Penis size and women
Penis size and women
http://www.penissizedebate.com/contents.htm
I was looking for info on whether average penis size had some correlation with sexual preference and came across this site, so to speak. When younger I did have had issues with dick size, but it doesn't bother me anymore as I am not interested in a partner, so no it wasn't something I purposely searched for.
The link gave me this page actually: http://www.penissizedebate.com/page13_p ... -women.htm - Are Women Sluts By Nature?
It is just one of those junk sites designed to sell penis enlargement stuff, but I am posting it here to see if any interesting discussions might flow on from the topic in general.
Warning: The site contains porn.
I was looking for info on whether average penis size had some correlation with sexual preference and came across this site, so to speak. When younger I did have had issues with dick size, but it doesn't bother me anymore as I am not interested in a partner, so no it wasn't something I purposely searched for.
The link gave me this page actually: http://www.penissizedebate.com/page13_p ... -women.htm - Are Women Sluts By Nature?
It is just one of those junk sites designed to sell penis enlargement stuff, but I am posting it here to see if any interesting discussions might flow on from the topic in general.
Warning: The site contains porn.
- Kevin Solway
- Posts: 2766
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Re: Penis size and women
Since penises whch are smaller than average, when flaccid, can grow to larger than the average erect penis size, the only time a woman can get an indication of the penis size that might matter is when it is erect. But by then she has probably already decided to have sex with him.
If penis size display was important for humans, we would all be prancing about displaying our erect penises, like the chimpanzees.
I suspect that, for humans, it would be more important for a man to have conspicuous health, wealth and standing in the community.
If penis size display was important for humans, we would all be prancing about displaying our erect penises, like the chimpanzees.
I suspect that, for humans, it would be more important for a man to have conspicuous health, wealth and standing in the community.
Since penises which are smaller than average, when flaccid, can grow to larger than the average erect penis size, the only time a woman can get an indication of the penis size that might matter is when it is erect. But by then she has probably already decided to have sex with him.
Actually I think a lot of women can tell by the man's nature. A adolescent boy who instinctively feels uncompetitive in relation to his cohort group, upon seeing their genitals at sport or via porn for instance, may development different mannerisms simply due to his feelings of inadequately being about to compete.
If penis size display was important for humans, we would all be prancing about displaying our erect penises, like the chimpanzees.
I’d say that some men of long ago who felt uncompetitive in the dick domain would have looked to other means of getting status, they would have sought power and control by other means, perhaps in using their mental abilities more, hence we have the Red Porsche - small dick jokes.
I suspect that, for humans, it would be more important for a man to have conspicuous health, wealth and standing in the community.
True, but that is not to say that penis size does not also play a role. Weaker boys may just give up the male competition aspect BUT may not be caused to channel their intellect into other ways of gaining power and become sheeplike or religious. It could have a significant effect, particularly if they have other problems like ugliness or are not very bright. The whole lack of competitive merit could prevent them from undertaking activities that give them health, wealth and power, simply via a lack of confidence.
I think this might describe me a bit. My willy is pretty darn small when flaccid, and although when erect it is about average length, it is not particularly thick - none of the few sexual partners I've had ever complained though, so that side of things never became a big issue on its own. I have a bit of a sunken chest and I'm sure that effected me a lot more than dick size. The combination of the two as an adolescent however certainly make me feel ashamed of my body and the result was that I didn't do a lot of masculine activities, or when I did this inferiority complex was always on my mind. It is for this reason that I lack courage nowadays.
Actually I think a lot of women can tell by the man's nature. A adolescent boy who instinctively feels uncompetitive in relation to his cohort group, upon seeing their genitals at sport or via porn for instance, may development different mannerisms simply due to his feelings of inadequately being about to compete.
If penis size display was important for humans, we would all be prancing about displaying our erect penises, like the chimpanzees.
I’d say that some men of long ago who felt uncompetitive in the dick domain would have looked to other means of getting status, they would have sought power and control by other means, perhaps in using their mental abilities more, hence we have the Red Porsche - small dick jokes.
I suspect that, for humans, it would be more important for a man to have conspicuous health, wealth and standing in the community.
True, but that is not to say that penis size does not also play a role. Weaker boys may just give up the male competition aspect BUT may not be caused to channel their intellect into other ways of gaining power and become sheeplike or religious. It could have a significant effect, particularly if they have other problems like ugliness or are not very bright. The whole lack of competitive merit could prevent them from undertaking activities that give them health, wealth and power, simply via a lack of confidence.
I think this might describe me a bit. My willy is pretty darn small when flaccid, and although when erect it is about average length, it is not particularly thick - none of the few sexual partners I've had ever complained though, so that side of things never became a big issue on its own. I have a bit of a sunken chest and I'm sure that effected me a lot more than dick size. The combination of the two as an adolescent however certainly make me feel ashamed of my body and the result was that I didn't do a lot of masculine activities, or when I did this inferiority complex was always on my mind. It is for this reason that I lack courage nowadays.
- Kevin Solway
- Posts: 2766
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
When growing up I never once considered penis size. I knew that different boys had different sized flaccid penises, but I didn't notice any correlation with their personality. Some boys with large penises were pretty useless at everything, while some of those with smaller penises were deeply confident, intelligent and strong.
As a teen I was much thinner than average, but I was taller, and much better at sports than many of those who were better built - so I never felt I was at a disadvantage - physical or otherwise.
