I have a question

[Freddie53]

Jana, all day long I have thought about the same thing. Much of what we say to each other is read by many people. It just didn't dawn on me until today that I might have that much of an impact on people. i am honored to be named with you as people that those in trouble trust. It was the folks who were down with personal problems that Jesus my hero sought. He lifted them up. About the only negative things he ever said were about self righteous people.

I found your comments on race interesting. I have learned it so many different ways. The latest social studies books do list people from India and Arabs and Jews as Caucacians. But I know there are black jews as well. I also learned that there were five races: red, yellow, black, white and brown as a child. Then I was taught that there were only three races. The real truth is that ethnic and cultural differences are what matter because they can be changed. They are choices. To be a Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Athiest, or a host of other religions is a choice. To like classical music or country-western is a choice. We can group together by our choices.

Something that most people do not realize about race is that the word caucacian and European are interchanged and shouldn't be. But back to my point, all people are related. If a male and female of a species can mate and produce children, they have common ancestors. There is no true full blood anything really. We now know that all of the Native Americans in both hemispheres didn't come across from Asia to Alaska. And there are a lot of genes from Africa mixed in the European gene pool. We know that some migrations to Europe came from India. And to expect every one from the second largest nation in the world to have the same gene pool background is unlikely. Sure there are different peoples and cultures in India. Same is true here.

WE are all related. To deny that shows great ignorance or tremendous prejudice.

I suspect that as time goes on, the number of people who are some shade of brown will increase as a percentage of the population. AS light and dark skinned people intermarry it is just a predictable thing. What make the difference in skin color had to do with climate. LIghter skinned peoples ancestory usually takes them closer to the poles, Darker skinned people tend to come from hot and sunny areas particularly around the equator. AS people move about and we have heating and air conditioning and all of that, w will see a new look come about. Here in America as the common gene pool gets mixed more and more, there will come a new American look. It won't be Northern European. I'm not sure what look it will take depending on who all moves here and moves away from here during the next few centuries.

There is no room for prejudices against a particular person you meet. Prejudices comes from the word prejudge. To prejduge a stranger just isn't fair to him at all. Sure I detest the rapist. That is not prejudice. That is not prejuding. That is post judging. That is totally different. So if a man rapes a woman, I certainly wouldn't want to lift him up as equal to a gentleman. But, again there are no prejudices there. Only opinions based on provable facts.

And for the record, the Bible makes it clear that interracial marriages are OK. Moses had a black wife. She was a Kushite. Most folks don't know who the Kushites were. They were a group of black people that lived just south of Egypt on the Nile. They had a very rich culture and at times overshadowed Egypt and Egypt had several black dynasties of pharoahs. IN the Bible some of the Hebrews deplored Moses having a black wife. God speaks and says that it is OK. So God does caution Hebrews to marry within their faith. There was a large group of black Jews at one time in the Bible.

I will make commentary on one statement. You stated that Jesus was a mongoloid. It is not known for sure, their were black Jews, mongoloid Jews, European looking Jews all embracing the same religion. Judaism has always been either a country or a religion, not a race.

We do know that the common portriats of today of Jeus are unlikely. They used Italian models. Highly unlikely. But most scholars do surmise that Jesus was probably brown skinned. And he probably had short hair as was the custom then. Our pictures of Jesus comes from the Renaissance in the 1300's and 1400's from Italy.

Most likely Jesus looked very much like the native born people of the Middle East today.

Glad to know that you and your ex have some things to remember and that you can be friends if not partners in life.


This was supposed to be short. I got into it with all my side shows and diversions and all again.

 

[madame_zora]

Okay, someone with more historical knowledge than I may have a different view, but here's mine: Yes, Moses had a black (negroid) wife, but that doesn't mean HE was white (caucasian). He was most likely mongoloid, as was almost every other character in the Bible because of where it is set. There was not much world travel going on back then, many people never got further than a few miles from home. I find it highly unlikely that a single causasian person appeared in the Bible. Those stories never mention the race of the speakers. It is described in the old testament haw the races were formed, but I can't ever remember reading anything about what race the writers of the books are. White people just claimed this for their own, painted white faces on them, put white people in movies telling the stories, and thus changed history (much like bush does now). This doesn't make it so. Those people were from Jordan, Galilee, Arimathea- all places in the middle east. I don't believe there was a sneaky invasion of white people that magically disappeared after the death of Christ!

