How much do average women/girls talk about large cocks?

[ItsAll4Kim]

https://news.nationalgeographic.com...ses-science-evolution-genitalia-health-weird/

In addition to what TinyPrincess points out, the study was specifically about physical attractiveness. It wasn't about what makes a woman decide to bear children with a specific partner.

Are you trying to imply that physical attractiveness is the whole thing? That women will have children with any loser, douche, abuser, or addict just as long as he has an attractive boner?

The study also doesn't remotely confirm that penis size has increased over time. Or that if it did, that it would "save the species".

 

[ItsAll4Kim]

Think you're actually debunking yourself. The article starts with the editor noting "Bigger is better—at least when it comes to a woman's penis preferences, a new study says", however the scientists behind the study in their findings note "the rate at which women rated the men as attractive fell when flaccid penises were longer than 2.99 inches (7.6 centimeters).". In other words women looks for average flaccid cocks - not too small and not too big.

The study doesn't tell us anything different than any other study. There will always be an average size that's "just right" when you get anyone to look at anything. There are certain sizes, proportions and positions of anything....from people's bodies and faces to cars to drawers in a dresser...that are pleasing to the eye. All this study did was confirm that this is true. Men and women are not gray CGI forms.

 

[Malgudi]

https://www.menshealth.com/sex-women/evolution-of-penis-size

 

[ItsAll4Kim]

https://www.menshealth.com/sex-women/evolution-of-penis-size

This link cites the previous study you posted, which also proved nothing and suggested more about what I and TP have been saying than your side of this. As TinyPrincess wrote, you're debunking your side for us.

Additionally, note the following:

"Of course, there’s not much research on how our penises have evolved over time to know for sure. “Penises don’t fossilize,” says Gallup."


This goes directly to what I've stated previously we have zero evidence that our penises have gotten larger. Humans have grown overall, but as there's no correlation between height/weight and penis size, we can't even suggest that penises have grown at the same proportion as the rest of our bodies. It's unknown.


Your link also states,
"...85 percent of women like their man’s package just fine, says a California State University study..."

85% of men don't have above-average penis size. As size distribution is substantially weighted to the average/median, only 15-20% of men are in the top third of size. So big dicks matter to guys but not so much to women.....who decide who bears our progeny.

 

[Scarletbegonia]

They might not talk about them often, but I am sure women think/dream about big dicks constantly.

And you would be wrong.
Stop projecting.
Be you.

 

[Scarletbegonia]

They will brag, in a heart beat ,if your HUNG!!!

Not necessarily. People with gracious manners know it isn't their story to tell.

Some will reach out to other women who have learned how to handle it. (See the posse of wonderful women on Ask a Woman)

 

[Malgudi]

http://www.dailytech.com/Study+Evol...s+Towards+Bigger+Penis+Sizes/article30317.htm

 

[ItsAll4Kim]

http://www.dailytech.com/Study+Evol...s+Towards+Bigger+Penis+Sizes/article30317.htm

Keep citing the same study. You're proving my point each time.

 

[LilJock]

A couple interesting points in the cited study.

From Menshealth: Evolution of Penis Size by Brian Mautz (edited):

"One theory is that girls simply prefer a well-hung guy. In a 2013 Australian study, researchers had women view life-sized, computer-generated images of men with various body types and flaccid penis length. As it turns out, the ladies generally rated the better-endowed guys as better-looking. “Before we were wearing clothes, this is one way women could have judged a man’s attractiveness,” says study author Brian Mautz, Ph.D.

But why would our female ancestors who mated with increasingly larger schlongs over the course of human evolution want a bigger penis in the first place? Even modern woman’s preference for a big penis is uneven. “Although women saw a larger penis as more attractive on average, there are women who have no preference at all,” says Mautz.

Mautz’s study even found that having broad shoulders was a better predictor of attractiveness than penis size, and taller men were universally found more handsome. It’s possible women just prefer guys with athletic builds, and a proportionally sized penis is simply along for the ride.

