Jump to content

Guys 'look' in the locker room. especially straight guys


RodEnuf
 Share

Recommended Posts

hey, sam. not really talking bout here cause let's face it, once you been in video chat it's the same people over and over again. and like a child with a new toy, the child loses interest after a while. kind of talking bout locker room type settings. i did ok a month ago when i had my first nude massage. still can't figure out the saying that i was told when growing up, "all guys have the same thing down there."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 years later...

Its funny i am 70 years now and i know i am small. In high school we had to swim naked and i do not remember any of the other boys sizes. I do not think i saw a hard on. I know if i had to be there now i would look at all the boys dicks and i would get a hard on. I would have pre cum dripping from my cock. I remember i was in a place people went to  be naked, i was talking to a couple, he had a big cock and she had big tits and a hairy bush. I was standing there naked with my small dick, i knew i didnt have a hard on. But when they turned away i looked down and i had pre cum hanging almost to the ground. They didnt react or say anything thing but how EMBARRASSING!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm straight, and I look, don't mind admitting it either, it's natural to check out others, it's not often we see each other naked. I've had strings of precum quite a few times, not always from being consciously aroused either. Happened a few times when at naturist club after lying in sun, I'm sure a few people have seen it but it's never been mentioned, just be discrete about cleaning up!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
9 hours ago, wayless said:

Supported by this thread:  Instincts regarding sizeable genitals contributing to primitive "male status".  Admittedly, just a few data points.

wayless - If what you are saying is true, small penises would have evolved out of the human race long ago and the large penis gene would get passed on to the next generation. From these forums we know that there are Fathers who have larger penises than their Sons and that penis size varies between brothers. Other primates have much smaller penises and they have no problem propagating the species. In primate times physical strength and physical size were most important for existence and for the species to continue. It's all bullshit. A large penis is no guarantee to anything. It may very well have erectile disfunction problems or trigger premature ejaculation and the resultant quick loss of an erection causing the woman to be less satisfied. It may even cause pain to a lot of other women during sex.

It is the (small) group of women who enjoy sex more from a larger penis or men born with a larger penis (and want other people to believe they have an advantage because of it, even if they have a pea brain or no physical strength) that promote that idea to the masses of gullible people and they fall for it hook, line and sinker.. When I was born I had no idea if a small or large penis was better or more desirable. It was others who tried to instill those ideas into my mind but I didn't let them because I knew better.

So would gals with large breasts be instinctively preferred as a better choice to insure survival of the species? Would women with bigger breasts be better at nurturing their siblings? I say, there is no primitive instinct involved - just personal preference.

Guys, don't be gullible and believe what others (with an agenda) want you to believe. A large penis is no guarantee to better sex. Better you have a small one and know how to use it. If you do actually come across a woman who absolutely needs a large penis and you cannot satisfy that need just move on. We cannot all be 7 foot tall and be a basketball players.

Edited by NuderThanNude
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NuderThanNude said:

wayless - If what you are saying is true, small penises would have evolved out of the human race long ago and the large penis gene would get passed on to the next generation.

The primitive hierarchy is primarily about social organization, not reproduction.

The well endowed and men otherwise high in the hierarchy are able to have sex with similarly high status women.  Breast size does seem to be a factor.

This doesn't mean that the mediocre and even lesser hung can't usually find over a lifetime a woman often of similar lower primitive status with whom to reproduce.  

I did.  Had some accidents too.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/8/2021 at 7:00 AM, wayless said:

Supported by this thread:  Instincts regarding sizeable genitals contributing to primitive "male status".

wayless - I was referring to the "Instincts" part of your comment. Any instincts we may have generally relate in some way to propagation and continuation of the species. As far as social organization and it's hierarchy or a person's level of status... that is always a social convention and can vary with different societies. 

Although I will admit that, a select few women do need a large penis to satisfy them, I venture to say it is a very small number compared to the large portion that consider landing a man, with large penis (or a handsome or tall or muscular man), as a trophy. Not only does it give her bragging rights but makes her feel better about herself because of the (socially generated) prize she was able to obtain. She got a guy with a large penis therefore she is herself a superior person. The same way guys hunt deer with the largest antlers. Other than showing them off to their friends, the size of the antlers serves no functional purpose to them at all. Nevertheless, they feel like they are greater hunters and can show off to their friends.

When I look up the traits of an "Alpha Male" these are the most common. I haven't seen "Large Genitals" on the list.

* Assertiveness

* Dominant

* Natural Leadership Skills

* Protective Instinct

* Courageous

* Physically Strong

* Curious

Edited by NuderThanNude
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, wayless said:

Hierarchy, ie. inequality, actually contributes to human survival.

Oh, I totally agree with the logic of evolution (and natural selection) but I wish you would make up your mind. 

in your previous message you stated  "The primitive hierarchy is primarily about social organization, not reproduction."