Now this isn't very important, except for correctness. It doesn't really matter what race Jesus was, unless you consider how he would be shunned by most of us today. Chilling, but true. Ghandi is not revered for the level of human excellence he rose to in his lifetime, sure we think he's cool, but it's not like he was white! Same with Mother Teresa, yeah she was a great humanist, but she was still a cow-protecting Indian. Princess Diana sure got more press on her death....hmmmm. Now, I do think Princess Diana was a good leader and example for many, but f*&^ing come on! She wasn't in the same league, she was just white. I'd love to see how many current "merkins" would recognise him at all now. Just a point of curiousity.....

 

[Kimahri]

Originally posted by iglanid@Jan 19 2005, 02:06 AM
i don't treat them as less of a person, but if they know i have a bigger cock, they do sort of put you up on a pedastool.
the thing that does piss me off is guys who are complete dickheads, and act the most "macho" out of everyone. you find out they have a small cock, and you go, hmm... yea, i figured. if you have a small cock, learn to live with it, it's not neccersarily a bad thing. but if they act like complete dickheads, then it's almost like they deserve a small cock, even if that's the original reason for it.
guys with small dicks who don't give a shit, but like to please their ladies, nah, if anything, they're a bigger man than i am.
iglanid

[post=275572]Quoted post[/post]​

More often than not, having a smaller dick doesn't completely contribute to a dickheads attitude. I've met dickheads that were aggitated with me in general, having a nice cock just compounded the matters.

 

[Onslow]

Madame Zora...
To help you along in figuring out the workings of the middle-east area over time, although it is true that most people did not travel more than a few miles there were those who did. Keep in mind this is a time period where conquering of towns, villages, cities and the such was commonplace. I will offer you a particular here.

Okay that said I bring you forward in time to 247B.C. and the birth of our friend Hannibal Barca. Now Hannibal was a Carthagenian by birth and went on to be a big mucky-muck in the war business (he took after his Dad, Hamilcar who was involved with the first round of Punic Wars). Fast forward to the cheerful time of the 2nd Punic Wars and the interaction with the city of Rome. In the final picture Carthage lost and lost big. Carthage was on the north coast of Africa and somewhat south of both Italy and Rome. Well, the point here is that there was a fair amount of travel and of course this created interaction between persons of different backgrounds when it came to the creation of children. What I am saying is that since there were Romans from Italy entering into Northern Africa they could well have been in the Egypt/Syria/Jordan area by the time that Christ was born. Now does this mean I really believe all those paintings of fair skinned blonde haired blue eyed men were really living there at the time? Yes and no. I think there may very well have been some however as you had rightly indicated the area in question was largely non-caucasian and it is somewhat insane to think all the Caucasians disappeared as soon as Christ died, but that's another matter. Let's face it, there are blonde haired children in Northern Iraq (I recall seeing those pictures on the news a few years back when Saddam was gassing the Kurds). Maybe that's where the descendants of the disciples went after Christ died.
Anyway for more historical information on Hannibal, Carthage and of course the Punic Wars there are google searchs and this friendly site I found a while back at http://www.barca.fsnet.co.uk
it gives more details.
Moving right along the Roman kingdom also extended north into the (current)British Isles(not sure what they were known as back then).
I think the reasoning for the Bible and the Church conveying through imagery when possible the characters of the Bible as caucasian has something to do with those guys Peter and Paul who were part of the foundation of the Church and as you are aware the Christian based Church tends to be in rather a Caucasian area. Even The Vatican is securely ensconced in an area that is clearly caucasian. Now since the people compiling the Christian Bible and the leaders of the Roman Catholic Church were of caucasian heritage, it stands to reason they just went with what they were familiar with. The added difficulty of course is that over time once an image is placed before the people it becomes more and more fixed as being right whether it is/was or not. Sad. It is as sad as the fact that movies tend to be historically inaccurate when showing who did what to whom and when; however, I do believe it is changing some although it may just be me trying to avoid the truth.
I also think that even now if Jesus Christ were to appear as a gold chain laden, albeit clean mouthed rapper, he would be treated poorly even if he were performing miracles left and right. Our need as human beings seems to be to put all our faith in the best looking person even if they are swinging an axe. Again it is a sad commentary on how people cannot just view a person as a person for who they are and what they do instead of making our core decisions according to outward appearance.