At the same time, a larger penis may help women achieve vaginal orgasm, as opposed to orgasms from the clitoris. Scottish researchers found that out of more than 300 women, about half experienced vaginal orgasms in a month, and one third of those ladies preferred guys who could reach deeper inside during intercourse. The catch: The gals who favored longer shafts had experienced more orgasms in the previous month than all the other women studied.

The same may also be true for women who experience clitoral orgasms: In a study at the University of Texas, 90 percent of women said a thicker penis was more important than length when it came to their sexual satisfaction.

So as long as the woman in your life is happy—and 85 percent of women like their man’s package just fine, says a California State University study—take heart in knowing what really separates us from apes: Our massive genitals."


In summary: Women who were shown "life-sized, computer-generated images of men with various body types and flaccid penis length. . . generally rated the better-endowed guys as better-looking."

"But why would our female ancestors. . . want a bigger penis in the first place?" "A larger penis may help women achieve vaginal orgasm, as opposed to orgasms from the clitoris. Scottish researchers found that out of more than 300 women, about half experienced vaginal orgasms in a month, and one third of those ladies preferred guys who could reach deeper inside during intercourse. The catch: The gals who favored longer shafts had experienced more orgasms in the previous month than all the other women studied.

"The same may also be true for women who experience clitoral orgasms: In a study at the University of Texas, 90 percent of women said a thicker penis was more important than length when it came to their sexual satisfaction."


There seems to be a not-so-hidden assumption here that longer and thicker cocks are definitely better at providing female vaginal and clitoral orgasms. Good news for the well endowed. Not the greatest news for guys like me who are hung like chipmunks. Luckily, I have broad shoulders.

 

[ItsAll4Kim]

A couple interesting points in the cited study.

From Menshealth: Evolution of Penis Size by Brian Mautz (edited):

"One theory is that girls simply prefer a well-hung guy. In a 2013 Australian study, researchers had women view life-sized, computer-generated images of men with various body types and flaccid penis length. As it turns out, the ladies generally rated the better-endowed guys as better-looking. “Before we were wearing clothes, this is one way women could have judged a man’s attractiveness,” says study author Brian Mautz, Ph.D.

But why would our female ancestors who mated with increasingly larger schlongs over the course of human evolution want a bigger penis in the first place? Even modern woman’s preference for a big penis is uneven. “Although women saw a larger penis as more attractive on average, there are women who have no preference at all,” says Mautz.

Mautz’s study even found that having broad shoulders was a better predictor of attractiveness than penis size, and taller men were universally found more handsome. It’s possible women just prefer guys with athletic builds, and a proportionally sized penis is simply along for the ride.

At the same time, a larger penis may help women achieve vaginal orgasm, as opposed to orgasms from the clitoris. Scottish researchers found that out of more than 300 women, about half experienced vaginal orgasms in a month, and one third of those ladies preferred guys who could reach deeper inside during intercourse. The catch: The gals who favored longer shafts had experienced more orgasms in the previous month than all the other women studied.

The same may also be true for women who experience clitoral orgasms: In a study at the University of Texas, 90 percent of women said a thicker penis was more important than length when it came to their sexual satisfaction.

So as long as the woman in your life is happy—and 85 percent of women like their man’s package just fine, says a California State University study—take heart in knowing what really separates us from apes: Our massive genitals."


In summary: Women who were shown "life-sized, computer-generated images of men with various body types and flaccid penis length. . . generally rated the better-endowed guys as better-looking."

"But why would our female ancestors. . . want a bigger penis in the first place?" "A larger penis may help women achieve vaginal orgasm, as opposed to orgasms from the clitoris. Scottish researchers found that out of more than 300 women, about half experienced vaginal orgasms in a month, and one third of those ladies preferred guys who could reach deeper inside during intercourse. The catch: The gals who favored longer shafts had experienced more orgasms in the previous month than all the other women studied.

