The best things in life aren't things
Freakangel of Girl in Chains has a fascinating meditation on cock size, with a conclusion that extends nicely to all the "status symbol" body parts we bother with...
Frankly, if you can make me cum more than once in a row, I don't care what size your dick is. Only 9% of women orgasm from penetration alone. The other 91% of us need more than a big dick.
When I read the last sentence, "the other 91% of us need more than a big dick," I just got this cascade of images of attributes we seem to believe an ideal partner "should" have, or ideals *we* should have before our partners can be pleased with us.
Yup. The population just plummeted to zero back in the Victorian era because only one or two women could corset their waists down to 17 inches. And until the advent of Grecian Formula gray-hair cover back in the 1970s men's sex lives were pretty much over before age 40. Nobody wants a man who can't bench-press 400 pounds. Nobody wants women smaller than a D cup. *Everybody* just falls into bed with *anyone* who's got...
Oh, wait!
"Only 9% of women orgasm from penetration alone. The other 91% of us need more than a big dick."
Pretty powerful insight.
"Only 9% of women orgasm from penetration alone. The other 91% of us need more than a big dick."
I have to be honest here. I just thought it was SOOO obvious dick size didn't matter when it came to REALLY satisfying a woman (most women I mean). Powerful insight? I really don't know about that. I don't think so. More than that it's a reality statement that needs to be stated/reiterated much more than it is. What is this obsession with dick size and tit size in our society? lol I'd give anything to cum with my husband....almost. No pumping and grinding with his 'soldier' is going to do 'it' for me no matter what friggin' size it is!
[Yeah! That's what I loved about her post -- if dick size is important at all it's still only 9% important. (The main point of her post was that she'd had two seriously oversized partners and they were both complete clots.) Thanks, Hazel. --fl]
[Also, I see great minds think alike. Thanks, Hazel. --fl]
Things can change in some instances. If nobody wanted women less than a D cup I would have been well left on the shelf, but now, now I could give you something completely different :)
You're absolutely right figleaf, it's the person that counts, not their accoutrements.
It puts me in mind of a Rubenesque friend of mine who was in an art gallery with her husband. They've been together a long time, a lovely couple. She pointed out a picture of a voluptuous woman and said to him, "Isn't she beautiful?" "Well no," was the reply, "I prefer the athletic type." To this day he doesn't know what he said wrong.
[By the way, I'm not saying that we can't, don't, or shouldn't have preferences. (E.g. it's ok to be a "size queen" or a "leg man" or, in more commonly recognized cases, a rubber underwear fetishist.) It's just that a) these aren't universal reqirements, at all, at all, and b) we should recognize them for what they are -- limiting factors rather than discerning criteria. Thanks, A. --fl]
I would like to know where she got her stats. They don't seem entirely correct.
[Hi Lil Bit. No I'm sure more accurate figures exist somewhere but her larger point would stand on its own: the mere presence of a (current) status-symbol physical attribute is rarely either sufficient or necessary. (In her case her two well-endowed partners neither knew, nor seemed to care, how to please her but the principle extends for miles. Neutral example: Mints under your hotel-room pillow might impress but that alone does not insure a good night's sleep.) Thanks. --fl]