If I was really small, thin, unintelligent, bad at sports, ugly, and hated by everybody - then I might well feel inferior.
As a teen I was much thinner than average, but I was taller, and much better at sports than many of those who were better built - so I never felt I was at a disadvantage - physical or otherwise.
If I was really small, thin, unintelligent, bad at sports, ugly, and hated by everybody - then I might well feel inferior.
Re: Penis size and women
Not necessarily. In certain Muslim cultures they might say "If a womans figure were important for humans they would be prancing around without Burkas." I think it is quite possible that in the not too distant past human males may have commonly gone around displaying their erect penises in the presence of females(think what could happen if masturbating in public had no punishment, guilt or embarrasment attached to the activity). Human culture can do a lot to alter certain behaviours that may have potentially strong evolutionary power.ksolway wrote: If penis size display was important for humans, we would all be prancing about displaying our erect penises, like the chimpanzees.
I have heard of plenty of women who find a big penis attractive. The last Big Brother featured a guy with a big penis and he kept both the female viewers and the females in the house interested(spellbound even) for that reason amongst others.
A bigger penis is a symbol for more masculinity and power. It doesn't necessarily mean that guys with big dicks are more masculine or powerful (even though most of the time we are), but it does mean that there is a deep understanding on the part of women about penis size....and by deep understanding I mean nothing more than an instinct.
A woman could say "I don't mind if your penis is small, it's how you work it that matters" but you could tell by the look in her eye if a bigger man were to open his fly. She'd probably grow wide eyed and stare...pupils dilating.
It's not an attraction to the penis itself, though. It's an attraction to the fact that she'll be fulfilling her primitive desires the instant she takes it in her hand or mouth. The bigger it is, the more she'll be fulfilled when she takes that masculine factor inside of her body.
It's all about evolution. Women have developed the trait of becoming excited when they see a big penis. It may not necessarily be from preferring the bigger men throughout history, it's probably just because any erect penis is very masculine and powerful....it's just probably that it seems like there's MORE masculinity and power with a bigger one.
It wouldn't make sense if women throughout history had just chosen the big dicked men. They'd have to search the town for the biggest erect penis.
There are ideas that women always choose the man most likely to procreate....usually the most powerful man of the "tribe" or whatever way back when. The leader would be protected by everyone else. He'd get the respect of everyone, and so it seems very likely to the woman that he'd be the best candidate to make kids with.
Men are the same way. Big butts symbolize procreativity. Big breasts = MORE FOOD FOR MY OFFSPRING! Clean skin, smooth hair, big bright eyes, white teeth....more of a chance for her to not get sick and to take care of the kids...since I won't. I'm a man. I go hunt and fish and trap and run around. I'm fricking dirty.
Which is why sometimes the hottest of females are with the scrubbiest of the males. These males tend to be really masculine. "I don't care if I'm dirty." There's a lack of care for stupid shit. These guys act like cavemen. That's sexy to a woman. Sexy because she feels she might have a chance to feel that masculinity within her...and I'm not talking about a penis necessarily. It's deeper than just physical contact. It's on a truly spiritual/evolutional level.
Men seek the feminine principle, as well. That comforting spirit he can come home to after a long day of being a man. Someone who will calm his tormented mind. Something soft and heavenly, not of this world of hurting and damaging.
So what I'm getting at is that yes...women love big dicks. Yes, men love big tits and asses.
A woman could say "I don't mind if your penis is small, it's how you work it that matters" but you could tell by the look in her eye if a bigger man were to open his fly. She'd probably grow wide eyed and stare...pupils dilating.
It's not an attraction to the penis itself, though. It's an attraction to the fact that she'll be fulfilling her primitive desires the instant she takes it in her hand or mouth. The bigger it is, the more she'll be fulfilled when she takes that masculine factor inside of her body.
It's all about evolution. Women have developed the trait of becoming excited when they see a big penis. It may not necessarily be from preferring the bigger men throughout history, it's probably just because any erect penis is very masculine and powerful....it's just probably that it seems like there's MORE masculinity and power with a bigger one.
It wouldn't make sense if women throughout history had just chosen the big dicked men. They'd have to search the town for the biggest erect penis.
There are ideas that women always choose the man most likely to procreate....usually the most powerful man of the "tribe" or whatever way back when. The leader would be protected by everyone else. He'd get the respect of everyone, and so it seems very likely to the woman that he'd be the best candidate to make kids with.
Men are the same way. Big butts symbolize procreativity. Big breasts = MORE FOOD FOR MY OFFSPRING! Clean skin, smooth hair, big bright eyes, white teeth....more of a chance for her to not get sick and to take care of the kids...since I won't. I'm a man. I go hunt and fish and trap and run around. I'm fricking dirty.
Which is why sometimes the hottest of females are with the scrubbiest of the males. These males tend to be really masculine. "I don't care if I'm dirty." There's a lack of care for stupid shit. These guys act like cavemen. That's sexy to a woman. Sexy because she feels she might have a chance to feel that masculinity within her...and I'm not talking about a penis necessarily. It's deeper than just physical contact. It's on a truly spiritual/evolutional level.
Men seek the feminine principle, as well. That comforting spirit he can come home to after a long day of being a man. Someone who will calm his tormented mind. Something soft and heavenly, not of this world of hurting and damaging.
So what I'm getting at is that yes...women love big dicks. Yes, men love big tits and asses.
