Size DOES Matter!

So some interesting Australian research has been published. Some might say that the sample size is too small, that the methodology is flawed, that the results are all but inconclusive. Perhaps it is. Frankly, I don't care.

Bigger is better, at least according to this group of heterosexual Australian women asked to rate these ghostly, faceless renderings of the male body. "As you increase penis size, the amount of attractiveness scores gets bigger," post-doctoral researcher Brian Mautz tells NBC News.

But how much is too much??

However, the women's attraction to flaccid penises petered out at 3 inches; after that, say researchers, the attractiveness still increased, albeit in much tinier increments.

Oh, that much.

My favourite lines :

"It's not totally clear why women prefer bigger penises," explains National Geographic

Take a guess.

"but studies have shown that women prefer larger sizes because they can increase sexual satisfaction."

Bingo!

Since early humans didn't wear clothes, male penises were obvious to women. So if women chose their mates based on the size of their genitalia, it's possible that these decisions influenced the evolution of bigger penises. [National Geographic]

http://theweek.com/article/index/242468/scientists-why-penis-size-does-matter

It concludes that women find the big penises - usually attached to the bigger, taller, presumably stronger men, more attractive, and thus the big'un has evolved. I think it makes sense that women always found bigger men more attractive in Ye Olden Cave Times as they were more likely to fight off a cave lion with their manly fists and huge penises than a little guy, while the women were breastfeeding the never ending procession of infants.

So, the size doesn't matter myth is shattered (well it's not, but lets pretend). All I know is that big penises have evolved because the ladies like something substantial to look at.*



And for that, Mother Nature, I am truly grateful.


My only question is, is anyone surprised?



*The fact that it was probably a lot to do with height, perceived strength and musculature seems to be overlooked.

clairefontaine

Eh.... this is news?

I thought everyone just said it didn't matter to be polite.

Galwayguy35

90% of men would have around the normal 6 inch size give or take a mm here or there, a minority would have massive ones but that can be sometimes more of a problem sometimes because it can be more difficult to get it hard.

I don't think height is a guarantee that he is packing a big one either, I played a lot of hurling and football over the years and you'd be surprised sometimes who would have the big ones.

Galwayguy35

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

90% of men would have around the normal 6 inch size give or take a mm here or there, a minority would have massive ones but that can be sometimes more of a problem sometimes because it can be more difficult to get it hard.

I don't think height is a guarantee that he is packing a big one either, I played a lot of hurling and football over the years and you'd be surprised sometimes who would have the big ones.

That's why I think the study is flawed. I think the subjects are just as likely to find the height attractive as the penis size.

I think you'd have to be quite unlucky to come up against the smallest penis size in the experiment.


Pun intended.:)

MagicMarker

No such thing as small penises, only big vaginas. :P

flutered

of course size does matter five hundread thousand million wimmen cannot be wrong, the room is too small, the suit is too big, that kitche isint big enough, i could do with a bigger garden etc, etc, etc.

username123

And what did the study say about mouths and fingers? Because frankly, if he doesnt know what to do with those, Im not going to be impressed at him swinging a baseball bat between the legs.

I would prefer an average size penis anyway, simply because I dont want painful sex.

Morag

Size does matter there is such a thing as too small or too big.
Men and women have range of sizes in genital so it apples to both.
But really this isn't news.

Wibbs

Among the great apes we have the largest by quite a margin(in overall size and allowing for body size too). The huge mountain gorilla tops out at just under 2 inches in old money. There was clearly some sort of sexual selection by the ladies regarding penis size in humans.

Wasn't just in size either, other great apes have penis bones that cause arousal, while human males rely entirely on blood pressure, so somewhere in our evolution we lost an actual bone. Why? This is just my humble now, but I reckon it's down to checking for health in a possible mate. The fitter(and younger) the male the easier it is for him to achieve and maintain arousal. Indeed the oul male willy is a good overall yardstick(no pun... well maybe) for health. Cardiovascular disease, diabetes, mental illness, nerve damage, etc can cause a no show in the hardness dept. So losing the bone(no pun. Actually...) may have been an evolutionary external health and fitness check.