Now you are saying it is about evolution which is directly tied to the reproductive process and choices which are supposed to 'better' the species.

Women naturally seek out stronger, healthier, self confident, intelligent and assertive males to build a stronger race. However, I don't believe penis size is part of that equation because there is no inherent indication that a larger penis would produce a stronger race or give it a better chance for survival. People instinctive fear 'large' so what is there to say that a large penis wouldn't scare more females away as they don't want something that large put into them. (speaking in primitive times, before any social conventions were established, that is) I know if I were a woman and saw a guy with a foot long penis I would run the other direction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
On 2/9/2021 at 2:52 PM, NuderThanNude said:

Oh, I totally agree with the logic of evolution (and natural selection) but I wish you would make up your mind. 

in your previous message you stated  "The primitive hierarchy is primarily about social organization, not reproduction."

Now you are saying it is about evolution which is directly tied to the reproductive process and choices which are supposed to 'better' the species.

Women naturally seek out stronger, healthier, self confident, intelligent and assertive males to build a stronger race. However, I don't believe penis size is part of that equation because there is no inherent indication that a larger penis would produce a stronger race or give it a better chance for survival. People instinctive fear 'large' so what is there to say that a large penis wouldn't scare more females away as they don't want something that large put into them. (speaking in primitive times, before any social conventions were established, that is) I know if I were a woman and saw a guy with a foot long penis I would run the other direction.

I think the main flaw in your reasoning above is not appreciating that male hierarchy enhances human survival, especially when most of evolution took place, so there is no conflict between social organization and reproduction.  So primitive hierarchy is not DIRECTLY about reproduction but social organization which is absolutely necessary for human survival.

Building a "stronger race" isn't the full story of what evolution is about.  If women had children only with the top "alpha dogs" there wouldn't be enough variation for the absolutely necessary hierarchy to develop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, wayless said:

I think the main flaw in your reasoning above is not appreciating that male hierarchy enhances human survival, especially when most of evolution took place, so there is no conflict between social organization and reproduction.

With so many characteristics of males (such as looks, height, muscular build, length of arms or legs, size of mouth, nose and ears, aggressiveness, assertiveness,  confidence, and on and on, I fail to see how penis size could play any significant part in male hierarchy. Males spend most of their time flaccid and flaccid length is certainly no reflection on erect length (which is what we are told really matters when it comes to sex). Besides who is to say that a large penis is better. Women may be afraid of having a large penis inside them.

One would think that a larger nose would place a male at a higher hierarchal level as it would be more effective in finding food, sensing danger and sensing a willing female partner but our society (not nature) has made a large nose a negative factor. With deer, it is the size of their antlers (that gives them an advantage in battles) and aggressiveness that put them at a higher hierarchal level and not the size of their penis.

That a larger penis places a male at a higher hierarchal level, is purely a social convention, created by those males who feel it gives them an advantage. If a guy believes that then he deserves to be at a lower hierarchal level as he is gullible and lacking in self confidence. In the percentage of woman who prefer sex with a larger penis that factor makes a larger penis man (possibly) just 'better at sex' - but if the guy is an asshole he will still be an asshole. 

I believe it is you, who has a flaw in their reasoning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NuderThanNude said:

I believe it is you, who has a flaw in their reasoning.

No.  I think it is an empirical question of whether the instinct to value a large penis exists or not. 

Admittedly, my evidence is not conclusive, but is based on the ubiquity of the big dick mentality which has few exceptions and those might be "denial."  To be more certain, social / psychological tests would have to be designed and carried out on representative samples, the young before socialization, etc.  I don't think the work has been done.

Your argument, again, amounts to the idea instincts should follow reason.  They don't!

Edited by wayless
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, wayless said:

No.  I think it is an empirical question of whether the instinct to value a large penis exists or not. 

That is why I am confident male hierarchy due to penis size is not instinctive. An instinct is a reaction someone is 'born with' and not 'learned'.

A lot of things sound like they are instinctive but they are not in reality. For example an infants cry is instinctive as it occurs the very second out of the womb without any chance to learn how and when to do it. Crying for attention is something that is learned (or not). Sucking when something is placed in their mouth can also safely be said to be instinctive. But knowing how to find and suck on the mothers breast for food probably is not. The mother has to put her nipple up to the infants mouth. Over time it will learn it belongs to its mother and is a means to suppress hunger and will look for it.

The question is does a bird know how to fly instinctively or not. I would say the bird can move its little wings instinctively but it probably learns what to do with them from seeing the mother fly. Two infants placed in a play pen will explore parts of each others bodies, ears, mouth, nose and etc. but there is no significance to a penis or vagina. The significance comes from learning about sex and what a penis can do other than eliminating waste. The significance regarding size has to also be learned and is a result of the current accepted social ideas. The child also learns there is something significant abot the genitals because they are typically the only part of the body hidden from public view.