- Leyla Shen
- Posts: 3851
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
- Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA
Scott wrote:
Often, the raunchiest sex is conceived of through and characterised by a strong desire for the woman to swallow the man whole in the final stage -- take him completely inside of her. For him, this is realised through ejaculation and for her, promised by thrust power -- perfect depth -- and her physically opening up for him. Despite the fact that the man does not really want to be swallowed whole, he gets a huge kick out of this. One he would perhaps not so willingly oblige if his penis were, in fact, detachable at a certain point (this, of course, would not present a problem to the woman -- she could merely pluck it out like a tampon after the act). It turns him on, however. So, lucky for him that his dick is attached to the rest of his body and she settles, without any choice, for ejaculation.
A man will never blow as hard as he does than when clearly under this circumstance.
Hence, by necessity, the idea is localised to the penis for both sexes -- and in so doing, the urge for sex where it manifests as a psychological/symbolic means to and freedom for masculinity continues.
If it’s ultimately symbolic, as you say above, a woman needs only a dick that fits well enough. Non-symbolically, there is such a thing as too big a dick -- just as there is such a thing as one that is too small.So what I'm getting at is that yes...women love big dicks. Yes, men love big tits and asses.
Often, the raunchiest sex is conceived of through and characterised by a strong desire for the woman to swallow the man whole in the final stage -- take him completely inside of her. For him, this is realised through ejaculation and for her, promised by thrust power -- perfect depth -- and her physically opening up for him. Despite the fact that the man does not really want to be swallowed whole, he gets a huge kick out of this. One he would perhaps not so willingly oblige if his penis were, in fact, detachable at a certain point (this, of course, would not present a problem to the woman -- she could merely pluck it out like a tampon after the act). It turns him on, however. So, lucky for him that his dick is attached to the rest of his body and she settles, without any choice, for ejaculation.
A man will never blow as hard as he does than when clearly under this circumstance.
Hence, by necessity, the idea is localised to the penis for both sexes -- and in so doing, the urge for sex where it manifests as a psychological/symbolic means to and freedom for masculinity continues.
On what evidence do you base the links between larger penis size, masculinity and power?sschaula wrote: A bigger penis is a symbol for more masculinity and power. It doesn't necessarily mean that guys with big dicks are more masculine or powerful (even though most of the time we are),
Actually my ideal woman has smaller breasts, like a b-cup or even smaller. What does that say? There is obviously some variability in what people find sexually attractive.sschaula wrote: Yes, men love big tits and asses.
- David Quinn
- Posts: 5708
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Jason wrote:
The first thing that comes to mind is that there would be numerous court cases centered around defining what masturbation is and how it should be distinguished from sexual harassment. Are you still only "masturbating" if you are a foot away from a stranger in a public place and looking directly at her?
Will society have to create special masturbation zones which clearly delineate where a person can do it in public? Will we see people standing around in these zones chugging away en masse, in the same way that we see people standing around and smoking cigarettes outside their offices?
If men strutted around the place naked, women would become even more obsessed with penis size than they currently are and male partners would increasingly be selected on the basis of who has the biggest dick - instead of who has the best capacity to create wealth, procure goods, build inventions, defend home turf, etc. Male stock would deteriorate over time and the species would become significantly weaker.
So men hide their penises and try to dazzle women in other ways.
-
What do you think would happen?I think it is quite possible that in the not too distant past human males may have commonly gone around displaying their erect penises in the presence of females(think what could happen if masturbating in public had no punishment, guilt or embarrasment attached to the activity).
The first thing that comes to mind is that there would be numerous court cases centered around defining what masturbation is and how it should be distinguished from sexual harassment. Are you still only "masturbating" if you are a foot away from a stranger in a public place and looking directly at her?
Will society have to create special masturbation zones which clearly delineate where a person can do it in public? Will we see people standing around in these zones chugging away en masse, in the same way that we see people standing around and smoking cigarettes outside their offices?
Yes, that is interesting because it illustrates why there is such a strong societal taboo against the display of penises in public, particularly erect ones. The value of the taboo is that it removes penis size from the field of male competitiveness.I have heard of plenty of women who find a big penis attractive. The last Big Brother featured a guy with a big penis and he kept both the female viewers and the females in the house interested(spellbound even) for that reason amongst others.
If men strutted around the place naked, women would become even more obsessed with penis size than they currently are and male partners would increasingly be selected on the basis of who has the biggest dick - instead of who has the best capacity to create wealth, procure goods, build inventions, defend home turf, etc. Male stock would deteriorate over time and the species would become significantly weaker.
So men hide their penises and try to dazzle women in other ways.
-
- Dave Toast
- Posts: 509
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 6:22 pm
That's an interesting and amusing analysis and it seems like a believeable alternate society, but I really didn't consider it in such detail. It was more of a rhetorical question. My point was just that men would begin masturbating in public thus exposing their erect penises to females. Such a state of legal, cultural and religious tolerance of public masturbation may have existed recently in terms of humans evolutionary past, and thus human females may have evolved a preference for a certain erect and/or flaccid penis size.DavidQuinn000 wrote:Jason wrote:
What do you think would happen?I think it is quite possible that in the not too distant past human males may have commonly gone around displaying their erect penises in the presence of females(think what could happen if masturbating in public had no punishment, guilt or embarrasment attached to the activity).
