Cock Fight

[SilentPartner]

It seems to me that for any size I could come up with as many pros as cons as far as any erection pertains to me and my pleasure. I've never found any size to be significantly better than any other. But that's just one woman's opinion.

[canuck45]

@SilentPartner Thats you expressing your opinion, however there is probably a lot more than just one woman with that opinion. unless of course they are all lying just to make guys feel good (where is that sarcasm emoticon)

[Guest]

Fellating the ego?

[SilentPartner]

18 hours ago, canuck45 said:

@SilentPartner Thats you expressing your opinion, however there is probably a lot more than just one woman with that opinion. unless of course they are all lying just to make guys feel good (where is that sarcasm emoticon)

You know, elsewhere someone showed me a post he found on Quora suggesting just that. It was supposedly written by a female size queen. She felt (inappropriately) that she could speak for all women. By my limited observation, the truth is size queens are an extreme minority among women. She wrote that whenever women say that size doesn't matter they are just saying that to avoid hurting the feelings of smaller partners. The truth is, there is no proof that person is an actual woman, and even if she is, her personal behavior patterns represent just one person's habits, and even as extrapolated to the greater population, she represents probably a minority perspective. 

I have also observed that even men who have sufficient familiarity with me to know I am a real person, exactly who I say I am, will still often choose to believe a dubious stranger over my word, as long as that stranger supports their insecurities. Nothing I can do about that.

[RAized]

@bigforsmall:

With regards to the 5-5.5 inch range, there seem to be a group of women who seem to understand that this is average because most of the men they have been with are about this size. maybe e a few a bit larger or considerably smaller. Then you have the other group which i have the unfortunate experience of meeting who have had it horse sized. But the main thing is to understand that if you are 5-6 inches you are A ok regardless of what girls or women say.Many men in this size range have been told that they were smaller than they actually are by thee mean spirited individuals. But as far as bigger having advantages or not....the reliable scientific evidence part , the empirical peer reviewed part only bares some weight in this argument. Its what women prefer at the end of the day. Its hard to accept that most women want a 6.5 inch penis with 5-6 inch girth, but the psychological comfort should be that even that so called previously believed average is actually big. Take a ruler out, then close off with your hand the entirety of the ruler exposing only 6.5.....not 6...not 7 just 6.5, then apply a toilet paper roll to it, or just imagine it there, does that not look like what you see in a "brazzers" video? thats because thats what it is. now go down to 5.5 and just look at that for a while...and youll see how 5 inches up to 5.75 is actually not that small and  a reasonable place for a normal man to fall. And youll feel better. I dont think Im the only one who as a teen was told by everyone at school or wherever that the average is 6.5 and then going home measuring and looking at how big that was on a ruler and getting upset because that must be what all the other boys have... but then going into the service a few years all the penises that were basically like I was. and learning after that that the true average was somewhere between 5-6. well when you learn that your brain will start to see things differently as mine did. the first girl I was ever with said I was average, I didn't believe her. but the nasty women I met were not so forgiving. the point here is whichever cock wins, if you were made normal that is a marker that should help you feel better about you. And not worry about female opinions, or a gay mans opinions, or whoever. 

[Red Scott]

@RAized Absolutely brilliant post there and right on the money! 

[RAized]

no problem @redscott, this is just facts that its unfortunate that women AND men havent fully absorbed into their conciousness yet. that previous 6 inch cliche stat is really more close to 5" then anyone would want to admit.

 

[bigforsmall]

On 7/13/2019 at 6:30 AM, canuck45 said:

Advantages Big

3) doesn't fall out when things get energetic
4) can do short fast strokes or long slow ones depending on partners wants.
5) can stimulate externally and deeper nerve endings internally
6) looks impressive at the nude beach
7) allows for more variety in positions unobtainable with shorter penis

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!

[bigforsmall]

On 7/16/2019 at 9:22 PM, Red Scott said:

@RAized Absolutely brilliant post there and right on the money! 

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.

[RAized]

On 7/18/2019 at 8:03 PM, bigforsmall said:

[...]  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 more 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.

