# The ideal penis: Men and objectification



## always_alone

The Authentic Women's Guide to the Ideal Penis
Penis Size Guide: Women Reveal Ideal Length And Girth In Easy-To-Follow Guide

Do you measure up? Or do you think like most of the male posters that the "ideals" don't matter, that women are shallow for judging based on size, and that porn has given us completely unrealistic expectations of what real men look like?


----------



## samyeagar

Huh...well, I guess I am barely enjoyable...


----------



## sinnister

I don't think that the male posters feel that way about women who judge on size at all.


----------



## married tech

Upper right of A range on average. Lower left when she is in a pissy mood. 

No issues here. :smthumbup:


----------



## Catherine602

Cant figure out how they did the study. Did they send men with a particular penis sizes out to have sex with 10 women each and then have the women rate their performance?
You guys tell us women not to worry about some of our body issues and thank you for that. Now let me return the kindness and reassurance. 
I have never spoken to a woman who mentioned men's penis size. I don't know all woman but zero out of the women that I do know must tell you something.


----------



## Plan 9 from OS

Who sponsored the study and how exactly did they go about getting this data? Was it simply based on asking women what size they prefer? Did the women even measure their partners? Depending on how they did the study, the it most likely comes across as highly subjective.

I suppose you could have a sample size of a couple hundred women, get a whole range of dildos based on length and girth combination that are also made of the realistic feeling material and do the study that way. Highly doubtful it went down this path though because that would definitely be too clinical plus would not factor in the quality of the lover in the first place - which is the biggest determinant for sexual satisfaction.

Most likely, it's a survey put together to get men insecure about their wangs and to buy enhancement drugs or other products to get into the "ideal area". Considering the ideal for women is roughly 1" above the averages in length and girth leads to a lot of disappointed ladies I suppose...

I have a hard time buying this study since there is so little info provided about the actual study in the article.


----------



## Deejo

You need to read the rest of the site.

Guy says right on his landing page that the site is for men with low self esteem. Well that's a good opener.

Site also goes onto say that the average as we already well know ... is hovering right around 6 inches. Which only further indicates that there is in fact, 'no pleasing a woman' for the average guy.

Unless of course your a TAM husband with a wife that posts here about her husband's lovely unit, in that event your penis gets a 1.25 inch bump.

I don't think women are shallow for how they feel about penis size, I think they are shallow for entirely different reasons. 

I don't have low self esteem. And my penis is exactly awesome inches.


----------



## arbitrator

*Well, I'm not exactly fretting about being classified in the "enjoyable" category!

So how do we, as men, gauge women? Whether they're endowed enough to accommodate "breast sex?"*


----------



## MSP

always_alone said:


> Do you measure up?


Why? Are you looking?


----------



## WyshIknew

Deejo said:


> You need to read the rest of the site.
> 
> Guy says right on his landing page that the site is for men with low self esteem. Well that's a good opener.
> 
> Site also goes onto say that the average as we already well know ... is hovering right around 6 inches. Which only further indicates that there is in fact, 'no pleasing a woman' for the average guy.
> 
> Unless of course your a TAM husband with a wife that posts here about her husband's lovely unit, in that event your penis gets a 1.25 inch bump.
> 
> I don't think women are shallow for how they feel about penis size, I think they are shallow for entirely different reasons.
> 
> I don't have low self esteem. And my penis is exactly awesome inches.


That chart has been fairly well debunked and as Deejo says it is taken from a site that tries to help guys who have low self esteem, penis anxiety, whatever. The whole aim is to knock the guys completely down before picking them up again and showing them that it doesn't matter.
My wife thinks mine is awesome so that's good enough for me.

To be honest I would of thought that those longer measurements would be downright uncomfortable for a woman.

I can just scrape a B on a good day and my wife has said she would not like any larger.


----------



## Deejo

According to that chart, most women would find a clydesdale, 'enjoyable'.

I'm still trying to get my head around the fact that always alone posted a penis thread!


----------



## Depth.Inside

I call BS.... The chart is a farce. Now keep in mind that women are also built very different so some may truly desire the largest Penis they can find... however, that is not the case for all women and that assumption should never become a blanket statement. 

The same can be said for breast. There is NOTHING wrong with small breast, there is nothing wrong with large breast. Attitude is far more important and goes a long way. There is nothing more annoying than a woman with a large rack that truly believes her rack defines her and it is the focus of her everything.

Given there are some physical issues with a penis 2" long but I would hardly say a man that is say 5.5" cant give pleasure. That is a load. Actual studies have shown that the average range is just over 5" to 6" and there are plenty of satisfied women out there.

Also, define pleasure.... A LOT of women love anal. How many women are going to find pleasure with a man swinging an 8" x 6.5C rod around their rear? Im guessing not too many. 

There are some things that simply cannot be fixed but if you fall anywhere near the normal range (between 5" - 6"), everything works, and you are willing to pay attention to your partner and put in the effort.... you can be pleasurable. Ignore the friggin chart...


----------



## Faithful Wife

Deejo - you don't get why she posted this thread?


----------



## Anon Pink

Chart is bogus. Exactly how did they reach these conclusions?

I have never heard a female friend complain about a lover with a small penis....EVER! I have heard two different female friends complain he was TOO big.

There is soooo much more to sex and enjoying your lovers body than the size of his penis.

From a wife with a well endowed husband who has ED.


----------



## Faithful Wife

I had a gf once who was with a guy so small it kept popping out. Yes, she complained, and eventually broke up with him.


----------



## always_alone

What intrigued me was not the chart itself, which is fairly clearly bunk, but the reactions to it.

One set eagerly establishing themselves as "measuring up"

One set that accuses women of being shallow and not appreciating the "whole man"

One set upset that women have "unrealistic expectations" -- perhaps because of porn or perhaps because they have no conception of the actual real life average man.

So, it would seem, it's super easy for men to see why they should not be compared to unrealistic ideals or to be treated just as a "piece of meat."

Yet, in he reverse scenario, it's "completely natural" and "biological fact" and "absolutely objective", and women should just be grateful that men are always ranking them because it proves their interest.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Rock on, Always.


----------



## WyshIknew

Faithful Wife said:


> I had a gf once who was with a guy so small it kept popping out. Yes, she complained, and eventually broke up with him.


It pops out with an average size too. Especially if you're getting a bit carried away.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Well, she complained, is all I was saying. Anon had said she'd never heard a woman complain about too small...was just saying, I have. And that friend wasn't the only one.


----------



## Deejo

Faithful Wife said:


> Deejo - you don't get why she posted this thread?


Yeah ... I just smiled that she picked 'the penis' as the vehicle.

Everybody objectifies the twig and berries, going back a long, long time.


----------



## MSP

always_alone said:


> What intrigued me was not the chart itself, which is fairly clearly bunk, but the reactions to it.
> 
> One set eagerly establishing themselves as "measuring up"
> 
> One set that accuses women of being shallow and not appreciating the "whole man"
> 
> One set upset that women have "unrealistic expectations" -- perhaps because of porn or perhaps because they have no conception of the actual real life average man.
> 
> So, it would seem, it's super easy for men to see why they should not be compared to unrealistic ideals or to be treated just as a "piece of meat."
> 
> Yet, in he reverse scenario, it's "completely natural" and "biological fact" and "absolutely objective", and women should just be grateful that men are always ranking them because it proves their interest.


The fact is that men and women have instinctive values that they want the other sex to meet. This is and has always been the case, otherwise there would be no such thing as specific attraction and we would never prefer one person over another. Physical attraction counts more for men than for women--this is an established fact. Financial success in a partner counts much more for women than for men--this is also an established fact. 

It is what it is. Anyone complaining that people should just accept them for who they are is ignorant about attraction.


----------



## always_alone

Faithful Wife said:


> I had a gf once who was with a guy so small it kept popping out. Yes, she complained, and eventually broke up with him.


I have heard many a woman complain about size, both too big and too small, and how it affects both performance and desire.

But it's super lovely to see that both men and women are very quick to reassure men that it's okay, size doesn't really matter and women love the whole person.

And all these "ideals" and standards are just a load of bunk anyway.


----------



## Deejo

I thought it was a shot below the belt ...


----------



## WorkingOnMe

I think I first saw that chart 3 or 4 years ago. It was all just made up numbers then, and it still is. Back then you could check the image with tinyeye and easily see that it was originally made up as a marketing thing for a hack company selling male enhancement pills. Now if you check it with tinyeye it's referenced at 43 other sites. It's designed from the get go to appeal to men's insecurity and get them to buy pills.


----------



## Deejo

I feel jerked around ...


----------



## Deejo

I think this is just rubbing it in ...


----------



## WyshIknew

always_alone said:


> What intrigued me was not the chart itself, which is fairly clearly bunk, but the reactions to it.
> 
> One set eagerly establishing themselves as "measuring up"
> 
> One set that accuses women of being shallow and not appreciating the "whole man"
> 
> One set upset that women have "unrealistic expectations" -- perhaps because of porn or perhaps because they have no conception of the actual real life average man.
> 
> So, it would seem, it's super easy for men to see why they should not be compared to unrealistic ideals or to be treated just as a "piece of meat."
> 
> Yet, in he reverse scenario, it's "completely natural" and "biological fact" and "absolutely objective", and women should just be grateful that men are always ranking them because it proves their interest.


Ultimately what does it matter what 'men' or 'women' think of what you are? What unrealistic ideals they may have or what rank you are?
There is only one person I care about impressing, whether it be my penis size, my bedroom technique or even simply what I've cooked her that day.


----------



## WorkingOnMe

always_alone said:


> I have heard many a woman complain about size, both too big and too small, and how it affects both performance and desire.
> 
> But it's super lovely to see that both men and women are very quick to reassure men that it's okay, size doesn't really matter and women love the whole person.
> 
> And all these "ideals" and standards are just a load of bunk anyway.


I just want to reassure you that it's all ok....we like a girl with some junk in the trunk.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Always...I think what will ultimately happen is that women will continue to objectify men MORE over time...until it is a fairly equal amount of it going back and forth. This is more likely to happen than men objectifying women less over time.

When things are equal (ie: both genders objectifying equally), then perhaps there will be a new discussion that can occur that looks at a few things differently.


----------



## always_alone

Deejo said:


> Yeah ... I just smiled that she picked 'the penis' as the vehicle.
> 
> Everybody objectifies the twig and berries, going back a long, long time.


I just happened to stumble across this article, and was intrigued by the reactions to it. Seems men aren't as fond of objectification as they like to pretend.


----------



## Deejo

always_alone said:


> I just happened to stumble across this article, and was intrigued by the reactions to it. Seems men aren't as fond of objectification as they like to pretend.


Is it objectification if I enjoy it?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Always...there was a penis thread in CWI that showed man after man after man doing/saying the same things....always being measured and measured and measured.


----------



## always_alone

Faithful Wife said:


> Always...I think what will ultimately happen is that women will continue to objectify men MORE over time...until it is a fairly equal amount of it going back and forth. This is more likely to happen than men objectifying women less over time.
> 
> When things are equal (ie: both genders objectifying equally), then perhaps there will be a new discussion that can occur that looks at a few things differently.


Agreed. The trend is clearly towards "meatifying" men. After all payback is fair play!

But since they don't seem to like it either, I'm hoping that the new discussions will happen sooner rather than later.

I'm also sure I'm being hopelessly optimistic and will no doubt be disappointed...


----------



## Code-Welder

always_alone said:


> The ideal penis:


*One that works when needed and often. Without medication.
*
That chart has been debunked so many times it is hard to count. Not all women are the same size so what a woman wants has a lot to do with what they need satisfied.

As Deejo has already mentioned the chart has many flaws in the make up of what ladies may want in a man's penis size. The important part is the man needs to know how to use his. You can have a Cadillac but if you never get it out of the garage it is not much use.


----------



## Faithful Wife

MSP said:


> The fact is that men and women have instinctive values that they want the other sex to meet. This is and has always been the case, otherwise there would be no such thing as specific attraction and we would never prefer one person over another. Physical attraction counts more for men than for women--this is an established fact. Financial success in a partner counts much more for women than for men--this is also an established fact.
> 
> It is what it is. Anyone complaining that people should just accept them for who they are is ignorant about attraction.


Therefore any man complaining that a woman who has a size preference is just a shallow person is ignorant about attraction?


----------



## always_alone

WorkingOnMe said:


> I just want to reassure you that it's all ok....we like a girl with some junk in the trunk.


1. This is still reducing women to their body parts.

2. You are making some pretty big assumptions if you think this is meant to be either reassuring or flattering.


----------



## Deejo

Faithful Wife said:


> Therefore any man complaining that a woman who has a size preference is just a shallow person is ignorant about attraction?


Oooooo I see what you did there.


----------



## Joylush

I think it would depend greatly on the size if the woman.


----------



## WyshIknew

always_alone said:


> Agreed. The trend is clearly towards "meatifying" men. After all payback is fair play!
> 
> But since they don't seem to like it either, I'm hoping that the new discussions will happen sooner rather than later.
> 
> I'm also sure I'm being hopelessly optimistic and will no doubt be disappointed...


You can objectify me as much as you like, I wouldn't mind being a fair bit better looking but I'm happy and confident in who I am.


----------



## always_alone

Code-Welder said:


> You can have a Cadillac but if you never get it out of the garage it is not much use.


Yeah, but if you have a Mini and I can't even tell if it's in the garage, then it's not much use either.

Right?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Deejo said:


> Oooooo I see what you did there.


This was the entire point of Always' thread.


----------



## Plan 9 from OS

I didn't feel threatened in the least regarding the chart. It makes me more bemused than anything since the laws of nature alone should indicate that the size/shape of most penises and vaginas are compatible given what we know about biology and evolution. As a species, we'd have a serious problem if a typical woman cannot be fully satisfied by a male with a normal penis. 

That alone indicates that it's a cheap marketing trick to prey on men's insecurities. All I care about is how happy my wife is in the sack.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> Yeah, but if you have a Mini and I can't even tell if it's in the garage, then it's not much use either.
> 
> Right?


Soooo,

Lets suppose he has your exact size preference but he's a complete jacka$$?
But there's a guy who has a Mini but he has most of the of character traits you value in a man.
Which would you prefer?

Do you see why that chart means absolutely nothing in real life?
And no,
It's not reverse objectification.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Plan 9 from OS said:


> I didn't feel threatened in the least regarding the chart. It makes me more bemused than anything since the laws of nature alone should indicate that the size/shape of most penises and vaginas are compatible given what we know about biology and evolution. As a species, we'd have a serious problem if a typical woman cannot be fully satisfied by a male with a normal penis.
> 
> That alone indicates that it's a cheap marketing trick to prey on weak men's insecurities. All I care about is how happy my wife is in the sack.


:iagree:
Exactly! [ hope you didn't mind me fixing it for you!]


----------



## WyshIknew

Faithful Wife said:


> Therefore any man complaining that a woman who has a size preference is just a shallow person is ignorant about attraction?


Well if that's her preference, so what? Just move on and find somebody who likes what you have.

I don't see it as shallow, everyone has preferences don't they?

It's a little like the thread where women stated their preference for tall men. There is not much us more average men can do about that other than shrug our shoulders and find a lady who likes what we have.

No matter what you have or don't have somebody somewhere will like the whole package that represents you.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Plan 9 said: *"As a species, we'd have a serious problem if a typical woman cannot be fully satisfied by a male with a normal penis."*

As we all know, female satisfaction is irrelevant to procreation. 