The first thing that comes to mind is that there would be numerous court cases centered around defining what masturbation is and how it should be distinguished from sexual harassment. Are you still only "masturbating" if you are a foot away from a stranger in a public place and looking directly at her?
Will society have to create special masturbation zones which clearly delineate where a person can do it in public? Will we see people standing around in these zones chugging away en masse, in the same way that we see people standing around and smoking cigarettes outside their offices?
Evolutionary human psychology is a very speculative thing so I don't think you should get too attached to that particular theory. But just for bit of fun I'll indulge some more. If big penises were a preference for choosing mates(which we still haven't proven) I don't think that men with big penises would have covered up for the sake of something as abstract as a stronger human species. I tend to think that these men would have been forced somehow to cover up by other members of the tribe, maybe by those with smaller penises but who were physically stronger or had more control over the the tribe for some other reason. Then again I'm still not convinced that either monogamy or sexual jealousy are actually powerful forces in the uncivilized human.DavidQuinn000 wrote:Jason wrote:Yes, that is interesting because it illustrates why there is such a strong societal taboo against the display of penises in public, particularly erect ones. The value of the taboo is that it removes penis size from the field of male competitiveness.I have heard of plenty of women who find a big penis attractive. The last Big Brother featured a guy with a big penis and he kept both the female viewers and the females in the house interested(spellbound even) for that reason amongst others.
If men strutted around the place naked, women would become even more obsessed with penis size than they currently are and male partners would increasingly be selected on the basis of who has the biggest dick - instead of who has the best capacity to create wealth, procure goods, build inventions, defend home turf, etc. Male stock would deteriorate over time and the species would become significantly weaker.
So men hide their penises and try to dazzle women in other ways.
-
- David Quinn
- Posts: 5708
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Jason,
Yes, and also through the implementation of criminal and religious laws.
Religion was very important for our evolution as a species, partly because it helped stop the human race remaining fixated on sexual matters, such as penis size. It gave the mind more freedom to explore the non-sexual side of life, which eventually led to the development of science, philosophy and wisdom.
-
Well, evolution never works like that in any case. Evolution is not driven forward by individuals thinking of the long-term good of the species - not thus far on our earth at any rate. Instead, what probably would have happened is that those tribes whose men were sexually selected primarily on the basis of penis size were overran by other competing tribes and became extinct. In this way, the "meme" for displaying the penis in public was phased out of human existence.Evolutionary human psychology is a very speculative thing so I don't think you should get too attached to that particular theory. But just for bit of fun I'll indulge some more. If big penises were a perference for choosing mates(which we still haven't proven) I don't think that men with big penises would have covered up for the sake of a strong species or something.
I tend to think that these men would have been forced somehow to cover up by other members of the tribe, maybe by those with smaller penises but who were physically stronger.
Yes, and also through the implementation of criminal and religious laws.
Religion was very important for our evolution as a species, partly because it helped stop the human race remaining fixated on sexual matters, such as penis size. It gave the mind more freedom to explore the non-sexual side of life, which eventually led to the development of science, philosophy and wisdom.
If so, they would have still been part of a failed society, evolutionarily speaking.But then again I'm still not convinced that either monogamy or sexual jealousy were actually powerful forces in the uncultured human.
-
"Meme" wise that may be true, but it still might be the case that the biological preferences for penis size remain.DavidQuinn000 wrote: In this way, the "meme" for displaying the penis in public was phased out of human existence.
That's an interesting idea. I've never really considered religion in that way before. I suppose living after the age of enlightement it is all too easy to see religion as an almost completely negative force on human development. I'm still not convinced though. Religion created its own share of new irrational and superstitious obsessions for people to spend their lives focused on. I suppose you could say that the obsessions were raised more toward the intellectual instead of the physical. But not all religions were anti-sex. The ancient Greeks and Romans may have been less sexually repressed by religion and yet they managed some impressive intellectual things.DavidQuinn000 wrote: Religion was very important for our evolution as a species, partly because it helped stop the human race remaining fixated on sexual matters, such as penis size. It gave the mind more freedom to explore the non-sexual side of life, which eventually led to the development of science, philosophy and wisdom.
You're talking meme/cultural evolution whereas I was talking basic psycho-biological evolution.DavidQuinn000 wrote:If so, they would have still been part of a failed society, evolutionarily speaking.But then again I'm still not convinced that either monogamy or sexual jealousy were actually powerful forces in the uncultured human.
-
I think I'll leave it at that, this topic is getting tedious.
I think I'll leave it at that, this topic is getting tedious.
Such a passion for knowledge!
David said,
If men strutted around the place naked, women would become even more obsessed with penis size than they currently are and male partners would increasingly be selected on the basis of who has the biggest dick - instead of who has the best capacity to create wealth, procure goods, build inventions, defend home turf, etc. Male stock would deteriorate over time and the species would become significantly weaker.
I agree with this, although I'm not exactly sure how the species would become. It does seem like it could deteriorate, seeing as how people of African descent usually have bigger penises, and at least in my experience they would add negative things to the gene pool. Don't take that wrong, I'm friends with a few black people, and I don't want to group all of them together. I think a big group of them though, at least in America, aren't worth much of anything. Also if marrying a hot woman was simply a matter of having a big dick, all of the guys with big dicks would become too lazy and essentially become like women nowadays...having everything at their grasp. This could also affect the way that society would develop. But it's hard to say for sure.