I agree that Its been porn for the most part. i was merely speaking from my own experiences meeting "size queens" what i dont realize is that alot of men havent met them. My post wasnt intended to create the context that its from women. It was highlighting my own experience. to be honest I wish the more Histrionic women would leave me alone and the good ones would come out and talk for a while.   

So you say that 6" was once thought of as large? when was this, please explain if you will im intrigued.

[Guest]

12 hours ago, bigforsmall said:

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!.

Don't think so!  6" was thought of as average back then, but men probably didn't measure as much.  I know I didn't.  Kinsey confirmed the misinformation by claiming 6" was average, but he did not survey scientifically.

[Guest]

On 7/16/2019 at 12:16 PM, in part RAized said:

Take a ruler out, then close off with your hand the entirety of the ruler exposing only 6.5.....not 6...not 7 just 6.5, then apply a toilet paper roll to it, or just imagine it there, does that not look like what you see in a "brazzers" video? thats because thats what it is. now go down to 5.5 and just look at that for a while...and you'll see how 5 inches up to 5.75 is actually not that small and  a reasonable place for a normal man to fall. And you'll feel better. I don't think I'm the only one who as a teen was told by everyone at school or wherever that the average is 6.5 and then going home measuring and looking at how big that was on a ruler and getting upset because that must be what all the other boys have...

Don't try this at home if you are significantly below average.

[new2day]

Thinking back to when I was a teen and my body started changing, it was only during school post gym showers that I became a little more conscious of size. I was at the younger end of the spectrum with my peers, and 11-12 months pubescent growth was quite a noticeable! While many peers had a bush, all I had was fair hair and a relatively small penis. I mostly avoided school showers and went straight home after gym as it was always the last lesson of the day anyway.

At college I was never especially conscious of size, we all showered together and often walked to/from showers naked. It was only when I was in late teens and internet access was easy that I started to wonder and even measure myself. I've always considered myself average, although perhaps a little above when compared to the more scientific studies. Despite this, I have at times felt inadequte, so forums like this have good to have dialogue with others about something so personal.

About 10 years ago I joined a naturist club, and I no longer have any worries or feeling of inadequacy. Yes there are guys there bigger, "showers" who swing as they walk about while I just bobble! Nobody cares or comments (at least not out loud!), and I feel more confident chatting to people than ever.

[canuck45]

19 hours ago, bigforsmall said:

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!

 

Quote

4) can do short fast strokes or long slow ones depending on partners wants.
5) can stimulate externally and deeper nerve endings internally
7) allows for more variety in positions unobtainable with shorter penis

4) I didn't say longer/faster so your point is moot.
 4a) And the "unless' negates the precludes
 4b) And not sure of your dictionary but my says: Longer, "over a great distance, or further than expected or intended." since stroke refers to distance in this case.
 4c) And Stroker engines - Increasing the stroke without any extension in time. By definition, the exact opposite of what you say.
5) cervix, the pelvic splanchnic nerves supply parasympathetic function, including transmitting the sensation of pain.[1]., mild stimulation could transmit the sensation of  pleasure to some women ??? ( I wouldn't know being male) ( nipples licked is great, nipples pinched is pain - in my books)  pain or pleasure???
7) I know spooning doesn't work for me...

"As for 7- you could argue the same for small!"
and we could argue all day on the advantages/disadvantage of shorter/longer and it's just 2 sides of a pissing contest, or possibly crying over spilt milk

1)  Gray's anatomy for student

 

Edited July 19, 2019 by canuck45

[goldenboy]

On 7/16/2019 at 8:49 PM, RAized said:

no problem @redscott, this is just facts that its unfortunate that women AND men havent fully absorbed into their conciousness yet. that previous 6 inch cliche stat is really more close to 5" then anyone would want to admit.

 

We really need to stop this, as this whole topic is really starting to make my blood boil.

I'm sure studies showing the average was well over 6 were probably exaggerated for all of the reasons the feel-gooders on this site relentlessly harp on (e.g. self-measurement, as though when you yourself measure your own penis you're not "self-measuring", but I digress), but we can't be so absorbed by our own wishful thinking as to pretend 5" is the new normal either, because it's literally not in any way that science would back up.