We're talking about preference and attraction, not making babies.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Wysh...I totally agree.

Do you not see the point Always is trying to make?

Honest question to Wysh.


----------



## Dad&Hubby

always_alone said:


> What intrigued me was not the chart itself, which is fairly clearly bunk, but the reactions to it.
> 
> One set eagerly establishing themselves as "measuring up"
> 
> *One set that accuses women of being shallow and not appreciating the "whole man"*
> 
> One set upset that women have "unrealistic expectations" -- perhaps because of porn or perhaps because they have no conception of the actual real life average man.
> 
> So, it would seem, it's super easy for men to see why they should not be compared to unrealistic ideals or to be treated just as a "piece of meat."
> 
> Yet, in he reverse scenario, it's "completely natural" and "biological fact" and "absolutely objective", and women should just be grateful that men are always ranking them because it proves their interest.


Oh I think that this chart proves that women ar FAR FROM _*SHALLOW*_ 

*nudge nudge wink wink*

Where's the chart about ideal Vajayjay depth and tightness?

LOL just kidding.

Find a partner who rings your bell and move on. Wow what a hot topic that, unless you at either end of the bell curve, is pretty meaningless.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Faithful Wife said:


> Plan 9 said: *"As a species, we'd have a serious problem if a typical woman cannot be fully satisfied by a male with a normal penis."*
> 
> As we all know, female satisfaction is irrelevant to procreation.
> 
> *We're talking about preference and attraction, not making babies*.


I think your argument reinforces Plan 9's point...

Which comes first, chicken or the egg?


----------



## Thunder7

Deejo said:


> I think this is just rubbing it in ...


As long as it's not rubbing you the wrong way.


----------



## Faithful Wife

I'm sorry CM, but you really don't get me.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Faithful Wife said:


> I'm sorry CM, but you really don't get me.


Of course I get you.

But men don't wear their penises outside of their clothes so that women are first attracted to them before they see their penises.

Chances if she does reach that far, she would have already made up her mind about a few things that the sight of her man's penis for the first time wouldn't have any real effect on.

Do you think Hamdan bin Mohammed , the crown prince of Dubai has the ideal sized penis?
Do you think the average trash collector with the " perfect size" has a better chance at bedding more beautiful women than him?


----------



## Faithful Wife

OMG FF, you rock.


----------



## Faithful Wife

CM...you're still not getting me. But that's ok.


----------



## Dad&Hubby

Faithful Wife said:


> Always...I think what will ultimately happen is that women will continue to objectify men MORE over time...until it is a fairly equal amount of it going back and forth. This is more likely to happen than men objectifying women less over time.
> 
> When things are equal (ie: both genders objectifying equally), then perhaps there will be a new discussion that can occur that looks at a few things differently.


I don't think the genders are that far off from each other FW.

In the social circle I'm in, the women tend to be more vocal than the men about "who's hot, who's not" "I wouldn't kick him out of my bed for eating crackers" etc.

There's about 2 or 3 guys in our social group who say things out loud and they're usually frowned upon and downright insulted (especially by many of the women). 

Again, this is my social circle. I don't do it and wouldn't do it out of respect for my wife.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Faithful Wife said:


> I'm sorry CM, but you really don't get me.


Ok,
Lol,
No problem.:rofl:


----------



## samyeagar

I've never been one to think that recognizing and voicing physical preferences is shallow in any way, male or female. Physical attraction is just as important a factor as any other aspect in finding, keeping and maintaining a relationship. Physical attraction in the form of "chemistry" is often the deciding factor in if a person is "friend zoned" or not. I don't think men and women are much different, nor do I think they ever have been much different in this. The only real difference being women have just kept it among themselves better.


----------



## WyshIknew

Faithful Wife said:


> Wysh...I totally agree.
> 
> Do you not see the point Always is trying to make?
> 
> Honest question to Wysh.


I think so. You'll have to forgive me because as I've mentioned I tend to get left behind in these discussions. Give me something to measure (ha ha not that ) something technical to do and I'm your man.

I think Always is pointing out that men have always objectified women, compared them to some 'ideal' 36-24-36 or whatever and made them feel 'inadequate'. I would point out that _some_ women do that to themselves, whether due to male pressure or not I'm not sure.

However when we men feel the boot is on the other foot and women are saying we prefer men with an 8 inch penis or men have to be over 6', have a 6 pack or whatever we call foul?

Apologies if I misrepresented the meaning of your thread Always, it isn't deliberate.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Yes Wysh...pretty much.


----------



## samyeagar

Should I feel bad for saying that my preference in a woman is one who is about 5'5" 120-130lbs with 36b boobs and natural red hair? And that as the boob size gets beyond a small D, or if their weight at that height gets over about 150, or if she has blonde hair, that I start to lose physical attraction? It just is, and I don't feel bad for it at all.

That said, I can appreciate all the other qualities like intelligence, empathy, humour, and am great friends with women with those attributes, but that doesn't mean that I will ever find them physically attractive. Also, just because I am not physically attracted to them does not mean I find them unattractive. Just simply, I am not attracted to them.


----------



## Faithful Wife

No, you shouldn't feel bad about your preferences, sam. Just like I don't feel bad that I prefer my 6'3" husband.


----------



## Caribbean Man

samyeagar said:


> Should I feel bad for saying that my preference in a woman is one who is about 5'5" 120-130lbs with 36b boobs and natural red hair? And that as the boob size gets beyond a small D, or if their weight at that height gets over about 150, or if she has blonde hair, that I start to lose physical attraction? It just is, and I don't feel bad for it at all.
> 
> That said, I can appreciate all the other qualities like intelligence, empathy, humour, and am great friends with women with those attributes, but that doesn't mean that I will ever find them physically attractive. Also, just because I am not physically attracted to them does not mean I find them unattractive. Just simply, I am not attracted to them.


Lol,
Added t that, she's a woman you plan to spend the rest of your life with.
Then five years later when things go awry in the attraction / sex department, you come to TAM, still get blamed for choosing " plan B ", and they would tell you to do your wife a favor and divorce her so that she could get someone who's at least physically and sexually attracted to her.


----------



## GTdad

Faithful Wife said:


> Yes Wysh...pretty much.


Although it assumes that at least most men are going around objectifying women in this fashion. Do men generally appreciate a nice female body? Of course, but I hope nobody is going to claim that women don't appreciate a nice male body.

What I see the OP doing is her standard modus operendi: creating this horrible Male strawman and relishing the opportunity to stick a knife into it. Frankly, it's tiresome.


----------



## Caribbean Man

:iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree:


----------



## Faithful Wife

Then why read it or join in the discussion?


----------



## PreRaphaelite

Ok, I get it now. It took me 50 years but I finally understand, I really do.

Size does matter and most men don't have enough of it for a woman's preference. 

The way that women react in porn movies to the wondrous wads of the wide-girthed and well-hung studs is a genuine feminine response.

Feeling inadequate isn't anything you should worry about....honest! It's just that the timing wasn't right honey.

Please visit my new website, www.consumerc0cksrus.com. For the women the attraction is obvious, and for the men, a special section on women of small spaces who love you for what you are, or aren't. And our motto, "we all deserve to be happy". And everybody will be happy! /cheer


----------



## RedRose14

I've not opened the link or read the whole thread so apologies if I'm saying what others have said.

I've never known any woman choose a man because of the size of his penis, I would imagine the size of a man's penis is one of the last things you find out about him, by which time you've already made up your mind about whether you want a long term relationship with him, and if his penis is smaller than you are used to I can't imagine that would put you off at all. I do believe that size doesn't matter, unless a penis was absolutely tiny or a vajajay so big you could swing a cat up there!

The only thing that matters are whether the various components of a person are ideal for them and their partner. My husband's penis is ideal for me, it's not enormous, it's not miniscule, it's just right


----------



## Faithful Wife

Caribbean Man said:


> Lol,
> Added t that, she's a woman you plan to spend the rest of your life with.
> Then five years later when things go awry in the attraction / sex department, you come to TAM, still get blamed for choosing " plan B ", and they would tell you to do your wife a favor and divorce her so that she could get someone who's at least physically and sexually attracted to her.


Not sure how you are getting that "sam is choosing plan B".

He's very much choosing plan A.


----------



## Caribbean Man

But Sam " _gets it_ ", I'm sure!


----------



## GTdad

Faithful Wife said:


> Then why read it or join in the discussion?


Please spare me that old canard. I post for the same reason anybody does. In fact I generally avoid her posts, since my optic nerves can only take so much eye rolling. 

This time, I felt like expressing myself. Period.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Was just asking, since you said "its tiresome".


----------



## always_alone

GTdad said:


> What I see the OP doing is her standard modus operendi: creating this horrible Male strawman and relishing the opportunity to stick a knife into it. Frankly, it's tiresome.


First of all this thread was created to see men's reactions to being objectified, and if they would mirror those on the link I posted.

So, really, I haven't made any assumptions about men at all, except to think that they probably don't like to be objectified either.

If this to you is a "horrible straw man", well my apologies for believing that men have feelings too.

With respect to the objectification of women, yes, it's true that I find it obnoxious and hurtful. But I didn't invent it, just am regularly exposed to repeated assertions that it's absolute! biological! necessity!

Even right here on this thread.

So roll your eyes if you want. Sounds to me like you were never listening in the first place.


----------



## WyshIknew

Faithful Wife said:


> Yes Wysh...pretty much.


Ah! "pretty much" so obviously not wholly correct.

No problem, not my forte as I mentioned.

What did I miss, out of interest?


----------



## samyeagar

always_alone said:


> First of all this thread was created to see men's reactions to being objectified, and if they would mirror those on the link I posted.
> 
> So, really, I haven't made any assumptions about men at all, except to think that they probably don't like to be objectified either.
> 
> If this to you is a "horrible straw man", well my apologies for believing that men have feelings too.
> 
> With respect to the objectification of women, yes, it's true that I find it obnoxious and hurtful. But I didn't invent it, just am regularly exposed to repeated assertions that it's absolute! biological! necessity!
> 
> Even right here on this thread.
> 
> So roll your eyes if you want. Sounds to me like you were never listening in the first place.


I have seen your explanaiton for what objectification is in other threads, that it is basically as not seeing the other as a human but rather an object for ones pleasure, devoid of feeling, leading to lack of basic human respect. I fail to see how expressing personal physical preferences in a partner is in and of itself objectificaiton.

The fact that I find certain physical attributes in woman more attractive than others does not mean in any way that I am objectifying them.


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> And no,
> It's not reverse objectification.


The chart is bs, I'll give you that. But it totally is an example of objectification for men.


----------



## MSP

Faithful Wife said:


> We're talking about preference and attraction, not making babies.


That's basically the same thing. Attraction is based on what is good for making babies. There is so much evidence for this in biology, and from any species you care to look at. Why do you think women are most sexual during their ovulation, a time when they are most likely to conceive? It's because sex is about making babies. Sure, it can be fun, but we are wired to make babies and anything that makes the baby-making go better is attractive. 



Caribbean Man said:


> Which comes first, chicken or the egg?


Depends on how hungry I am. 



always_alone said:


> I just happened to stumble across this article, and was intrigued by the reactions to it. Seems men aren't as fond of objectification as they like to pretend.





always_alone said:


> After all payback is fair play!





always_alone said:


> So roll your eyes if you want. Sounds to me like you were never listening in the first place.


Perhaps if you sought an actual open discussion instead of just trying to go tit for tat and get reactions you might receive less eye rolling. 

I hate to break it to you . . . but somewhere . . . a man is desiring a woman who has a slinky hourglass figure . . . and all the threads in the world won't stop him.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Wysh...it all boils down to a double standard.

Some men say "women are SOOOOO insecure, hey watch this, lets have some fun and show just how insecure they are....(posts pictures of super models)...see that! The women just HATE it when we do that, ha ha ha....all women are just so petty and insecure...it is funny to us"

Yet some of the SAME men will then get indignant about it when THEY are made to feel insecure.

The point always is making (in essence) is....why be cruel to each other and play on each other's insecurities at all, since BOTH genders can and will quickly feel insecure in certain circumstances?

But a main difference is that many women are taught never to make a man feel insecure...it is "mean"...never bring up penis size for SURE.

Yet some men actually *tell each other* to deliberately play on women's insecurities.

Why do we have to keep doing this at all?


----------



## Faithful Wife

MSP...There's really no need to school me in evo-psych. I've read the b.s. IMO, you are simply using it to base your opinion, and I have a different opinion.


----------



## PreRaphaelite

always_alone said:


> First of all this thread was created to see men's reactions to being objectified, and if they would mirror those on the link I posted.
> 
> So, really, I haven't made any assumptions about men at all, except to think that they probably don't like to be objectified either.
> 
> If this to you is a "horrible straw man", well my apologies for believing that men have feelings too.
> 
> With respect to the objectification of women, yes, it's true that I find it obnoxious and hurtful. But I didn't invent it, just am regularly exposed to repeated assertions that it's absolute! biological! necessity!
> 
> Even right here on this thread.
> 
> So roll your eyes if you want. Sounds to me like you were never listening in the first place.


The problem with these tit-for-tat kind of posts is that rather than raising anybody's awareness about how demeaning it is to be treated this way, it usually just provokes a reaction, and after that we get a mud-slinging match.

These pseudo-surveys are meant to be provocative. That's it. It's like the "men are obsolete" or "women are hard-wired to stray after 7 years of marriage because they want another man's sperm". That sort of crap is so lame, but it circulates due to some kind of perverse wish-fulfillment.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> The chart is bs, I'll give you that. But it totally is an example of objectification for men.


In your opinion, what's the difference between objectification and physical or sexual attraction?


----------



## always_alone

WyshIknew said:


> Ah! "pretty much" so obviously not wholly correct.
> 
> No problem, not my forte as I mentioned.
> 
> What did I miss, out of interest?


No, you're on it.

My only follow through is about body image. In one of your posts, you asked why objectification should matter, as you can ignore it and just find someone who appreciates the whole you.

And while I agree that this is a good approach, there are repercussions to being treated as an object or body part. Along with the increased objectification of men, we're now seeing a much higher incidence of body image issues, including massive uptake in cosmetic surgery, eating disorders, depression, and the like.

It is, I think, a very real problem, but as you can see by the reactions here, one that is difficult to talk about because it pi$$es people off and makes them want to hate you.


----------



## MSP

always_alone said:


> It is, I think, a very real problem, but as you can see by the reactions here, one that is difficult to talk about because it pi$$es people off and makes them want to hate you.


Lol!

It's not the topic. It's the way you approached it. And you know that. You wanted reactions and you got them.


----------



## WyshIknew

Is a little objectification not good though? Or perhaps I'm thinking of something else? Is physical attraction the same or similar to objectification?

If I 'display' to my wife am I not objectifying myself to some extent?


----------



## samyeagar

always_alone said:


> The chart is bs, I'll give you that. But it totally is an example of objectification for men.


How is saying that women prefer larger penis' objectifying men? How is it any different than saying women prefer bare chests over hairy ones?

It's not obectifying at all. Is is just a generalization of womens preferences in chart form. The only reason it is BS is because of the possible issues with methodology in data collection and analysis.


----------



## MSP

Faithful Wife said:


> MSP...There's really no need to school me in evo-psych. I've read the b.s. IMO, you are simply using it to base your opinion, and I have a different opinion.


It's basic reproductive biology and is quite observable in virtually any species. To outright dismiss this as opinion is simply showing ignorance of the topic.