Where it gets interesting is in the size of the testes. We're in the middle between gorillas with the smallest and chimps with the largest. The theory here goes that it's down to partner fidelity. Male gorillas have harems, so have much more control over their mates and their reproduction, chimps on the other hand it's more a free for all and a fertile chimp female can mate with many males, so it made sense to have as much genetic material as possible. With humans we're in the middle in size so it seems men trusted women more than male chimps do, but less than male gorillas do.

Other interesting human specific sexual thangs in women are hidden ovulation, the migrating clitoris and permanently inflated boobs, but that's for another day maybe.

MagicMarker

Wibbs wrote: »

Among the great apes we have the largest by quite a margin(in overall size and allowing for body size too). The huge mountain gorilla tops out at just under 2 inches in old money. There was clearly some sort of sexual selection by the ladies regarding penis size in humans.

Wasn't just in size either, other great apes have penis bones that cause arousal, while human males rely entirely on blood pressure, so somewhere in our evolution we lost an actual bone. Why? This is just my humble now, but I reckon it's down to checking for health in a possible mate. The fitter(and younger) the male the easier it is for him to achieve and maintain arousal. Indeed the oul male willy is a good overall yardstick(no pun... well maybe) for health. Cardiovascular disease, diabetes, mental illness, nerve damage, etc can cause a no show in the hardness dept. So losing the bone(no pun. Actually...) may have been an evolutionary external health and fitness check.

Where it gets interesting is in the size of the testes. We're in the middle between gorillas with the smallest and chimps with the largest. The theory here goes that it's down to partner fidelity. Male gorillas have harems, so have much more control over their mates and their reproduction, chimps on the other hand it's more a free for all and a fertile chimp female can mate with many males, so it made sense to have as much genetic material as possible. With humans we're in the middle in size so it seems men trusted women more than male chimps do, but less than male gorillas do.

Other interesting human specific sexual thangs in women are hidden ovulation, the migrating clitoris and permanently inflated boobs, but that's for another day maybe.

I love it when you talk dirty.

Morgase

As long as it's not really small or really large, it's all good. If it's too big, it's going to hurt (Bouncing off my cervix? No thanks!) and as Galwayguy said, there might even be difficulties in keeping it up.

So hurrah for average, that's what I say!

Galwayguy35

Candie wrote: »

That's why I think the study is flawed. I think the subjects are just as likely to find the height attractive as the penis size.

I think you'd have to be quite unlucky to come up against the smallest penis size in the experiment.


Pun intended.:)

Race might have something to do with it as well, I read somehwere that Asian men would on average have a slightly smaller penis than white or black men.

Galwayguy35

Wibbs wrote: »

Among the great apes we have the largest by quite a margin(in overall size and allowing for body size too). The huge mountain gorilla tops out at just under 2 inches in old money. There was clearly some sort of sexual selection by the ladies regarding penis size in humans.

Wasn't just in size either, other great apes have penis bones that cause arousal, while human males rely entirely on blood pressure, so somewhere in our evolution we lost an actual bone. Why? This is just my humble now, but I reckon it's down to checking for health in a possible mate. The fitter(and younger) the male the easier it is for him to achieve and maintain arousal. Indeed the oul male willy is a good overall yardstick(no pun... well maybe) for health. Cardiovascular disease, diabetes, mental illness, nerve damage, etc can cause a no show in the hardness dept. So losing the bone(no pun. Actually...) may have been an evolutionary external health and fitness check.

Where it gets interesting is in the size of the testes. We're in the middle between gorillas with the smallest and chimps with the largest. The theory here goes that it's down to partner fidelity. Male gorillas have harems, so have much more control over their mates and their reproduction, chimps on the other hand it's more a free for all and a fertile chimp female can mate with many males, so it made sense to have as much genetic material as possible. With humans we're in the middle in size so it seems men trusted women more than male chimps do, but less than male gorillas do.

Other interesting human specific sexual thangs in women are hidden ovulation, the migrating clitoris and permanently inflated boobs, but that's for another day maybe.

Some interesting facts there W, never knew some of those things, I've always had an amateur interest in evolution.

Sulla Felix

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Race might have something to do with it as well, I read somehwere that Asian men would on average have a slightly smaller penis than white or black men.

pretty sure that disappears when you correct for average height being slightly smaller anyway. I'll try and dig up a ref.

Galwayguy35

Sulla Felix wrote: »

pretty sure that disappears when you correct for average height being slightly smaller anyway. I'll try and dig up a ref.

