Are black men really bigger?

[ItsAll4Kim]

The same reason why Irish, Polish, Jewish, etc people despite being "White" weren't considered so when they came to the United States...because they weren't considered to be "Pure Anglo Saxon" or a "WASP".

Also, being American grants a level of privilege to kind of ignore social issues or context from without even with the context of the internet. I mean...do you keep up with our news and the stuff that gets said on it? Lol most Americans don't know/understand/comprehend anything outside of an American context and it's damned near rose colored specs, so yeah...that why.

I guess the biggest thing that kind of irks me about this thread is the greater context for what it means to be "White" and "Black" and most people from outside of the US (no offense intended) just don't really get it.
I'm sorry, what?

Did not the myth originate in America? Isn't that where the stereotype of the "buck" originated? The mandingo? The myth in and of itself originates from the the race issue in the United States even the fact that people keep going back and forth about it because of how it somehow is associated with "power" or "dominance".

The assumption that Black men are naturally larger than White men because of the color of their skin is racism and a racial issue that originates from the US. I don't even know what you were attempting to juxtapose, as I was not defending the myth or denouncing it. I just think the conversation is preposterous. Hell, I even said that the myth is less valid because they were dealing with people in Africa and not "Black" people. I don't know what I was distracting or deflecting from.

I mean, I get that if you're not a POC it's easy to lump them all together as one big monolith, but we are not. Hell...Africans and Black Americans are far from it. But also White Americans and British people...Australians...French...etc. Culture is NOT the same as ethnicity. "Black" and "White" are cultural archetypes...not ethnicities.

In the greater context, this stuff just stops making sense more and more.

How does someone write so much, and totally fail to comprehend what they read?

My point was clear and simple: the thread asks a direct question. Are black men on average larger than other races? This is not a question about social justice, racism, or history. It doesn't ask why. It asks whether a group of men known in biology to be a given race have, on average, larger erect penises than all other races, or if we take the OP literally, than Caucasian men.

I have no problem with a thread veering off to other issues. But when the diversion is an attempt to insult the participants, and to repeatedly distract the primary thread discussion topic, then it is blatant trolling.

 

[Snakebyte]

As much as all seem to be so competent on race/minorities/marginalized populations and the social concepts/constructs related as non-minorities, I'd urge you all to do some research into Whiteness studies, the Big Four theory, boundary theory, the philosophies therein and the ramifications of said theories.

shrug

Just a heads up, my family had to flee because they were a persecuted minorty. But I don't like playing the victim card.
I really wonder if you actually understand what you read since this thread NEVER was about that shit.

shrug

 

[deleted15807]

It asks whether a group of men known in biology to be a given race have, on average, larger erect penises than all other races,
.

“Known in biology” ROFL What “biology” book is this? Something from the 1920's or 30's written by the Nazis?

 

[TinyPrincess]

“Known in biology” ROFL What “biology” book is this? Something from the 1920's or 30's written by the Nazis?

Oh, please stop your racist bulls..t.

The thread is simply on the possibility of difference in size among races - and the possible reasons behind the big black dick myth.

It's not about your need for black superiority, it's not on racial problems in the US, it's not on slavery, it's not on nazis. You might have a need to derail the thread or even try to have the thread closed by your continued trolling and racial slurs.

The OP asked valid questions which should be possible to discuss maturely without having to breach the ToS.

So far no survey have showed any difference among races.

Some have suggested the BBC myth to be a result of slavery in the US. It might be correct in an American context. And American pop culture have no doubt had a major impact and success in promoting the myth.

I think I've seen old Greek and Roman drawings and figures with emphasis on cock size. Can anyone help there?

 

[ItsAll4Kim]

“Known in biology” ROFL What “biology” book is this? Something from the 1920's or 30's written by the Nazis?

Yes, known in biology. In biological taxonomy race is an informal rank between subspecies and strain. It can be applied to far more than humans.

Thanks for being intentionally and selectively obtuse. You were all about race when you claimed whites castrated blacks. Or was that someone else deflecting off-topic?