On what evidence do you base the links between larger penis size, masculinity and power?
Do I really need to provide evidence for something so obvious?
You don't believe me? Pay close attention to Comedy Central for a few weeks. You'll definitely figure out that comedians focus on the bleak way that things are. Stark reality...then they twist it and make it humorous (sometimes). You should hear a number of penis envy jokes within those two weeks.
Also look at muscle and fitness magazines. Look at an erect penis. It all focuses on big veiny sweaty dirty tough skin. That's the symbol of pure masculinity.
Think about the types of guys who intimidate you. The bigger, more muscular or at least in shape guys. Look at the types of guys who get the best looking women....seeing a trend?
Don't assume it's for a relationship if a white woman is with a black man. It's for his penis size...but not so blatantly that. It's for his amount of manliness.
Actually my ideal woman has smaller breasts, like a b-cup or even smaller. What does that say? There is obviously some variability in what people find sexually attractive.
Of course. All I was saying was that our desires partly come from the way our relatives before us had been getting it on. It also has to do with how you are raised, and what you have experienced in your life. Your desire for a b-cup woman may have something to do with the fact that the bigger a woman's breasts are, the more useless they are. Who knows for sure? I don't, I just have an inkling.
If it’s ultimately symbolic, as you say above, a woman needs only a dick that fits well enough. Non-symbolically, there is such a thing as too big a dick -- just as there is such a thing as one that is too small.
I don't believe a woman wants it to fit just right. I think she would want it bigger than she could allow...so it wouldn't be something within her feminine control. She would BECOME masculinity (in her deep deep mind) if she took on something greater than herself....you know?
There is such a thing as too big of a dick, yes, but that doesn't mean the symbol is lost at a certain point. If a man has a 3 foot dick, and could somehow get it erect (he'd probably pass out), I'm pretty sure that would just create a subconscious feeling of "this is a real man" in a woman. I don't think there's such a thing as too big, in the manner I'm speaking of. Of course it wouldn't fit, and it'd be pretty stupid looking.
And a small dick...of course that seems really unmanly. There's no brutal, robust, vital...energy from that, you know? It's just a little thing, like a young boy. If a woman has sex with a young boy, or with a man with a small dick it could mean many things. It means she doesn't think of him as really masculine first of all (unless his attitude is really manly). She may have some kind of twisted fantasy for fucking kids. She may just love him, or maybe she grew up being told to have sex with her husband everyday and on the honeymoon she realized what she had to do for the rest of her life, and accepted it.
Such a passion for knowledge!
David said,
If men strutted around the place naked, women would become even more obsessed with penis size than they currently are and male partners would increasingly be selected on the basis of who has the biggest dick - instead of who has the best capacity to create wealth, procure goods, build inventions, defend home turf, etc. Male stock would deteriorate over time and the species would become significantly weaker.
I agree with this, although I'm not exactly sure how the species would become. It does seem like it could deteriorate, seeing as how people of African descent usually have bigger penises, and at least in my experience they would add negative things to the gene pool. Don't take that wrong, I'm friends with a few black people, and I don't want to group all of them together. I think a big group of them though, at least in America, aren't worth much of anything. Also if marrying a hot woman was simply a matter of having a big dick, all of the guys with big dicks would become too lazy and essentially become like women nowadays...having everything at their grasp. This could also affect the way that society would develop. But it's hard to say for sure.
On what evidence do you base the links between larger penis size, masculinity and power?
Do I really need to provide evidence for something so obvious?
You don't believe me? Pay close attention to Comedy Central for a few weeks. You'll definitely figure out that comedians focus on the bleak way that things are. Stark reality...then they twist it and make it humorous (sometimes). You should hear a number of penis envy jokes within those two weeks.
Also look at muscle and fitness magazines. Look at an erect penis. It all focuses on big veiny sweaty dirty tough skin. That's the symbol of pure masculinity.
Think about the types of guys who intimidate you. The bigger, more muscular or at least in shape guys. Look at the types of guys who get the best looking women....seeing a trend?
Don't assume it's for a relationship if a white woman is with a black man. It's for his penis size...but not so blatantly that. It's for his amount of manliness.
Actually my ideal woman has smaller breasts, like a b-cup or even smaller. What does that say? There is obviously some variability in what people find sexually attractive.
Of course. All I was saying was that our desires partly come from the way our relatives before us had been getting it on. It also has to do with how you are raised, and what you have experienced in your life. Your desire for a b-cup woman may have something to do with the fact that the bigger a woman's breasts are, the more useless they are. Who knows for sure? I don't, I just have an inkling.
If it’s ultimately symbolic, as you say above, a woman needs only a dick that fits well enough. Non-symbolically, there is such a thing as too big a dick -- just as there is such a thing as one that is too small.
I don't believe a woman wants it to fit just right. I think she would want it bigger than she could allow...so it wouldn't be something within her feminine control. She would BECOME masculinity (in her deep deep mind) if she took on something greater than herself....you know?
There is such a thing as too big of a dick, yes, but that doesn't mean the symbol is lost at a certain point. If a man has a 3 foot dick, and could somehow get it erect (he'd probably pass out), I'm pretty sure that would just create a subconscious feeling of "this is a real man" in a woman. I don't think there's such a thing as too big, in the manner I'm speaking of. Of course it wouldn't fit, and it'd be pretty stupid looking.