True, Asian men would be more slightly built and not as tall as other races.

dupeters

hey all interesting topic. i think (as a straight guy) average size of 6 inches is probably the ideal size for reproduction purposes. evolution has a knack for finding perfection through thousands of years of genetics. btw height dosen't always mean length i know a guy who's 6'7" and well lets just say i am proud to be average lol

Sulla Felix

dupeters wrote: »

evolution has a knack for finding perfection through thousands of years of genetics.

Whole other topic, but it really, really doesn't.

Galwayguy35 wrote:

True, Asian men would be more slightly built and not as tall as other races.

Pretty much, on average. The thing with statistics is that average is very rarely all that representative. Outliers (short and large, short and small, tall and large, tall and small) aren't necessarily evenly distributed so that can skew the average away from what a majority are.
Especially when afaik a lot of the studies take their measurements from self-reporting. Sure I'm the size of a Pringle can! :pac:

dupeters

Sulla Felix wrote: »

Whole other topic, but it really, really doesn't.

i beg to differ. if men's bits needed to be 3 foot long to function then this would be the average.

evolution through thousands of years of natural selection has given us an average penis size that gets the job done:)

jaffacakesyum

dupeters wrote: »

Sulla Felix wrote: »

Whole other topic, but it really, really doesn't.

i beg to differ. if men's bits needed to be 3 foot long to function then this would be the average.

evolution through thousands of years of natural selection has given us an average penis size that gets the job done:)

Evolution may 'get the job done' in terms of reproduction but not necessarily female pleasure.

Fúck you evolution!!

:pac:

dupeters

yeah but the topic is does size matter so i say no in terms of reproducing but i get what ur saying about the big o haha

Sulla Felix

dupeters wrote: »

Sulla Felix wrote: »

Whole other topic, but it really, really doesn't.

i beg to differ. if men's bits needed to be 3 foot long to function then this would be the average.

evolution through thousands of years of natural selection has given us an average penis size that gets the job done:)

The statement was that "evolution has the knack for finding perfection". It really doesn't.

A penis smaller than 6 icnhes gets the job done too. We're talking perfection though, not just passing muster. Anyway, bit tangential.

However, a longer penis has been shown to have better "semen displacement", ie, where more than one ejaculation takes place, the sperm from the longer penis have an advantage over those from a shorter one. That one is courtesy of New York State Biology Dept lady and gents.

newport2

MagicMarker wrote: »

No such thing as small penises, only big vaginas. :P

One of Prince's songs contained lyrics along the lines of a woman asking a man "why is your organ so small?", to which he replied
"I didn't know I was playing in a cathedral"

lva2013

I think it only really matters if it's to an extreme in either case,personally I don't like really big as it can be quite painful,what matters most is how he uses it,if he's got good rhythm,I find it's all in the hips!!:-)

Galwayguy35

One of my exes used to say it was more about the girth rather than the length.

I was happy enough to take her at her word.:)

The Cool

It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog!

newport2

The Cool wrote: »

It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog!

It's not the lead in your pencil, it's the way you sign your name.

Lyaiera

A small one in the hand is worth two in... Wait, no...

wobzilla1

Jeremy Beadle has a tiny dick. On the other hand, he has a massive dick.

newport2

Bit off topic but....I was out once with a crowd and my wife's friend was talking to this guy. The idiot came out with some line like "I don't think you'd pass my under 30-year old limit rule", to which she said right back at him in front of everyone "Just as well, I don't think you'd pass my 4 inch one." He retreated quietly and wasn't seen again...

ArielAtom

Long and thin might go in, but short and thick does the trick!!!

flutered

ArielAtom wrote: »

Long and thin might go in, but short and thick does the trick!!!

you got it wrong here is the definite one

long and thin
goes too far in
which does not
suit a lady
short and thick
sure does the trick
and manafactures
a baby.

Lia_lia

Morgase wrote: »

As long as it's not really small or really large, it's all good. If it's too big, it's going to hurt (Bouncing off my cervix? No thanks!) and as Galwayguy said, there might even be difficulties in keeping it up.

So hurrah for average, that's what I say!

Yeah, exactly.

