Size Matters to Some Women
- Thread starter Principessa
- Start date
First off........Carmen is a hottie!!
B: (college education going to good use *l*) This is a support site for guys with large penises, thus it will attract women looking for a large penis. So, go figure that there will be women on here that will say they want a man with a large penis.
Third, "Size matters to Some Women".........I'm shocked, appalled and taken aback! *lol*
Fourth: The woman who broke up with the guy over what she believed to be a small penis and admittedly was (although, I agree with the posts that say penises vary in size when flacid, thus the guy could have been 7,8,9 inches erect, but only been 4,5 at the time); then she did the guy a favor.
B: (college education going to good use *l*) This is a support site for guys with large penises, thus it will attract women looking for a large penis. So, go figure that there will be women on here that will say they want a man with a large penis.
Third, "Size matters to Some Women".........I'm shocked, appalled and taken aback! *lol*
Fourth: The woman who broke up with the guy over what she believed to be a small penis and admittedly was (although, I agree with the posts that say penises vary in size when flacid, thus the guy could have been 7,8,9 inches erect, but only been 4,5 at the time); then she did the guy a favor.
Sure, flaccid to erect growth varies, but generally speaking the chick was correct, as there is a general correlation between flaccid size and erect size.
LPSG can't really be used to judge what the standard ranges of growing and shower are. Here is some data from a site several months back. I don't know if more has been added since then. Also, at another site -Thundersplace - overall the 3" flaccids averaged out to 5.75" erect (grew 2.75") and the 5" flaccids averaged out to 7.25" erect (grew 2.25").
http://www.erectionphotos.com/softH...dGalleryP01.htm
Flaccid Length--------Averaged Erect Length----------------Amount of increase in inches
1.00-1.49---------------------4.71-------------------------------------+3.50
1.5-1.99----------------------4.89-------------------------------------+3.14
2.00-2.49---------------------4.88-------------------------------------+2.63
2.50-2.99---------------------4.92-------------------------------------+2.17
3.00-3.49---------------------6.07-------------------------------------+2.82
3.50-3.99---------------------6.08-------------------------------------+2.33
4.00-4.49---------------------6.69-------------------------------------+2.44
4.50-4.99---------------------7.00-------------------------------------+2.25
5.00-5.49---------------------7.35-------------------------------------+2.10
5.50-5.99---------------------7.80-------------------------------------+2.05
6.00-6.49---------------------na----------------------------------------na
6.50-6.99---------------------9.00-------------------------------------+2.25
The numbers are somewhat unstable, which more data in each range would likely smooth out. The average increase is 2.5 inches in the chart above. The data above clearly shows that the belief shorter flaccids/growers are just as big as longer flaccids/showers when erect is a myth even though smaller flaccids tend to grow more (giving the myth some validity).
LPSG can't really be used to judge what the standard ranges of growing and shower are. Here is some data from a site several months back. I don't know if more has been added since then. Also, at another site -Thundersplace - overall the 3" flaccids averaged out to 5.75" erect (grew 2.75") and the 5" flaccids averaged out to 7.25" erect (grew 2.25").
http://www.erectionphotos.com/softH...dGalleryP01.htm
Flaccid Length--------Averaged Erect Length----------------Amount of increase in inches
1.00-1.49---------------------4.71-------------------------------------+3.50
1.5-1.99----------------------4.89-------------------------------------+3.14
2.00-2.49---------------------4.88-------------------------------------+2.63
2.50-2.99---------------------4.92-------------------------------------+2.17
3.00-3.49---------------------6.07-------------------------------------+2.82
3.50-3.99---------------------6.08-------------------------------------+2.33
4.00-4.49---------------------6.69-------------------------------------+2.44
4.50-4.99---------------------7.00-------------------------------------+2.25
5.00-5.49---------------------7.35-------------------------------------+2.10
5.50-5.99---------------------7.80-------------------------------------+2.05
6.00-6.49---------------------na----------------------------------------na
6.50-6.99---------------------9.00-------------------------------------+2.25
The numbers are somewhat unstable, which more data in each range would likely smooth out. The average increase is 2.5 inches in the chart above. The data above clearly shows that the belief shorter flaccids/growers are just as big as longer flaccids/showers when erect is a myth even though smaller flaccids tend to grow more (giving the myth some validity).