And a small dick...of course that seems really unmanly. There's no brutal, robust, vital...energy from that, you know? It's just a little thing, like a young boy. If a woman has sex with a young boy, or with a man with a small dick it could mean many things. It means she doesn't think of him as really masculine first of all (unless his attitude is really manly). She may have some kind of twisted fantasy for fucking kids. She may just love him, or maybe she grew up being told to have sex with her husband everyday and on the honeymoon she realized what she had to do for the rest of her life, and accepted it.
- Kevin Solway
- Posts: 2766
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
I could be wrong, but I think the whole penis size issue is way overplayed.
Of course there's some genetic programming which makes women respond to the shape/image of a penis. But that's about it.
If a man looks like a penis but has no actual penis, he will probably be just as interesting to women.
I think the proliferation of jokes abut penis size in modern comedy is only a sign of the feminization of men. They are insecure in themselves and are simply pandering to what they imagine women want.
Of course there's some genetic programming which makes women respond to the shape/image of a penis. But that's about it.
If a man looks like a penis but has no actual penis, he will probably be just as interesting to women.
I think the proliferation of jokes abut penis size in modern comedy is only a sign of the feminization of men. They are insecure in themselves and are simply pandering to what they imagine women want.
sschaula wrote: Jason wrote: I think I'll leave it at that, this topic is getting tedious.
Such a passion for knowledge!
I just don't think this discussion has much worth in a philosophical forum, even in the brothel. For me this disussion has become no more than a curiosity, and not a very interesting or challenging one at that.
- Leyla Shen
- Posts: 3851
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
- Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA
Scott wrote:
Well, I think the idea is very Freudian. A woman can feel that she already has a dick, too.
In Lacanian Psychoanalysis, whether a male of female takes a masculine of feminine position has nothing to do with their biological sex, or ego. Rather, it is to do with the logical relationship to the Phallus. Hence, the idea of a woman that is not an hysteric -- the masculine woman.
Lacan considers structures that are formed with the cut that is symbolic castration and summarises each with a fundamental question:
http://www.apsa.org/japa/531/Kirshner-post-p.83-102.pdf
I don't believe a woman wants it to fit just right. I think she would want it bigger than she could allow...so it wouldn't be something within her feminine control. She would BECOME masculinity (in her deep deep mind) if she took on something greater than herself....you know?
Well, I think the idea is very Freudian. A woman can feel that she already has a dick, too.
In Lacanian Psychoanalysis, whether a male of female takes a masculine of feminine position has nothing to do with their biological sex, or ego. Rather, it is to do with the logical relationship to the Phallus. Hence, the idea of a woman that is not an hysteric -- the masculine woman.
Lacan considers structures that are formed with the cut that is symbolic castration and summarises each with a fundamental question:
You might find this link interesting:For the obsessional, “Am I alive or dead?â€
For the pervert, “How must I produce your enjoyment?â€
For the phobic, “Will I be engulfed by the return of the maternal body which bears the lost objet petite a (the lost wholeness -- the lack)?â€
For the hysteric, “Am I a man or a woman?â€
The symptom is the subject’s way to speak their inability to answer the question particular to their psychic structure, to put forth something rather than face the nothing.
http://www.apsa.org/japa/531/Kirshner-post-p.83-102.pdf
Many many things. More than I will list here. Programming a hard Artificial Intelligence, building a homemade rocket, doing jumps on a BMX bike, propositioning every attractive woman I see, following my true desires, challenging the accepted and expected, being shockingly honest, finding my authentic self. How about "Oh my god I exist! Holy shit the world exists! Everything is so weird. I feel like Alice In Wonderland: everything is new, wonderous, unusual. What is going on? Why?"sschaula wrote:What's more interesting or challenging?
It would probably be less of an issue than it is if women and men didn't gossip about it so much, but since gossip happens, it is an issue and always will be.
But lets not confuse it being an issue with it actually mattering in the same manner to each and every person.
It can manner to many most of the time, but not in the same way.
But lets not confuse it being an issue with it actually mattering in the same manner to each and every person.
It can manner to many most of the time, but not in the same way.
Well, I think the idea is very Freudian. A woman can feel that she already has a dick, too.
People tend to think Freud was always wrong, but maybe not. I haven't been reading any psychology since a year ago, so I won't say anything more than that.
How can a woman feel like she already has a dick?
In Lacanian Psychoanalysis, whether a male of female takes a masculine of feminine position has nothing to do with their biological sex, or ego. Rather, it is to do with the logical relationship to the Phallus. Hence, the idea of a woman that is not an hysteric -- the masculine woman.
How can someone have a logical relationship to the Phallus? I don't understand what that phrase means.
Lacan considers structures that are formed with the cut that is symbolic castration and summarises each with a fundamental question:
For the obsessional, “Am I alive or dead?â€
For the pervert, “How must I produce your enjoyment?â€
For the phobic, “Will I be engulfed by the return of the maternal body which bears the lost objet petite a (the lost wholeness -- the lack)?â€
For the hysteric, “Am I a man or a woman?â€
I don't understand those ideas either. What would a "structure formed with the cut" be? Is Lacan talking about penises, or lets say, a building that looks like a castrated penis?
The symptom is the subject’s way to speak their inability to answer the question particular to their psychic structure, to put forth something rather than face the nothing.