Of the dozens of studies I've ever seen on penis size there has only been one that I've ever seen that included both 1) western men from either the US or Europe, and that 2) had a decent sample size, that showed the average beneath 5.6. The overwhelming majority showed averages between 5.5 and 6 inches. As for that one, I've dug into that study, as it's the famous one everybody latched onto when it came out that asserted the average was a mere 5.17. It was quickly apparent that the methodology of the study was appallingly bad for the following reasons:

- For one thing, they provide literally no explanation how they narrowed down from an initial search of 31,000+ articles to the 96 they decided to focus on, and provide virtually no explanation how they ultimately selected the 20 studies they ultimately did average together to get their result. Their claim that those 20 studies 

- Of those 20 studies they used, 11 are from Middle Eastern, Asian, and African countries, not western ones, and these comprise the overwhelming majority - around 70% - of their heralded "15,000+ subjects". 

- Of those 20 studies they used, at least one or two were studies that exclusively measured men seeking penis enlargement surgeries. Like, how the hell is that supposed to be an accurate representation of the entire penis population.

- They only gathered any kind of meaningful data for "stretched flaccid length", as only three of their 20 studies look at "erect length". There's this assumption out there that stretched flaccid length is a "just as good" stand-in for erect length, but I've never seen any study that actually confirms that.

Anyway, if one uses only the remaining eight studies that exclude the 12 above that should obviously be excluded, their "average" changes dramatically from 5.17 inches up to 5.76 inches for "stretched flaccid length". In this context, this study makes a lot more sense, as it aligns much more closely at that point with the survey of 13 studies done by penissizestudies.com, which deduced an average of around 5.6 if Asian, African, and Middle Eastern countries are included, and 5.76 if only western countries are included.

In other words, 5.76 literally equals 5.76. For my purposes we're at that point in meaningful territory, as we've eliminated all the crap studies with too-low sample sizes, poor methodology, self-measurement, non-bone-pressed measurements, non-western geographies, and samples that were non-representative.

If we care about decent science here, we have to be honest with ourselves and stop believing only the studies we want to believe just because it makes us feel better. There's literally a South Park episode whose premise is that if we can just make up a study that shows the average low enough, we can trick men into not complaining about their penis size anymore. By believing that piece of junk "study" that said 5.17, we're doing literally that. It's patently dishonest to keep harping on that study.

Anyway, I'd bet a lot of money that if we measured all men in the United States. that 5.76 figure would be about right on the money. 

By the way, this isn't just semantics. I have received messagess on here about how cruelly hurtful as well as blindly ignorant it is to pretend the average is some tiny number and insist that people's lifelong experiences realizing they are small are somehow some sort of "oops" mistake borne out of god knows what. It's insulting to insist everybody here is gigantic when we know we're not. Let's just be honest with ourselves and start the conversation in an honest place about where we fall relative to a reasonable understanding of the population.

[goldenboy]

Re: the original subject of this thread, my girlfriend asked me the other day if little boys joust with their cocks. I told her I didn't have any recollection of doing such a thing.

[goldenboy]

Grant me this consideration for a moment.

As many of us were growing up, we were errantly told the average was between 6 and 7. Today young males are being indoctrinated to errantly believe that the average is only 5 inches. If my above analysis is correct and the "true" average is somewhere in between - say 5.7 or 5.8 - and the standard deviation is relatively small, we're looking at two conflicting generations:

- Our generation, in which 80 or so percent of guys believed they had small penises relative to the average

- The current generation, in which 80 or so percent of guys will believe they have large penises relative to the average. 

How do we think this will change the collective psyche of males generally as these men become adults? A whole culture of men that overwhelmingly believe they are large as opposed to a whole culture of men that believs overwhelmingly that they are small? This kind of sociological musing fascinates me.

[canuck45]

@goldenboy 
 

We really need to stop this, as this whole topic is really starting to make my blood boil.

WE need to stop because you are getting upset …… really

Of those 20 studies they used, at least one or two were studies that exclusively measured men seeking penis enlargement surgeries. Like, how the hell is that supposed to be an accurate representation of the entire penis population.