Oh, one final note that may give to you and others a bit more of a historically accurate image of what Jesus Christ and his family and friends may have looked like would be anything you can find on the black Madonna (this particular icon is very important to the Polish people). They explain it by saying the skin tone is dark because of the area where she, Jesus, Joseph and the others lived. It was a warm climate, lots of sunlight and so on and so forth. However this does say quite clearly that there really is no way that Christ could have been as pale skinned as the painting on the wall of the parsonage always showed him.

Now mind you, I only offered here a small smattering of how populations formed and how communities may have been changed, There are others. Let's not forget the other conquerors who went great distances in relatively short times. There was Alexander the Great, Ghengis Khan, Atilla the Hun, etc. etc. In each case I am sure that there were some soldiers who were left behind to die, some who didn't and that through time they interacted with people and created families and so the beautiful intertwining of heritages began. Let's not forget explorers and nomadic peoples. Now while it is true that each generation of nomadic people may travel a mere hundred miles or so, over several generations that can become a thousand miles or more and so it continues, the forming of new civilizations and blended cultures. It is just too much for me to convey here and too much for me to completely absorb the grandeur of it all. (Stop me I'm scaring myself).
Anyway, I'm getting too long winded and must stop since I could go on here forever. I just hope this cleared up some of the confusion for you (although it may have made it worse)

 

[madame_zora]

Onslow, I appreciate your input here. I know that there have been instances of travel, particularly for the purposes of war, but overall I have a hard time fathoming that the majority of the players in the Bible would be white even if a few caucasians happened to live there (which I still have my doubts about). Galilee was not a big target for takeover, so I just don't see it happening, and we would still have to answer the question of where did the white people go? It seems too ludicrous to me. I get the feeling we are on the same page here. While I can't possibly say with any certainty, I find it highly unlikely. As you said, more likely it was the Roman based Vatican painting Jesus and the Apostles in their own image. For some reason, I can't help but find that offensive! And it certainly opens to door to what else might have been reported erroneously? We can see how little our current news resembles reality, why would it have been any different then?

I will resist the urge to go on a diatribe here, this is something that has always got me a bit fumed. I guess growing up with my face and being put down for it made it especially interesting to know that most middle easterns look like me, and most likely Jesus as well.

 

[Freddie53]

Okay, someone with more historical knowledge than I may have a different view, but here's mine: Yes, Moses had a black (negroid) wife, but that doesn't mean HE was white (caucasian). He was most likely mongoloid, as was almost every other character in the Bible because of where it is set.

Jana,
Our problem is terms. my father had a master's degree in ancient history and I learned lots from him. It is true that many so called "experts" list Arabs as in the caucacian race, but that doesn't make them "white". "White" refers to people from Europe and primarily Northern Europe. We now mark white, black and Hispanic for race on most forms. Not that that is accurate.

The Romans in the Bible were of course from Italy. The Middle East is in Asia. Regardless what you call them, they were not Europeans. They weren't Germanic or teutonnic which means blue eyed and blond hair.

The point of the story about Moses is simple. There is no basis in the Bible for any condemnation for interracial mariages. That was the point of that story. But the Hebrews were to marry people who believed in Jehovah or the Hebrew God. I brought that out as a digression in my previous post to point out that for those who try to say the Bible condemns interracial marriages, you are wrong. Nowhere is there any reference to marriages based on skin color, eyes, hair, body type or any other body feature. That false teaching just has no Biblical basis whatsoever. Yet I hear it all the time. Just not so.

Jana, your point that painting the Biblical characters as Italians is not accurate is very true. A true historian will have a problem with doing that. But I have been in African-American churches that portray Jesus as black.