As to the OP statement about straight men being more likely to look at the genitals of other males... We tend to want to do things that are forbidden - such as drinking alcohol while underage or sneaking a peak under a girls dress. As a straight male he is not supposed to have interest in the genitals of another make making it impossible for him to resist doing exactly that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NuderThanNude said:

That is why I am confident male hierarchy due to penis size is not instinctive. An instinct is a reaction someone is 'born with' and not 'learned'.

A lot of things sound like they are instinctive but they are not in reality. For example an infants cry is instinctive as it occurs the very second out of the womb without any chance to learn how and when to do it. Crying for attention is something that is learned (or not). Sucking when something is placed in their mouth can also safely be said to be instinctive. But knowing how to find and suck on the mothers breast for food probably is not. The mother has to put her nipple up to the infants mouth. Over time it will learn it belongs to its mother and is a means to suppress hunger and will look for it.

The question is does a bird know how to fly instinctively or not. I would say the bird can move its little wings instinctively but it probably learns what to do with them from seeing the mother fly. Two infants placed in a play pen will explore parts of each others bodies, ears, mouth, nose and etc. but there is no significance to a penis or vagina. The significance comes from learning about sex and what a penis can do other than eliminating waste. The significance regarding size has to also be learned and is a result of the current accepted social ideas. The child also learns there is something significant abot the genitals because they are typically the only part of the body hidden from public view.

As to the OP statement about straight men being more likely to look at the genitals of other males... We tend to want to do things that are forbidden - such as drinking alcohol while underage or sneaking a peak under a girls dress. As a straight male he is not supposed to have interest in the genitals of another make making it impossible for him to resist doing exactly that.

You may be talking about REFLEXES, not instincts.

Instincts are more complex behavior patterns most likely powered by inborn archetypes.

I continue to think you are instinct phobic, possibly as a psychological defense mechanism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember "learning" how to throw.

To me, it seemed I was discovering an inborn muscle co-ordination pattern, not imitating and learning.

Some of my sports competition were more natural at throwing, but some seemed to be missing the muscle co-ordination instinct entirely and always "threw like a girl" ineffectively.

Of course, that is just a stereotype.  Some women are also "naturals" throwing.

Edited by wayless
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW:  Whereas my throwing instinct was discovered and implemented with ease, my "fucking" instinct was not. 

Fucking always seemed foreign to me, never seemed "right".  When fucking I always felt like I imagined those guys felt who "threw like a girl" no matter how hard they tried to imitate guys who threw well.

Instincts seem to include visual and muscle co-ordination pre-programmed archetypes and probably much else that is not well understood.

 

Edited by wayless
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, wayless said:

I continue to think you are instinct phobic, possibly as a psychological defense mechanism.

wayless - You are the one who continues to think that male hierarchy is based on instinct. Nor do I need any defense mechanisms as I never had any insecurities due to the size of my penis.

I know full well the difference between an instinct and a reflex. Instincts are inborn complex patterns of behavior that exist in most members of the species. Reflexes are simple responses of an organism to a specific stimulus, such as the contraction of the pupil in response to bright light.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NuderThanNude said:

wayless - You are the one who continues to think that male hierarchy is based on instinct. Nor do I need any defense mechanisms as I never had any insecurities due to the size of my penis.

Effective defense mechanism make you unaware of what you are defending against.

Me saying this, admittedly doesn't prove my working hypothesis.  Just explains how it would work if true!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, wayless said:

Effective defense mechanism make you unaware of what you are defending against.

wayless - I would first have to feel something I needed to defend against. I never, ever, ever, had any negative feelings toward my penis size. In fact it was just the opposite. Ever since I became aware of my penis I loved how it looked and wanted to show it off. I disliked the look of a long penis hanging from the body just as much as I would have disliked if I had a big nose or ears.

You need to admit - once and for all - that you were conned into believing that you were less of a man because you had a smaller size penis. You were the man you were. You just had a small size penis - which like everything else in life, has advantages and disadvantages.

If you ever want to find out if someone has an agenda in what they tell you look to see if they are presenting both sides - the advantages and disadvantages! Look at how the global warming fanatics only tell you the disadvantages to a warmer climate. Have they ever told you the advantages? Everything in life has advantages and disadvantages.

Life is full of people who pray on 'gullible' people.

Edited by NuderThanNude
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NuderThanNude said:

You need to admit - once and for all - that you were conned into believing that you were less of a man because you had a smaller size penis.

Nope.  No one did any such thing as conning me when the feeling first arose in me.

I remember I felt inferior spontaneously while observing others boys nude for the first time.  I had my pants on and there was no discussion of the issue among them at the time and nothing directed towards me.

Edited by wayless
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.