:naughty:
I put the title in quotes to show that it's a) not my title for the article and b) that it should be taken with a grain of salt. That title was likely created just to get attention and to get folks talking :argue:
"Smokers Have Small Penises"
- Thread starter Big Al
- Start date
:naughty:
I put the title in quotes to show that it's a) not my title for the article and b) that it should be taken with a grain of salt. That title was likely created just to get attention and to get folks talking :argue:
Haha, it worked! and I guarantee other posters will overlook the posts mentioning impotence and just assume everyone's talking about size. Thus, turning this thread into a close-minded argument about how smoking doesn't give you a small dick or there will be numerous posts of dudes stating that they smoke and have a big dick.
Adults have the right to kill themselves or destroy their bodies with smoking if they wish to; but what surprises me most is how defensive some people get over their particular habits. I participated in a similar thread awhile back about caffeine, and despite the evidence provided some of the posters actually seemed to get very upset over the idea that caffeine can have an affect on penis size!
Then again people will never take in consideration the long-term effects of smoking, as long as there are no immediate, short-term effects. -_-[/QUOTE]
well as far as I'm concerned their are no long term affects
as this article is portraying there is. as hubby's been a smoker every since Ive known him and believe me his erections aren't by any means losing any thing over the years [ 17 ] from smoking. he has smoked all his life 45, and still gets a rock hard cock every time. so like i and others have said here, it MAY, and for others it DON'T, and WONT. but to each their own way of thinking as what works for some doesn't work for all. every ones body works differently to different things :wink:
well as far as I'm concerned their are no long term affects
as this article is portraying there is. as hubby's been a smoker every since Ive known him and believe me his erections aren't by any means losing any thing over the years [ 17 ] from smoking. he has smoked all his life 45, and still gets a rock hard cock every time. so like i and others have said here, it MAY, and for others it DON'T, and WONT. but to each their own way of thinking as what works for some doesn't work for all. every ones body works differently to different things :wink:
I think it's more a matter of time. But to each their own. Whatever kills you faster I guess.
It's just sad to see that a means of stress release, is something that's more harm than the actual stress.
Maybe if people ran to relieve stress or did something more active, such things wouldn't be a concern. Especially if replaced with a more beneficial stress reliever. I used to smoke black and milds, so I'm not biased by any means. And when I say I smoked them, I mean I SMOKED them. a pack a day almost, (5 in each pack). Although I'm young and impotence isn't an issue, I did notice a difference in the fact that my erections now are much stronger. Not to say they werent strong before, but the stiffness is definitely much more. I don't think it would necessarily make your dick never get hard again, but I could see the quality not be 100%
It's just sad to see that a means of stress release, is something that's more harm than the actual stress.
Maybe if people ran to relieve stress or did something more active, such things wouldn't be a concern. Especially if replaced with a more beneficial stress reliever. I used to smoke black and milds, so I'm not biased by any means. And when I say I smoked them, I mean I SMOKED them. a pack a day almost, (5 in each pack). Although I'm young and impotence isn't an issue, I did notice a difference in the fact that my erections now are much stronger. Not to say they werent strong before, but the stiffness is definitely much more. I don't think it would necessarily make your dick never get hard again, but I could see the quality not be 100%
Last edited:
Over time, of course, vascular damage will rear it's ugly head. I'd hate to be a smoker in my sixties or seventies and expecting to get hard, because it's not likely to happen. For a non-smoker, the chances are several times greater.
When you're young, old age seems like another planet. But the years pass faster than we can imagine, and when you get to fifty like me, you'd like to think that there's going to be many good sexual years to come. Smoking sacrifices those years, if it hasn't already done so by the time a smoker reaches my age.
And those who smoke now and are in their twenties and thirties and are okay, or their husbands are okay, shouldn't take a lot of comfort in that.
When you're young, old age seems like another planet. But the years pass faster than we can imagine, and when you get to fifty like me, you'd like to think that there's going to be many good sexual years to come. Smoking sacrifices those years, if it hasn't already done so by the time a smoker reaches my age.
And those who smoke now and are in their twenties and thirties and are okay, or their husbands are okay, shouldn't take a lot of comfort in that.