We don't have a picture of Jesus. We are almost sure of what he looked like. Just like the Palistinians that live there today. You can name them what you want, but it won't change what they look like.

Jana, sorry you weren't treated kindly about your looks. That was inexcuable. I think you are a very attractive lady. To those who think differenly, that is there loss.

I totally understand your frustration over trying to remake the narrative in the Bible as a European document. That is a false thing to do.

But many people want to think Jesus looked just like them. So I guess it doesn't hurt anything to picture Jesus as how you want him to look. Just don't go and try to rewrite history to fit your comfort zone.

Jana, everything you have said is correct except possible one label and that is the label for the Arabs. For what ever reason the antropoligists list them as caucacian, though a definite different breed then Europeans. I guess they go on skeletal features. I don't know. Most of the Jews looked just like the Arabs in Biblical times.

The bottom line is look at the Palistinins. Find one with very short hair. Bingo, that is probably what Jesus looked like. At least the Biblical scholars including my dad have said that this is true. I can only repeat what the experts say. There is no way for me to contridict them with historicial evidence to the contrary.

Hope this clears this up. As long as we all know what Jesus looked like and who the people in the Bible were, we can leave it up to the antropologists to wrangle over what term to put on the various peoples that have lived throughout history.

CONCLUSION

For me, I just say Jesus was not a European. He was from the Middle East and this is what he probably looked like - A Palistinean of today.

Marry people with compatable beliefs, dreams, interests etc. who turn you on. Body types, hair color, skin color and all of that is just in the eye of the beholder. If that person turns you on then he or she just does. And you can't use the Bible to say that any relationship is wrong based on different body characteristics.

People who want to paint Jesus as an Italian or a blue eyed, blonde guy just might as well get over it.

The world is not Eurocentric. Northern Europe breed of Caucacians are in a minority world wide. And it is getting increasingly more so.

I hope I have cleared everything up. If my father were still alive. He could explain all of this better than I can. But then there would be tons of more pages to read :excl:

We all love you Jana. You are a good person. You want to help people. Blessed are those who serve God by trying to help their fellow people. The blessings God has for you are many in this world and the next.

Freddie

 

[B_DoubleMeatWhopper]

Okay, allow me to throw some fuel on the fire. These opinions come from my time studying in the seminary, so they are not my personal opinions.

First, the Jews in the Bible. They were Semites. The dictionary definition of Semite: "A member of any of the Caucasoid peoples of the Middle East speaking a Semitic language (e.g. Hebrew, Arabic, Aramaic, Phoenician, Akkadian, Ge'ez, etc.); traditionally viewed as having descended from Shem, one of Noah's sons." The Jews were/are members of the Caucasian race. Darker than European 'whites', to be sure, but not Negroid or Mongoloid. I am speaking of Jews in the ethnic, not religious, sense. Yes, there were Negroid communities that practiced Judaism, notably the Falasha of Ethiopia. Their claim is that Judaism came to Ethiopia with Solomon as he consorted with the Queen of Sheba. Never mind that historical Sheba was not in Ethiopia, but rather in modern day Yemen. However they came to adopt Judaism, it is generally accepted that they are biracial: Caucasoid and Negroid. Ethiopia is the point where sub-Saharan Black Africa and Semitic North Africa meet.

About Jesus having short hair: probably not. Among the first century Jews, short hair was common only on the Hellenisic Jews. That would include St. Paul and St. Stephen, but not Jesus. Keep in mind that besides being a Nazarene, Jesus was also a Nazarite. This was a Jewish sect that forbade the cutting of one's hair at prescribed times. Samson was well-known for his long hair as a symbol of his dedication to God. The Nazarites encouraged the avoidance of cutting one's hair. The typical style among the Jews of Palestine in the first century A. D. was long and parted in the middle. One queue of hair in the back was commonly grown longer than the rest of the hair by Nazarites and Essenes. The beard was generally rather short and forked. Though I don't care to get into the discussion of the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin, the hairstyle of the shroud image fits exactly the writings of Josephus concerning the hairstyle of the Essenes. Some people allude to St. Paul condemning long hair in the NT. That's not accurate. The Greek word he used translates better as 'flowing'. The Jews who wore this style kept their long hair bound unless they were in mourning; they unbound it and let it flow when in a state of mourning. Jesus taught against adopting an aspect of mourning when doing penance.

