Is 8" really that big for the general population?

[D_Carroll Condomripper]

You should get tested for STIs

 

[B_TalkingHeads]

8 inches is not common but every guy on the internet says that they are 7.5-8 inches and it's really not that common at all.

 

[ManlyBanisters]

I won't feel special sleeping with a female who has fucked that many guys. I might give her the best sex of her life for spite and never fuck her again. I call it the " I dare you to find another fuck like that" treatment. I must feel lucky to be sleeping with her, you notice how I said sleeping ?

why would a girl admit shes been with over 300 guys lol

300? I want to say "are you dating a whore" but I don't even think they do that much!

Lol that's what I was thinking. About as fast as she finished her sentence I'd be finished putting my clothes on. :tongue:

You're all pathetic. I hope the women you do want to date judge you and find you lacking. :smile:

 

[AndrewEndowed24]

The trouble is, MB, just as women find male virgins unsexy because their virginity implies that they lack the social capital to get laid (no women want them), me find promiscuous females generally unappealing as long term partners b/c of the high chance of infidelity and the implication that though they may have slept with the top quality males, they couldn't get those males to commit to them and thus settled for racking up huge numbers instead.

None of this is consciously considered, but rather, viscerally felt. You can argue that the double standard is unfair, but you can't argue with the emotions that underly the double standard.

 

[HazelGod]

Did all you guys wigging out about her 300 partner estimate miss the part in the OP's first response where he said they paid her, and he did too?

That means she's a pro, geniuses. Assuming she only entertains, on average, three new clients per week, it would take only two years for her to reach that number. Not really all that astonishing for a working girl.

 

[ManlyBanisters]

The trouble is, MB, just as women find male virgins unsexy because their virginity implies that they lack the social capital to get laid (no women want them),

That's not true - it is not the virginity that is unappealing, it is the social ineptness, which is by no means unique to male virgins nor is it a trait they all possess. The virginity is incidental and I (and many other women) have never been put off by lack of experience - nor specifically turned on just because I knew a guy had had any given number of partners. I take everyone on their individual merits and how they treat me - what a weirdo I must be

me find promiscuous females generally unappealing as long term partners b/c of the high chance of infidelity and the implication that though they may have slept with the top quality males, they couldn't get those males to commit to them and thus settled for racking up huge numbers instead.

Why? Why would women who have casual sex be unable to be faithful? It's very easy to differentiate the two. And what on earth makes you think that a promiscuous woman is looking for commitment from every man she fucks - because some outdated notion tells you that that's why women have sex? Bollox. The majority of guys I have fucked I would not have dated had they asked me (in some cases did not date when they asked me) - don't assume to know other people's motivations.

None of this is consciously considered, but rather, viscerally felt. You can argue that the double standard is unfair, but you can't argue with the emotions that underly the double standard.

I fucking well can - if we happily accept these foolish notions and carry on with the bullshit there will never be any change. Were the emotions of fear and hatred underlying something like segregation inarguable? Were they, fuck.

 

[AndrewEndowed24]

That's not true - it is not the virginity that is unappealing, it is the social ineptness, which is by no means unique to male virgins nor is it a trait they all possess. The virginity is incidental and I (and many other women) have never been put off by lack of experience - nor specifically turned on just because I knew a guy had had any given number of partners. I take everyone on their individual merits and how they treat me - what a weirdo I must be

Obviously the virginity itself isn't the issue but the traits that are correllated with it. Take a 40 yr old male virgin, women are going to be very skeptical of this guy until they determine the reason he is a virgin because male virginity is so highly correllated with lack of desirability and social ineptness.

Why? Why would women who have casual sex be unable to be faithful? It's very easy to differentiate the two. And what on earth makes you think that a promiscuous woman is looking for commitment from every man she fucks - because some outdated notion tells you that that's why women have sex? Bollox. The majority of guys I have fucked I would not have dated had they asked me (in some cases did not date when they asked me) - don't assume to know other people's motivations.

Scraping the bottom of the barrell eh? Seriously though not every promiscuous woman looks for commitment, frequently they are promiscuous out of a calculation that they cannot get committment out of those they really want.