"The same may also be true for women who experience clitoral orgasms: In a study at the University of Texas, 90 percent of women said a thicker penis was more important than length when it came to their sexual satisfaction."


There seems to be a not-so-hidden assumption here that longer and thicker cocks are definitely better at providing female vaginal and clitoral orgasms. Good news for the well endowed. Not the greatest news for guys like me who are hung like chipmunks. Luckily, I have broad shoulders.

Note in bold above that this is an assumption, which is neither scientific nor factual. There isn't even a theory involved, despite at least one instance of misuse of the term. Humanity has flourished with the bulk of men having average and smaller penises.

Note that each article citing the Australian study makes assumptions and draws conclusions not presented by the study's authors. There's a lot of "suggests", "generally", "seems to be" and similar language that clearly shows there's little more than guesswork here.

There's also a problem with using the term "evolution" and then having no supporting evidence to even suggest that human penises have changed over time.

This was in Men's Health, which frequently advertises male supplements that imply the ability to increase size. This alone puts the motive for such editorializing into question.

 

[Shepardson]

As it turns out, the ladies generally rated the better-endowed guys as better-looking.

I think I remember when this first showed up. Tabloid-style writers summarized it like that to get what they needed from it, but if it's the same one, it wasn't that simple (or conclusive). If I'm remembering right, the size increase beyond a relatively average point didn't matter all that much and it also may have been linked to body type and the balance between the two. They Wallyfied it to say "The women surveyed prefer big dicks!".

 

[LilJock]

Note in bold above that this is an assumption, which is neither scientific nor factual. There isn't even a theory involved, despite at least one instance of misuse of the term. Humanity has flourished with the bulk of men having average and smaller penises.

Note that each article citing the Australian study makes assumptions and draws conclusions not presented by the study's authors. There's a lot of "suggests", "generally", "seems to be" and similar language that clearly shows there's little more than guesswork here.

There's also a problem with using the term "evolution" and then having no supporting evidence to even suggest that human penises have changed over time.

This was in Men's Health, which frequently advertises male supplements that imply the ability to increase size. This alone puts the motive for such editorializing into question.

I think I remember when this first showed up. Tabloid-style writers summarized it like that to get what they needed from it, but if it's the same one, it wasn't that simple (or conclusive). If I'm remembering right, the size increase beyond a relatively average point didn't matter all that much and it also may have been linked to body type and the balance between the two. They Wallyfied it to say "The women surveyed prefer big dicks!".

I didn't say I agreed with the articles. Just that they made some interesting points and that there seemed "to be a not-so-hidden assumption that longer and thicker cocks are definitely better at providing female vaginal and clitoral orgasms." What I found noteworthy about them is how facilely they make those assertions and how, in the main, there is so little pushback to them.

The evolutionary argument for large penises is often brought up. There is some basis for it. It's certainly true that humans have much larger penises for their body size than their nearest relatives in the ape family. This is usually considered as one of adaptations to increase the bonds between males and females in family units. The others being the repositioning of the vaginal for frontal intercourse ("missionary position"), continuous female sexual receptivity, absence of prolonged sexual abstinence after childbirth (and delayed childbirth), absence of penile spines, prolonged duration of intercourse, food sharing, etc. Where many go astray is in assuming that what once was operative is still in force, that the penis will continue to increase in size under female selection pressures in perpetuity, much like Mark Twain's satirical observation that the Mississippi River at its current rate of growth of an inch per year will one day creep out across the Gulf of Mexico and encroach on the Amazon. Obviously the penis on average has reached its optimum size.

It's doubtful the penis is going to increase much in size anytime soon. At least from female selection for biguns. Given current contemporary culture what we may more likely see is the smaller-end of the penile spectrum proportionately diminishing as rejected small-hung males drop out of the gene pool, not that we'll see men carting around their French loaf-sized penises in wheel barrows.

