Carl G wrote:Insults in advance.
Very good! Also called a pre-emptive attack or even pre-idiocy-sabotage. I call it a sneaky challenge to refute my facts and points.
Carl G wrote:How funny after wading through your six pages of He-man frontier twaddle. Actually I didn't wade through it so much as skip across it
I'd be utterly shocked if you did it any other way---its contents are sure to bruise the female ego ;)
Carl G wrote:like a rock over a stagnant pool. Some highlights:
You're blaming women for blaming men for being preoccupied? Ugh, how do you keep all your claiming and blaming straight?
It's extremely curious how you'd interpret that as blaming; in my experiences, women do that quite a lot. I'm stating exactly what I've perceived and deduced and cross-referenced among others over the course of my life---if you have different experiences and insights, please post them.
*Carl puts on his shining armour to defend the fair maidens*
Carl G wrote:Like, for example, child rearing? Right, guys do all the work there, while the gals just play.
1. Men by far
do the bulk of the work during intercourse and by far
get the least out of it---for example, pleasure or even meaning.
2. Men give women children; women create nothing on their own. (They don't "create" life.)
3. Nature divided up these tasks---women have to house the baby for nine months and then push it out, and they have all sorts of natural chemicals, pain relievers, stress reducing hormones, et cetera, to make this as easy as possible; and now, with various techniques and men inventing even more pain-killers, they hardly suffer compared to a few hundred years back, and really, need not even be conscious during the birthing process. And men? Instead of birthing, they did almost everything else, all the real work, and sacrificed their health, sanity, and very lives defending the women and children in every possible way from every possible danger---or later, every possible discomfort either might face. And still it's unbalanced---a lifetime of fulltime work for men compared to 9 months of "labour" for women...? Excuse me if I don't rush out and kiss a pregnant woman's feet, as you seem to do.
(My grandmother, one of the few women I respect, had 11 children and worked fulltime for the first half of her adult life, and understood sacrifice; here's a female who genuinely deserves respect for her part. Sure, while my grandfather was ducking Nazi shells in Normandy and watching death and destruction every day while fighting for his life, and having to kill, she was safely working in an airplane factory in England, but still, it's more than I've seen women do, go through, or put up with without complaining, lately.)
4. Pregnant women are treated very much like royalty; working men are treated like dogs. (Except when something goes wrong, breaks down, or the power goes off, or a hurricane strikes---then all the house-bound fem-nabobs appreciate real men; then they suddenly like male muscle, courage and sacrifice, innovation, improvisation, adaptation and effort...for about a week, then they're back to being invisible sterotypes: "knuckle-draggers.")
Carl G wrote:Whoops, another tiresome dig at all things not having to do with running au naturel with the wolves, in Alaska. Only thing missing is a heartful lionization of the Noble Red Man.
Is this your way of rationally denying or logically refuting what I wrote?
Carl G wrote:Rant, rant. Such anger at women. Get it out. That's right, it must be cleasned out before the real work can begin.
Your projecting your own wounded female pride here---I had no anger in my tone. Perhaps some lingering sadness regarding the state of men today compared to far better eras---like when I see a three-legged dog, struggling about...makes me wonder what happened to it.
Same thing when I see a Native man begging for change in my city---whereas you'd spit in his eye and call him a fucking savage,
I feel compassion and understand his previous, natural, masculine way of life on this continent. I've actually gotten into what we've done to these people. I actually give a furry shit---that's my agenda, if I actually have one. What's yours?
Carl G wrote:And such anger at modern life. Well, shit, go back to your tundra, running naked, fire in your eyes, your foam-flecked tongue flapping in the wind, where you're free, free to be the man you want to be.
I already am. The "anger at modern life" is correct; it's rational hatred for a raptorial culture---farming/ranching culture.
Again, curious how you perceive me and instead of really commenting on the subject, you chose the personal approach---almost as if you thought this was some attack on you. Obviously, you must have great pride in civilization and all it has...accomplished.