I fucking well can - if we happily accept these foolish notions and carry on with the bullshit there will never be any change. Were the emotions of fear and hatred underlying something like segregation inarguable? Were they, fuck.

But you will justify your promiscuity how? By the fact that you want to and you aren't hurting anyone in going for it? But if some guys are turned off by it or find it unappealing or gross don't they have just as much of a right to abstain from sex with the promiscuous and avoid relationships with them and disapprove of your lifestyle? Roughly, your freedom to live your life the way you want to implies a concomitant freedom on their part to live their lives the way they want to.

Still, you assume that their distaste for promiscuity is grounded on delusion and supersitition and thus if they are disabused of those things they will no longer have this distaste. I think that even if it were grounded on superstition that's a shallow view of the way emotions work. There may still be a significant amount of vestigial emotion surrounding promiscuity, even if it isn't grounded on anything, guys would still feel that same disgust and shouldn't be expected to accept relationships with people for whom they feel that disgust. But i don't think that the disgust is based on superstition but rather on evolutionary psychology and wisdom passed down through human history. There are real problems with promiscuous women that guys should watch out for. Their disgust is as rational as an emotion can be.

You say that you don't fit my picture of the typical promiscuous woman. Fair enough. Look up the terms 'statistical generalization' and 'exception that proves the rule' and get back to me. Your personal experience is irrelevant to the truth of the picture i've drawn or whether it is rational for men to eschew and have distaste for the promiscuous.

 

[ManlyBanisters]

Obviously the virginity itself isn't the issue but the traits that are correllated with it. Take a 40 yr old male virgin, women are going to be very skeptical of this guy until they determine the reason he is a virgin because male virginity is so highly correllated with lack of desirability and social ineptness.

SOME women might, SOME women might not. We're suddenly talking about 40 year olds? Regardless, my point stands. Virginity in men is not something you can make definitive, all encompassing statements about. Just like you can't make definitive, all encompassing statements about promiscuity in women. I see from the bolded bit we agree - it isn't about the sexual experience at all. So I'm right and your original point either doesn't tally with what you were trying to make it say or you're just plain wrong. :smile:

Scraping the bottom of the barrell eh? Seriously though not every promiscuous woman looks for commitment, frequently they are promiscuous out of a calculation that they cannot get committment out of those they really want.

Again- you are assuming to know other people's motivations. You try to make a glib joke at my expense - fine - haha - but there are plenty of women who don't want to be in a relationship but who still want sex. What's wrong with that? If a woman is totally upfront about it (I don't want to date you, please fuck off in the morning but in the meantime let's fuck) that says absolutely nothing about her ability to commit and have a serious relationship when she decides that's what she wants. And, yet again, you are applying a blanket motivation to a type of behaviour that is complex and varied. You think that getting laid of a weekend is the some kind of substitute for having a partner? You think that having a fuck buddy is second best to having a boyfriend. They are totally different things and which is better depends entirely on what the individuals involved want and need.

But you will justify your promiscuity how? By the fact that you want to and you aren't hurting anyone in going for it?

I don't justify anything about myself to anyone. And we're not talking about me - Or at least I wasn't. You want to know about me? I'm a 35 year old woman in a monogamous relationship who who has been enjoying sex both casually and seriously for 20 years. I'm completely aware of my motivations, good and bad, past and present. I have paid close attention to the love lives and sex lives of my close friends, both male and female and I can tell you now that each individual has a very different set of needs that morph over time - You simply cannot make blanket statements about a person's behaviour and motivations because of their sex. It's far, far more complex than that I would just like it to be recognised that women are as sexual as men and that expressing that sexuality is no more a weakness in women than it is in men.

But if some guys are turned off by it or find it unappealing or gross don't they have just as much of a right to abstain from sex with the promiscuous and avoid relationships with them and disapprove of your lifestyle? Roughly, your freedom to live your life the way you want to implies a concomitant freedom on their part to live their lives the way they want to.

So if I want to be skeeved out by homosexuality that's my choice and I can go around yelling faggot at gay men I see holding hands, can I? If I want to be disgusted by inter-racial couples I can throw them dirty looks and tut at their babies, can I? No - I fucking can't. Because those opinions are the product of ignorance, misunderstanding and fear.