But here's a thought. . . Can modern technology affect penis size? For example, could gene therapy be employed to grant males larger penises. If this were feasible, could we see the average size of the penis increase from 4-7 inches (average clustering in the 5-inch range) to something grouped in the 8-inch range?

Now a lot would depend on the cost. If the cost were exorbitant (naturally or by pharmaceutical cartel), then it might only be available in the richer, developed nations. In Europe this might be covered by their socialized medicine. In the United States, though, it might only be available to the middle class, especially if the Republicans succeed in repealing ObamaCare. This would give a real advantage to the already advantaged. Young fellows from the right zip codes could cruise poorer neighborhoods in their fancy cars, flashing their Rolexes and college degrees, and poor women would automatically submit to them and spurn the financially disadvantaged and penilely deprived guys from their economic class. Nerds would now be genetically engineered studs who could sneer and kick sand in the face of underpaid and under-endowed construction workers.

 

[twoton]

The only women who don't care about big dicks are asexual and virgins.

And those who are lucky enough to marry a guy with one

 

[Tight_N_Juicy]

@wallyj84 ... How many times I gotta call you out for speaking on behalf of women? I'm no virgin. I'm not asexual. I love fucking. Dick size irrelevant.

Boom. Say somthin' else fool

 

[693987]

@wallyj84 ... How many times I gotta call you out for speaking on behalf of women? I'm no virgin. I'm not asexual. I love fucking. Dick size irrelevant.

Boom. Say somthin' else fool

Yeah... I'm not even remotely close to virginal, am most definitely not asexual, and am not concerned with dick size. But I'm sure asshole will just call me a liar yet again, imply I'm a whore again, continue trying to speak for women again, and all the other bullshit he always is spewing.

 

[Serpentlike]

I think for the most part, we men think about it way more than women do. Do they like it, sure. It just isn't the top thing they are looking for most of the time it isn't even in the top ten.

 

[LilJock]

@wallyj84 ... How many times I gotta call you out for speaking on behalf of women?

... I'm sure asshole will... continue trying to speak for women again...

@wallyj84 also tries to speak on behalf of smaller-hung men. Not all of us are suicidal, self-destructive, unhappy, self-absorbed neurotics. I've had a great sex life, have a gorgeous wife, and consider myself the luckiest (and happiest) guy on earth. There's the old saw: some see the glass as half empty, some half full. I see mine as overflowing; Wally, as empty, if not shattered.

 

[ItsAll4Kim]

I didn't say I agreed with the articles. Just that they made some interesting points and that there seemed "to be a not-so-hidden assumption that longer and thicker cocks are definitely better at providing female vaginal and clitoral orgasms." What I found noteworthy about them is how facilely they make those assertions and how, in the main, there is so little pushback to them.

The evolutionary argument for large penises is often brought up. There is some basis for it. It's certainly true that humans have much larger penises for their body size than their nearest relatives in the ape family. This is usually considered as one of adaptations to increase the bonds between males and females in family units. The others being the repositioning of the vaginal for frontal intercourse ("missionary position"), continuous female sexual receptivity, absence of prolonged sexual abstinence after childbirth (and delayed childbirth), absence of penile spines, prolonged duration of intercourse, food sharing, etc. Where many go astray is in assuming that what once was operative is still in force, that the penis will continue to increase in size under female selection pressures in perpetuity, much like Mark Twain's satirical observation that the Mississippi River at its current rate of growth of an inch per year will one day creep out across the Gulf of Mexico and encroach on the Amazon. Obviously the penis on average has reached its optimum size.

It's doubtful the penis is going to increase much in size anytime soon. At least from female selection for biguns. Given current contemporary culture what we may more likely see is the smaller-end of the penile spectrum proportionately diminishing as rejected small-hung males drop out of the gene pool, not that we'll see men carting around their French loaf-sized penises in wheel barrows.