D_Jared Padalicki
Account Disabled
I'm a smoker
Luckily for you, you have a lot of inches extra :wink:
Ah OK, so there is some evidence that in cases of lung injury caused by smoking that tobacco chemicals may be interfering with Elastase inhibitors and neosynthisis in the lung, and this seems to be related to the development of emphysema. But the processes involved seem to be directly produced by damage to lung cells caused by smoking, and they seem to be localised within the lung. I mean to say, Elastin is a protein involved in a wide variety of bodily functions, and there are many reasons why the body may not have enough protease inhibitors.
For somthing to be binding with protease inhibitors in the structures of the penus ( inhibiting Elastin production- hence this shrinkage ) wouldn't there need to be direct damage to the cells of the penus, and the presence of tabacco chemicals in the penus to bind with the protease inhibitors allowing elastase to destroy elastin in the penus ?
Or are we talking about damage to arteries and blood vessels caused by smoking ? Leading to this same protease inhibitor/tabacco chemical binding cycle and progressive damage going unhealed in the absence of Elastin ?
Because OK you might therefore not be getting erections as hard as you used to, or at all, but your penus wouldn't actually be shrinking it would still be the same size but it's blood vessels wouldn't be strong enough to produce the kind of erections you had prior to taking up smoking.
This still begs the question though of how the tobacco chemicals involved in binding with protease inhibitors in the lung managed to make their way to the penus doesn't it ?
Last edited:
The enzymes produced by smoking wouldn't just be localized in the lungs as they would travel the bloodstream and affect other tissues. Smoking's effects on blood vessels (like in arteriosclerosis) will definitely affect the penis either directly or indirectly as the penis is essentially a spongy collection of smooth muscle tissues similar in composition to blood vessels.
There's even a condition known as "penile arteriosclerosis" in which the conditions seem especially localized in the penis.
Here's an excellent article that outlines the many ways in which smoking can affect the penis (please note the extensive references):
Smoking and vascular impotence SAMT DEEL 70 13 SEPTEMBER 1986 329
There was a time when I was smoking cigars on average of 2-3 per week. I didn't notice too much of a difference in my athletic performance until I quit. My wind improved dramatically and I had a general feeling of wellness. I still enjoy the occasional cigar, but it's only for very special occasions and I don't smoke them to a butt like I used to.
You can adapt somewhat to smoking, but you'll feel a world of difference when you get off of it.
Hold on your making some jumps here, the previous article you linked to regarding emphysema indicated that the protease inhibitors and the tobacco chemicals were bound site specifically in the lungs ( lungs with injuries caused by smoking ) causing the advanced break down of Elastin. Fair enough, that makes sense.
The article didn't say that new enzymes were produced, just that protease inhibitors were directly interfered with by tobacco chemicals.
Now we know that vascular damage occurs because a similar process as that which is going on in the lungs takes place in the vascular system, tobacco chemical, transmitted through the lungs, in the blood bind with protease inhibitors in the arteries causing degredation of Elastin and eventually arterial sclerosis. Fine this all makes sense.
This naturally can cause problems with erections, since as you say the penus is mostly a sponge of blood vessels.
But this doesn't mean that your penus has actually shrunk, it just means that it's blood vessels aren't capable of carrying enough blood to give you strong enough erections to expand it to its fullest extent.
Now from what I know about arterial sclerosis, it is commonly an inherited disposition, though it can occur with no family history, but as with the evidence produced in the study on emphysema, I was under the impression that arterial sclerosis was due to a lack of proteins and other factors necessary to repair the arteries and keep them in good shape from all the wear and tear they go through. With some inherited types of arterial sclerosis isn't the gene responsible for coding for the production of the requisite proteins switched off thus leaving the carrier unable to produce them leading to progressive arterial hardening and furring and other kinds of damage ?
There's no doubt that smoking would be extremely dangerous to people with this form of the condition.
But my question then becomes, if Elastin is depleted by rampant elastase in smokers blood how come they don't die of multiple organ failure not associated with cancer ? And secondly I thought there was no doubt surrounding the claim that smokers are more inclined to suffer with connective tissue problems like arthritis e.t.c. and that new studies were showing no statistically significant increase of incidence of these conditions in smokers, and that like many things the main predictor of these conditions was genetic ?