You might find this link interesting:
http://www.apsa.org/japa/531/Kirshner-post-p.83-102.pdf
I'll have to read it, maybe I'm missing something I need to comprehend what you wrote. Thanks for the link.
People tend to think Freud was always wrong, but maybe not. I haven't been reading any psychology since a year ago, so I won't say anything more than that.
How can a woman feel like she already has a dick?
In Lacanian Psychoanalysis, whether a male of female takes a masculine of feminine position has nothing to do with their biological sex, or ego. Rather, it is to do with the logical relationship to the Phallus. Hence, the idea of a woman that is not an hysteric -- the masculine woman.
How can someone have a logical relationship to the Phallus? I don't understand what that phrase means.
Lacan considers structures that are formed with the cut that is symbolic castration and summarises each with a fundamental question:
For the obsessional, “Am I alive or dead?â€
For the pervert, “How must I produce your enjoyment?â€
For the phobic, “Will I be engulfed by the return of the maternal body which bears the lost objet petite a (the lost wholeness -- the lack)?â€
For the hysteric, “Am I a man or a woman?â€
I don't understand those ideas either. What would a "structure formed with the cut" be? Is Lacan talking about penises, or lets say, a building that looks like a castrated penis?
The symptom is the subject’s way to speak their inability to answer the question particular to their psychic structure, to put forth something rather than face the nothing.
You might find this link interesting:
http://www.apsa.org/japa/531/Kirshner-post-p.83-102.pdf
I'll have to read it, maybe I'm missing something I need to comprehend what you wrote. Thanks for the link.
Many many things. More than I will list here. Programming a hard Artificial Intelligence, building a homemade rocket, doing jumps on a BMX bike, propositioning every attractive woman I see, following my true desires, challenging the accepted and expected, being shockingly honest, finding my authentic self. How about "Oh my god I exist! Holy shit the world exists! Everything is so weird. I feel like Alice In Wonderland: everything is new, wonderous, unusual. What is going on? Why?"
I agree with doing jumps on a BMX bike. ;-)
I agree with doing jumps on a BMX bike. ;-)
You know, a big penis can be a problem when doing jumps on a BMX bike. That's why the crossbar on a BMX is padded. :)sschaula wrote:Many many things. More than I will list here. Programming a hard Artificial Intelligence, building a homemade rocket, doing jumps on a BMX bike, propositioning every attractive woman I see, following my true desires, challenging the accepted and expected, being shockingly honest, finding my authentic self. How about "Oh my god I exist! Holy shit the world exists! Everything is so weird. I feel like Alice In Wonderland: everything is new, wonderous, unusual. What is going on? Why?"
I agree with doing jumps on a BMX bike. ;-)
- Leyla Shen
- Posts: 3851
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
- Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA
Scott wrote:
Of particular interest to me is what Lacan seems to have done with the notion of the unconscious. Whereas Freud considers the unconscious as a repository, a storage room of “things,†Lacan describes it as something more fluid. He combines elements of Saussere with his interpretation of Freud, and concludes that the unconscious is the source of the illusion of “I.†Whereas Freud’s preoccupation was with how the child forms an unconscious then later develops into a “civilised, productive and heterosexual†individual, Lacan’s is how the child gets the illusion called “self.â€
The way in which this comes about, according to Lacan, is through “chains of signifiers.†In Freud’s unconscious, the drives and desires have meaning. In Lacan’s, there are only signifiers which do not have meaning: they only have a relationships to other signifiers, forming strings of signifiers. Herein lies the connection of logic and the Phallus (which is the signifier that fills the lack/desire: not literally a penis, therefore, in what I will refer to here for simplicity‘s sake, as the “verbal realm“).
Lacan does not adopt Saussere’s ideas completely, however. Saussere discussed relationships between signifiers and signified, through which signs are formed and held that the structure of language itself is based on an oft discussed notion here: that A can only equal A because of Not-A. For Lacan, there is nothing that the signifier ultimately refers to in the unconscious. Therefore, it contains no meaning. Freud’s interest was bringing chaotic drives and desires in the unconscious into consciousness, thus achieving order and meaning. Lacan, on the other hand, postulates the process of becoming a “self†is the process of trying to stop, fix, or stabilise the chain/chains of signifiers so that stable meaning -- including the meaning of the “I†-- can be achieved. Given Lacan’s position, however, the “I†is the illusion created through the a misperceived relation between self and body, this possibility is also an illusion.
Freud had the hope of eliminating the unconscious and replacing it with the “I†through consciousness and self-identity. Lacan, however, holds the unconscious as the ground of all being.
More later.
Lacan’s inspiration was indeed Freud and an observation that, particularly in Psychoanalysis as practised by Americans, Freud was largely misread. Lacan says of his own work that it represents the way in which Freud would have wanted his work read.People tend to think Freud was always wrong, but maybe not. I haven't been reading any psychology since a year ago, so I won't say anything more than that.
Of particular interest to me is what Lacan seems to have done with the notion of the unconscious. Whereas Freud considers the unconscious as a repository, a storage room of “things,†Lacan describes it as something more fluid. He combines elements of Saussere with his interpretation of Freud, and concludes that the unconscious is the source of the illusion of “I.†Whereas Freud’s preoccupation was with how the child forms an unconscious then later develops into a “civilised, productive and heterosexual†individual, Lacan’s is how the child gets the illusion called “self.â€
The way in which this comes about, according to Lacan, is through “chains of signifiers.†In Freud’s unconscious, the drives and desires have meaning. In Lacan’s, there are only signifiers which do not have meaning: they only have a relationships to other signifiers, forming strings of signifiers. Herein lies the connection of logic and the Phallus (which is the signifier that fills the lack/desire: not literally a penis, therefore, in what I will refer to here for simplicity‘s sake, as the “verbal realm“).