And sorry that we're so alike. I'm all for nobody ever referring to race among humans ever again. Wanna start now?

 

[AVx22]

Lol @ this thread again. Got real political real quick.

This is the last thing I'm gonna say.

Giving credit to slaveowners for perpetuating this "myth" is only a half truth, if that's what people are going to stick to. It's more complicated than that as I expressed before. Just because a feature is exaggerated for racial purposes, doesn't make said feature "unreal". Going back, Greeks were fond of smaller penises, and if a man had a larger member, he was deemed grotesque. His given "inferior" status doesn't negate the fact that his dick was, in fact, larger than what was common.



There still exists no studies comparing erect sizes BASED ON race. But, experience is your friend if you're so pressed for answers, which will really only benefit women and gay men. I can only comment based on my experience, and as I said, black men were less likely to hover on or under the supposed average for all men.

 

[playainda336]

Just a heads up, my family had to flee because they were a persecuted minorty. But I don't like playing the victim card.
I really wonder if you actually understand what you read since this thread NEVER was about that shit.

shrug

Dude...I'm Black, Jewish, and Native American. GTFO...Oppression isn't a size contest lol

Also the "known" biology thing is BS...as there's like .000001% genetic difference between races. (Exaggeration, but point still stands)

And wtf..."need for Black superiority"? Where the hell is that ever been a thing?

 

[deleted15807]

Yes, known in biology. In biological taxonomy race is an informal rank between subspecies and strain. It can be applied to far more than humans.

Yes that's known as bullshit. Was Wikipedia your source? FYI Wikipedia is not a credible source.

Now onto real sources:

Race Without Color

There are many different, equally valid procedures for defining races, and those different procedures yield very different classifications. One such procedure would group Italians and Greeks with most African blacks. It would classify Xhosas--the South African "black" group to which President Nelson Mandela belongs--with Swedes rather than Nigerians. Another equally valid procedure would place Swedes with Fulani (a Nigerian "black" group) and not with Italians, who would again be grouped with most other African blacks. Still another procedure would keep Swedes and Italians separate from all African blacks but would throw the Swedes and Italians into the same race as New Guineans and American Indians. Faced with such differing classifications, many anthropologists today conclude that one cannot recognize any human races at all.

Race Is a Social Construct
Racial categories are weak proxies for genetic diversity and need to be phased out ​

You were all about race when you claimed whites castrated blacks.

Race as a social classification is quite real. Attempting to use science and biology is its basis is as your fellow musketeer Tiny likes to say has been "debunked". Race isn't biological, but racism is still quite real. Can you please study that last sentence?
Additionally: "While we argue phasing out racial terminology in the biological sciences, we also acknowledge that using race as a political or social category to study racism, although filled with lots of challenges, remains necessary given our need to understand how structural inequities and discrimination produce health disparities between groups." So yes I will continue to use race as it relates to how different populations experience different outcomes based on race.

 

[ItsAll4Kim]

Yes that's known as bullshit. Was Wikipedia your source? FYI Wikipedia is not a credible source.

Now onto real sources:

Race Without Color

There are many different, equally valid procedures for defining races, and those different procedures yield very different classifications. One such procedure would group Italians and Greeks with most African blacks. It would classify Xhosas--the South African "black" group to which President Nelson Mandela belongs--with Swedes rather than Nigerians. Another equally valid procedure would place Swedes with Fulani (a Nigerian "black" group) and not with Italians, who would again be grouped with most other African blacks. Still another procedure would keep Swedes and Italians separate from all African blacks but would throw the Swedes and Italians into the same race as New Guineans and American Indians. Faced with such differing classifications, many anthropologists today conclude that one cannot recognize any human races at all.