If I'm in error, anywhere at all, don't let me stop you from debating it intelligently :)
Carl G wrote:And free from the Internet, where all the girly-men hang out, and write their pussy nonsense, and call themselves Genius.
Wow! Did you ever take all this personally. Your fingers must have been trembling uncontrollably as you read all that, striving dilligently to remain calm enough to reply with something resembling coherence---I bet you typed out many things that were too hostile and you had to delete and rethink it, struggling to stay in Genuis character. Come now! Be honest ;)
Carl G wrote:Such anger at the Geniuses as well.
Love the capital "G" there, indicating grand significance, like God.
No, your ego is just fine....
Carl G wrote:So much that it is worth stopping by the occasional Eskimo village to beg yourself online at one of the civilized homes (fuck those people for turning their backs on their heritage) and rant at the insanity of it all. Before gathering a few supplies, maybe matches, some flour, and fishooks, before heading out again, into the blindingly beautiful (and, fuckin' A, completely natural Northern Lights. Now that's a man's life. And his wife).
Seems I hit a nerve...
Carl G wrote:"Yup, and did I mention I run naked with wolves? No shoes even. Just a small pack swinging in the wind. Matches, some flour, and fishooks. Tiny little frying pan. And a mean assed knife. I repeat, no Internet most of the time. None."
Cory Duchesne wrote:I think that animals arent as destructive to the environment either, precisely because they are almost totally feminine.
I do love bizarro-world reasoning---I've got one: George "Dubya" Bush is a great orator.
And, no, just like you, I can't back up this particular bullshit with any facts or even sound mental functioning.
Cory Duchesne wrote:As masculinity begins to emerge in a pre-dominantly feminine creature, destruction and impurity happen to the degree of masculinization, at least at first. It's a painful surgery.
How many species have you studied to arrive at this baffling position? What exactly do you know of the natural world anyway? How much time have you spent in Nature? Or does a degree in biology or something similar provide the appropriate credentials for passing off your makeshift reasoning as "wisdom?"
This is what happens when men do not know what "Man" is, for so very long; they find something positive---a beacon of hope in their empty lives as female drones---something that keeps their basic ego and attachment to the feminine---civilization---in tact, something that men appear to have at a higher degree than women, and then call it "masculine" and regain some extent of their lost pride in their sense of maleness or manhood...
Cory Duchesne wrote:Indigenous man was mostly feminine, and thus he was less destructive, whereas the reason why Civilized man was to a significant degree more destructive and continues to be destructive, is because he is to a significant degree more masculine, rational, active. This leads him to do more exceptionally destructive and creative things.
1. How exactly is your invented "feminine" deal here less destructive? Do you mean directly or indirectly? Or both? Any evidence for this?
2. This is the stupidest thing I have read in quite a while---I really got to give you credit; had a good laugh. Allow me to attempt to edify you regarding both feminine and masculine, total opposites at extreme, in no real order or categories...2a. "The feminine..."
2a-i. Its symbol has eternally been a hole or circle---a void or abyss. (The symbol for feminine defines its very nature; its female sexual organs and reproductive process do as well.) It's a taker; it lures, it draws in and sucks inward, being filled and nurturing. It grows the seeds. Its character is to collect (gather), settle, contract, stay still (or be pursued until the time is auspicious to 'be caught'). It wants to be penetrated, violated, to "take in," to be gotten inside of...
The feminine attack-defense might be manifested as a snare or trap (vaginal); "fly-paper." It strives for shelter, for protection, to be served. Cowardly. Seeks permanence, continuity. Subconsciously seeks acceptance---captivity. Extravagent. Loves crowds, hates solitude. Fearful in Nature, like a fish out of water. Impatient.
2a-iii. The Chinese correctly envisioned this as "Yin (dark, passive force)." It is indirect. Hidden. Shallow. Soft. Liberal. Primary tendency in basic human dichotomy is "Yes." Conformity. Allow. It's self-centered---it accepts sacrifices, for its own good. Irresponsible---passes blame easily and refuses to "own up to shit."
