I can’t have been the first person to mention it but if penis size was all that important to women’s satisfaction in sex then it ought to stand to reason that women, who’s hands after all are much smaller than men’s penises, mustn’t be able to satisfy themselves at all.
That’s obviously not to say there’s no distinction to be made about size at all. Or even that more people find one size nicer than another. It’s just that it seems like to believe that size matters or especially to imagine that larger is always more enjoyable is to misunderstand the part men and our… well… parts play in women’s sexuality.
Update: Just to clarify, I’m not saying I have magic insights into what works for women. Nor am I saying intercourse isn’t important. I’m saying I’ve got a very strong idea of how men encourage each other to think it matters. Instead of checking in with the individuals for whom it actually matters.
Submitted by 3145 (not verified) on Sat, 2009-08-22 21:01.
Um, figleaf? As a man, you really aren't in a position to know, or to judge, no matter how vast your sexual experience.
Fingers are good. Tongues are good. What I want from myself, though, is a whole lot different than what I want from a cock. What I do with my own fingers is a radically different than what I like to do with a cock! And so, unless I'm prepared to forswear PIV fucking altogether (and I'm really, really no), size is not determinative ... but it's not wholly inconsequential, either.
One other point: my hand, properly folded together, is most certainly girthier than nearly any man's penis. That *still* does't mean size is irrelevant.
Sorry to muck up a theory.
[Hi Sungold. While in the past I've challenged the notion that intercourse is essential to heterosexuality but that's not where I'm going with this. At all! In this case, especially, I really was speaking from a man's perspective about men's perspectives. And speaking to what I as a man, in conversation with other men, grew up to believe. For me to imagine penises would be irrelevant to women would be as presumptuous as imagining (as we were taught to imagine) that size is essential... and to decide -- generally on our own and not in consultation -- that someone bigger will always be better. --fl]
Submitted by 3145 (not verified) on Sat, 2009-08-22 22:29.
mmm, IMHO penis size is IMPORTANT but only if your whole approach to sexual activity is the "in / out / wham bam thankyou mam" type ... and then, no matter your size, i ain't interested :)
Submitted by 3145 (not verified) on Sat, 2009-08-22 23:38.
Penis size is certainly important. It DOES matter.
It just doesn't matter as much as men think it does.
And for that reason the premise of the show "Hung" is total bullshit. Why would a woman pay for a well-hung male prostitute when 1) there are plenty of well-hung men who would happily bone her for free (see: Craigslist), and 2) there are more important things that a woman MIGHT be inclined to pay for that are more difficult to come by?
Submitted by 3145 (not verified) on Sun, 2009-08-23 07:11.
Confession to make here- size is inconsequential enough to me that I haven't even noticed variation among the men I've been with. I should have come across a good sampling by now, but they're all pretty much the same size in my experience. I'm thinking 90% of men (and all the ones I've been with) fall within a pretty narrow range.
Submitted by 3145 (not verified) on Sun, 2009-08-23 15:27.
I have a size preference (but it certainly isn't for a monster cock - 5-6 inches is my ideal). I agree with the other comments: size isn't wholly unimportant, but it's not as important as society thinks.
Society also forgets that the ideal cock size has changed over time. The ancient Greeks preferred a smaller cock - anything over 4 inches was considered animalistic and grotesque, I believe. At the moment we're living in a "The Bigger is Better" era, which is somewhat annoying. A lot of guys assume that all one needs to please a woman is a huge cock, but no amount of bigness will make up for poor technique, of course.
Submitted by 3145 (not verified) on Mon, 2009-08-24 13:31.
Well, it's a lot easier for a man to look at himself and other men and rank himself and them based on penis size. A lot harder to look at himself and other men and rank who actually is the most successful at getting his female partner off. Impossible really. :)
Bingo! And you know it's an even bigger folly to make the correlation than that. Without ever actually changing size I've been too big for a few partners, too small for a few more, and about average for pretty much everyone else. Which means comparing myself to another *man* probably isn't the right metric in the first place. Thank you, Lisa. --fl]
Submitted by 3145 (not verified) on Mon, 2009-08-24 14:35.
Lisa KS,
I think you might be the one who hit the nail right on the head. It's an "easy" metric if not a reliable one.
It might be an exaggeration that size counts for nothing. However, I'd say that any variations within the 3-97% range are going to be pretty insignificant-barely worth noticing. And larger than that could easily be as much of an a problem as smaller. I'd say the "growers vs. showers" axiom is mostly true, and that the bell curve is an extremely tall and narrow one.
[Nicely put, Red. I agree KC Lisa's on the money, and I think you are too. --fl]
Submitted by 3145 (not verified) on Wed, 2009-08-26 07:45.
Size is important to me, but it's possible to be too big, of course, reducing your chances of getting oral or anal.
Re: tor's comment-I completely agree...my college boyfriend's cock was, simply put, huge, girthwise and lengthwise. His technique was lacking, though, and it was hard to come, regardless of his size, with someone who thrust and left the bed. No moaning, no screams, not even my name. Not once.