No - a guy does not HAVE to sleep with anyone if he finds something about them unattractive, but I won't stop telling him his opinion is based on fear, intollerance and ignorance.

Still, you assume that their distaste for promiscuity is grounded on delusion and supersitition and thus if they are disabused of those things they will no longer have this distaste. I think that even if it were grounded on superstition that's a shallow view of the way emotions work. There may still be a significant amount of vestigial emotion surrounding promiscuity, even if it isn't grounded on anything, guys would still feel that same disgust and shouldn't be expected to accept relationships with people for whom they feel that disgust towards. But i don't think that the disgust is based on superstition but rather on evolutionary psychology and wisdom passed down through human history. There are real problems with promiscuous women that guys should watch out for. Their disgust is as rational as an emotion can be.

Real problems? Like what? Can these same problems not be applied to men?

Evolutionary psychology, my aunt Fanny! The situation of women being required to be chaste is cultural. Before humans figured out that no fukky fukky cum in cunty = no babies human society was, in all reasonable likelihood, matriarchal. Once men discovered that women needed input to do the baby thing society moved towards the patriarchal model your attitude supports. The only way to be sure of the paternity of a child was to make sure only one cock got into the cunt - maternity is far, far easier to determine. These days we have birth control and DNA tests. Men should no longer feel the need to control women's sexuality as there is no need for any man to ever have to unwittingly raise another man's child. All other factors of sex (fidelity, commitment, STDs) are not gender based - both men and women can be physically and emotionally unfaithful, both men and women can have commitment issues, both men and women can pass on STDs. Men's sexual oppression of women is outdated and unnecessary - the attitudes of disgust you hold so dear are outdated and unnecessary and your justification of them is puerile and rooted in an inability to crawl out of the stone age.

You say that you don't fit the picture of the typical promiscuous woman.

Please quote where I said that. I don't recall ever mentioning a typical anything.

Fair enough. Look up the terms 'statistical generalization' and 'exception that proves the rule' and get back to me. Your personal experience is irrelevant to the truth of the picture i've drawn or whether it is rational for men to eschew and have distaste for the promiscuous.

See above - if men have a distaste for promiscuity in women than they have no reason not to hold exactly the same distaste for promiscuity in men.

I'm fairly sure that is all I have to say on the matter.

 

[AndrewEndowed24]

Judging from your response I'm pretty sure you never looked up those terms i suggested. Once you stop confusing generalizations with hard and fast laws of nature then you may be able to think about this clearly...

 

[AndrewEndowed24]

Duped Dads Fight Back - TIME and regarding your point about men not needing to raise another's child in this society?

 

[ManlyBanisters]

These days we have birth control and DNA tests. Men should no longer feel the need to control women's sexuality as there is no need for any man to ever have to unwittingly raise another man's child.

Duped Dads Fight Back - TIME and regarding your point about men not needing to raise another's child in this society?

A few months after his divorce in 2000, Davis, 36, a software engineer in Denver, took a DNA test to confirm a nagging suspicion that he was not the biological father of his 6-year-old twins. The negative test results led him to give up partial custody of the boy and girl

Thanks for linking to an article that makes my point :smile:

The law may require he pays - but it is not unwittingly.

EDIT: Oh and by the way - I don't believe he should have to pay child support for children that are not his. I believe his wife has defrauded him. Don't mistake my standpoint above for some naive notion that women are brill and men are shite. Some people are brill and some people are shite. So far in my life the male / female ratios of brill and shite people have been roughly equivalent, ymmv - but then you get back what you give, dontcha.

 

[AndrewEndowed24]

Furthermore, even if laws became more rational and it was not necessary to raise another man's child ect... why put yourself through the hassle of making a bad bet on a chick and going through this crap? Play the odds, don't marry a woman for whom sex with strangers is a normal part of her existence prior to marriage... she might change once the ring is on... it's possible... does that sound like a rational policy?