About Zipporah, the wife of Moses: While it's generally accepted that Zipporah was a Cushite, it was not her race that the Jews frowned upon. The people of Jethro viewed Mt. Horeb as the Home of God and worshipped at its feet. To the Jews, this was not acceptable. This view changed when Moses communed with God on this mountain.

And about the Black Madonna(s): The Black Madonna image is often revered as an image of the Virgin Mary. Brace yourself ... she's not! The cult of the Black Madonna first gained popularity in southern France. So who is this Black Madonna? The imagery surrounding the Black Madonna plus the location of southern France leaves little doubt that she is Mary Magdalene, especially the fact that she is often portrayed as wearing a crown of gold stars, very popularin early representations of the Magdalene. According to mediaeval legend, after the Resurrection it was not safe for Mary Magdalene to continue living in Palestine. Her kinsman Joseph of Arimathea arranged for her passage to Gaul. Her life was in danger because of the religious and political turmoil stirred up by Jesus, and the legend has her as the widow of Jesus. I am not endorsing the legend, only recounting it. What follows is the tradition. A boat landed in Provence. In this boat were Mary Magdalene, her sister Martha, Joseph of Arimathea, Mary (the wife of Cleophas), Salome (the mother of Sts. James and John), the apostle Philip, and Martha's maid Marcella. Mary was with child. This was the son of Jesus, from whom the Merovingian kings descended. Even the Papacy accepted the Merovingians' claim of descent from Jesus and swore fealty to the Merovingian dynasty. Where the boat landed is today called Les Saintes-Maries de la Mer. The figure of Mary Magalene was often portrayed as black. Not Negroid in feature, just black in colour. Black represented power and arcane knowledge. Black was the colour worn by the Nazarites for ceremony.

About Jana: Yes, she is an attractive and kind lady. That's not from my seminary classes, but just personal observation.

 

[jonb]

Well, race as most Americans think of it wasn't a big deal back then; nationality, class, and lineage were. (One of the ironies: Ham's descendants settled in among other places Egypt, many "soft-line" racists said slavery was the curse of Ham, yet they insisted the Egyptians were white.)

 

[Freddie53]

Originally posted by DoubleMeatWhopper@Jan 19 2005, 11:30 PM
Okay, allow me to throw some fuel on the fire. These opinions come from my time studying in the seminary, so they are not my personal opinions.


About Jesus having short hair: probably not. Among the first century Jews, short hair was common only on the Hellenisic Jews. That would include St. Paul and St. Stephen, but not Jesus.

About Zipporah, the wife of Moses: While it's generally accepted that Zipporah was a Cushite, it was not her race that the Jews frowned upon. The people of Jethro viewed Mt. Horeb as the Home of God and worshipped at its feet. To the Jews, this was not acceptable. This view changed when Moses communed with God on this mountain.

And about the Black Madonna(s): The Black Madonna image is often revered as an image of the Virgin Mary. Brace yourself ... she's not! The cult of the Black Madonna first gained popularity in southern France. So who is this Black Madonna? The imagery surrounding the Black Madonna plus the location of southern France leaves little doubt that she is Mary Magdalene, especially the fact that she is often portrayed as wearing a crown of gold stars, very popularin early representations of the Magdalene.

[post=275811]Quoted post[/post]​

Thanks for your input Jacinto. As I read I remmebered studying some of this myself and hearing my father use the names of the various poeples you mentined. Yes you are right about the groups in Palestine and how they wore their har. It was a seminary person who said Jesus had short hair. He named the sect that wore the short hair. I wish I knew the name of that sect, but I don't. The Bible itself doesn't name what sect Jesus was a membe of so there will be discussion and difference of opinions on that as long as we have historieans. To me it doesn't matter. I have not studied the documents available enough to debate the issue. There are other writings about Jesus from other sources of his day that people use and gather information. As always, the historians don't agree. I am not sure if historians can all agree that the sun comes up in the mornnging and sets in the evening. No they would disagree about that too.