----------



## WyshIknew

Caribbean Man said:


> In your opinion, what's the difference between objectification and physical or sexual attraction?





WyshIknew said:


> Is a little objectification not good though? Or perhaps I'm thinking of something else? Is physical attraction the same or similar to objectification?
> 
> If I 'display' to my wife am I not objectifying myself to some extent?


Is it that physical/sexual attraction is more of a mutual thing between two people?

Objectification is more one sided?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Are you not aware that what you are talking about are THEORIES, MSP? That there is no Rosetta Stone somewhere that displays all the exact answers people are looking for? And that some scientists consider Helen Fisher's work a bunch of crap?

Bonobos.

Having sex for reasons OTHER THAN making babies.

Having same-sex sex even. Orgies. Fun play time all the time across ages and generations.

It's science. Have a look into it. There are reasons to have sex other than making a baby. (thank god)


----------



## Caribbean Man

WyshIknew said:


> Is it that physical/sexual attraction is more of a mutual thing between two people?
> 
> Objectification is more one sided?


And that's the point.

That's why objectification is a nebulous term that can only be defined and understood through radical feminist doctrine.

Outside of that , it does not exist except in Marxist philosophy. In fact it was Marx who coined the term, and applied it to something completely different.


----------



## always_alone

Faithful Wife said:


> Yet some men actually *tell each other* to deliberately play on women's insecurities.
> 
> Why do we have to keep doing this at all?


Yes, but it's also more than this:

We think nothing at all about displaying women as ornaments, or for titillation, and never mind the "whole person" because who cares anyway. Women are for decoration and sexual pleasure. And when we complain about this we're told we must be fat and ugly, and besides we should stop being so insecure.

Yet, if we reduce a man to his penis (how more objectified can you get?), we immediately go into what bunk that is, and no woman cares about penis size, and what matters is the whole package, and men are so much more than their body parts.

Double standards through and through. 

And the solution is never to stop the objectification, but to work harder to drag men down too.


----------



## Code-Welder

always_alone said:


> Yeah, but if you have a Mini and I can't even tell if it's in the garage, then it's not much use either.
> 
> Right?


All depends on what type of driving you may be doing.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Caribbean Man said:


> And that's the point.
> 
> That's why objectification is a nebulous term that can only be defined and understood through radical feminist doctrine.
> 
> Outside of that , it does not exist except in Marxist philosophy. In fact it was Marx who coined the term, and applied it to something completely different.


Except that it also affects men, and will continue to affect more and more men.

Men and Body Image: Reconciling Fantasy With Reality - The Good Men Project

Is that somehow also through radical feminist doctrines?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Here's an entire page full of similar articles:

You searched for body image - The Good Men Project


----------



## Faithful Wife

Or shall we just mock these men as "weak"?


----------



## samyeagar

Faithful Wife said:


> Or shall we just mock these men as "weak"?


It's just one more way for men to be mocked as weak as they have been for ages now.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Faithful Wife said:


> Except that it also affects men, and will continue to affect more and more men.
> 
> Men and Body Image: Reconciling Fantasy With Reality - The Good Men Project
> 
> Is that somehow also through radical feminist doctrines?


YES.
Feminist Perspectives on Objectification
First published Wed Mar 10, 2010; substantive revision Tue Jun 28, 2011
"*Objectification is a notion central to feminist theory*. It can be roughly defined as the seeing and/or treating a person, usually a woman, as an object. 
In this entry, the focus is primarily on sexual objectification, objectification occurring in the sexual realm. *Martha Nussbaum (1995, 257) has identified seven features that are involved in the idea of treating a person as an object:"

Feminist Perspectives on Objectification (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)*


----------



## Faithful Wife

samyeagar said:


> It's just one more way for men to be mocked as weak as they have been for ages now.


CM was the one who inserted the word WEAK into a statement about insecure men, not me. That's why I was asking him. See his post # 46.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Caribbean Man said:


> YES.
> Feminist Perspectives on Objectification
> First published Wed Mar 10, 2010; substantive revision Tue Jun 28, 2011
> "*Objectification is a notion central to feminist theory. It can be roughly defined as the seeing and/or treating a person, usually a woman, as an object.
> In this entry, the focus is primarily on sexual objectification, objectification occurring in the sexual realm. Martha Nussbaum (1995, 257) has identified seven features that are involved in the idea of treating a person as an object:"*


*

Did you even read the link? Because what you are saying here has nothing to do with it.*


----------



## Deejo

Faithful Wife said:


> Except that it also affects men, and will continue to affect more and more men.
> 
> Men and Body Image: Reconciling Fantasy With Reality - The Good Men Project
> 
> Is that somehow also through radical feminist doctrines?


Ohh ... you mean like this?

Vagina Repellent of the Month: Carrot Top | The Dirty Doxy


----------



## Conrad

samyeagar said:


> It's just one more way for men to be mocked as weak as they have been for ages now.


It's actually been since about 1960 or so.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Faithful Wife said:


> Did you even read the link? Because what you are saying here has nothing to do with it.


How does linking an article on men and body image equate objectification not being a theory that has it's roots in feminism?

Men are insecure about quite a lot of things, and the size of their penis is the least of their worries when the company they work for starts downsizing and they are facing the breadline.
In case you don't get it, _that_ , according to Marx is objectification...

Goodmen project didn't create the term sexual objectification.

Can you define sexual objectification?


----------



## Deejo

It's too bad this thread really isn't about PENISES, otherwise we could steer concerned men to more brilliance from the Dirty Doxy ... which is some pretty funny sh!zam.

Pejazzling = Vajazzle for your PENIS! | The Dirty Doxy


----------



## Faithful Wife

I'll have to ask you the same Deejo...didya read the link? Because there's really nothing even remotely similar about your link to mine. (scratching head)


----------



## Faithful Wife

So the answer is no then?


----------



## Deejo

Faithful Wife said:


> I'll have to ask you the same Deejo...didya read the link? Because there's really nothing even remotely similar about your link to mine. (scratching head)


I actually read the link before you posted it. I'm not joking. I'm familiar with the site.


----------



## WyshIknew

samyeagar said:


> It's just one more way for men to be mocked as weak as they have been for ages now.


Well I for one don't feel weak or mocked.


----------



## always_alone

NotTooSure said:


> I didn't even realize this was a trolling thread when it first started.


It wasn't intended as a trolling thread. It was honestly intended to spark a thoughtful discussion about objectification, and how men might react to it.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> It wasn't intended as a trolling thread. It was honestly intended to spark a thoughtful discussion about objectification, and how men might react to it.


But didn't you start a similar thread sometime ago and it was locked by the moderators?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Deejo said:


> I actually read the link before you posted it. I'm not joking. I'm familiar with the site.


My point was simply that men can and do also feel insecure due to constant media objectification, which is what the article was about. So, my point to CM was...how is THAT a feminist agenda?

But clearly there is not going to be any effort by some to see any other point of view, myself included.

I think you have a good and balanced view, Deejo.


----------



## always_alone

MSP said:


> Perhaps if you sought an actual open discussion instead of just trying to go tit for tat and get reactions you might receive less eye rolling.


I did seek open discussion. That's why I asked for reactions.

Trouble is, there doesn't seem to be any way to broach this topic without everyone assuming that you're one helluva fat, ugly feminazi out to pillory men for sport.


----------



## Deejo

Faithful Wife said:


> I think you have a good and balanced view, Deejo.


And an awesome penis ... just sayin' ...

I winced when the author talked about not thinking he deserved his wife, or she was prettier or better than he thought he could get.

Frankly it soured me on the rest. I have no sympathy for a man who can't right his own compass.

But ... in the context of our conversation, something he said does come into play; we tend to project our perceptions and insecurities onto others.

You and AA are keenly aware of objectification as women. I understand this. I think most men here are in fact sympathetic to that. But they don't necessarily feel or understand the concept in the same way. And I don't know that we should be faulting them for that.

The men participating in this thread aren't going to feel objectified, they are going to feel like they were played for a fool.

That's different. That doesn't hurt men's feelings, it generally just pisses them off.

So unfortunately, the results are a bit tainted.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> I did seek open discussion. That's why I asked for reactions.
> 
> Trouble is, there doesn't seem to be any way to broach this topic without everyone assuming that you're one helluva fat, ugly feminazi out to pillory men for sport.


How can you say that you seek open discussion when you are not prepared to accept that maybe, just maybe , your objectification theory might be wrong?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Deejo - AA and I don't actually have the same world view...and we actually see objectification different as well. But I'm sure the differences we have make no difference to many/most of the men reading...we will both be lumped into the "angry feminist" category.

My actual feeling on all of this is that we should all be less cruel to each other. Period.


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> But didn't you start a similar thread sometime ago, with the same intention, and it was locked by the moderators?


About a year ago I started one on the objectification of women, and after somewhere around 200 pages of discussion, yes, it was closed.

But when I saw this article, and especially the reactions to it, I thought it would be interesting to explore the topic from the opposite perspective, to see if the conclusions/beliefs were any different.

From the reactions in the article, it would seem that men quite resent being objectified --and I thought that might be an entry point to genuine discussion.

But, at least I'm now clear that I'm one helluva fat, ugly feminazi that likes to pillory men for sport.


----------



## Dad&Hubby

always_alone said:


> Yes, but it's also more than this:
> 
> We think nothing at all about displaying women as ornaments, or for titillation, and never mind the "whole person" because who cares anyway. Women are for decoration and sexual pleasure. And when we complain about this we're told we must be fat and ugly, and besides we should stop being so insecure.
> 
> Yet, if we reduce a man to his penis (how more objectified can you get?), we immediately go into what bunk that is, and no woman cares about penis size, and what matters is the whole package, and men are so much more than their body parts.
> 
> Double standards through and through.
> 
> And the solution is never to stop the objectification, but to work harder to drag men down too.


And the flaw in your argument is your choosing small sample sizes and making general observations.

Are there men who objectify women? Yes
Are there men who don't objectify women? Yes
Are there women who objectify men? Yes
Are there women who don't objectify men? Yes

I would also venture to say that those percentages will be fairly equal. Now this is based on my own PERSONAL experience, but I don't see 75% of men objectifying women while only 10% of women objectify men.

Heck I see just as man WOMEN objectify women then men. (if you're using the "judge someone for their physical appearance only as objectification).

All of the arguments that are happening here are looking at specific subset groups that "prove" their case without looking at the whole issue.

Let's all admit objectification is wrong and continue to educate our children about respect, confidence and proper etiquette so the next generation will be better than the current one.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Deejo said:


> Frankly it soured me on the rest. I have no sympathy for a man who can't right his own compass.
> 
> *But ... in the context of our conversation, something he said does come into play; we tend to project our perceptions and insecurities onto others.
> *


This is so true!

I'm not insecure about my penis, never have been since the first time I actually had sex. Not insecure about anything on my body, maybe except a few grey hairs now appearing in my beard.


One thing I know for certain, nothing can really change that.
And I'm not going to blame anybody, media , wife , women,feminist or society,
For that.
I must accept it gracefully and deal with it , myself.


----------



## Faithful Wife

D&H...totally agree with your last sentence above.


----------



## Faithful Wife

CM...Aren't you like, 6'7" and you're like an adonnis or something?  No surprise you would never feel insecure about what the media projects, since you likely fit right in as the ideal. Beauty privilege, ya know.


----------



## Dad&Hubby

always_alone said:


> About a year ago I started one on the objectification of women, and after somewhere around 200 pages of discussion, yes, it was closed.
> 
> But when I saw this article, and especially the reactions to it, I thought it would be interesting to explore the topic from the opposite perspective, to see if the conclusions/beliefs were any different.
> 
> *From the reactions in the article, it would seem that men quite resent being objectified -*-and I thought that might be an entry point to genuine discussion.
> 
> But, at least I'm now clear that I'm one helluva fat, ugly feminazi that likes to pillory men for sport.


You're missing the resentment. The men resent being told "you're not good enough". There's a big difference.

But I would definitely NOT call you one helluva fat, ugly feminazi. I don't know what you look like and you definitely don't present yourself as a feminazi. You don't strike me as having an agenda against men, but you have an agenda that is pro-female...and there's nothing wrong with that. You also present your points and are open to discussing other peoples disagreeing points, which is a big kudos for you.


----------



## Faithful Wife

D&H, hope you meant "wouldn't call you...."


----------



## always_alone

Deejo said:


> The men participating in this thread aren't going to feel objectified, they are going to feel like they were played for a fool.
> 
> That's different. That doesn't hurt men's feelings, it generally just pisses them off.


Okay, so can you explain that to me? All I did was post a link and ask if knowing women's ideals for their penis made men feel as though they wanted to measure up or if they thought lesser of the women stating those ideals.

They had full scope to answer however they wished, agree, disagree, none of the above --or just ignore it all together.

How did I play them for a fool? I thought I was pretty clear I was interested in reactions to being objectified by penis size?


----------



## Dad&Hubby

Faithful Wife said:


> D&H, hope you meant "wouldn't call you...."


OUCH yes....VERY BAD TYPO!!!

My apologizes


----------



## Caribbean Man

Faithful Wife said:


> CM...Aren't you like, 6'7" and you're like an adonnis or something? No surprise you would never feel insecure about what the media projects, since you likely fit right in as the ideal. Beauty privilege, ya know.


No.

Has nothing to do with that.
Has everything to do with appreciating myself for what I am even though haters are going to hate.
That's what hater do.
They live _their_ life I live mine.

I know short, single men who are always get the best picks in women.
I also know very beautiful women who are desired by lots of men , and they still feel insecure.
It all comes down to self confidence and appreciation.

The same applies to women and that concept of " sexual objectification."


----------



## Married but Happy

It doesn't matter what women want. What matters is what they can get!


----------



## Faithful Wife

Caribbean Man said:


> No.
> 
> Has nothing to do with that.
> Has everything to do with appreciating myself for what I am even though haters are going to hate.
> That's what hater do.
> They live _their_ life I live mine.
> 
> I know short, single men who are always get the best picks in women.
> I also know very beautiful women who are desired by lots of men , and they still feel insecure.
> It all comes down to self confidence and appreciation.
> 
> The same applies to women and that concept of " sexual objectification."


This is what many people who have privilege say.


----------



## always_alone

Dad&Hubby said:


> Heck I see just as man WOMEN objectify women then men. (if you're using the "judge someone for their physical appearance only as objectification).


Indeed, objectification is a social phenomenon. Women tend to be more objectified because it's been accepted practice for much longer, and is more entrenched in the culture.

Men are rapidly catching up, though, and we are seeing the same sorts of negative consequences for them.



Dad&Hubby said:


> *Let's all admit objectification is wrong and continue to educate our children about respect, confidence and proper etiquette so the next generation will be better than the current one.*


Yes! :iagree:


----------



## Deejo

*Re: Re: The ideal penis: Men and objectification*



always_alone said:


> Okay, so can you explain that to me? All I did was post a link and ask if knowing women's ideals for their penis made men feel as though they wanted to measure up or if they thought lesser of the women stating those ideals.
> 
> They had full scope to answer however they wished, agree, disagree, none of the above --or just ignore it all together.
> 
> How did I play them for a fool? I thought I was pretty clear I was interested in reactions to being objectified by penis size?


Honestly AA, I can't. Because I took the whole thing as rather tongue in cheek from the get go. It just sort of soured over the last several pages.