B_Italian1
Experimental Member
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2007
- Posts
- 1,661
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 14
- Points
- 183
- Location
- United Steaks
- Sexuality
- 99% Straight, 1% Gay
- Gender
- Male
That's what I don't understand. Him wearing a bathing suit proved nothing.
There are plenty other fish in the sea for him.
SereneBlue
Experimental Member
I can't claim to be a size queen since I've never actually slept with an above-average man nor have I ever turned away a man due to size. But I will defend any man or woman's right to accept a potential sex partner for whatever reason they have to find sex satisfying whether it's all physical, all psychological or both.
Most men admit physical attractiveness is one of the things they require in a sex and/or relationship partner. Why else do so many men find BBWs or even the merely chubby sexually undesirable? The boards at Dimensions are filled with forlorn posts from women dismayed that the majority of men dismiss them the moment they set eyes on her.
I don't see how needing larger endowed men to enjoy sex is any different.
Most men admit physical attractiveness is one of the things they require in a sex and/or relationship partner. Why else do so many men find BBWs or even the merely chubby sexually undesirable? The boards at Dimensions are filled with forlorn posts from women dismayed that the majority of men dismiss them the moment they set eyes on her.
I don't see how needing larger endowed men to enjoy sex is any different.
I don't either, as long as it's not done in a condescending, hateful manner, as is often the case.
B_Italian1
Experimental Member
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2007
- Posts
- 1,661
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 14
- Points
- 183
- Location
- United Steaks
- Sexuality
- 99% Straight, 1% Gay
- Gender
- Male
How? The other poster said he goes from 2" flaccid to 7x6 erect. She dumped him based on his flaccid size which isn't always a good indicator.
SereneBlue
Experimental Member
Totally agree with you on that Viking.
I must admit however I like NJQT's no holds barred bluntness. She is honest and doesn't pull punches yet she is not without compassion or a heart. Notice how just because she needs large endowed men she never says guys who don't meet her physical needs are less worthy human beings.
Also I think there's one other refreshing thing about her blunt honesty. She doesn't presume guys are too fragile to handle her truth. She assumes men are strong enough to hear whatever she has to say and yet will still recognize their own dignity and worth.
rob_just_rob
Sexy Member
I sometimes find it amusing when guys complain about women rejecting them for their size, when men have rejected women based on their appearances since, well, forever.
The only factor coming to mind that would make being rejected for one's penile dimensions worse than being rejected for one's looks, is that one is typically in a more vulnerable position, or further along in what might seem to be a promising relationship, when getting rejected for penile dimensions.
I have never been rejected for being too small, but was almost rejected for being too big/uncomfortably shaped. That's just the way it is. Was I happy about that? No... but I can't really bitch about it and then continue to rebuff/ignore women I find undesirable.
I still think her correspondent was getting off on her responses. But then, I'm the suspicious type.
The only factor coming to mind that would make being rejected for one's penile dimensions worse than being rejected for one's looks, is that one is typically in a more vulnerable position, or further along in what might seem to be a promising relationship, when getting rejected for penile dimensions.
I have never been rejected for being too small, but was almost rejected for being too big/uncomfortably shaped. That's just the way it is. Was I happy about that? No... but I can't really bitch about it and then continue to rebuff/ignore women I find undesirable.
I still think her correspondent was getting off on her responses. But then, I'm the suspicious type.
Two things:
One, a big difference here between (straight) men and women is that women generally can't hide their size. If men all walked around in erect in speedos a size queen could easily pick and choose without having to get to a second date at a pool and grab a guy and try to figure out how big he'll be hard. Men don't have to get a woman to the pool in a bikini to figure out if she's got big tits. Okay, maybe to figure out if her big ones are real, but otherwise, you get what I mean...guys do the exact same thing but it's easier for us.