About Mary Magnaline. This is new to me. The official Catholic view that I was taught by non Catholics was that Jesus never had sex and had no children and his brothers in the Bible were step brothers, sons of Joseph from a previous marriage. Most Protestents believe that Mary had other children with Joseph after Jesus an these wre half-brothers.

The Catholic view again as I was taugtht by non Catholic "experts" was that Mary the mother of Jesus never had sex with anyone period. And so these brothers were step brohters.

I was taught that Jesus never had sex and that Mary Magneline wanted to be Jesus's wife. My father did teach there is a non Biblica story from primary sources that Mary Magneline was Jesus's lover. My father did not agree with this schoil of thought.

Suffice it to say there is more then one story floating around. To really know, one must examine the primary sources of which the Bible is the most known and accepted. However, even then, I doubt all seminarians of the different branches of Chrsitainity woud ever agree with each other and would have all these documents and theories to explain there positon.

I did throughly readying your post Jacinto. I am not qualified to make a real judgement on it. A real judgemtns requires that one sift throuth all the documents and theories and determine there vailidity and reliability.

The problem is all I have read it what some one in the present has done and that is to study those sources and write their conclusions.

I enjoy reading your through statements about what you were taught and had those possibiities to the list of possibliies that I already have. I neither agree nor disagree with them. I just add them to my collections of theories that abound.

I greatly admire your abiity to recall details and the names of groups and people. I am a "big pictue" person. I get the big theories and all, but the details I have to go and search for.

Again I admire your great intellect. How I wish my father were still alive. I could get all the facts and details of the theories and schools of thought that he knew. I just though he would live forever and only remembered the main ideas. My father would have just been in heaven discussing all of this iwth you. He was truly an expert. How I wish I had gotton all those details when they were available. We still have his library. It is quite large. I have no idea where to bigin to find the informatin I want. It was arranged to suit him, not by library coding methods.

I hope your being gay does not interfere with your ability to contribute to your church. Man you have so much to offer to the world.

Thanks,

Freddie

 

[Freddie53]

Originally posted by jonb@Jan 20 2005, 03:44 AM
Well, race as most Americans think of it wasn't a big deal back then; nationality, class, and lineage were. (One of the ironies: Ham's descendants settled in among other places Egypt, many "soft-line" racists said slavery was the curse of Ham, yet they insisted the Egyptians were white.)

[post=275851]Quoted post[/post]​

Ah yes, but the Cushites lived just a few miles up the river and they were black.

You are ever so right. Nationality, class and lineage were most important. This idea of classifying humans into races is fairly new. I think it is based on skeleton differences.

As I have posted before, race shouldn't be a factor in friendships, job opportunities and things like that. And judging by Jana's your post and mine, we have trouble even decinig just which race some people belong too.

It irony of it all is we are very much related. I doubt that we would have to go that far back to find a common ancestor with anyone here on earth. Here is why:
two parents, four grandparents, eight greatpaents. If you keep doubling that each generation, then at 500 years you have one million ancestors. A bunch of them are on both sides of your parents. If this were not so, your parents could not have successfully produced children. This whole idea of only three races is a but daunting to say the least. But the antropoligists keep saying that when it is said and done, there are only three races. But what do the antropologists do with a skelton of an ancient that is biracial? Interesting question.

You possess great knowledge.

Thanks for sharing.