Your premise was successful. Men don't like the notion of not being good enough, or measuring up to a standard that doesn't actually exist.
Its the chart. Its a bogus chart based on a non-study. Its a red herring. Thats where I think some feel duped. I may have inadvertently contributed to that by conveying that information.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Married but Happy said:


> It doesn't matter what women want. What matters is what they can get!


In Colombia every other woman is a " 10 " and the rest are above 
" 8 " yet they don't score rockstars , highly paid athletes , movie stars or millionaires.
Just overweight expats or poor Colombian men.

In the Ukraine all of the girls are in their 20's and definitely "10's."
Yet they will marry a balding , pot bellied man more than twice their age, in order to get out of poverty.
And they swear they're attracted to them.

Wonder who's objectifying who there?

They both are, if we are to accept the OP's definition of objectification.


----------



## Code-Welder

Faithful Wife said:


> Wysh...it all boils down to a double standard.
> 
> Some men say "women are SOOOOO insecure, hey watch this, lets have some fun and show just how insecure they are....(posts pictures of super models)...see that! The women just HATE it when we do that, ha ha ha....all women are just so petty and insecure...it is funny to us"
> 
> Yet some of the SAME men will then get indignant about it when THEY are made to feel insecure.
> 
> The point always is making (in essence) is....why be cruel to each other and play on each other's insecurities at all, since BOTH genders can and will quickly feel insecure in certain circumstances?
> 
> But a main difference is that many women are taught never to make a man feel insecure...it is "mean"...never bring up penis size for SURE.
> 
> Yet some men actually *tell each other* to deliberately play on women's insecurities.
> 
> Why do we have to keep doing this at all?


I can not recall ever playing or wanting to play on a woman's insecurity. I think many women feel insecure, even without men doing anything to inflict insecurities like poor body image. This seems to be as much other women and well as men and mostly what women see in the media, imho. 

In all my years my wife and were married there was very little I could do to help her with her body and how she thought her body looked. Hips to big, or a scar, or boob size ad etc. But I can not recall her ever concerned about her v-j. 

Where it seems if you want to hit a guy's insecurity the number one thing is does his manhood size up. My DDW did not ever complain about mine, but maybe she wanted more or less I will never know. Now I am back dating and in today's world it seems all different. 

Do women really judge and choose a man based on his package? If you were me and back dating would you stop seeing a guy you like because he was smaller in his manhood than you prefer? Last question, does the chart fit your idea of ideal size?


----------



## Deejo

*Re: Re: The ideal penis: Men and objectification*



Faithful Wife said:


> My actual feeling on all of this is that we should all be less cruel to each other. Period.


And that I can agree with wholeheartedly.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Faithful Wife said:


> This is what many people who have privilege say.


Again, no.

That's not a privilege.
It's because of hard work and sacrifices . 
If I don't like and appreciate myself, how can I expect a stranger to like and respect me?

That's where it all starts.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Code-Welder said:


> I can not recall ever playing or wanting to play on a woman's insecurity. I think many women feel insecure, even without men doing anything to inflict insecurities like poor body image. This seems to be as much other women and well as men and mostly what women see in the media, imho.
> 
> In all my years my wife and were married there was very little I could do to help her with her body and how she thought her body looked. Hips to big, or a scar, or boob size ad etc. But I can not recall her ever concerned about her v-j.
> 
> Where it seems if you want to hit a guy's insecurity the number one thing is does his manhood size up. My DDW did not ever complain about mine, but maybe she wanted more or less I will never know. Now I am back dating and in today's world it seems all different.
> 
> Do women really judge and choose a man based on his package? If you were me and back dating would you stop seeing a guy you like because he was smaller in his manhood than you prefer? Last question, does the chart fit your idea of ideal size?



Some women do pick a man based on his package, some based on his wallet, some based on his personality....some based on a combination of these and more items. 

I didn't actually read the chart because I assumed it is the same as one I have seen before, and I knew AA's reason for opening this thread. I don't want to taint anything by actually stating a number of inches as my preference...too tacky. I will just say, my husband's is perfect. And yes, I considered it when picking him. But had he not checked off all my other boxes having to do with how wonderful he treats me, the peen wouldn't have mattered.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Caribbean Man said:


> Again, no.
> 
> That's not a privilege.
> It's because of hard work and sacrifices .
> If I don't like and appreciate myself, how can I expect a stranger to like and respect me?
> 
> That's where it all starts.


The point is you have no way of knowing how you would have felt about yourself if you had been born 5'1" with a small peen. You can speculate that somehow you would have been totally secure with yourself, yet it would only be speculation.


----------



## GTdad

Faithful Wife said:


> we will both be lumped into the "angry feminist" category.


To be clear, I have never in my life used "feminist" as an insult.

In fact, I'm not sure I have ever used the term to describe anybody.

I do think the OP is angry. Often this appears to be a generalized anger against men. I don't doubt that men have hurt her. But none of them, as far as I know, are on this board.


----------



## WyshIknew

always_alone said:


> Okay, so can you explain that to me? All I did was post a link and ask if knowing women's ideals for their penis made men feel as though they wanted to measure up or if they thought lesser of the women stating those ideals.
> 
> They had full scope to answer however they wished, agree, disagree, none of the above --or just ignore it all together.
> 
> How did I play them for a fool? I thought I was pretty clear I was interested in reactions to being objectified by penis size?


To be absolutely honest I never really thought of measuring my tackle until I found TAM.

I have or at least had my own insecurity (which TAM helped me with) so I don't need any extra thank you.

So which did you feel was the prevalent reaction?

Measure up?

Thought less of the women?

Both?

What did you expect to be the prevalent reaction?


----------



## Caribbean Man

Faithful Wife said:


> The point is you have no way of knowing how you would have felt about yourself if you had been born 5'1" with a small peen. You can speculate that somehow you would have been totally secure with yourself, yet it would only be speculation.



Ok.

Lets stop running in circles and playing games.

Do you believe a correlation exists between sexual liberalism , hyper commercialism and the concept of * sexual objectification?*
Can one exist without the other in Western cultures ?

Please give an honest answer.


----------



## Faithful Wife

LOL! Sorry CM...you don't get to decide "how" I will speak, and yet surprisingly, I still have a voice and an opinion without your input.

Have a nice day.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Looks like I've hit the nail squarely on it's head!

OP, you want to give the question a shot?

"_ Do you believe a correlation exists between sexual liberalism , hyper commercialism and the concept of * sexual objectification?*
Can one exist without the other in Western cultures ?_"


----------



## Faithful Wife

Yes sure...you now have alllllll the proof you need that whatever it is YOU say is important, yet whatever I say is not.

Oh wait, you already thought that soooo.....


----------



## Unique Username

This Thread: haha hahahahahahahahahaha


----------



## ocotillo

always_alone said:


> The Authentic Women's Guide to the Ideal Penis
> Penis Size Guide: Women Reveal Ideal Length And Girth In Easy-To-Follow Guide
> 
> Do you measure up? Or do you think like most of the male posters that the "ideals" don't matter, that women are shallow for judging based on size, and that porn has given us completely unrealistic expectations of what real men look like?


Well poop....

Past a certain length (Because of a person's size/height or any other reason) an 'A' rating is impossible.

:rofl:


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> Again, no.
> 
> That's not a privilege.
> It's because of hard work and sacrifices .


Oh? Because the way you describe it in other threads, women were throwing themselves at you by the dozens, until you flicked them all away for your one true love: your wife.

And even still they're there, but, of course, only disappointed.


----------



## Faithful Wife

But that's not the point Always....oh wait, yes it was MY point...but somehow MY point is irrelevant whereas CM's points are not.


----------



## WyshIknew

FrenchFry said:


> Ms. Bluth has the right idea: Martini time!


Methinks you've been drinking too much Blue Curacao.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> Oh? Because the way you describe it in other threads, women were throwing themselves at you by the dozens, until you flicked them all away for your one true love: your wife.
> 
> And even still they're there, but, of course, only disappointed.


So what does that make me in view of your theory of *objectification?*

The objectifier or the objectified ?












BTW.
Checkmate!


----------



## always_alone

WyshIknew said:


> So which did you feel was the prevalent reaction?
> 
> Measure up?
> 
> Thought less of the women?
> 
> Both?
> 
> What did you expect to be the prevalent reaction?


Seems to me the most common reactions were to trash the ideals as completely unrealistic, and to reassure men that size doesn't matter as a woman would never, ever, ever be so lame as to reject a man for the size of his penis anyway. Ever! 

It was mostly what I expected, I guess, although it was interesting to see that most here blamed the chart, whereas on the other site, they were more likely to blame the women for being shallow and unrealistic.


----------



## ConanHub

Faithful Wife said:


> Some women do pick a man based on his package, some based on his wallet, some based on his personality....some based on a combination of these and more items.
> 
> I didn't actually read the chart because I assumed it is the same as one I have seen before, and I knew AA's reason for opening this thread. I don't want to taint anything by actually stating a number of inches as my preference...too tacky. I will just say, my husband's is perfect. And yes, I considered it when picking him. But had he not checked off all my other boxes having to do with how wonderful he treats me, the peen wouldn't have mattered.


 That is a very interesting statement. I appreciate your honesty. Do you think your husband pick you partially because of the size of your box?

Also, if your husband had measured up in most areas but his penis was quite less than perfect for you, would you have still chosen him?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> BTW.
> Checkmate!


Checkmate? What we're playing chess here?

1. Women throwing themselves at you were not necessarily objectifying you, nor you them. So the question is irrelevant.

2. Even if it were relevant, and you are the objectifier, the objectified, or both, where is the checkmate? The very premise of this thread is that both genders can be objectified.

3. You can't really be saying that your self-esteem comes from hard work and sacrifices after being treated as a poor hapless object by aggressive woman?


----------



## Faithful Wife

ConanHub said:


> That is a very interesting statement. I appreciate your honesty. Do you think your husband pick you partially because of the size of your box?
> 
> Also, if your husband had measured up in most areas but his penis was quite less than perfect for you, would you have still chosen him?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Yes, he picked me in large part due to sexual compatibility and sexual attraction. Both of us are very sexual people, so we place a high priority on this.

As to the second question...that's a difficult one. It would depend on just how much "less than perfect" it was. But you don't know someone when you meet them as much as you do 10 years later like I now have the knowledge of him...so while I'd like to say yes I'd pick him anyway, at the time I picked him I can't say for sure.

IOW, at this point, I know he has soooo much going on that I love about him and he is such a skilled lover I could even do without it if we had to....but I didn't know that in the initial stages when I picked him.


----------



## ocotillo

I do understand why the thread was started and just want to say, Very clever, AA

I love it.


----------



## Faithful Wife

CM...it doesn't mean anything about objectification, it means you have beauty privilege and therefore you can't know what you would feel about yourself had you been born without it.


----------



## Big Dude

After reading up on this thread, I've decided at the age of 51 to finally measure my penis. But it's turning out to be more complicated than I ever imagined.

What instrument to use? The handy ruler here at my desk? Or will I need to go out to the garage for a yardstick? Dig through my wife's sewing kit for a measuring tape? Probably the best option, since the yardstick is probably ill-suited for measuring girth. Of course, I'll need to ask my wife where her kit is, and then offer some reason why I'm looking.

Then I'll need to make some allowance for some swelling that lingers from a recent surgery.

But the really tough part is getting the old boy suitably erect. I'm past the age where I can just look down and command "rise up!" Should I ask my wife for help? That will probably cause shrinkage, not robust growth. Wait...I've got it! Look at some porn on the internets!

Always Alone, I don't know what reaction from men you expected to see from your OP, but you've driven one of them to look at porn.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> Checkmate? What we're playing chess here?
> 
> 1. Women throwing themselves at you were not necessarily objectifying you, nor you them. So the question is irrelevant.
> 
> Really? Wonder if it was the other way around , if it would have made a difference in your book?
> 
> 2. Even if it were relevant, and you are the objectifier, the objectified, or both, where is the checkmate? The very premise of this thread is that both genders can be objectified.
> 
> Then it is a false premise because if both genders are " objectified, " also as you implied by innuendo, I liked being objectified, and chances are that quite a few people have absolutely no problem being objectified based on who is doing the "objectification."
> The problem simply does NOT exist in the way you would have us believe. It is not as simplistic as you are presenting it, and I suspect you are fully aware of that..
> 
> 3. You can't really be saying that your self-esteem comes from hard work and sacrifices after being treated as a poor hapless object by aggressive woman?
> 
> 
> YES.
> Emphatically YES, I work very hard at accepting myself , now , and when I was much younger.
> I have been treated shabbily by women before, if you had objectively read my threads , you would have seen that. Nevertheless , like i also said earlier in this thread, my self esteem comes from within. I choose to accept what i want to accept and simply reject any negatives people throw at me.
> Their problem, not mine.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Faithful Wife said:


> CM...it doesn't mean anything about objectification, it means you have beauty privilege and therefore you can't know what you would feel about yourself had you been born without it.


Having " _beauty privilege _" didn't make me immune form being treated shabbily by some women and even a few men.

Like Dejoo said much earlier,
People who are insecure within themselves tend to project their insecurities at others who they think are better than them.It often comes out in the form of all sort of attacks.
And having " beauty privelege" does not make one immune to these attacks.

Their problem,
Not mine.

So yet again,

NO.

I am fully responsible for how I view myself.


----------



## Faithful Wife

And a person who was born rich might say "yeah if I was born poor, I would have just made my OWN fortune....being born rich didn't make me who I am. I would have been the same person."

And all the people who were born poor are like "yeah sure".


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> "_ Do you believe a correlation exists between sexual liberalism , hyper commercialism and the concept of * sexual objectification?*
> Can one exist without the other in Western cultures ?_"


Women in the Victorian era were also quite objectified, although it had a much different flavour than today. Then it was more porcelain doll, while today is much closer to barbie doll. 

In China, too, in certain periods and places, women have been objectified. Yet another version of doll. Indeed they liked to keep them quite immobile. 

So while I agree there's a correlation, I don't think it's a perfect one.

But even if it were perfect, I still wouldn't think objectification was a-okay. It's still disrespectful and dehumanizing.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> Women in the Victorian era were also quite objectified, although it had a much different flavour than today. Then it was more porcelain doll, while today is much closer to barbie doll.
> 
> In China, too, in certain periods and places, women have been objectified. Yet another version of doll. Indeed they liked to keep them quite immobile.
> 
> So while I agree there's a correlation, I don't think it's a perfect one.
> 
> *But even if it were perfect, I still wouldn't think objectification was a-okay. It's still disrespectful and dehumanizing.*


The point is that in the West ,sex sells , period.

* Objectification* can only be dehumanizing to someone if they *feel* dehumanized by it.
It is extremely subjective.

The woman who removes her bra in front of her lover / husband feels good to be objectified by him, for the sole purpose of sexual gratification at that point and time.

The woman who removes her clothes in front of the camera feels a sense of liberation and sexual empowerment from the
* objectification* she receives from her male [ and female ] fans.
As long as the money flows, she doesn't * feel * objectified. After a few years , he body beginning to age, she looses contracts. 
She then begins to feel worthless and * objectified.*

The woman in an Islamic country who wears a Burka can also feel objectified because her body is treated as a sexual object to be seen by her husband ONLY, and must be covered by law in public places. _But is she being disrespected?_

So what _really_ is this objectification you speak of?


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> Really? Wonder if it was the other way around , if it would have made a difference in your book?