2a-iv. Inside. Follow. Copy, destroy---indirectly, often through the masculine. Collective, unity---"a massive group." (One large female egg cell.) Cooperative yet argumentative with others. Psychological and empirical. "What's easiest to do is best." More.
Hoarding behaviour; greedy. Yielding. Importance of wants; desires.
2a-v. Attraction (like a proton). Prefers to be "at rest." Dominates through cunning and persuasion. Deceptive (masks and guile) in overall personality. Fosters stability yet conventionality. Hesitates, over-anaylzes. Prone to worry about problems; asking for help is no big deal, accepting help is sensible. Keen on convincing others to adapt to itself and altering situations to better suit itself.
2a-vi. Its strength mentally resides in the left hemisphere of the brain---originally: manipulates intensely ("control freak"); plant-object-'thing'-oriented ("diamonds are a girl's best friend"---tends to not work well in teams, better at specialization in overall social group); rationalizational, logicizational, organizational, "clean and tidy;" very verbal, spoken-language-heavy communication; skill and talent, concerned more with details, and literal things, et cetera. Sequential. Linear. Many shallow emotions. Practical yet prone to over-complication. Better with letters, numbers, words. Better with the obvious. "Sees things as they appear." Multi-tasking---"compulsive." Concerned with names, categories.
Follows guidelines, formats, maps; follows regulations. Talks relationships.
More focused overall awareness and narrow self-awareness (*** what's called "semi-consciousness" or else, and I disagree here, "unconsciousness").
2a-vii. Its human manifestation, originally within females, in terms of culture, has been gathering; essentially, it's a herbivore. In terms of belief systems: religious, material---worship of objects and things; static laws. Morality.
Hence "Mother Earth." Hence a goddess, a humanization and feminization of something else, not the thing itself; idol. Matter.2b. "The masculine..."
2b-i. Its symbol has eternally been a protrusion or arrow---a tapered point or triangle. (The symbol for masculine defines its very nature; its male sexual organs and reproductive process do as well.) It's a giver; it provides, it extends outward and penetrates, filling and nurishing. It deposits the seeds. Its character is to stalk (hunt), explore, expand, wander (and pursue: to keep moving and to 'catch'). It wants to penetrate, violate, to "insert," get inside of...
The masculine attack-defense might be manifested as an arrow or bullet (phallic); "fly-swatter." It strives to shelter, to protect, to serve. Brave. Seeks changefulness, variation. Subconsciously seeks independence---freedom. Minimalist. Hates crowds, loves solitude. Confident in Nature, totally at home there. Patient.
2b-iii. The Chinese correctly envisioned this as "Yang (bright, active force)." It is direct. In the open. Deep. Hard. Conservative. Primary tendency in basic human dichotomy is "No." Resistance. Deny. It's selfless---it sacrifices itself for others, for a greater good.
2b-iv. Outside. Lead. Create, build---directly. Individuality, tribalism---"many small groups." (Several small sperm cells.) Competitive yet wants to get along with others. Physical and metaphysical. "What's most difficult, most challenging is best." Less.
Travel light; give away. Tenacious. Importance of needs; necessity.
2b-v. Repulsion (like an electron). Prefers to be "in motion." Dominates through brute force. Truthful (honest and clear) in overall personality. Fosters fragmentation yet originality. Takes action immediately. Prone to solve problems; asking for help is demeaning, accepting help is insulting. Keen on adapting to others and situations. Responsible---accepts fault easily, and strives to find solutions rather than attach fault to others.
2b-vi. Its strength mentally resides in the right hemisphere of the brain---originally: "leaves things be;" animal-people-'living being'-oriented ("dog is man's best friend"---tends to work well in teams, not prone to specialization---better to improvise and overcome obstacles in anything, not be limited in ability); "dreamer," instinctual, conceptual and perceptual (spatially as well), disorganized, "dirty and messy;" very non-verbal, body-language-heavy communication; intuition and creativity, concerned more with 'the big-picture,' universality, and abstract things, et cetera. Random. 3-D. Few deep feelings. Goofy yet prone to simplicity. Better with images, symbols, patterns. Better with the subtle. "Reads between the lines." Singular determination---"obsessive." Concerned with functions, meaning.