The other thing is, sex is a huge part of the emotional bonding process for a lot of women. Whether promiscuity is a function of a woman's lack of ability to connect emotionally through sex or whether it causes it is a matter of metaphysicians theologicans and eventually mere biologists to sort out... but i'm guessing she's going to feel less connected to me after sex if 50 other guys have gone that route...

What you are missing in all of this is that until men lose all expectation and desire for fidelity in their partners, it will always be rational to make adverse judgments about women on the basis of their past promiscuity... even if it sometimes misses the mark. life is a gamble, we make judgments on imperfect information. Why walk in a slum at 3 am? I'm not saying all poor people are violent criminals, but i'd do better taking a stroll through a green suburb.

 

[AndrewEndowed24]

Thanks for linking to an article that makes my point :smile:

The law may require he pays - but it is not unwittingly.

EDIT: Oh and by the way - I don't believe he should have to pay child support for children that are not his. I believe his wife has defrauded him. Don't mistake my standpoint above for some naive notion that women are brill and men are shite. Some people are brill and some people are shite. So far in my life the male / female ratios of brill and shite people have been roughly equivalent, ymmv - but then you get back what you give, dontcha.

amusing... b/c he totally, wittingly, signed on for that.

 

[AndrewEndowed24]

SOME women might, SOME women might not. We're suddenly talking about 40 year olds? Regardless, my point stands. Virginity in men is not something you can make definitive, all encompassing statements about. Just like you can't make definitive, all encompassing statements about promiscuity in women. I see from the bolded bit we agree - it isn't about the sexual experience at all. So I'm right and your original point either doesn't tally with what you were trying to make it say or you're just plain wrong. :smile:

T

here seems to be a huge disparity between your impressive verbal expression and your lackluster verbal comprehension... classic female problem. Seriously though, you can read right?

Also, buried in this paragraph is another example of your confusing generalizations for absolute statements

Again- you are assuming to know other people's motivations. You try to make a glib joke at my expense - fine - haha - but there are plenty of women who don't want to be in a relationship but who still want sex. What's wrong with that? If a woman is totally upfront about it (I don't want to date you, please fuck off in the morning but in the meantime let's fuck) that says absolutely nothing about her ability to commit and have a serious relationship when she decides that's what she wants. And, yet again, you are applying a blanket motivation to a type of behaviour that is complex and varied. You think that getting laid of a weekend is the some kind of substitute for having a partner? You think that having a fuck buddy is second best to having a boyfriend. They are totally different things and which is better depends entirely on what the individuals involved want and need.

Yet another example of confusing a statement about a large part for a statement about the whole. Why would i need to assume I know the motivation of everyone to make the reasonable inference that a woman who can have lots of emotionless sex prior to marriage or a relationship will have little trouble having emotionless sex during the relationship with plenty of people. Furthermore, what if i just think the idea of women having a lot of sexual partners is icky, in itself. My opinions don't oppress her anymore than her actions oppress me.

I don't justify anything about myself to anyone. And we're not talking about me - Or at least I wasn't. You want to know about me? I'm a 35 year old woman in a monogamous relationship who who has been enjoying sex both casually and seriously for 20 years. I'm completely aware of my motivations, good and bad, past and present. I have paid close attention to the love lives and sex lives of my close friends, both male and female and I can tell you now that each individual has a very different set of needs that morph over time - You simply cannot make blanket statements about a person's behaviour and motivations because of their sex. It's far, far more complex than that I would just like it to be recognised that women are as sexual as men and that expressing that sexuality is no more a weakness in women than it is in men.

Yeah, you definitely brought your life experiences into this first (which, i might add, is adorably gender typical)

So if I want to be skeeved out by homosexuality that's my choice and I can go around yelling faggot at gay men I see holding hands, can I? If I want to be disgusted by inter-racial couples I can throw them dirty looks and tut at their babies, can I? No - I fucking can't. Because those opinions are the product of ignorance, misunderstanding and fear.

Someone is really uncomfortable with freedom. No one is talking about harrassment. My mere disgust with your (or someone's) behavior and my temperate and reasonable statement of it is not a burning cross on your lawn -no matter how much it bothers you...