Two, I'm pretty pudgy and maybe 2" or so soft most of that covered by the flab down there. A real grower. Anybody who saw me soft would laugh (or show pity if they're kind), but hard I'm above average. Again, much more difficult for a woman to judge a guy on a semi-hard, whereas tits are pretty much the same size no matter how turned on or off a woman is.
And of course, guys usually ask women out. At least that's how it is where I come from. So I just don't ask out the flat-chested ones. Sure, it may not seem fair, but then there's no need for explanations or testing or swimming pools or anything.
The big point is, men do the exact same thing it's just that no one ever has to explain anything and nobody really ever realizes it. But we do.
One, a big difference here between (straight) men and women is that women generally can't hide their size. If men all walked around in erect in speedos a size queen could easily pick and choose without having to get to a second date at a pool and grab a guy and try to figure out how big he'll be hard. Men don't have to get a woman to the pool in a bikini to figure out if she's got big tits. Okay, maybe to figure out if her big ones are real, but otherwise, you get what I mean...guys do the exact same thing but it's easier for us.
Two, I'm pretty pudgy and maybe 2" or so soft most of that covered by the flab down there. A real grower. Anybody who saw me soft would laugh (or show pity if they're kind), but hard I'm above average. Again, much more difficult for a woman to judge a guy on a semi-hard, whereas tits are pretty much the same size no matter how turned on or off a woman is.
And of course, guys usually ask women out. At least that's how it is where I come from. So I just don't ask out the flat-chested ones. Sure, it may not seem fair, but then there's no need for explanations or testing or swimming pools or anything.
The big point is, men do the exact same thing it's just that no one ever has to explain anything and nobody really ever realizes it. But we do.
SereneBlue
Experimental Member
Thank you Rob. You're one of the few men (and Goofball) who gets it.
B_bobs3304
Just Browsing
B_sugarandspice
Experimental Member
Rejecting someone is one thing. Coming out publicly with the reason is another. Not talking to someone, or going on a date with them is one thing. Telling them to their face, telling your or their friends, or posting on a forum, the reason, is another. I wouldn't do that. I wouldn't come out and tell the world, "that woman was too ugly, to fat, tits to small, etc".
You can't change your facial looks, your breast size, or your penis size.
Things that can't be change shouldn't be ridiculed.
That's what got me about this whole post. What was the sense in posting it? I find it to have been very demeaning. If it had been me I would be very irate at the person who publicly posted a pm. I find nothing supportive about it in keeping with the title and purpose of this site...
rob_just_rob
Sexy Member
But of course. That's the difference between having personal preferences you stick to, and being a complete asstard.
All these things can be changed, but changing one's penis size is the least effective of the 3 procedures, so far as I know.
Agreed. The best part was the changing-of-the-name-to-protect-the-innocent, and the (inadvertent?) name change (presumably back to the true name) halfway through the post.
As far as I know, plastic surgery isn't advanced enough to make one handsome, or beautiful if you are truly ugly. Fake breasts are a turn off to me, and close akin to a guy stuffing a sock in his 501's and going out clubbing. As for penis enlargement, I won't touch that one with a 50' pole.
No pun intended. I'll be attacked by a swarm of angry hornets as soon as I hit the send button.
Self reported internet surveys are such a good source of info...
The chart includes pictures. Also, that site's data corresponds closely with the data gathered at ThundersPlace. ThundersPlace has shown to be fairly reliable because it's erect size charts match up closely with doctor studies. Since it's erect size charts match up so well with doctor studies it is quite reasonable to consider it's flaccid data to be credible. Everything matches up well. Sometimes one has to realise when connections add up. I don't grab just anything to rely on. You always push the auto reject button when it disagrees with your opinion without actually looking to see if it there is reason to judge it credible. You don't provide credible study to counter my posts, you merely try to shoot it down on auto pilot (typical liberal).
Similar threads