Trail-blazes, goes by feel, sense; rebels against rules and regulations. Does relationships.
Great self-awareness and vast overall awareness (*** what's often called "full consciousness").
2b-vii. Its human manifestation, originally within males, in terms of culture, has been hunting; essentially, it's a carnivore. In terms of belief systems: non-religious, spiritual---deep respect for essence, the intangible, and the fluidity of life (or "Life Force"); organic philosophies. Ethics.
Hence "Father Sky." Hence a shaman, a medium between the material and the spiritual realms. Energy.
(These are almost always exact opposites, in extreme, of course, and no human is all one or all the other; there's nothing inherently "good" or "bad" in any of all this, except the collective human imbalance of one in regards to the other. Nature split it so originally for balance---hence half our teeth are for grinding cereals and half for shredding flesh.)
(*** ---I'm still undecided on the point of consciousness----dual consciousness theory puts all this in new light and a different perspective: each hemisphere has its own consciousness or levels of consciousness (LOC); also, there's scarsely been any female example of staggering consciousness (myths of Hypatia notwithstanding) to determine whether or not the feminine itself is barely conscious, or if it's merely a matter of "consciousness atrophy" in the great bulk of females, meaning that under the right circumstances every woman, if she'd "use her brain, all of it," has the potential for "higher" LOC as some men have. I'm uncertain and need to study this further sometime.)
2c. The microcosm of Civilization itself is the home. It's the eternal feminine environment set into permenance and set in over-drive---"more" gone insane, Mater unrestricted. The home became small community, then village, then town, then city, then city-state, then state, then "republic or empire," and finally, like today, a global collective human "home." Approaching 7 billion.
2d. The microcosm of Nature itself is a garden, farm, and now a backyard, a fenced-in square of what passes for Nature now---where domesticated dogs are kept and where domesticated 'men' putter about. There's a reason why, even now, 7 out of 10 women when asked say theyâ€™d choose to stay home instead of going out to work, even though they have every opportunity and staggering encouragement to do so. Why has "house-work" been traditionally "womenâ€™s work?" Why is an average man more comfortable doing yardwork than washing dishes? Because long ago, women were safe and secure in more simple shelters, while men remained outdoorsâ€“--free to do "their thing," hunting, exploring, while women did "their thing" inside, and for periods near it outside, gathering, gardening. Is not the social and educational world still their thing? Is not the world of politics and security still our thing? I think politics is a massive 'outside;' and I think society is a massive 'inside.' But it's all mutated into something twisted and hideous.
3. So, again, explain to me how, in this flip-flopped assbackwards "logic" of yours, a small, lean wolf pack in aggressive pursuit of prey is "feminine" and a great herd of fuzzy, cute herbivores is "masculine...."
Cory Duchesne wrote:I think we're seeing improvement and further masculinization.
A white egg, being the symbol for pure femininity, appears pure, but during hatching, the purity starts to crack and become destroyed. As the potential within hatches, the egg seems impure, more imperfect, a feeble struggle becomes apparent.
But that is just masculinity trying to break through.
Hmm. I think we did see that---from a Eurasain point of view, the biggest human "rivival" of the masculine was during the Frontier days, mid-1500s to late 1800s, when men (wearing pants again, finally)
wandered about North America. Again, like in your example, the masculine broke free of its egg, its cage, its prison (of Eurasian civilization) and suddenly had room to move again, for a while.
We got a blast from the past when we landed here. We started roaming about on horses---some of us even lived with the indigenous populations and rediscovered themselves as men. We got right-brained again for a while---there's a reason so many long for this simplier time, and as usual they all missed the point of why
it was so great (because it was still wild, natural, untamed and not domesticated). Think Clint Eastwood's character in contemporary cinema is still THE most popular masculine figure next to John Wayne because he just carried a gun? Nope. Because he was the "fastest draw in the West?" Not at all.