Why can’t men wanting penis enlargement be part of the group, they are part of the population in general.  Eliminating them would misrepresent the entire penis population and give an inflated average like 5.76
A penis enlargement site even said "Average length of erect penis is between 5.1 inches and 5.7 inches.  If anyone had a reason to exaggerate for their gain, they would.

penissizestudies.com    

Couldn’t find that web site, did find penissize.org

I have received messagess on here about how cruelly hurtful as well as blindly ignorant it is to pretend the average is some tiny number    

So if we choose to believe medical peer reviews journals over some penisXYX site, we are blindly ignorant.  
Department of Urology, University of California School of Medicine and San Francisco General Hospital, San Francisco, California.; British Journal of Urology; US National Library of Medicine, National Institute of Health, Turkish Journal of Urology; American Urology Association to name just a few

Let's just be honest with ourselves and start the conversation in an honest place about where we fall relative to a reasonable understanding of the population.  

My reasonable understanding is penis size  5.1  to 5.5 and honestly I fall into that range (just barely)

For my purposes we're at that point in meaningful territory, as we've eliminated all the crap studies with too-low sample sizes, poor methodology, self-measurement, non-bone-pressed measurements, non-western geographies, and samples that were non-representative.  

WE have eliminated nothing. It seems more like anything that doesn’t agree with your viewpoint (crap studies) is eliminated.

For my purposes

 
Begs the question, what is your purpose? Support or ???

 

[goldenboy]

@canuck45  Perhaps I can correct a few things for you.

The study that said 5.17, and which I was critiquing, wasn't actually its own study at all. I assumed that part of its methodology was well understood by those who trumpet its findings as gospel. Rather, it was a kind of aggregation of averages. It cherrypicked 20 previous studies and averaged together their averages in order to announce a single new "definitive" average. It represented each of those 20 included studies as individually having determined the average of the overall population. My point was that many of the studies they averaged together did not do that, whether intentionally or unintentionally. Of the 20 previous studies they averaged together, most were consistent, except for those whose study populations were from from east Asian countries like Korea and India, and those which had only evaluated from within populations seeking penis enlargement surgeries. Including those studies pulls the average down in a way that would not have been achieved without them. 

Toward that end, are you seriously asking why you'd eliminate a study from those 20 that only evaluated men seeking penis enlargement? Perhaps because the study isn't likely to be a good representation of the overall population, and is therefore not appropriate to represent as representative of that? Obviously? It would be like looking at a collection of studies that each claimed to have evaluated the average height of American males and pretending that it made sense to include in your average studies that only looked at the average heights of NBA basketball players or of people who were so short that they were seeking surgery to make themselves taller. This really isn't hard, is it? 

As for your point about websites vs. academic studies, I only mentioned the site I mentioned because, like the study above, it aggregated the averages of 13 other peer-reviewed medical surveys. It employed the same methodologies and several of the studies overlapped. Everything we're talking about here has to do with peer-reviewed medical surveys. The reason we're debating it is because the overwhelming majority of peer-reviewed medical studies say the average is higher, and a lower average only results when you include confounding data. What was interesting to me is that the studies overwhelmingly consistently confirmed an average around 5.7 or 5.8. It was only when you cherry-picked other non-representative data that you could artificially manipulate the data downward. Anybody can do that, but it's not honest science. 

And yet for some reason on this site some people insist the only reputable study is the one that happens to align with their personal wish for the average to be lower, rather than the overwhelming majority of studies that indicate a higher average. That's a willfully blind rejection of peer-reviewed medical research. It's a rejection of science, not deference to it. I guess for some it makes them happier to convince themselves of a false reality that tilts in their favor. For others of us, seeking grounding within actual reality would be a welcome relief. The South Park episode parodied the mindset of this former population: if it makes you happier to pretend the average is lower than it is, why stop at 5? Why not stretch it even further and further from reality and instead pretend the average is 4.5, 4, 3.5, 3, or even 2 or 1 inches? That way we could all feel like giants.

 

 

[canuck45]

Department of Urology, University of California School of Medicine and San Francisco General Hospital; British Journal of Urology; US National Library of Medicine, National Institute of Health, Turkish Journal of Urology; American Urology Association, Department of Urology, University of Florence, Italy; Department of Urology, University of Novara, Italy; Department of Urology, King’s College, London, UK; and Department of Urology, Messina, Italy...

vs 
Goldenboy

Really what can I say except for I am in good company,

W.C. FIELDS said it best: "If you can't....
 