Lacan does not adopt Saussere’s ideas completely, however. Saussere discussed relationships between signifiers and signified, through which signs are formed and held that the structure of language itself is based on an oft discussed notion here: that A can only equal A because of Not-A. For Lacan, there is nothing that the signifier ultimately refers to in the unconscious. Therefore, it contains no meaning. Freud’s interest was bringing chaotic drives and desires in the unconscious into consciousness, thus achieving order and meaning. Lacan, on the other hand, postulates the process of becoming a “self†is the process of trying to stop, fix, or stabilise the chain/chains of signifiers so that stable meaning -- including the meaning of the “I†-- can be achieved. Given Lacan’s position, however, the “I†is the illusion created through the a misperceived relation between self and body, this possibility is also an illusion.
Freud had the hope of eliminating the unconscious and replacing it with the “I†through consciousness and self-identity. Lacan, however, holds the unconscious as the ground of all being.
More later.
- Leyla Shen
- Posts: 3851
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
- Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA
LACAN’S 3 CATEGORIES OF HUMAN DEVELOPMENT
Freud’s three stages of “polymorphous perversity†-- oral, anal and phallic -- end with the Oedipus Complex and Castration: it is through these that the child transforms into the adult (sexual awareness through recognition of subject-object and desire/lack).
Lacan describes the path from child to adult through three conditions of existence: need, demand and desire -- in that order. These conditions correspond with three stages of development: The Real, The Imaginary and The Symbolic (respectively).
I’ll attempt a brief explanation.
The Real
This is the stage wherein there is no distinction between self and other. There are no objects either, therefore. All there is is need and the fulfilment of it. No sense of self, at all.
The Imaginary
This is the stage (roughly 6-18 mths) of demand. This child still has no sense of self in terms of an “I.†But it starts to recognise its separateness from the mother -- and from others. The demand, in this stage, is always a demand to be reunited as the whole/unity of The Real. Because of what is being demanded and the fact that the child has not yet identified it-â€self“, as you may be able to imagine, the demand can never be satisfied. It is within this phase of development that the child experiences the Mirror Stage. This becomes the content. Images. Until the Mirror Stage, the child does not have a sense of its body as a whole. It sees only what is within its vision, and does not connect it with any idea of a whole. It can, however, imagine itself as a whole by way of perceiving other beings as whole. Seeing the image of the body in the mirror -- which is further affirmed by (usually) the mother with a, “Yes, that’s you!†-- the child begins to correct its previously un-wholeness to wholeness of self by way of the image in the mirror. And here is where the basic misrecognition occurs: the child is not seeing “self,†it’s seeing an image and identifying it as “self.†This misrecognition creates the Ego: the thing that says “I.â€
With this particularly, this subject may begin to be considered in terms of the goals of this forum -- the pursuit and attainment of enlightenment. Lacan’s position is that the Ego is an illusion created by the image of body form and a misrecognition of the relationship of that image to its self (which begins to form in this phase, and is “completed“ in the next). As detailed earlier, Lacan holds the unconscious as the ground of all being -- the ultimate substance of “femininity“.
I will give my understanding of the final category, The Symbolic Order, soon.
Lacan describes the path from child to adult through three conditions of existence: need, demand and desire -- in that order. These conditions correspond with three stages of development: The Real, The Imaginary and The Symbolic (respectively).
I’ll attempt a brief explanation.
The Real
This is the stage wherein there is no distinction between self and other. There are no objects either, therefore. All there is is need and the fulfilment of it. No sense of self, at all.
The Imaginary
This is the stage (roughly 6-18 mths) of demand. This child still has no sense of self in terms of an “I.†But it starts to recognise its separateness from the mother -- and from others. The demand, in this stage, is always a demand to be reunited as the whole/unity of The Real. Because of what is being demanded and the fact that the child has not yet identified it-â€self“, as you may be able to imagine, the demand can never be satisfied. It is within this phase of development that the child experiences the Mirror Stage. This becomes the content. Images. Until the Mirror Stage, the child does not have a sense of its body as a whole. It sees only what is within its vision, and does not connect it with any idea of a whole. It can, however, imagine itself as a whole by way of perceiving other beings as whole. Seeing the image of the body in the mirror -- which is further affirmed by (usually) the mother with a, “Yes, that’s you!†-- the child begins to correct its previously un-wholeness to wholeness of self by way of the image in the mirror. And here is where the basic misrecognition occurs: the child is not seeing “self,†it’s seeing an image and identifying it as “self.†This misrecognition creates the Ego: the thing that says “I.â€
With this particularly, this subject may begin to be considered in terms of the goals of this forum -- the pursuit and attainment of enlightenment. Lacan’s position is that the Ego is an illusion created by the image of body form and a misrecognition of the relationship of that image to its self (which begins to form in this phase, and is “completed“ in the next). As detailed earlier, Lacan holds the unconscious as the ground of all being -- the ultimate substance of “femininity“.
I will give my understanding of the final category, The Symbolic Order, soon.