No - a guy does not HAVE to sleep with anyone if he finds something about them unattractive, but I won't stop telling him his opinion is based on fear, intollerance and ignorance.

Evinces an shallow appreciation of the connection between emotion and reason. Just because someone is disabused of the rational grounding for an emotion doesn't mean the emotion will cease. But actually you are wrong that the emotions aren't rational so it's a moot point. You seem to want male approval, or at least no statements of disapproval for your behavior. Sorry Charlie, you ain't entitled to any of that.

Real problems? Like what? Can these same problems not be applied to men?

Evolutionary psychology, my aunt Fanny! The situation of women being required to be chaste is cultural. Before humans figured out that no fukky fukky cum in cunty = no babies human society was, in all reasonable likelihood, matriarchal. Once men discovered that women needed input to do the baby thing society moved towards the patriarchal model your attitude supports. The only way to be sure of the paternity of a child was to make sure only one cock got into the cunt - maternity is far, far easier to determine. These days we have birth control and DNA tests. Men should no longer feel the need to control women's sexuality as there is no need for any man to ever have to unwittingly raise another man's child. All other factors of sex (fidelity, commitment, STDs) are not gender based - both men and women can be physically and emotionally unfaithful, both men and women can have commitment issues, both men and women can pass on STDs. Men's sexual oppression of women is outdated and unnecessary - the attitudes of disgust you hold so dear are outdated and unnecessary and your justification of them is puerile and rooted in an inability to crawl out of the stone age.

To some extent they can be applied to men, the issue is that people adapted to respond differenlyt to male and female behavior so the problems associated with promiscuity on the part of men aren't as big of a deal for people, they don't care as much because of the very evolutionary history you cite. Evolutionary consequences differed so people didn't evolve to care in the same way.

And just because someone need not unwittingly raise another's child (which is false) doesn't mean he should take no interest in female fidelity. If he is interested in a female's fidelty he ought to be interested in her past sexual practices too. You want a society in which men no longer take an interest in whether women will be faithful, but surely people are right to care about this sort of thing even if the evolutionary basis for their emotions is gone. Caring about monogamy has become a fundamental part of the human character; it has transcended the material conditions which gave rise to it. (before you get confused again, remember the difference between a generalization and an statement of absolute law).

 

[ManlyBanisters]

You fail to really answer anything I've raised and you resort to personal attack and attempts to bait me with with condescending, gender based remarks.

You're not worth debating with.

 

[AndrewEndowed24]

*smirk*

 

[MarkLondon]

You fail to really answer anything I've raised and you resort to personal attack and attempts to bait me with with condescending, gender based remarks.

You're not worth debating with.

It took you that long to twig? You're slipping, Manly.

 

[D_Chesty_Pecjiggle]

If she charged you, perhaps she also lied about size to inflate your ego and keep you coming back.

To me I read it as she's just keeping her customers happy.

 

[AndrewEndowed24]

It took you that long to twig? You're slipping, Manly.

a gay man playing the role of enabler for a woman's silly behavior? unheard of!

 

[linus]

Likely to be less. I've posted before on the Lifestyles survey which measured several hundred men and found an average of 5.9" in length with a 0.8" standard deviation. It would take 3 standard deviations from the mean to reach 8 inches (ie 0.8 x 3 = 2.4 + 5.9 = 8.3")

99.7% of outcomes are within +/-3 standard deviations of the mean. Therefore 0.3% would be 8.3" or greater or 3.5" or smaller (3 in 1,000). Said another way, 99.7% are between 3.5 and 8.3 inches.

But in a population of 110 million men (Americans age 16+) that's still 330,000 men who are outside of that range. Let's just say they split evenly in the tails (half are greater than 3 std. deviation, half are less) you end up with 165,000 men in this country who can rightly claim better than 8 inches.

So they exist, but your odds of randomly encountering one are pretty small

This is correct if the distribution is normal, which everyone seems to assume it is. I am not convinced that the bell curve in this situational would be normal. I suspect kertosis (I must sound geeky right now).

There is no way know unless some higher end research put into answering this question, but I am thinking that scientists may have more pressing questions to answer.