[RAized]

@goldenboy  My posts mentioned 5-6 inches as the norm. 5.76 or whatever si perfectly valid in my opinion. and when i said closer to 5" i didnt mean 5 inches flat. Fatpads can obscure exact measurements, its a big mess. 5.5 is a great stat as far as im concerned. but most men are 5 to 6 inches period. I dont know what the hell to tell you

[goldenboy]

On 7/19/2019 at 10:23 PM, canuck45 said:

Department of Urology, University of California School of Medicine and San Francisco General Hospital; British Journal of Urology; US National Library of Medicine, National Institute of Health, Turkish Journal of Urology; American Urology Association, Department of Urology, University of Florence, Italy; Department of Urology, University of Novara, Italy; Department of Urology, King’s College, London, UK; and Department of Urology, Messina, Italy...

vs 
Goldenboy

Really what can I say except for I am in good company,

W.C. FIELDS said it best: "If you can't....
 

Yes, those are the names of the departments within which the studies up for selection between were created within. What's your point? Each of those studies yielded a different answer, which range from 3.7 to 6.6, precisely because they employ different methodologies and different criteria. I went through those differences in detail and tried to make sense of them, and to figure out which are most likely to be indicative of the "true" average. Presumably you found that objectionable? Why exactly?

Suggesting somehow I'm in opposition to a loose collection of disparate studies - the very studies I'm assessing - however, is, well, it's at best a dishonest interpretation of my post and, more likely, was just intended to be pointlessly incoherent and mean. In terms of the content, you're missing the point if your takeaway from my posts is to put a "vs." between me and what I'm writing about. I'm not sure what your point was in posting that rather rude comment other than to be discourteous. Care to explain?

[RAized]

3 minutes ago, goldenboy said:

Yes, those are the names of the departments within which the studies up for selection between were created within. What's your point? Each of those studies yielded a different answer, which range from 3.7 to 6.6, precisely because they employ different methodologies and different criteria. I went through those differences in detail and tried to make sense of them, and to figure out which are most likely to be indicative of the "true" average. Presumably you found that objectionable? Why exactly?

Suggesting somehow I'm in opposition to a loose collection of disparate studies - the very studies I'm assessing - however, is, well, it's at best a dishonest interpretation of my post and, more likely, was just intended to be pointlessly incoherent and mean. In terms of the content, you're missing the point if your takeaway from my posts is to put a "vs." between me and what I'm writing about. I'm not sure what your point was in posting that rather rude comment other than to be discourteous. Care to explain?

I guess hem means your getting a bit angry over something thats supposed to be lighthearted

[goldenboy]

Just now, RAized said:

By the way, My posts mentioned 5-6 inches as the norm. 5.76 or whatever si perfectly valid in my opinion. and when i said closer to 5" i didnt mean 5 inches flat. Fatpads can obscure exact measurments, its a big mess. 5.5 is a great stat as far as im concerned. but most men are 5 to 6 inches period. I dont know what the hell to tell you

Oh, that makes all the sense in the world. Whether it's closer to 5 or closer to 6 makes a lot of difference for a guy who's in that range, though, particularly given that the standard deviations are so small. If you're 5.5 inches, if the average is 5 then you're in the 70th percentile. If the average is 6 then you're in the 30th percentile. A lot of guys are in that 5-5.5 range and have gone through a lifetime of feeling small - and the reality is that it's probably because they are. Lying to them that they're actually statistically big isn't the best way to assauge their insecurities, in my opinion. And I'd never want to be made to feel better based on a lie anyway. 

 

 

[goldenboy]

1 minute ago, RAized said:

I guess hem means your getting a bit angry over something thats supposed to be lighthearted

If so, I'd throw that same criticism back at him, though I'd prefer not to impugn individuals' character on here.

As for me, I'm a statistical obsessive and academically extremely rigorous. I'd like to understand my place in reality and learn to deal with it, and don't like the idea of being lectured that I should stop worrying and embrace some false feel-good narrative because it's the easy way out. If I'm small, I'm small. Lying to myself that I'm big just 'cuz isn't going to make me feel better and certainly isn't the best solution for many in this predicament.