Freddie

 

[prepstudinsc]

Originally posted by surferboy@Jan 18 2005, 07:13 PM
I don't believe the cock makes the man. Honestly, penis size has never played into any of my friendships :unsure:

[post=275519]Quoted post[/post]​

This is so true...men think it about themselves, because the penis "represents" masculinity and everything that a man is supposed to be. Somewhere along the line, we have equated that a big penis=the ultimate man. Maybe it is true for procreation, but a penis in no way represents WHO a person really is. A guy can have a little penis a be a big dick. A guy can be well hung and be a gentleman and vice-versa. I don't seek out friendships based on penis size. I know some of my friends' sizes from seeing them at the gym and also from talking about it, and also because I've messed around with a couple of them, but I don't care if they've got 3" or 15". They are my friends because of their personalities, their talents, their intellect, their honesty, their ethics/values--the qualities that really count.
Some of my friends don't even have penes. (the women LOL)

 

[MASSIVEPKGO_CHUCK]

I'll try to sum this up in a tactful diplomatic way that won't necessitate a shoehorn for my mouth later;

I have known guys, both best friends, classmates, and what have you's who were not porn god endowed, but were both intellectually, and emotionally better than a lot of other people. So, I don't judge people soley predicated on physical attributes. It's not in my nature! Superficiality and arrogance like this is no way to instill a lot confidence in others.

 

[13788]

KTownBlondy:

Originally posted by Big load@Jan 6 2005, 07:53 PM
What do all you guys think of guys who have below average or small dicks? Do you treat or think of them as any less of a person?

[post=272736]Quoted post[/post]​

nope, i think of people who think of people with small penises like that as lesser people :glare:

Question for the ladies, or gay guys. If you found a guy you completey loved and couldnt live without, wanted to marry and have lots of kids with, but found out he had a small penis would you stay with him?

OF COURSE i'd stay with him.... in my opinion, any1 who wouldnt either has never been in love, or, is a bit less than smart.... big ones are great for casual flings, but i dont think it really even matters that much if ur in a loving relationship... :mellow:

 

[13788]

Mark_S: Hi KTownBlondy

i share your opinion... i think it´s not ok that some guys make fun of other guys with smaller members. I never make small-dick-jokes and things like that.

Well, one time i had a discussion with another guy - he had seen me nude and told me that he thought that i had better chances with the girls, but i stressed the fact that there are much more important things in a guy than just his sex-organs. It was he however who stressed the opinion, that bigger is more arousing for the woman. Hmm, i think i failed in convincing him of the fact that size isnt that important...

Well, i never was really the type of guy for casual flings... however, i like to flirt from time to time and sometimes i notice some kind of female interest in size issues. One time - it was some years ago in my student appartment (we - 3 guys and 2 girls - shared the same kitchen and bathroom), i appeared in the kitchen in the morning to fix some breakfast. I was wearing just my underwear (which was quite tight). My female neighbour came some minutes later and we talked a while. Suddenly she said "did you ever measure it?". We had a complete different topic a sentence earlier but we both knew what she meant. I didnt tell her the exact measurements (wasnt necessary). What i wanted to express: i noticed female interest, but i never made any casual fling (i had a gf). Interestingly, some time later, my gf told her about my length...

Mark

 

[jonb]

Originally posted by Freddie53@Jan 20 2005, 05:01 AM
But the antropoligists keep saying that when it is said and done, there are only three races.

[post=275877]Quoted post[/post]​

Actually, the American Anthropological Association has revised its position on race; basically, race isn't defined by a single anatomical, physiological, or genetic trait, and races are paraphyletic categories, therefore race can't be said to truly exist biologically. A lot of Ethiopians have long noses, for example; this doesn't make them white any more than my nose makes me white or my skull shape makes me black.

At this point, it's only forensic artists which use race, and once again, the problem of not having a good sample (and in fact, the samples they do use are all from peoples not mentioned in the Bible: Eastern Chinese, Ghanaians, Iberians. Yeah, that's really what everyone on Earth looks like, NOT&#33

Genetically, what's considered the "white" race is what's called a polyphyletic category; Greece, Italy, and the Levant and Africa above the Sahara are all home to peoples closer to Khoisan speakers than they are to northern Europeans. OTOH, who are northern Europeans related to? Siberians and Eskimos! To finish the Caucasians, it should come as no surprise that a billion Indians are genetically closer to the whole Indochina region. Does this make a !Kung, a Buryat, and a Hmong white?

Now let's look at the negroid race. Obviously a paraphyletic category, but even more strange things: Men in Gambia are genetically closer to Japanese than to (say) Kenyans.