I do not think that people throwing themselves at another person is necessarily objectification, whether they are women, men, heterosexual, homosexual. I also do not think being that person who others are throwing themselves at are necessarily objectifying anyone.

Gender is irrelevant.



Caribbean Man said:


> I liked being objectified.


I'm guessing you actually have no idea what it feels like.

I grant you, I've seen some enjoy the paycheck and the attention that comes from it for a short while. But it doesn't exactly generate respect for others or good feelings in the long term



Caribbean Man said:


> I have been treated shabbily by women before, if you had objectively read my threads , you would have seen that.


Being treated shabbily is not the same as objectification. If it were, we'd all be subject to it constantly, in all places and periods of history.

Tell me, do you realize the correlations between body image, eating disorders, depression (etc) and objectification? For both women AND men?


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> Tell me, do you realize the correlations between body image, eating disorders, depression (etc) and objectification? For both women AND men?


Not only do I realize that a correlation exist, I also recognize that its a social ill that seems to only affect European and North American societies.

Travel South of the border and you would realize that it doesn't affect South American countries / societies, neither the so called " Third World" societies , on the other side of the globe.

Can you guess why?


----------



## Plan 9 from OS

Penis Threads...


----------



## WyshIknew

I've been reading up on the sexual objectification of men. Very interesting stuff.

Good quote from Sally McGraw;


Empowering women is my main goal in life, but respecting other human beings will always be one of my core values. And that holds no matter what sex, gender, or sexual preference those human beings express. Men are people. If we want them to treat us with more respect, treating them with LESS respect is a patently ridiculous way to go about it. This is not “a taste of their own medicine.” This is feeding the problem we’re trying to fight.


----------



## Caribbean Man

WyshIknew said:


> I've been reading up on the sexual objectification of men. Very interesting stuff.
> 
> Good quote from Sally McGraw;
> 
> 
> *Empowering women is my main goal in life, *





And here's another feminist's view on objectification:

" *Sexual empowerment is active. It’s ownership. Autonomous. Self-serving.*
*Objectification, on the other hand, is a passive relenting of control. It’s powerless. Self-sacrificial...*"
~Melissa Feballo.


----------



## ConanHub

Faithful Wife said:


> Yes, he picked me in large part due to sexual compatibility and sexual attraction. Both of us are very sexual people, so we place a high priority on this.
> 
> As to the second question...that's a difficult one. It would depend on just how much "less than perfect" it was. But you don't know someone when you meet them as much as you do 10 years later like I now have the knowledge of him...so while I'd like to say yes I'd pick him anyway, at the time I picked him I can't say for sure.
> 
> IOW, at this point, I know he has soooo much going on that I love about him and he is such a skilled lover I could even do without it if we had to....but I didn't know that in the initial stages when I picked him.


Gotta say, I love honesty! That was some refreshing insight.

My wifes size was a bit small for me, sex was hard at first and to this day, I have to really get her ready and even then it is slow going until I have been in her for a bit. I have had a much better "fit" with previous partners but we worked at it and can honestly say we became the best either of us ever had.

About a month ago we got into a fun conversation about sex and past partners with a couple we are best friends with.

During the conversation we found out the smallest my friends wife had was indeed small, "pinky" sized. Apparently he was the most regular partner she had before her husband. 

She apparently liked it fine, she said he was attractive and she liked him.

My wife confided in me that she didn't know if she would be with me if I was that small. We have been together 22 years.

She has also gasped in my ear that she loves my penis.

So I guess in my marriage, her size doesn't matter to me but mine does to her and in my friends marriage, she doesn't care about size at all and my friend was a virgin when he married her so he has no comparison.

Life is funny.

Thanks for your response.


----------



## Created2Write

I think some are confusing sexual attraction with objectification. Appreciating a body, loving a body, using that body for physical gratification, fantasizing about that body, etc. aren't, in and of themselves, objectifying the person. It simply means you have a sex drive. Objectification, imo, goes beyond sexual desire and sexual impulse. Objectification is the complete disregard for anything about the human whom the body belongs to. 

AA mentioned the Victorian period, a very good example. It was considered sinful for women to enjoy sex in those days; believed that sexual desire was only meant to exist in men, and that only men should derive any sexual pleasure. If a woman did, she was often accused of witchcraft or being influenced by the devil, therefore, as far as intimacy was concerned, women were seen as little more than the means to a man's pleasure. 

Obviously objectification today is quite different. I don't think it's objectifying to see a woman's body and find it appealing. Nor do I think preferences are objectifying, either. I find my husband handsome and sexy when he's clean shaven, but I find him absolutely irresistible with facial hair. That's a preference, not an objectification. Just like he prefers when I'm athletic and take care of myself. 

However, preferences can, and do, lead to objectification when we fixate on those preferences and can't see beyond them. If my husband were to fixate on a specific hair color, and insist that I remain that hair color, I'd say that was objectification. Or if he insisted I get breast implants, or lipo suction, etc. These things disregard the feelings of the other person and implies, if not outright states, that they are less than they should be if they don't meet those preferences.


----------



## Machiavelli

always_alone said:


> The Authentic Women's Guide to the Ideal Penis
> Penis Size Guide: Women Reveal Ideal Length And Girth In Easy-To-Follow Guide
> 
> Do you measure up?


Well, that was depressing. I went from "ideal" to the lower edge of "enjoyable." However, my wife likes the new me, since I no longer rearrange her cervix with every thrust.


----------



## ConanHub

FrenchFry said:


> I googled your quote Wysh which lead me to this delightful image:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks!


Don't get me started.

I love the turn around! Definitely fair play!!!:smthumbup:

LOL!!:rofl:


----------



## Thundarr

So above average yet not huge is top of the bell curve. That's no surprise really. Tiny and huge are less preferred. That no surprise either. 

Interestingly enough women will stretch our measurements when talking to girlfriends. Thanks by the way women. Maybe when caught up in the moment it's not so easy for them to tell? I don't know.


----------



## larry.gray

WyshIknew said:


> I can just scrape a B on a good day and my wife has said she would not like any larger.


:iagree:

We don't do the "deep penetration" positions because it hurts her. Maybe my wife is particularly shallow and it makes me a lucky guy... but I doubt it.


----------



## WyshIknew

FrenchFry said:


> I googled your quote Wysh which lead me to this delightful image:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks!


What on earth does the Hulk think he is doing? :rofl::rofl:

Well I went back and looked and I couldn't see that anywhere.

Are you sure you used Google?


----------



## WyshIknew

In reality I think the objectification of men started some time ago.

We had some diet coke adverts in the UK which invariably showed some fairly ripped young guy in low slung jeans taking off his shirt and chugging a can of coke while women rushed to the window to watch and go "oooh and aaah"

There are very few adverts with my body type for instance, they are practically all 'ripped' young men taking off their shirts and flexing.

I think it started off humorously but gradually became more prevalent in advertising culture.

It may be a good wake up call to many men, it might make them realise that actually most women don't fancy beer swilling lard arses.

But does it make it right to portray men that way any more than it is right to portray women as sex objects?

Diet Coke-Diet Coke Break - YouTube

Diet Coke's Sexy 'Gardener' Ad Is a Viral Hit - YouTube


----------



## PreRaphaelite

We need to end this thread so I can get back to my regularly scheduled porn objectification.


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> Travel South of the border and you would realize that it doesn't affect South American countries / societies, neither the so called " Third World" societies , on the other side of the globe.
> 
> Can you guess why?


Guess again!

Latin lovelies - starve 'em, then carve 'em - World - News - The Independent


----------



## always_alone

WyshIknew said:


> But does it make it right to portray men that way any more than it is right to portray women as sex objects?


The million dollar question for this thread!

Is it really just a wake-up call to encourage us to stay fit? 

Or are the effects more pernicious?

In some ways --not many, but some-- the ideals for men cover a much narrower range. Virtually the exact same body type/look in every case.


----------



## Jellybeans

Another penis thread. Again. 

I personally have never sat with a ruler to measure the length or girth of a penis. So all of this stuff is really silly to me.


----------



## WyshIknew

always_alone said:


> The million dollar question for this thread!
> 
> Is it really just a wake-up call to encourage us to stay fit?
> 
> Or are the effects more pernicious?
> 
> In some ways --not many, but some-- the ideals for men cover a much narrower range. Virtually the exact same body type/look in every case.


Well reading some of the stuff I did last night it was quite surprising to find that many more men are going through this body dysmorphia thing than previously.

And the root cause is the same as the one that affects women, objectification and a desire to conform to an over exalted standard of how people should look.


----------



## WyshIknew

Jellybeans said:


> Another penis thread. Again.
> 
> I personally have never sat with a ruler to measure the length or girth of a penis. So all of this stuff is really silly to me.


It is actually more than just a penis thread.


----------



## Jellybeans

I see. I saw it as "just another" one. :rofl: 

Be merry, all!


----------



## Deejo

Jellybeans said:


> Another penis thread. Again.
> 
> I personally have never sat with a ruler to measure the length or girth of a penis. So all of this stuff is really silly to me.


No, no, no ... this isn't a PENIS thread. It's an objectification thread.
The OP just used a fictitious penis size chart (that everyone thinks is real) as the vehicle to demonstrate that men feel objectified or marginalized if told 'they don't measure up'. The chart itself is a red herring.

But when faced with talking about the PENIS or objectification, guess which 'sticks out' to most folks?


----------



## Code-Welder

Women grow up in a world

Where objectified images of women's bodies are everywhere - on TV, newsstands, in advertisements, movies, calendars.

Where many women start to feel old and unattractive even in their 20's.

Where women aren't taken seriously.

Where even the youngest and most beautiful women often worry constantly, and cannot match in real life their photographed, objectified image.

Where half-naked female bodies are displayed on walls, in public like objects, exposed female bodies used as markers of male territory, male turf... Immediate signals of discomfort, and of menace, for women.

In short, the direct negative effects on women, as we are exposed to it daily are: negative self-images, shame about ourselves, diminished feelings of dignity, autonomy and privacy.

The media has been driving this for so long it has become ingrained in society. Sadly it is now also happening to men, and not just penis size.


----------



## Jellybeans

Deejo said:


> But when faced with talking about the PENIS or objectification, guess which 'sticks out' to most folks?


PENIS!!!!

:smthumbup::smthumbup::smthumbup:


----------



## Deejo

Here's my takeaway ...

if everybody feels good about it, it's a celebration of the human form.

If somebody doesn't like it, or it confuses someone's self image it's objectification.


The word 'objectification' is being watered down.


----------



## johnAdams

Mrs. John Adams said:


> I had never seen Mr. Adams penis until our wedding night...so it was not something I even thought about...good bad or indifferent.:


I will never forget Mrs. Adams reaction: "it Grows!". Yes it does lol.


----------



## Code-Welder

Deejo said:


> The word 'objectification' is being watered down. .


The word is being used to be victimized. It has been very clear for a long time the media has been pumping this body image to women and all the time knowing it was not a normal woman's body.

Why do women continue to accept this from the media? There are some changes in ads and programs of larger or more normal size people. Over all both genders are now bombarded with media objectification and dwindling ways to counter act that influence.

The reason for this post seems misdirected at men as the cause.


----------



## Thunder7

I wish someone would objectify me.  **hangs head**

BTW, even though it's a bogus chart, I was comfortably in the 'satisfying' category. Not stellar, but I'll take it.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Code - I agree it is not "men's fault"...it is all of us contributing to the problem.

Thunder - I'm sorry, I hope someone objectifies you (in the fun way) at some point!


----------



## Deejo

Code-Welder said:


> The word is being used to be victimized. It has been very clear for a long time the media has been pumping this body image to women and all the time knowing it was not a normal woman's body.
> 
> Why do women continue to accept this from the media? There are some changes in ads and programs of larger or more normal size people. Over all both genders are now bombarded with media objectification and dwindling ways to counter act that influence.
> 
> The reason for this post seems misdirected at men as the cause.


I don't think we are ever going to get away from media trying to glamorize an ideal.

But I also believe, now more than ever, we KNOW those images aren't real. Hell, even the images of people that ARE beautiful aren't real.

And quite honestly, and I don't mean for this to sound nearly as combative as I believe it might, I don't think this 'Men's' problem to solve. Are we complicit? Sure. But let's be honest, men are not out there actively trying to make the women they love, feel bad about how they look. For the most part, they do that to themselves ... despite being told we love them.

Men don't run Cosmopolitan Magazine. Most men could care less about women's fashion. Most men have no expectation or belief that they are entitled to marry a Kate Upton or Heidi Klum.

I see objectification in the media sense as exactly what it is ... a commodity. Who the woman or man in the images is, is immaterial. They represent a commodity, that generates revenue ... and if they didn't ... then the images wouldn't exist. It's economics with a sexual slant.


----------



## Machiavelli

Code-Welder said:


> The media has been driving this for so long it has become ingrained in society. Sadly it is now also happening to men, and not just penis size.


Don't kid yourself. It's been around for at least 5000 years.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Deejo, actually men do run Cosmo.

But I also agree with you, this isn't just a men-only problem driven by men. It is a world problem, having to do with values and priorities. I'm sure I'll get beaten down for that...but rest assured, I am saying women are the problem, too.

There's nothing wrong with our beautiful naked bodies. The desire to see other people naked is natural and normal and happy things can come from it.


----------



## Jellybeans

Thunder7 said:


> I wish someone would objectify me.  **hangs head**


Hehe. I know how you feel.


----------



## Faithful Wife

For you Mach.....


----------



## Faithful Wife

Clearly we have worshipped peens in our history...as well as worshipped the beautiful goddesses and all manner of other things....

These examples are not what we are talking about. If we were handled with the gentleness and worship of these ancient practices, there wouldn't be the pain and negative things that are being talked about here. This is what I meant by values and priorities. If it is our priority to worship each other...I'm all in. If it is our priority to create a hateful line where the "non-beautiful may not cross"...then I'm against it.

Mach - Remember that our the men and women in our goddess statues would have had broken, rotted teeth and possibly really bad skin. Do our models have those these days? Yet you want to say it is "the same"?


----------



## Thunder7

Jellybeans said:


> Hehe. I know how you feel.


And, ya know, for all of the sexual harassment training that goes on in the work place, I have yet to be sexually harassed!! What am I, chopped liver!!


----------



## Code-Welder

Deejo said:


> I don't think this 'Men's' problem to solve. Are we complicit? Sure
> 
> I see objectification in the media sense as exactly what it is ... a commodity. .


I agree it is not a man's problem when it comes to women, it is a issue for fathers or mentor to young men to not fall into the trap women now find themselves in, that is what I was referring too. I have explained my concerns in the past when it comes to public showers.

It is a commodity, and as is such it can be driven by the consumer. If women chose to to purchase items or try to follow what the media is feeding to them to buy based on this false image, do not buy the product or service.

I think you will find as many businesses have found out if there is a movement that effects income they will start to adjust how they advertize. This will not eliminate the problem but it will vastly reduce the influence over time.

Women have to stand up to the bombardment from the media and deal with the objectification. Only they can make it happen.


----------



## Jellybeans

Thunder7 said:


> And, ya know, for all of the sexual harassment training that goes on in the work place, I have yet to be sexually harassed!! What am I, chopped liver!!


LOL. Well, I don't want to be sexually harrassed at work (and luckily am not).  But in the bedroom... the bedroom is another story. Hee hee. :rofl:


----------



## Jellybeans

FrenchFry said:


> counterpoint


That is the guy who for some reason got married at all when he wasn't attracted to his wife. I don't understand some people. Dude has only been married SIX months. WOW.