Race Is a Social Construct
Racial categories are weak proxies for genetic diversity and need to be phased out ​

Race as a social classification is quite real. Attempting to use science and biology is its basis is as your fellow musketeer Tiny likes to say has been "debunked". Race isn't biological, but racism is still quite real. Can you please study that last sentence?
Additionally: "While we argue phasing out racial terminology in the biological sciences, we also acknowledge that using race as a political or social category to study racism, although filled with lots of challenges, remains necessary given our need to understand how structural inequities and discrimination produce health disparities between groups." So yes I will continue to use race as it relates to how different populations experience different outcomes based on race.

If you prefer to use race as a social construct rather than a biological taxonomy, that's your choice. As a social construct it still does the same thing for the purposes of the original question...it separates men into multiple groups to compare and contrast. Someone certainly can ask whether men with darker skin have larger penises than men with lighter skin. If we are biologically all very much the same, as you appear to be implying, then you agree with what the studies discussed in this thread have concluded.

I have repeatedly stated we are far more alike than different. Again too, I'll ask if you'd like to stop referring to race entirely. I'm all for it.

 

[TinyPrincess]

Now onto real sources:

Race Without Color

There are many different, equally valid procedures for defining races, and those different procedures yield very different classifications. One such procedure would group Italians and Greeks with most African blacks. It would classify Xhosas--the South African "black" group to which President Nelson Mandela belongs--with Swedes rather than Nigerians. Another equally valid procedure would place Swedes with Fulani (a Nigerian "black" group) and not with Italians, who would again be grouped with most other African blacks. Still another procedure would keep Swedes and Italians separate from all African blacks but would throw the Swedes and Italians into the same race as New Guineans and American Indians. Faced with such differing classifications, many anthropologists today conclude that one cannot recognize any human races at all.

Race Is a Social Construct
Racial categories are weak proxies for genetic diversity and need to be phased out ​

Jared Diamond is a great pop-science writer. Have enjoyed reading several of his books. He often has some interesting points as in "Guns, Germs and Steel". However you should really look at the response by his peers before calling it "real" sources.

Just look at the response to "Yali's question". Jared Diamond is a geographer who think "man inventing agriculture is the worst mistake in the history of the human race". A curious idea at best.

Jared Diamond even suggests lactose tolerance as a definition of race at the same level of geographic race, physiological race and chromosomal race. I think you will find most scientists outside pop-science will disregard the suggestion at best.

 

[Snakebyte]

Dude...I'm Black, Jewish, and Native American. GTFO...Oppression isn't a size contest lol

I give up on you. You don't even understand why I wrote what I wrote. You're just cherry-picking.

There still exists no studies comparing erect sizes BASED ON race.

There never will be a study about racial differences in penis size. Because science doesn't care. Penis size in studies always is only a means to an end. But here comes the but. Some of the studies include the race in the data. And a meta-analysis of several medical studies (which means thousands of men) didn't find a difference. So those are the scientific facts we got. And they weigh much more than anecdotal evidence.

But if it's about anecdotal evidence. Men with bigger penises tend to be more open. Now think about the black men who don't live up to the myth. Aren't they even less likely to flaunt it than white guys who don't have that pressure? Just some thoughts and I really don't care. But I read an article by a black psychologist once who said that the myth hurts lots of black men more than you'd think. I will try to find the article again.

Yes that's known as bullshit. Was Wikipedia your source? FYI Wikipedia is not a credible source.

Now onto real sources:

Race Without Color

There are many different, equally valid procedures for defining races, and those different procedures yield very different classifications. One such procedure would group Italians and Greeks with most African blacks. It would classify Xhosas--the South African "black" group to which President Nelson Mandela belongs--with Swedes rather than Nigerians. Another equally valid procedure would place Swedes with Fulani (a Nigerian "black" group) and not with Italians, who would again be grouped with most other African blacks. Still another procedure would keep Swedes and Italians separate from all African blacks but would throw the Swedes and Italians into the same race as New Guineans and American Indians. Faced with such differing classifications, many anthropologists today conclude that one cannot recognize any human races at all.