If this is the case then surely the interaction between protease inhibitors and tobacco chemicals is far more specific and not generalised to the entire body, and factors like lung damage and genetic tendency to lack production of protease inhibitors would become the deciding factor, and impotence caused by smoking would be evidence of over all arterial problems, no ?
This study is interesting and doubtless it is well regarded generally and I'm sure it contains lots of useful findings, not being a Doctor I can't say for sure. But I have several problems with it, firstly it's extremely old, a lot of science has passed under the bridge since 1986, and advances in our knowledge regarding genetics and a whole raft of other things has greatly increased since then. Secondly the study group is impaired by being self sellected, being as it only covers men who attended an impotence clinic, and not a more generalised group and in terms of medical studies the group was relatively small it's also a bit hazy on the study parameters.
Look I'm definitely not disputing that smoking can have a huge range of very serious and in many cases fatal side effects, and I wouldn't recommend anyone take it up for these reasons, and would support anyone I knew in giving it up.
However there has been a tendency to almost randomly attribute a variety of illnesses and ailments to smoking as a default position when smoking was the only common factor a particular study was able to find in a studied group. The problem with this is a laziness in studying, many studies don't bother to be rigorous enough to look for other more subtle factors or if other common factors do exist they are often discounted in favour of the theory that smoking is the primary factor.
I understand the logic, smoking is incredibly bad for you, and doctors want to dissuade people from smoking by any means they can. I just think they could do so perfectly well by using the evidence we know to be solid, it's terrifying enough. Because what will happen is that instead of doctors discovering the true causes for problems they have rashly attributed to smoking and working to cure them all the focus will be on smoking.
This happened to me, I have an inherited skin condition, Hydradenitis Superativa, which because my doctor said was linked to smoking, I gave up for 18 months as a result but with no improvement in the condition and I was not properly treated for a long time. When I finally found out that other members of my family also suffered with this problem I told my doctor who was compelled to change the treatment of the condition, which is now thankfully under control, despite my having taken up smoking again, I have since discovered that the evidence that this condition is linked to smoking is highly speculative indeed and should not have formed the basis for a treatment plan.
TurkeyWithaSunburn
Legendary Member
It's not like your cock is gonna shrink an inch or even a quarter inch if you smoke.
I'd think penis size would more largely be determined by genetics, than chainsmoking babies.
It might be more accurate to say firmness might be affected. Smokings association with hardening of the blood vessels has long been known. The penis has a LOT of bloodvessels.
The original article sucks, it doesn't link to the real data or such. Oh and that posting is over 10years old 26 July 1998 I'm sure there have been other studies since then.
I'd think penis size would more largely be determined by genetics, than chainsmoking babies.
It might be more accurate to say firmness might be affected. Smokings association with hardening of the blood vessels has long been known. The penis has a LOT of bloodvessels.
The original article sucks, it doesn't link to the real data or such. Oh and that posting is over 10years old 26 July 1998 I'm sure there have been other studies since then.
Yea, those who smoke won't notice the difference until they quit, health wise anyways.
I gave up some months back purely for health reasons and suprisingly my penis is the same as it was before........having said that I really wasn,t expecting any difference. I would advise all smokers to kick the weed but not because of penis shrinkage, because smoking will kill you.........simples
Principessa
Expert Member
Site looks bogus to me. :yup: I know for a fact that smoking does not impede penis growth. TruckerTexman smokes and his cock is no where near small.
I'm not basing my statements on that article alone. Smoking does indeed release enzymes such as matrix metalloproteases that interferes with elastin as well as causing emphysema.
If the vessels in the penis harden to the extent that a full erection is impossible, the erect length of the penis shrinks, does it not?
Genes are just part of it. Some people can smoke 2 packs a day and seem untouched, but it's quite likely that they'd be healthier (all other things being equal) if they didn't smoke. Chemical reactions are still occuring in the bodies of these smokers, and with all but the healthiest it's usually a matter of if and not when.
Why would that have to happen? The lungs and blood vessels are usually the first to go, but the effects can definitely be seen elsewhere:
Wiley InterScience :: Session Cookies
There are many studies that prove otherwise (see the recent study I posted above). Do you believe that smoking is not responsible for hardening the arteries? If so, I'm sure you can find many newer medical studies that will show that smoking and arteriosclerosis (hardening of the arteries) are indeed linked. Arteriosclerosis can affect erectile health.