----------



## always_alone

Machiavelli said:


> Don't kid yourself. It's been around for at least 5000 years.


Representation does not equal objectification. Art and images of the human form exist in every culture and society, but this is not true of objectification.

As Faithful Wife pointed out, objectification carries with it a very specific attitude and value set.


----------



## Code-Welder

Machiavelli said:


> Don't kid yourself. It's been around for at least 5000 years.


I am not kidding myself, I understand the human body has been idolized for centuries. There were checks and balances to offset those influences. Today the media dominates the influence on women. Also rapidly effecting younger men.


----------



## Thunder7

Jellybeans said:


> LOL. Well, I don't want to be sexually harrassed at work (and luckily am not).  But in the bedroom... the bedroom is another story. Hee hee. :rofl:


Agreed. I work in an office full of guys so, no, I don't want to be sexually harassed at work either. In the bedroom, absolutely!


----------



## Deejo

Faithful Wife said:


> Deejo, actually men do run Cosmo.


You may have a different idea of 'run' than I do. You telling me all of the women in the list below are following a male driven agenda, and they are just marching to the beat? I'd find that hard to believe.

Women are a large part of this as a women's problem ... in that they may not see it as a problem at all. Again, perspective.

Who's Who at Cosmopolitan - Cosmopolitan


----------



## Faithful Wife

Who owns Cosmo?

Hearst Corporation


----------



## Deejo

FrenchFry said:


> It's mindboggling.
> 
> What is even more mindboggling is that this woman actually likes her body...and he's like "well...you shouldn't."
> 
> This attitude is ridiculously prevalent.


Which unfortunately takes me back to one of the things that I'll never understand and at this point, simply pisses me off.

I have a very particular type. Make no apologies for it. For someone to tell me that I am objectifying the women that I am, or am not attracted to, I imagine we aren't going to have much to talk about.

I've posted about this before, I dated a stunning 5'9" blonde, size 2, whose ex used to tell her she was fat because her inner thighs touched. And THAT is what sticks. That is what she would focus on. Not that I thought she was beautiful and I loved her for her smarts, sharp wit, and looks ... but she remembers that 'she wasn't good enough' for another guy.

I can't overcome that.

Nor can I overcome a guy who decides to marry someone he ISN'T attracted to, and then chooses to b!tch about. But that ISN'T objectification.

Is it a corollary? Maybe. Is he influenced and feels entitled to an exercise model? Or did he try to look past, or ignore his own attraction radar? That's on him. And good for her for being happy with who she is and how she looks.

The woman I am seeing now, I am HIGHLY attracted to. She works out a lot. No doubt in my mind many guys would give her a hard time for being too buff. At 48 I think she is utterly and absolutely stunning. I am ATTRACTED to her, I am not objectifying her. Were she to stop working out tomorrow and start eating sleeves of oreos on the hour and gain 40 lbs in the next six weeks, and was happy about with that choice, I would stop being attracted to her. Again, does not mean I'm objectifying her. 

I'm not interested in molding anyone to my ideal, or thinking 'less' of them if they are not. 


I think that guy is being unfair to his wife, based on his own flawed decision.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Deejo...do you really think this issue is about the type you personally are attracted to and that we think you're objectifying that type?


----------



## Deejo

*Re: Re: The ideal penis: Men and objectification*



Faithful Wife said:


> Deejo...do you really think this issue is about the type you personally are attracted to and that we think you're objectifying that type?


No I think we have a moving target depending on who is throwing the objectification flag.


----------



## Faithful Wife

But is the flag on you, ever? Has anyone here accused you of (the bad kind of) objectification? Or anyone in your personal life? I'm just curious.


----------



## mel123

After a woman has a baby 20" long and 6" diameter it makes a porn star look tiny.

I can take 2.5 " of finger and make my wife have multiple "O"s .So I am not going to worry about my 6.5" skinny ding-dong being too small.


----------



## Jellybeans

FrenchFry said:


> It's mindboggling.
> 
> What is even more mindboggling is that this woman actually likes her body...and he's like "well...you shouldn't."
> 
> This attitude is ridiculously prevalent.


Yeah it is totally nuts. I feel bad for her that she married a guy like that. Hopefully she can find someone better because it ain't that guy! LOL.


----------



## Deejo

Faithful Wife said:


> But is the flag on you, ever? Has anyone here accused you of (the bad kind of) objectification? Or anyone in your personal life? I'm just curious.


Negative. Never.

But I've pointed out before, I have had 2 women to whom I have said, "I love you." retort with, "Why?"

Neither of them thought they were worthy of love, therefore I must be lying to 'get' something from them. One was my wife, by the way.


----------



## Deejo

FrenchFry said:


> I wasn't saying you objectify women.
> 
> I'm saying that to pretend that men just stand back while women scrabble and put down themselves is incorrect.
> 
> It's like "I built the stage, I sold tickets to the show, this guy over here found people with a contentious backstory and sensationalized it, and I got this gal here to make some costumes and I decided the person who wins gets a million dollars...why are these women wrestling each other? Women, stop hitting each other!"


No, I didn't think you were coming at me FF. Something just hit a nerve. I think it relates to what I posted above to Faithful.

I find it unfortunate that it seems so much easier for both genders to focus on the 10% that isn't perfect, rather than the 90% that comes damn close.

Someone cited Victorian society and the de-sexualization of women. I don't see that as objectification. I see that as the assignment of a cultural value or more'.

I suppose one could take the position that women were seen as delicate, and none too bright dolls to be dressed up and paraded about, as objectification, but I don't know if that was truly the prevalent belief.

What we do know, is that women bought into it too, thus the diagnosis of hysteria, and the invention of the electronic personal massager.

Am I missing the boat? Is that objectification?

Because to me, I can quite clearly and easily say pornography and it's use is objectification. But I don't always think objectification leads to dismissal, dehumanizing, or violence. 

I understand clearly, that objectification through sexual imagery CAN be a gateway for those things to occur.


----------



## Dad&Hubby

Faithful Wife said:


> Who owns Cosmo?
> 
> Hearst Corporation


On the flip side

Joanna Coles Cosmopolitan Editor in Chief - Cosmopolitan New Editor in Chief - Cosmopolitan

Hearst only cares about dollars and cents that come out of Cosmo. It's the Editor in Chief that sets the tone of the magazine...but I digress.

I think the concept of objectification in our society is like a spider with tendrils across many many facets which become too complex to argue one component.

Strong, opinionated women are going to put a larger premise on the men in society.

Open minded, mature men are going to not accept that "ownership" because they don't do it.

Which ever group you're in, you're going to subscribe to that groups "mantra".

I see female objectification as MORE of a woman on woman crime (for lack of a better description) because I don't objectify women, but I have a 13 year old daughter and am very aware of the pitfalls that she has because, although she eats fairly well and is active, she's not wafer thin and can't wear the "skinny cloths". So I spend my time reassuring her and pointing out WHO is putting these thought processes out there (girls clothing, other girls, models etc.) I look at the "ideal" that the media machine puts out for the female form and want to vomit. 

Do men objectify....WITHOUT A DOUBT! Just like women objectify, but I'd challenge that this isn't a gender issue....it's not.

It's a financial issue. Whether the CEO is a man or a woman, they don't want the general population feeling good about itself. Diet foods, diet pills, diets, clothing, entertainment, "reality weight loss shows" and the DOZENS of other businesses that center around personal insecurities are the culprits.

The more insecure the general population is, the more corporations can sell us to make us feel better about ourselves. It's only been more recently that businesses have realized they were missing 50% of their customer base, which is why male objectification has increased.

There are always the crazy Uncle Harry or Aunt Clara who objectify the opposite sex and make an a$$ out of themselves at the family wedding, but the bigger problem isn't based on gender. It's based on dollars.


But on the original topic. I'm perfect for my wife and that's all that matters to me, I stretch her nicely and can bottom out in the right positions. 

Now my ex-wife, not so much, it was like throwing a twig into the grand canyon.


----------



## ocotillo

Faithful Wife said:


> But is the flag on you, ever? Has anyone here accused you of (the bad kind of) objectification? Or anyone in your personal life? I'm just curious.


When people draw their definition of objectification from popular culture instead of what feminist philosophers and scholars actually say it is, the flag can be on all of us.


----------



## Dad&Hubby

FrenchFry said:


> What is missing, and I think what always_alone is identifying is that there are several structures in place that are strictly about molding people to ideals and branding those who do not fall into that ideal as less than.
> 
> The reaction that men have to being put into one of these molded ideal is the exact same reaction that women have to being put into the structures.
> 
> The difference is that this particular structure (the chart) doesn't influence the power of men in any meaningful way. So the agitation is totally normal but also easily blown off.
> 
> 
> Women who get put into these structures are affected by it. Not by your personal attraction but the majority of our worth to the world is judged on how nice we are to look at.
> 
> If this was a world where power was in high correlation with penis size, the agitating would be the same. I'm just imagining things like:
> 
> *Women doing studies on penises proving that the ideal penis is ideal for a reason. These are of course not culturally influenced, but they are right because science.
> 
> **A ridiculous amount of commercials from industries focusing on the ideal penis and if you buy our product and get closer to that ideal...you are more worthwhile as a person (buy it.) Most of these are manipulated...but you can get closer. It's a matter of effort and taking care of yourself. You want to be successful, right? Can't do it without taking care of your penis as well.*
> 
> *Other industries use the ideal penis as a selling point. Beautiful, perfectly sized penises oiled up and glistening on top of a martini glass. Draped, posed penises on trucks. Airbrushed, penises close to an expensive watch. These penises vary slightly (with some of the variences there for an exoticness factor) but all fall within the ideal penis range. The reason being "sex sells," of course and ideal penises are the sexiest things. Just trying to make a little money here.
> 
> *Ideal penises being the key factor in how seriously you are taken as a person. Ranging from how much money you make, how dateable you are, how competent you are. Women will say that it's not really the biggest factor but you can't help but look around and say "really now," which also may be rewarded in these manners when you buy a little penis makeup, put on some extenders and get a promotion the next day.
> 
> *Less than ideal penises doing really big and awesome things, getting to the top of their field---and then they see their heads on a meme proving how worthless they are compared to the hotter more ideal penises. The ideal penises prove an ideology right, otherwise why would they even be there?
> 
> ---Corollary: On newscasts, all male newscasters are standing with their desk being strategically placed to highlight how perfect their penis looks. Maybe colorful scrotum covers to really set it off.
> 
> *Also, you want to insult a man who doesn't agree with you? Hello, men are super-sensitive about their penis. Let's call it skinny. We are talking about politics/sports/science/video games? Doesn't matter, you are a short penis and your opinion doesn't matter
> 
> *Women amongst themselves will give the penis a number as it strides by. Not to be offensive or anything, we just like to rate penises. It's what we do. Hey, we will still love you if you are a less than ideal. We also like personalities. We just noticed your penis first and rated it and used that rating to decide if you are worth talking to.
> 
> *We love men too, don't get us wrong. Really. We don't just love your penis. You drive us crazy, you don't think correctly, you have terrible habits, you act like you have a personality disorder. We have nothing in common with you. You have crappy interests, you spend your time on stupid endeavors. You are easily manipulated (buy my book, I can show you how ladies) I definitely don't understand why you spend so much time in the bathroom blowdrying your pubic hair. But we love you in spite of these things. (Dang, look at that one!)
> 
> *Men have noticed that ideal penises are a way to make cash...and invest in the idea so that they can make some of the scratch despite not having a perfect penis themselves. Women are constantly pointing them out as reasons that it's not just women who think this way.
> 
> *Stories about penises that once they reach the ideal, they get rewards and riches beyond their greatest desires. Ideal penises getting discovered hanging out at the beach become multi-millionaires who travel the world. Yes, of course there are less than ideal penises who manage to do so...but their story isn't as interesting for whatever reason.
> 
> *All the penises in porn are artificially extended, and look perfect on camera. Super enthused all the time and every woman looks at these penises at least a little bit. These penises are bringing PERFECT orgasms without caring what the woman looks like at all and are so good at looking good orgasming most of us don't really care about the reality of the penis at all. Somehow even though we all watch these penises doing their thing, we can separate reality from these penises. We just want you guys to put a little ring on it every once in awhile for variety. Nothing extreme though.
> 
> 
> I'm just attracted to (my version) of an ideal penis. I don't know why you guys are so down on yourselves about your penis. You should embrace it, there will be someone out there who loves your whole package.


You obviously don't know Bob from the extendz commercials.


----------



## Deejo

FrenchFry said:


> What is missing, and I think what always_alone is identifying is that there are several structures in place that are strictly about molding people to ideals and branding those who do not fall into that ideal as less than.
> 
> The reaction that men have to being put into one of these molded ideal is the exact same reaction that women have to being put into the structures.
> 
> The difference is that this particular structure (the chart) doesn't influence the power of men in any meaningful way. So the agitation is totally normal but also easily blown off.
> 
> 
> Women who get put into these structures are affected by it. Not by your personal attraction but the majority of our worth to the world is judged on how nice we are to look at.
> 
> If this was a world where power was in high correlation with penis size, the agitating would be the same. I'm just imagining things like:
> 
> *Women doing studies on penises proving that the ideal penis is ideal for a reason. These are of course not culturally influenced, but they are right because science.
> 
> *A ridiculous amount of commercials from industries focusing on the ideal penis and if you buy our product and get closer to that ideal...you are more worthwhile as a person (buy it.) Most of these are manipulated...but you can get closer. It's a matter of effort and taking care of yourself. You want to be successful, right? Can't do it without taking care of your penis as well.
> 
> *Other industries use the ideal penis as a selling point. Beautiful, perfectly sized penises oiled up and glistening on top of a martini glass. Draped, posed penises on trucks. Airbrushed, penises close to an expensive watch. These penises vary slightly (with some of the variences there for an exoticness factor) but all fall within the ideal penis range. The reason being "sex sells," of course and ideal penises are the sexiest things. Just trying to make a little money here.
> 
> *Ideal penises being the key factor in how seriously you are taken as a person. Ranging from how much money you make, how dateable you are, how competent you are. Women will say that it's not really the biggest factor but you can't help but look around and say "really now," which also may be rewarded in these manners when you buy a little penis makeup, put on some extenders and get a promotion the next day.
> 
> *Less than ideal penises doing really big and awesome things, getting to the top of their field---and then they see their heads on a meme proving how worthless they are compared to the hotter more ideal penises. The ideal penises prove an ideology right, otherwise why would they even be there?
> 
> ---Corollary: On newscasts, all male newscasters are standing with their desk being strategically placed to highlight how perfect their penis looks. Maybe colorful scrotum covers to really set it off. No penises over 45 though. They don't test well on camera. Women don't pay attention as much
> 
> *Also, you want to insult a man who doesn't agree with you? Hello, men are super-sensitive about their penis. Let's call it skinny. We are talking about politics/sports/science/video games? Doesn't matter, you are a short penis and your opinion doesn't matter
> 
> *Women amongst themselves will give the penis a number as it strides by. Not to be offensive or anything, we just like to rate penises. It's what we do. Hey, we will still love you if you are a less than ideal. We also like personalities. We just noticed your penis first and rated it and used that rating to decide if you are worth talking to.
> 
> *We love men too, don't get us wrong. Really. We don't just love your penis. You drive us crazy, you don't think correctly, you have terrible habits, you act like you have a personality disorder. We have nothing in common with you. You have crappy interests, you spend your time on stupid endeavors. You are easily manipulated (buy my book, I can show you how ladies) I definitely don't understand why you spend so much time in the bathroom blowdrying your pubic hair. But we love you in spite of these things. (Dang, look at that one!)
> 
> *Men have noticed that ideal penises are a way to make cash...and invest in the idea so that they can make some of the scratch despite not having a perfect penis themselves. Women are constantly pointing them out as reasons that it's not just women who think this way.
> 
> *Stories about penises that once they reach the ideal, they get rewards and riches beyond their greatest desires. Ideal penises getting discovered hanging out at the beach become multi-millionaires who travel the world. Yes, of course there are less than ideal penises who manage to do so...but their story isn't as interesting for whatever reason.
> 
> *All the penises in porn are artificially extended, and look perfect on camera. Super enthused all the time and every woman looks at these penises at least a little bit. These penises are bringing PERFECT orgasms without caring what the woman looks like at all and are so good at looking good orgasming most of us don't really care about the reality of the penis at all. Somehow even though we all watch these penises doing their thing, we can separate reality from these penises. We just want you guys to put a little ring on it every once in awhile for variety. Nothing extreme though.
> 
> 
> I'm just attracted to (my version) of an ideal penis. I don't know why you guys are so down on yourselves about your penis. You should embrace it, there will be someone out there who loves your whole package.