Race Is a Social Construct
Racial categories are weak proxies for genetic diversity and need to be phased out ​

Race as a social classification is quite real. Attempting to use science and biology is its basis is as your fellow musketeer Tiny likes to say has been "debunked". Race isn't biological, but racism is still quite real. Can you please study that last sentence?
Additionally: "While we argue phasing out racial terminology in the biological sciences, we also acknowledge that using race as a political or social category to study racism, although filled with lots of challenges, remains necessary given our need to understand how structural inequities and discrimination produce health disparities between groups." So yes I will continue to use race as it relates to how different populations experience different outcomes based on race.

Wow, you are really desperate if you post articles by Diamond. I mean, read what he had to say about indigenes and how non-scientific he was.

 

[playainda336]

*snip*

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2007.11.040
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2007.11.042
doi:10.1002/ajpa.21011
doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2007.11.042

Since we're being so "scholarly"...

I can dig up more...but I'm bored.

 

[TinyPrincess]

Bored and way of target.

The thread is (still) on possible size differences between races and the myth of the big black dick.

Your links are on stress levels caused by experienced racism.

Couldn't by further from the thread's topic if you tried. But perhaps that's the plan, derailing yet another thread.

 

[soren10]

let's face it, if none posts scientific proof till page 10 or 15 of a thread, then most likely none ever will.

 

[soren10]

also let's go with this notion that black men have bigger dicks, like the black average is 0.1 or 0.2 inches or hell even 1 inch . will this give an edge over other races..? will this make them better in bed or more desirable to become future partners.? i'm trying to find out if there is a " hidden " agenda behind some of the posts here.

 

[playainda336]

Bored and way of target.

The thread is (still) on possible size differences between races and the myth of the big black dick.

Your links are on stress levels caused by experienced racism.

Couldn't by further from the thread's topic if you tried. But perhaps that's the plan, derailing yet another thread.

Wow....actually, wow.

Did you click on them?

The correlation between those links are that race has little correlation to genetics and all lead to the fact that it is a social construct.

No way you could have critically read ANY of that in the time it took for you to reply. If that doesn't prove the waste of time spent in this thread...lol

 

[Snakebyte]

The correlation between those links are that race has little correlation to genetics and all lead to the fact that it is a social construct.

Just like the bbc myth. So we are on the same page after all.

 

[ItsAll4Kim]

So if race "doesn't exist", then all humans are alike, and therefore there is no significant size difference among people of different skin colors.

You guys can slice this any way you like, it still comes around to no difference, none bigger than others, and we're.......wait for it........more alike than different.

 

[TinyPrincess]

Wow....actually, wow.

Did you click on them?

The correlation between those links are that race has little correlation to genetics and all lead to the fact that it is a social construct.

No way you could have critically read ANY of that in the time it took for you to reply. If that doesn't prove the waste of time spent in this thread...lol

Read the summery - it's on page 1.

And yet again, the thread isn't on social constructs no matter how hard you try to derail the thread.

 

[playainda336]

So if race "doesn't exist", then all humans are alike, and therefore there is no significant size difference among people of different skin colors.

You guys can slice this any way you like, it still comes around to no difference, none bigger than others, and we're.......wait for it........more alike than different.

....but that's what I've asserted from the jump.

The question I keep asking is more of critical theory: IF Black men WERE bigger, then what's the issue?

This whole idea behind the thread is preposterous and it's a bunch of people making non-scholarly arguments about why Black men AREN'T bigger for the sake of their own egos and a sense/feeling of superiority because IF Black men ARE bigger then (for whatever inordinate reason) that means that White people are INFERIOR...and you all have a problem with that ideology, while NOT taking issue with any assertion that Black men are inferior in someway in other social contexts.

The whole thread is an exercise in systemic, incorporated, and institutionalized racism.

If this same energy was used in detangling such systemic oppressions against ALL marginalized populations, we'd live in a much different world.

Also, I'll drop this here as a reference for someone who cares to actually do any research and learn about cultural competence; most of you fall on the bottom three rungs and it's repulsive.