One of my exs was well, big...and sometimes sex was kinda sh*t because it usually involved me trying to be in the right position not to be in pain

herisson

Bigger is not always better. I have been with "big" guys but honestly the sex hurt most of the time. I have also been with smaller guys, some i didnt feel, some knew what they were doing and i enjoyed it. Then again, its important that a guy knows what he is doing.

Average all the way :cool:

Galwayguy35

I think sometimes men have a distorted view of what the average size of our penis should be since porn became freely available to watch.

We see men in porn films, some of whom would seem to have very large ones and we ofton compare ourselves to people like this.

I read somewhere though that the reason the men in these films shave all their pubic hair off is to appear bigger than they actually are in reality.

Sure some men are born with very small ones and that is definately a problem for both themselves and their partner, the only option for men in this situation is an operation but I don't think this adds a lot of length in reality.

Tallest boyfriend I ever had was 5'11"; shortest was 5'5".
The above did not ring true in this case, not at all!

I've had a fair number of boyfriends, all of different heights, builds and weight, and there appeared to be no relation between those stats and penis size.

Galwayguy35

mick_sheen wrote: »

sitebanned eejits post

Not really, most men would be around the 6 inch mark, sure there will be lads like yourself who would be bigger but it's not the norm by any means.

A friend of mine is about 5ft 5" at the most and he has a massive one.

dupeters

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Not really, most men would be around the 6 inch mark, sure there will be lads like yourself who would be bigger but it's not the norm by any means.

A friend of mine is about 5ft 5" at the most and he has a massive one.

is that 5ft 5 " lying down :eek:

miamee

Pixie-Fairy wrote: »

Bigger is not always better. I have been with "big" guys but honestly the sex hurt most of the time. I have also been with smaller guys, some i didnt feel, some knew what they were doing and i enjoyed it. Then again, its important that a guy knows what he is doing.

Average all the way :cool:

I think it definitely does matter to a certain degree, never been with anyone very small but average as you say, is grand. Last guy I went out with was 6ft 4" tall and was quite well endowed. We just had to be a bit cautious/careful until we got used to each other's bodies...then happy days

jujumushu

Not too big and not too small ofc but for the love of god a severe curve can leave you injured for days

robertxxx

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

A friend of mine is about 5ft 5" at the most and he has a massive one.

Does it look big because he's so small!

wolfpawnat

I have had 2 boyfriends I have slept with. One was 6"2' and well, that's where all his height went. Poor guy was tiny. but my current is 5"8' is a decent size and actually hurts more often than not. So height is BS, as is the size when he's just chillin'!

j@utis

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

dupeters wrote: »

Evolution may 'get the job done' in terms of reproduction but not necessarily female pleasure.
Fúck you evolution!!
:pac:

not quite sure here... once we humans stood up and started walking on our two legs instead of four, the birth canal shortened and narrowed and giving birth itself became harder and more traumatic experience for the female to get through. here the Evolution offered her the bigger penis to play with, so that sex would bring some pleasure and would basically keep her somewhat interested in having sex (or having those babies).

Clemenza

So what's more important then? -

length or width?

m'lady

Clemenza wrote: »

So what's more important then? -

length or width?

Width definitely!

Clemenza

m'lady wrote: »

Width definitely!

My g/friends sentiments exactly

illuma

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

I don't think height is a guarantee that he is packing a big one either, I played a lot of hurling and football over the years and you'd be surprised sometimes who would have the big ones.

Do guys actually notice that sort of thing? I would have thought most guys would look away in order to avoid been homo erotic.

Dr_Brian_Cocks

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Not really, most men would be around the 6 inch mark, sure there will be lads like yourself who would be bigger but it's not the norm by any means.

A friend of mine is about 5ft 5" at the most and he has a massive one.

Have you seen him erect? As being big when soft does not mean he's massive when he's hard.

There's growers and showers.

Galwayguy35

illuma wrote: »

Do guys actually notice that sort of thing? I would have thought most guys would look away in order to avoid been homo erotic.

Ah it's no big deal, sure we all have the same thing anyway.

Galwayguy35

Dr_Brian_Cocks wrote: »

Have you seen him erect? As being big when soft does not mean he's massive when he's hard.

There's growers and showers.

No

illuma

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

No

So how do you know then? A short guy could have a big flaccid penis, but then be relatively small when its erect.

Clemenza

I'm extremely small when flaccid and it makes absolutely no sense how big it gets