this. Women aren't really responsible for any of this ( unless you count sex workers, who are only catering to of our needs).In the real world, women have seen very few, if any 8 or 9" dicks, because there are so few.
  10. Well, of these I would argue with 4 and 5-long, fast stores are very difficult with a big penis- one precludes the other, unless you re super fit ( a longer Stoke by definition takes longer). Also, there is little evidence for deep nerve endings at all-see my other thread ( I have more to say on this). As for 7- you could argue the same for small!
  11. I think I'll make one attempt at seriously answering my own question before giving up on the thread.... The way I see it, a small penis possess the following advantages: 1) It may be better at stimulating the main nerve clusters, which are related to the clitorus ( though some anatomists think the clitorus is purely external- see my other thread) 2) A smaller penis may well have fewer ed problems, have a better consistency of hardness, and have a shorter recovery time ( supported by several sex workers and doctors). Basically, smaller is harder!. 3) A smaller one is less likely to cause pain and discomfort to a woman, and will "fit" the largest number of partners. 4) A smaller one is more suitable for harder faster sex, and with a shorter stroke, it can be withdrawn fully. 5) There is a real problem with contraception/ protection with large in terms of condoms. Small/ average is immune from this. Big/ very big have the following in their favour: 1) There is often a perception in society- particulary in the USA- that bigger is somehow "better" or more manly. Therefore women *may* prefer them on this basis. 2) Some women report that big is more pleasurable, and there is a fuller feeling. Of these, even if we dispute advantages 4 and 5, listed for small, and say that these are just contingent, and can be negated for a bigger man with the right knowledge and expertise, we are still left with more advantages for small/average. You might conceivably question number 2, as being unproven, with little evidence: but this really applies equally to the second advantage big has!. There is really *no* reliable scientific evidence that big has any advantage in physiological terms at all!. Also a commonly cited bonus of small, i.e."smaller men try harder",was not listed at all!. If we do replace the terms "small", and "big", with the terms average and very big, we can see that the argument in favour of average is even more convincing. Don't forget that in popular/internet sub culture and urban myth, average( around 5-5.5 inches) is usually conflated with small anyway!. Even what little evidence exists for women preferring larger applies only to a moderate size "advantage", just over 6"! And so small wins!
  12. No, what you provide is a non technical description of sexual arousal: but obviously many states or conditions can induce all, or most, of those symptoms, other than ostensibly or obviously erotic ones: aspects of drug use, fear/panic, and childbirth or pregnancy (I am not a medical doctor, but the eponymous " house" an op mentioned could list many more). What you describe is not a definition of an orgasm: that requires stimulation of the innervated areas of the genitals.This is a basic result of evolutionary biology (incentivsation). And the consensus is still that only the first few inches of the vagina- associated with the clitorus- contain sensitive nerve bundles.
  13. Well I know who you are Silent/ Bronxy, and have read your posts- both old and new. There's a few reasons why I haven't responded before. I like the idea of a Bronx bombshell, and would accept a lot of things- even having no dog in fights, and refutations, from the lovely ladies here.... But- I do have to say, smoking a joint can cause euphoria and pupil dilation, flu can raise your temperature, a panic attack can cause a tachycardic pulse, etc, etc. Those things don't define an orgasm. That's the truth too, isn't it?.
  14. Boris as in Boris Johnson?(I feel a pun in the offing here)
  15. Look at what you say here Scott, "improve" is conflated with increase, in the sense that the HIGHER the numbers are, the more SCOPE there is to do this...because I start of with higher numbers, I can increase some dimension, with less relative "detriment". In other words, the test implies bigger is BETTER: there's no scope to REDUCE ones penis overall: I can't get a smaller penis, one your size. It's basically bias, and your accepting that unconsciously. You could rephrase your post by saying you wouldn't change your dimensions because your penis is perfect as it is* Yes, I know I'm taking it too seriously- I hate political correctness-but there's this same unconscious bias throughout the site. It's interesting in the context of a certain thread where people said I had an agenda etc. I may post on this idea again. *You have the perfect sized cock in my opinion ( all things considered)
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.