That was pretty much a slam dunk. I like the way you think. Seriously, thanks for taking the time to put it out that way.

It's a great contrast.

Now if you'll excuse me, I definitely need to go order my pejazzle kit.


----------



## always_alone

That was *awesome*, FF!

You are hereby encouraged to add as much more as you might have the time and stomach for.


----------



## ocotillo

FrenchFry said:


> The reaction that men have to being put into one of these molded ideal is the exact same reaction that women have to being put into the structures.
> 
> The difference is that this particular structure (the chart) doesn't influence the power of men in any meaningful way. So the agitation is totally normal but also easily blown off.


I can think of several occupations where a man, even today, can be turned down on the spot because of a perceived lack of physical size and strength. 

Would you consider that to be analogous?


----------



## Faithful Wife

FrenchFry said:


> The thing that is also amazing is that there is definitely a penis industry and it does what it should: finds a human insecurity and makes cash from it.
> 
> All that is missing is that men and women do not correlate and reward penis size with power/success/intellect/ability to make capital. One day we'll get there....
> 
> and then blow up the planet.


My husband and I were one time having a conversation about, what if there really was an easy penis enlargement surgery that really worked...similar to breast enlargement.

He said that if that ever happens, men definitely will end up blowing up the planet....because he explained, something similar to your previous post would occur, except it would be men running the whole thing.

He also said that when women become totally empowered, the world will look like a Russ Meyers movie (one of the ones with the murderous women). His point was simply that when power is lop-sided, these are the things that happen.


----------



## Machiavelli

"Objectification" theory = Bull Sheet

The human male, all around the world, autonomically reacts to the female "golden ratio," which is .67 waist to 1 hip. Africans like a slight amount more hip (.7), Asians like a slight amount less hip (.63). Believe me, males of any culture will respond to any of those ratios; they're close enough. Art, excepting pregnant fertility figurines, reflects this down through the ages. Peter Paul Rubens, lover of folds and cellulite, is the odd man out.

The reason for it is those women with correct proportions are most likely to produce offspring with a higher survivability rate. It is also significant that women who go onto a so-called paleo diet, or really any diet that completely removes the neo-lithic grains and sugars, revert to the correct proportions. 

Females react to the male "golden ratio" in the same way. 

If you're trying to tell me the reason I'm not turned on by my 300# clients is because I have been programmed by [email protected] Avenue, you're the one who has been programmed.


----------



## Faithful Wife

(yawn....)


----------



## Deejo

FrenchFry said:


> I didn't even get into sexual violence. That could get really dark.
> 
> *edit *lol, you are welcome. I have more.


I have a 'thing' about sexual violence. Can't explain it. It's visceral. Violence against women and children just does something to me.

I have read accounts about systemic rape in war-time, as a tool and a strategy. Makes me very, very, angry. I would wager most people have absolutely no idea just exactly how bad and utterly depraved things can get.

That is a level of objectification I don't think I would want to touch with a 10 foot pole.


----------



## Faithful Wife

And yet millions of men just loooooove watching the violent rape porn and strongly defend their "desires" to do so as "natural".


----------



## Deejo

Faithful Wife said:


> And yet millions of men just loooooove watching the violent rape porn and strongly defend their "desires" to do so as "natural".


But not all porn is 'rape porn'.

Grotesque objectification? Yes, I'd say it is.

But is that level of objectification, the same as a Sports Illustrated issue that sells like hotcakes because it's full of naked professional athletes?


----------



## always_alone

Machiavelli said:


> "Objectification" theory = Bull Sheet
> 
> The human male, all around the world, autonomically reacts to the female "golden ratio," which is .67 waist to 1 hip. Africans like a slight amount more hip (.7), Asians like a slight amount less hip (.63).


Ah, yes. "Science" from someone who can't even manage basic math. A larger number is *less* curvy; a smaller number is *more* curvy.

And the rest of your "science" is just as accurate.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Deejo said:


> But not all porn is 'rape porn'.
> 
> Grotesque objectification? Yes, I'd say it is.
> 
> But is that level of objectification, the same as a Sports Illustrated issue that sells like hotcakes because it's full of naked professional athletes?


Deejo, I'm talking about the kind of porn where some young tiny girl is beaten bloody and then gang raped by a dozen guys.

Millions, literally millions of men LOVE this kind of porn.

If you don't realize that, you should.


----------



## Cosmos

FrenchFry said:


> ...
> *All the penises in porn are artificially extended, and look perfect on camera. Super enthused all the time and every woman looks at these penises at least a little bit. These penises are bringing PERFECT orgasms without caring what the woman looks like at all and are so good at looking good orgasming most of us don't really care about the reality of the penis at all. Somehow even though we all watch these penises doing their thing, we can separate reality from these penises. We just want you guys to put a little ring on it every once in awhile for variety. Nothing extreme though....


Good post, FF.

I would just add another point to your list:-

*It's normal for women to enjoy 'teasing the goldfish' whilst looking at other men's penises. It's just the way we're wired! If you have a problem with it, you have low self-esteem and just need to deal with it. Stop trying to control us!


----------



## ocotillo

FrenchFry said:


> But if strength was what was looked at first for every job out there despite the nature of the job? Programming, taste testing, serving tables. Your political aptitude. Cutting hair. Your ability to sing well. Sales.


My observation from years of experience in the professional/technical world has been that attractive female applicants were regarded with a fair degree of skepticism and savvy ones deliberately toned down their appearance. 

Maybe this is simply another aspect of what you're driving at here and I'm misunderstanding?


----------



## Machiavelli

always_alone said:


> Ah, yes. "Science" from someone who can't even manage basic math. A larger number is *less* curvy; a smaller number is *more* curvy.
> 
> And the rest of your "science" is just as accurate.


I type fast, since I'm working a job in between posts, but you're actually smart enough to know exactly what I meant to impart as your post shows. But, aside from pointing out that I have inverted the proportions, you have failed to impeach anything in my post. 

Here's a link to a recent paper confirming numerous other studies from numerous other countries and cultures.


----------



## Machiavelli

Faithful Wife said:


> Deejo, I'm talking about the kind of porn where some young tiny girl is beaten bloody and then gang raped by a dozen guys.
> 
> Millions, literally millions of men LOVE this kind of porn.
> 
> If you don't realize that, you should.


Yawn. Got a cite?


----------



## Deejo

ocotillo said:


> My observation from years of experience in the professional/technical world has been that attractive female applicants were regarded with a fair degree of skepticism and savvy ones deliberately toned down their appearance.
> 
> Maybe this is simply another aspect of what you're driving at here and I'm misunderstanding?


Ah ... that would be reverse objectification. My girlfriend was subject to that a number of times. Very smart, very capable, but everyone just presumed she got the job because she was hot ... her female co-workers, despised her.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Sure...go google rape porn and you'll get a million hits on the first try...each one being a site all about rape porn. There ya go!


----------



## Faithful Wife

Machiavelli said:


> I type fast, since I'm working a job in between posts, but you're actually smart enough to know exactly what I meant to impart as your post shows. But, aside from pointing out that I have inverted the proportions, you have failed to impeach anything in my post.
> 
> Here's a link to a recent paper confirming numerous other studies from numerous other countries and cultures.


So somehow gay people just don't exist then, right?


----------



## ReformedHubby

I can relate to objectification regarding penis size. Its something that has at times made me uncomfortable in my life. Lets just say that I fit a certain demographic of man (I'm black and above average height at 6 foot 5) that is featured in cuck0ld porn and big c0ck porn. 

I used to think it was cool that there was this sterotype about men like me but over time I've come to resent it. The first time I realized my distaste for it was when I was on spring break in college. The irony of this is I probably went to a half dozen wet T-shirt contests that week and thought nothing of objectifying girls. 

Me and my friends were approached by a group of females from the midwest that said show us your c0cks. One of my teammates who I'll admit was freakishly large proceeded to put on quite a show for these gals. At that moment it dawned on me that they were looking at him as if he was some sort of a freak. I felt angry and embarrassed that he conducted himself this way.

Even to this day its something I can't escape. You would think I would be happy about the image but I'm not. Recently I was out with a client and a very drunk woman touched me on the back and said "whats the size?" I replied I'm 6 foot 5. She said no and held her hands apart as if measuring and said "I mean whats the size". Her girlfriends pulled her away before she continued to make more of a fool of herself. I was actually kind of embarrassed but my client found it funny. 

Its not black and white though. There were times in my life when I was in flirtatious mood that I wouldn't mind inappropriate comments. When on the prowl a handful of times a young lady would ask me if "everything is proportionate". Sometimes I would smile and ask them if they wanted to find out (they talked dirty first, so I figured they knew what to expect). So I guess I'm one of those people that only wants to be objectified when I want to be objectified. I'm sure that a lot of the men probably don't understand why I would complain about a stereotype that many feel is positive.


----------



## love=pain

Plan 9 from OS said:


> I didn't feel threatened in the least regarding the chart. It makes me more bemused than anything since the laws of nature alone should indicate that the size/shape of most penises and vaginas are compatible given what we know about biology and evolution. *As a species, we'd have a serious problem if a typical woman cannot be fully satisfied by a male with a normal penis. *
> 
> That alone indicates that it's a cheap marketing trick to prey on men's insecurities. All I care about is how happy my wife is in the sack.


The problems is that sex isn't designed for pleasure it's only real purpose is reproduction, I forget there was one other species that has sex for pleasure other than man?
In the animal kingdom the biggest strongest male usually mates with all the females, maybe the instinctive part of sex plus man's evolved brain creates a short in our way of thinking and is why men make such a big deal about size. (I am guilty of this)
We always want to be the biggest male and mate with all the females it's in our DNA and while it sounds like fun I couldn't imagine having to live with all those females, don't think I could turn the music up loud enough to drown out all the whining.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHA I'm not waiting for you o.k.


----------



## Machiavelli

Faithful Wife said:


> So somehow gay people just don't exist then, right?


Male homosexuals do exist, but they are statistically insignificant to begin with, and absolutely superfluous to the mechanism of human reproduction.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Machiavelli said:


> Male homosexuals do exist, but they are statistically insignificant to begin with, and absolutely superfluous to the mechanism of human reproduction.


And this right here is why nothing you say makes any difference to me.


----------



## Faithful Wife

ReformedHubby said:


> I can relate to objectification regarding penis size. Its something that has at times made me uncomfortable in my life. Lets just say that I fit a certain demographic of man (I'm black and above average height at 6 foot 5) that is featured in cuck0ld porn and big c0ck porn.
> 
> I used to think it was cool that there was this sterotype about men like me but over time I've come to resent it. The first time I realized my distaste for it was when I was on spring break in college. The irony of this is I probably went to a half dozen wet T-shirt contests that week and thought nothing of objectifying girls.
> 
> Me and my friends were approached by a group of females from the midwest that said show us your c0cks. One of my teammates who I'll admit was freakishly large proceeded to put on quite a show for these gals. At that moment it dawned on me that they were looking at him as if he was some sort of a freak. I felt angry and embarrassed that he conducted himself this way.
> 
> Even to this day its something I can't escape. You would think I would be happy about the image but I'm not. Recently I was out with a client and a very drunk woman touched me on the back and said "whats the size?" I replied I'm 6 foot 5. She said no and held her hands apart as if measuring and said "I mean whats the size". Her girlfriends pulled her away before she continued to make more of a fool of herself. I was actually kind of embarrassed but my client found it funny.
> 
> Its not black and white though. There were times in my life when I was in flirtatious mood that I wouldn't mind inappropriate comments. When on the prowl a handful of times a young lady would ask me if "everything is proportionate". Sometimes I would smile and ask them if they wanted to find out (they talked dirty first, so I figured they knew what to expect). So I guess I'm one of those people that only wants to be objectified when I want to be objectified. I'm sure that a lot of the men probably don't understand why I would complain about a stereotype that many feel is positive.


I get it, and have seen this happen, too.

But I also think that most men would be literally amazed at how often something this blatently rude gets said to women.

When you are a 13 y/o girl just barely developing breasts and adult males say things like "hey little sweetie, whydoncha show me what you got under that shirt there?"....several times, you as a girl realize immediately just what men are capable of, what they want from you, and that they know they can intimidate you and no one will know any better.


----------



## Machiavelli

ocotillo said:


> My observation from years of experience in the professional/technical world has been that attractive female applicants were regarded with a fair degree of skepticism and savvy ones deliberately toned down their appearance.


Personnel Departments are female professional ghettos. At least one recent study shows a high degree of discrimination against highly attractive female job candidates by female HR personnel.


----------



## Machiavelli

Faithful Wife said:


> And this right here is why nothing you say makes any difference to me.


And I'm the guy who is no good at math? Try to use some logic and reason: male homosexuals (approx 2% of the male population) have no sexual interest in the human female and have no interest in reproduction. Why would you care about what kind of female they were sexually interested in? It is illogical.

Now, if you are referring to the idea that male homosexuals in the fashion and publishing industry are the ones who are oppressing women by promoting the twiggy heroin addict female physique, then say so.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Bonobos, Mach. Bonobos.


----------



## Machiavelli

Faithful Wife said:


> Bonobos, Mach. Bonobos.


What about them?


----------



## Faithful Wife

They have gay sex and orgies and SEX FOR REASONS OTHER THAN MAKING BABIES....and they are our closest cousins.

If you still think that the only reason people have sex is to make a baby, I feel sorry for you.


----------



## Machiavelli

Faithful Wife said:


> Sure...go google rape porn and you'll get a million hits on the first try...each one being a site all about rape porn. There ya go!


You got anything a little more scientific to back up your claims? Like what percentage of males would even be into such a thing?


----------



## Machiavelli

Faithful Wife said:


> They have gay sex and orgies and SEX FOR REASONS OTHER THAN MAKING BABIES....and they are our closest cousins.
> 
> If you still think that the only reason people have sex is to make a baby, I feel sorry for you.


Actually, the chimp is slightly closer (at least this week) and bonobos used to be chimps. What's any of that have to do with attraction and/or so-called "objectification?"