1. He's tough. Just overall, fucking tough. Kickass. Adaptable and resiliant. Look at how many times he's gotten shit-kicked---he recovers and comes back stronger.
2. He's no invention---he's no Superman (an alien wearing tights and serving female values). He's a mortal man, a composite of male characters that actually existed in that time. He doesn't even have a name. But he's believeable. He's possible. Just a guy. A new male archtype. Many men today could be very much like him.
3. He's a drifter---a nomad. Never settles down, never gets married. He wanders about, looking for whatever he needs---adventure, cash, settling scores at times, a stake, a bath, a drink, ammo. He answers to absolutely no one.
(The 'man on his horse' nomad later became of course the 'man on his bike' nomad, into the 1950s and such. Bikers, man. Beatniks, drifters, and later hippies. All hated by the establishment, the way kings hate gypsies, the way Sumer hated the Amorites, the way farmers have always loathed nomads (the Bible is wrought with this theme); the way any feminine civilized society hates people who won't get with their stagnant farming and god-or-goddess program.)
4. Speaks few words. But his words are carefully chosen, concise and factual, meaningful, and usually witty or smartass; he takes no shit from anyone---especially from women. He gets respect through his actions, results, not his words or promises or intentions.
5. He's honourable, does what's right---even if he's playing a scoundrel like in the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly,
he's still a man of his word. When he's bad, he's still right. Right.
It's because he plays by his own rules, which are instinctual---his conscience is his ethics. He goes by feel, not by regulation or scripture or herd rules.
6. He's sharp---nothing slips past the perception behind those squinty eyes. He's no scholar, but there's little he can't figure out if he really wants to. He's no sucker; he's been around. And he's wise; he thinks as much as he needs to (and has no large ego---insults don't phase him, neither does flattery or praise, or shame).
I could go on, but it's elementary; his character has become a new archtype of a Real Man.
Aside from hippies, in their own weird way (smoking majiuana is a deep distortion of the left brain and immersion in the right hemisphere), in the 1960s, we've seen nothing lately.
Cory Duchesne wrote:
As for the subject about race, and whether or not natural selection and the valuing of rationality shrunk penis size - - the branching of man into different races is too complicated of an issue for me to realistically take a position.
Yes, it is complex...not to mention politically incorrect---one hundred thousand years back, anatomically-correct homo sapiens, as they left Africa, divided into three primary subspecies (or "races"), Negroid, Caucasoid, and Mongoloid, and they mingled almost exclusively around the Middle-East (here's where most of the main races branched off from these inter-breedings; none are "pure" any longer, no such thing). Different environments dictated different adaptations over the centuries, and in places where civilization never appeared (that
became a new environment to which to adapt---the feminine and not Nature), very little change resulted (which is wise: change, evolution, is only needed when, well, it's needed; necessary---it's why ants have only gotten slightly smaller in overall size over the last 400 million years: they are nearly perfect and don't need to change much).
Cory Duchesne wrote:
I would also be open minded to say that a small penis might actually reflect a certain feminization of a man's body chemistry. This might manifest in a timid, submissive, artsty, dreamy, mystical sort of male. Domestication allowed this sort of feminine man to survive. The greeks idealized a small penis in their statues, but then again, this might have been the greek 'artists' who had a reputation for being very airy-fairy, musical, and poetic.
Some have said that the reason greek art depicted the male penis as so small, was perhaps because male average penis size back then was significantly smaller, and has become bigger over time much like the average height has. Another possibility is that a large penis was believed to be "beastly" or animal.
I dunno, man, maybe, but when you think about---ancient Greece, no heat....Yeah, those guys posing were sitting around naked and probably got shrivelled somewhat---it's highly problematic deeming average penis size in this context. Fully erect is the best way to go about it, but I haven't seen any old statue with one of those.