But here's a thought. . . Can modern technology affect penis size? For example, could gene therapy be employed to grant males larger penises. If this were feasible, could we see the average size of the penis increase from 4-7 inches (average clustering in the 5-inch range) to something grouped in the 8-inch range?

Now a lot would depend on the cost. If the cost were exorbitant (naturally or by pharmaceutical cartel), then it might only be available in the richer, developed nations. In Europe this might be covered by their socialized medicine. In the United States, though, it might only be available to the middle class, especially if the Republicans succeed in repealing ObamaCare. This would give a real advantage to the already advantaged. Young fellows from the right zip codes could cruise poorer neighborhoods in their fancy cars, flashing their Rolexes and college degrees, and poor women would automatically submit to them and spurn the financially disadvantaged and penilely deprived guys from their economic class. Nerds would now be genetically engineered studs who could sneer and kick sand in the face of underpaid and under-endowed construction workers.

Again.....I can't overemphasize the fact that we have no evidence to support the assumption that because human genitalia are larger than other primates, that they have been growing over time. We have no anthropology to support this at all. Penise don't fossilize. So none from early Homo sapiens. None from Neanderthal. None from any ancestral version of us.

For all we know, they could have been larger.

 

[ItsAll4Kim]

I didn't say I agreed with the articles. Just that they made some interesting points and that there seemed "to be a not-so-hidden assumption that longer and thicker cocks are definitely better at providing female vaginal and clitoral orgasms." What I found noteworthy about them is how facilely they make those assertions and how, in the main, there is so little pushback to them.

The evolutionary argument for large penises is often brought up. There is some basis for it. It's certainly true that humans have much larger penises for their body size than their nearest relatives in the ape family. This is usually considered as one of adaptations to increase the bonds between males and females in family units. The others being the repositioning of the vaginal for frontal intercourse ("missionary position"), continuous female sexual receptivity, absence of prolonged sexual abstinence after childbirth (and delayed childbirth), absence of penile spines, prolonged duration of intercourse, food sharing, etc. Where many go astray is in assuming that what once was operative is still in force, that the penis will continue to increase in size under female selection pressures in perpetuity, much like Mark Twain's satirical observation that the Mississippi River at its current rate of growth of an inch per year will one day creep out across the Gulf of Mexico and encroach on the Amazon. Obviously the penis on average has reached its optimum size.

It's doubtful the penis is going to increase much in size anytime soon. At least from female selection for biguns. Given current contemporary culture what we may more likely see is the smaller-end of the penile spectrum proportionately diminishing as rejected small-hung males drop out of the gene pool, not that we'll see men carting around their French loaf-sized penises in wheel barrows.

But here's a thought. . . Can modern technology affect penis size? For example, could gene therapy be employed to grant males larger penises. If this were feasible, could we see the average size of the penis increase from 4-7 inches (average clustering in the 5-inch range) to something grouped in the 8-inch range?

Now a lot would depend on the cost. If the cost were exorbitant (naturally or by pharmaceutical cartel), then it might only be available in the richer, developed nations. In Europe this might be covered by their socialized medicine. In the United States, though, it might only be available to the middle class, especially if the Republicans succeed in repealing ObamaCare. This would give a real advantage to the already advantaged. Young fellows from the right zip codes could cruise poorer neighborhoods in their fancy cars, flashing their Rolexes and college degrees, and poor women would automatically submit to them and spurn the financially disadvantaged and penilely deprived guys from their economic class. Nerds would now be genetically engineered studs who could sneer and kick sand in the face of underpaid and under-endowed construction workers.

Regarding gene therapy. If it were possible to increase penis size in this way, doing so would be like raising the minimum wage....someone is still the lowest earner, and someone still has the smallest penis.

And it still won't matter to women the way so many guys in this forum mistakenly assume it does.

 

[Tight_N_Juicy]

Well, being the lowest earner isn't so terrible when you can still afford to pay the bills *and* feed yourself, and maybe save five bucks here and there..

Minimum wage is a big issue. Big dicks are not.