Finally, mongoloid. Basaically mongoloid is defined as "anyone not caucasoid or negroid". Unfortunately, outside of the aforementioned Siberians, Eskimos, and Indochinese, you get the mongoloid race as the result of three or four migrations from Africa, none of them very closely related, and only the most recent fitting the stereotypical image of flat faces and slant eyes: All the other migrations from Africa are practically caucasoid or negroid.

 

[B_DoubleMeatWhopper]

And then there are the Ainu...

 

[jonb]

Well, as I said, "mongoloid" was just a way for Cuvier and others to say "not black or white", and also to make sure their scheme reflected the sons of Noah, regardless of the anatomy of the peoples in question.

 

[Mr._dB]

Originally posted by Big load@Jan 6 2005, 07:53 PM
What do all you guys think of guys who have below average or small dicks? Do you treat or think of them as any less of a person? I've heard some people say that you arent a real man if you dont have a big piece of meat between your legs!

[post=272736]Quoted post[/post]​

A man's penile dimensions do not affect my opinion of them in any way. It's just the luck of the genetic draw. My large penis is not something I achieved, it's just something that happened.

I'll admit that if I happen to see a small one in the locker room I'm taken aback a bit, just because I'm more accustomed to the appearance and size of my own, but I just remind myself that these men are happy, well-adjusted guys with families, so it must be sufficient to get the job done even if it doesn't look impressive.

 

[Chase1600]

Size matters much. However, its importance is mostly in that brain between our ears, not the one between our legs. Let’s assume the The Kinsey statistics and presume that 4” or less must be a genuine impediment to function. That indicates that 5 of 1,000 males are affected. Let’s presume that less than 5” requires genuine adaptation in behavior. 2.8% of males are within >4 <5.

So, for about 97% of males, sexual function is not much complicated due to insufficient size. Let’s presume that less than 6” can be embarrassing and impact success or failure in getting mates, but will not rule it out, nor preclude “normal” function. A full 27.3% fall in this cohort, fairly evenly distributed in similar size quarter inch cohorts.

Let’s presume that any importance in the difference between 6” up to 8” can not be attributed to function affected by size, but is social; it may be learned; it may be psychological. It is a matter of preference. Some partners may want bigger guys whom they believe seem more masculine. Many women may feel they can only be satisfied by a large man. There are those who believe the opposite. It is probably not important to most women - kind of important to a lot of gay men.

Let’s assume that greater than 8” could cause a functional problem for some women. 8 of 1,000 men may have to deal with this.

The point is that size is very important, but, an awful lot is made of a little bit of meat on a thing that serves a very wonderful function – rarely affected by total size of said piece of meat.

In the next post, I will describe being “small.”

 

[Chase1600]

I have always been very, very, small and it made a huge difference in being who I am. Rock hard and erect, I’m between 5.5” and 5.75” without squeezing. Otherwise I tend to shrink up quite a bit. I am gay and have been a life long size queen. Statistically, I’m not so significantly small – but psychologically, I am.

BTW, I’m just over 60.

As a teenager, I’d have traded places with anyone, looking back, no fucking way.

Not until I was in my mid twenties did I lose my virginity. Soon afterwards, I began one substantial, year-long, relationship with a terrific woman. She was a real knock-out, experienced, and, amazingly, she greatly preferred me and my little buddy over her splendidly well-endowed other man. Go figure. Seems I took longer, hit just the right spot, and didn’t seem as scary.

However, I am really gay and I thought for some time that it would never work out. All those guys were looking for the big one, just like me. Well, not all of them&#33; I saw this guy at a party, fell completely, seduced the hell out of him, poor dude didn’t have a chance, and we were together for many years until he died. Frankly, I thought he brought a lot more to the bedroom than I, but he seemed to have a good time. He didn’t see me, as I did, bothered by being small; he thought I was really cocky with my little buddy.

I will never change my mind in admiring well hung guys. I genuinely like what they have, and like it for them that they have it. Although I didn’t get a big one of my own, some of them let me play with theirs and I have a good time.

There have been sad moments. I know a thing or two about rejection. But, I know a lot about love, first hand. And, despite age and size, it hasn’t stopped yet.