You might be correct, though.
Cory Duchesne wrote:
On the other hand, Kinsey data set found that homosexual men had statistically larger penises than their heterosexual counterparts. One potential explanation given is a difference in the exposure to androgen hormones in the developing embryo
Huh. Interesting---wasn't aware of that.
Cory Duchesne wrote:
And history doesnt seem to suggest that homosexuality in men results in highly rational philosophers, but rather, homosexuals tend to be overly sensual. But I guess some of our most inspiring philosophers could have been gay for all we know.
(*) It's a complicated issue, one that I should probably gather more information on before expressing anymore opinions.
It just doesn't seem likely that deep-thinking, sacrificing (foregoing "fun and sun and lol" and trivia for serious introspection and worldly contemplation), non-hedonistic, stoic, or "minimalist" philosophers (which covers the vast majority of them) would be gay---who are by defintion effeminate or feminine, (shiny) object-oriented ("Stuff!"), material ("Shopping!"), flighty, impatient, giggly, greedy (the feminist "me-me"---I know, very fucking punny), extravagent, excessive, wasteful, et cetera---everything we've come to witness from Woman.
(*) Same here. "The Cultural Evolution of the Penis" was never at the top of my list of "Subjects I Dig." It never even made the list.
Cory Duchesne wrote:
Where did you grow up?
Cory Duchesne wrote: Maybe you had a fairly rational group to hang out with growing up. In my case, alot of my friends were hockey players, drinkers, who liked to party hard, smoke weed, etc.
Not so much---my friends were that way too. I played hockey for years, and have gone through all that "male foolishness," too. And parties.
Cory Duchesne wrote:
But then I was also close with a few cousins of mine who were well educated, liked dungeons and dragons, monty python, talking scientifically, etc.
The former, the jocks, seemed very preoccupied with their penises. The later, my nerdy cousins, had no interest in talking about their penises, or even girls for that matter.
Well, my more 'manly' friends were most interested in fucking girls---validating their masculinity that way---but I only recall one conversation that we had about cock size, and each of them knew their size (I checked mine after out of curiosity, but haven't done it since; don't care if it's the same or not). We were about 14 or 15 here.
My closest friends, for a while, were into the same stuff I was---building forts out in the bush, duck-hunting with pellet guns, general outdoorsy things; until they got into high school, then it was money, stealing cars, and sex.
Perhaps there is a phase young men, teens, go through where puberty starts and "novel things" start happening---this is where dick size becomes a temporary personal interest, I expect. Understandable, too.
Most men appear to grow out of that. I'm tempted to say: "School days don't count."
Cory Duchesne wrote:
My jock friends growing up, usually the ones who were well endowed, liked to bring up the topic of penis size, at least indirectly, sometimes whipping it out when they were drunk, doing the helicopter, showing off. One time at a party where there was no girls around, there was a sort of western face off, where two guys stared each other down with each having his hand down his pants, threatening to bring out the gun. Neither man actually brough it out, and they settled it at that.
I can recall one fellow (a black guy) giving props to another guy he knew with a big penis. "Oh yeah, you should see Jim's dicky bird! that boy got himself some dick."
(**)Another time, one of my guy friends who was in my girlfriends math class, actually asked her how big my penis was.
A lot of these sound like they happened under the influence of alcohol---it was with me and my friends as well; we were all drunk when we verbally compared dick proportions that time.
(**) We had a guy at school who checked out dudes' members in the shower after gym class and then reported to a bunch of girls in his "Domestic Education" class (poetically, his last name was "Ghirly"---maybe it was his revenge for the "girly" jokes at his expense).
Cory Duchesne wrote: There was this other time, I wasnt there to witness it or partake in it, but there was a clique of guy friends in my communitity who all whipped out their penises to each other simultaneously to compare.
Another time, I remember driving with a friend who suddenly asked:
"You gotta a 'big' dicky bird?" - - I answered honestly, "well, I don't know, I don't think it's big, it's just average."
Then he said, laughing proudly and matter of factly: "I gotta big dicky bird".
Then he said to me reassuringly: "As long as it's two fingers wide, you'll be alright".
Okay, so, in your experiences, there does seem to be some of this stuff---way more than in my experiences---in youth. I still can't see why a grown straight man would care what another dude's cock looks like, or his own, in any context except how it relates to females and potential sex.
In short, it's not male approval we would seek ultimately (what I thought was obvious)...
Cory Duchesne wrote:I found these sorts of situations were quite reoccuring throughout juniorhigh and highschool.
The examples I gave above are just a handful among many similar experiences. My point is that many guys are preoccupied with their penises. You can blame it on women, but should men be likewise blamed for making woman so hung up about her breast size and 'booty'? It goes both ways. Femininty within man is the more significant culprit - but woman is certainly the more incorrigible gender.
See, there you go again---"blame it on women." What's with you? I'm not blaming anyone.
I am strongly opposed to blaming people; it's pointless and childish and I'd sooner break one of my fingers than do that---rather, I look at their behaviour, actions, and deem it accordingly. I said, "women care more," because they do. If a man has a sexual relationship with a woman, and is alone with her for the first time, starting to get undressed, he's not fucking worried about what his friends are thinking;
for crissakes, man, if he is concerned, on whatever level at whatever degree, he's concerned about what she thinks.
How the fuck is that "blaming" anyone?
How much experience with women have you had? Been in the 'dating scene' for years, have you? Clubs, one-night-stands? Aware of all the subtle ways they go about finding out what a potential mate or lover's shaft dimensions are? Have you even had sex yet?
Here's one I've heard at least a dozen times, in some fashion:
"My last boyfriend's penis was so small!"
"Blah blah this guy: and I'll never go out with a guy with a one-inch penis again!"
It's usually an 'out-of-the-blue comment' (after they've steered the conversation into this area), followed by "embarrassed" giggling or an apology, designed to place the male in a tight spot and lessen their responsibility for what they just brought up---the first few times this was aimed at me, I responded favourably, the way they wanted, something like: "Well, ma'am, you needn't worry about that with me: I'm such-n-such above average, yadda yadda."
Immediately followed by their inevitable "Okay, well, penis size doesn't matter! lol!"
Right: and that's why they brought it up....
Aside from crotch-gazing (or more quick glances than most aren't even aware of), looking, peeking (I had a cousin and two female friends at school who did this to me, and my first girlfriend admitted that she sat in her friend's place, in the third-floor apartment directly across from my building, and spied on me with binoculars, watching me change a few times), they have all sorts of ways, and they're overwhelmingly indirect---not wanting to let on that it does indeed matter to them. Of course it matters. A lot. I don't have a problem with it "mattering," seems perfectly reasonable for a woman who wants the most pleasure from sex to want a size (or, more accurately: a shape)
she prefers, that fits her. So what? Why would I care?
I just dislike the deviousness, the deceit, the indirectness of their actions---if they wanna know, they ought to come out and ask, admit it. Rather than maintaining their sublime pretense of "not caring," or worse, passing the buck and saying "Men are obsessed with penis size!"
Passing "blame." That's when I call bullshit. It seems they'll do nearly anything to maintain their pretense of innocence ("saint" as opposed to "sinner"---or "slut") and construct of immaculate character.
A couple of chicks have had the decency to be honest about this with me, and came right out and said it mattered, then asked for my size (I, of course, didn't ask how big and deep her pussy was, though---this "size does/doesn't matter" crap is completely one-sided, PC-ruled, precisely like the lyrics to that silly Prince song: "I tell her the joke about the woman who asked her lover: 'Why is your organ so small?'----He replied, 'I didn't know I was playin' in a cathedral'----Vicki didn't laugh at all").
Anyway, that honesty was greatly appreciated.
(Edited a lot for clarifications, and typos, and a failed attempt at brevity. And again for proper quoting---my apologies, Cory.)