----------



## Faithful Wife

Being that you think having sex is only to make a baby, you clearly have so much learning to do that I can't be bothered to start giving you that education. Perhaps you could read some books?


----------



## Machiavelli

Faithful Wife said:


> Being that *you think having sex is only to make a baby,* you clearly have so much learning to do that I can't be bothered to start giving you that education. Perhaps you could read some books?


Where did I say that?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Bueller? Bueller?


----------



## Machiavelli

You must have me mixed up with love = pain.
 He posted something like that at the link.


----------



## always_alone

Machiavelli said:


> I type fast, since I'm working a job in between posts, but you're actually smart enough to know exactly what I meant to impart as your post shows. But, aside from pointing out that I have inverted the proportions, you have failed to impeach anything in my post.
> 
> Here's a link to a recent paper confirming numerous other studies from numerous other countries and cultures.


Hogwash! Results are inconsistent across all measures of attractiveness: The shape of beauty: determinants of femal... [J Cosmet Dermatol. 2006] - PubMed - NCBI



> This factor has been hotly contested, as some researchers have claimed that a WHR of approximately 0.7 is universally most attractive, whereas others have found inconsistent findings, or suggest the importance of other factors, such as BMI. Body mass index (BMI), calculated by dividing the body weight (in kilograms) by height (in meters) squared, serves as a measure of body fat. Although WHR and BMI are correlated, they lead to different conclusions, and the importance of BMI as a measure of female attractiveness is debated in the literature. Similar to WHR research, BMI and its role in attractiveness is not cross-culturally consistent and is affected by the availability of resources within a given environment


And this is but one study revealing the many and varied problems in making universal conclusions about attractiveness.

Very interesting how quickly men can spot methodological flaws when the research indicates their penises are too small, but so quick to spread false information when it confirms their playboy fantasies.


----------



## always_alone

ocotillo said:


> My observation from years of experience in the professional/technical world has been that attractive female applicants were regarded with a fair degree of skepticism and savvy ones deliberately toned down their appearance.
> 
> Maybe this is simply another aspect of what you're driving at here and I'm misunderstanding?


Even something as trivial as hair color can have a profound effect on the way people treat you and the assumptions they make about your abilities. As a blonde, tons of people will immediately assume you are a bimbo and incompetent, but brunettes, on the other hand, can have brains.

But truth is, I really do think that men too are objectified, sometimes in the same ways as women, and with similar consequences. It's just easier to overlook the problem because it isn't as all pervasive, and as FrenchFry pointed out so eloquently, doesn't permeate every aspect of life quite so thoroughly.


----------



## Machiavelli

always_alone said:


> Hogwash! Results are inconsistent across all measures of attractiveness: The shape of beauty: determinants of femal... [J Cosmet Dermatol. 2006] - PubMed - NCBI
> 
> 
> 
> And this is but one study revealing the many and varied problems in making universal conclusions about attractiveness.
> 
> Very interesting how quickly men can spot methodological flaws when the research indicates their penises are too small, but so quick to spread false information when it confirms their playboy fantasies.


That one is older than the newer research I linked to.

ETA: plus there are always outliers on the bell curve; i.e. chubby chasers.


----------



## ocotillo

always_alone said:


> Even something as trivial as hair color can have a profound effect on the way people treat you and the assumptions they make about your abilities. As a blonde, tons of people will immediately assume you are a bimbo and incompetent, but brunettes, on the other hand, can have brains.
> 
> But truth is, I really do think that men too are objectified, sometimes in the same ways as women, and with similar consequences. It's just easier to overlook the problem because it isn't as all pervasive, and as FrenchFry pointed out so eloquently, doesn't permeate every aspect of life quite so thoroughly.


Yes. Being big and tall can get a man labeled as stupid by both men and women alike and that can be difficult to overcome. I think it would be interesting indeed to be able walk a day or a week in the other gender's footsteps.


----------



## Machiavelli

always_alone said:


> Hogwash! Results are inconsistent across all measures of attractiveness: The shape of beauty: determinants of femal... [J Cosmet Dermatol. 2006] - PubMed - NCBI


I took the time to read the abstract, which was all that was available at the link you provided above and it didn't contradict anything I said in the earlier post. Do you have a link to the full study or whatever section you wish to draw my attention to?


----------



## Cosmos

Machiavelli said:


> I took the time to read the abstract, which was all that was available at the link you provided above and it didn't contradict anything I said in the earlier post. Do you have a link to the full study or whatever section you wish to draw my attention to?


http://www.maryannefisher.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/journal_cos_derm.pdf


----------



## hookares

always_alone said:


> The Authentic Women's Guide to the Ideal Penis
> Penis Size Guide: Women Reveal Ideal Length And Girth In Easy-To-Follow Guide
> 
> Do you measure up? Or do you think like most of the male posters that the "ideals" don't matter, that women are shallow for judging based on size, and that porn has given us completely unrealistic expectations of what real men look like?


This chart has been around for a decade. Some of those preferred dimensions would have most women walking bow legged for the rest of their lives after one encounter.
As said before, size doesn't matter until it does. Can a guy keep a woman if he doesn't measure up? Keep is the key word in the question. A lot may have to do with how much she values a roof over her head as well as if she possibly thinks she won't get caught taking her attention elsewhere.


----------



## Cosmos

always_alone said:


> Even something as trivial as hair color can have a profound effect on the way people treat you and the assumptions they make about your abilities. As a blonde, tons of people will immediately assume you are a bimbo and incompetent, but brunettes, on the other hand, can have brains.
> 
> But truth is, I really do think that men too are objectified, sometimes in the same ways as women, and with similar consequences. It's just easier to overlook the problem because it isn't as all pervasive, and as FrenchFry pointed out so eloquently, doesn't permeate every aspect of life quite so thoroughly.


You might find this link of interest, AA.

University of Central Florida Undergraduate Research Journal - What Is Appealing?: Sex and Racial Differences in Perceptions of the Physical Attractiveness of Women

The criteria for female beauty is, indeed, as complex as it is diverse!


> _
> 
> "*Conclusion*:-
> 
> The beauty ideal consists of certain traits such as a thinner body frame and larger breasts, and for some of the attributes examined in the data analysis of this study, the preferred characteristics did seem to match that. Most participants did choose the thinner body types and larger breasts as being the most attractive. This study supports sociology studies that have been done before, which demonstrate that standards of attractiveness vary across demographic groups. It also upholds the argument that sex and racial/ethnic variations and preferences exist in relation to female physical attractiveness.
> 
> 
> Future research could consist of including additional questions on the survey asking what age ranges participants feel are the most beautiful, and how much advertising, media, and imaging a participant consumes in a given time period. How media consumption affects one's perception of female beauty is a factor that could add additional significant information to research in this area. Whether or not that is correlated with sex and racial differences could also be examined. Examining the effect of participants' own physical characteristics on their preferences and how geographical locations and features play a role in attractiveness are also worth looking into. Qualitative in this area involve observing the behavior of participants in social settings and the way they act around others they view as attractive, or interviewing and questioning a wide range of everyday people and asking them what they think denotes physical female beauty. Many times beauty is situational. Roles an individual has in society and an individual's social setting (for example, being in a nightclub versus on a playground) could influence perceptions of that individual's attractiveness and the various factors that would make that individual appealing. Research examining social context and its influence on beauty should be considered and expanded upon. While conclusions have been drawn, there is still a lot to be discovered." _


----------



## ReformedHubby

Faithful Wife said:


> I get it, and have seen this happen, too.
> 
> But I also think that most men would be literally amazed at how often something this blatently rude gets said to women.


I think most men who live in the real world recognize that women get lewd comments in public a lot more than men do. But, I don't think most men know what it feels like to feel degraded by comments from the opposite sex under the guise of "flirtation". Which is why I think most are indifferent to it. Its tough to empathize and understand something you never experienced.


----------



## CuddleBug

always_alone said:


> The Authentic Women's Guide to the Ideal Penis
> Penis Size Guide: Women Reveal Ideal Length And Girth In Easy-To-Follow Guide
> 
> Do you measure up? Or do you think like most of the male posters that the "ideals" don't matter, that women are shallow for judging based on size, and that porn has given us completely unrealistic expectations of what real men look like?



I measured myself a while ago and I am 6 3/4 to almost 7 inches. Average I would say.

I even asked my wifee, would you like it if I had a 9+ inch long penis?

You know what she said? NO!!! Too long. I don't know if she is telling me this not to hurt my feelings or she honestly finds my length to be fine.

I asked her again, would you like it if I was 10 inches long? NO!!! Too long and keep that thing away from me!!!!

So for my wifee, she doesn't need or want a huge penis. She wants a good size though, average and she is happy.

Maybe the female porn stars like the 10+ inch long penis all the way, so more guys and gals will watch and subscribe? They make more money? Who wants to watch an average guy?


----------



## alexm

CuddleBug said:


> I measured myself a while ago and I am 6 3/4 to almost 7 inches. Average I would say.
> 
> I even asked my wifee, would you like it if I had a 9+ inch long penis?
> 
> You know what she said? NO!!! Too long. I don't know if she is telling me this not to hurt my feelings or she honestly finds my length to be fine.
> 
> I asked her again, would you like it if I was 10 inches long? NO!!! Too long and keep that thing away from me!!!!
> 
> So for my wifee, she doesn't need or want a huge penis. She wants a good size though, average and she is happy.
> 
> Maybe the female porn stars like the 10+ inch long penis all the way, so more guys and gals will watch and subscribe? They make more money? Who wants to watch an average guy?


I think there's FAR less women who would prefer an 8-10 incher than those who would prefer average or slightly above.

I have learned three things in my lifetime about penises (from women, but this also does not mean ALL women feel the exact same way. But the ones I have heard from, IRL, are adamant about it) :

- girth is what's more important vs length. The feeling of "fullness", as opposed to being poked in the kidneys.

- a larger, thicker penis is more visually appealing to women, but not necessarily ideal when put to use. Visual stimulation is equally important to women as it is to men. Each woman has their preferences as to what is visually appealing, but they seem to agree that size/girth matters when LOOKING at it, and touching it. Not necessarily when it is in use, however.

- the size of the woman's vagina is (obviously) directly connected to what their preference is for size of penis. And a larger woman does not necessarily have a larger vagina, just as a smaller man does not necessarily have a small penis. A female friend of mine dated a man who was 5'3" and had an 8 inch+ penis. It happens. I also once dated a plus size woman who had the smallest, tightest vagina I've ever encountered. Seriously, I would think she would have been a good fit for somebody who has a 4 inch penis. There's a match for everybody out there, it's just that there are extremes on both sides of the coin, and the majority falls within the same general range.

So anything one reads about the "ideal size" is BS, unless you literally have hundreds of thousands of women, of all different sizes, shapes, ages, races, sexual experience, etc etc etc. and have them have sex with 100 men of all different penis sizes and shapes, with no foreplay, blindfolded and no touching of the man whatsoever, so as not to have any affect on the experiment other than the penis in the vagina. And even then, you'll be all over the map with "preference". The ideal will just end being the average penis size, guaranteed, with "x"% preferring larger and "x"% preferring smaller.


----------



## treyvion

alexm said:


> I think there's FAR less women who would prefer an 8-10 incher than those who would prefer average or slightly above.
> 
> I have learned three things in my lifetime about penises (from women, but this also does not mean ALL women feel the exact same way. But the ones I have heard from, IRL, are adamant about it) :
> 
> - girth is what's more important vs length. The feeling of "fullness", as opposed to being poked in the kidneys.
> 
> - a larger, thicker penis is more visually appealing to women, but not necessarily ideal when put to use. Visual stimulation is equally important to women as it is to men. Each woman has their preferences as to what is visually appealing, but they seem to agree that size/girth matters when LOOKING at it, and touching it. Not necessarily when it is in use, however.


Yes, it can be like eye candy. Similar to how a man who likes to see large perky boobs. A large well shaped c0ck may be exciting to their eyes.



alexm said:


> - the size of the woman's vagina is (obviously) directly connected to what their preference is for size of penis. And a larger woman does not necessarily have a larger vagina, just as a smaller man does not necessarily have a small penis. A female friend of mine dated a man who was 5'3" and had an 8 inch+ penis. It happens. I also once dated a plus size woman who had the smallest, tightest vagina I've ever encountered. Seriously, I would think she would have been a good fit for somebody who has a 4 inch penis. There's a match for everybody out there, it's just that there are extremes on both sides of the coin, and the majority falls within the same general range.


Where did the 5'3" dude with 8+ inches live at? I might know who you are talking about and it would be quite funny. Yes large ladies may have very tight vagina's and a slim one a huge vagina.



alexm said:


> So anything one reads about the "ideal size" is BS, unless you literally have hundreds of thousands of women, of all different sizes, shapes, ages, races, sexual experience, etc etc etc. and have them have sex with 100 men of all different penis sizes and shapes, with no foreplay, blindfolded and no touching of the man whatsoever, so as not to have any affect on the experiment other than the penis in the vagina. And even then, you'll be all over the map with "preference". The ideal will just end being the average penis size, guaranteed, with "x"% preferring larger and "x"% preferring smaller.


It all depends on the person. But like we said, even if they don't need a larger or thicker one, sometimes it would excite them that much more, also they wouldn't have to imagine a larger one because they have one at home.


----------



## always_alone

Machiavelli said:


> I took the time to read the abstract, which was all that was available at the link you provided above and it didn't contradict anything I said in the earlier post.


"some researchers have claimed that a WHR of approximately 0.7 is universally most attractive, *whereas others have found inconsistent findings, or suggest the importance of other factors,*" 

"Although WHR and BMI are correlated, *they lead to different conclusions*"

"Similar to WHR research, BMI and its role in attractiveness is *not cross-culturally consistent *"


IOW, results on the actual ratio and it's relative importance are inconsistent, both within and across cultures. 

However, with objectification becoming increasingly prevalent and globalized, the range of ideals does seem to be getting narrower and narrower.


----------



## Machiavelli

Cosmos said:


> http://www.maryannefisher.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/journal_cos_derm.pdf


Thanks, Cosmos.

So, it's not a study but a journal article that selectively reviews a number of studies. Here is the text of the article that relates to our discussion of the golden ratio:



Linked Study Review said:


> Waist to hip ratio
> One of the first factors to be empirically isolated as a determinant of female physical attractiveness was WHR. WHR is an index of fat deposition, calculated by dividing the circumference of the waist (at the narrowest point around the torso, under the iliac crest) by the circumference of the hips (at the greatest protrusion of the buttocks). The development of WHR is controlled by the sex hormones, such that estrogen stimulates fat deposition on the hips, buttocks, and thighs whereas inhibiting fat deposition in the abdominal region.7 As women approach menopause, more fat is deposited around the waist, and WHR increases.12 Moreover, WHR has been found to be related to hormonal effects, risk of major disease, and fertility.13 It was proposed that WHR, which varies independently of weight, is involved in the initial stages of mating by influencing men’s decision to initiate contact with women.1 In other words, it acts as a filter to exclude women who are unhealthy and have low reproductive capacity. Some research has revealed that women and men rate, regardless of the weight or body fat, a figure with low WHR (i.e., 0.7) as most attractive, as well as the most healthy, of higher reproductive value,1,14 and younger.15 When line drawings of figures are used, there is a negative relationship between WHR and attractiveness; as the WHR of the drawings increased, the attractiveness ratings decreased.1 Similar results were obtained in a study of the centerfolds and Miss America beauty contestants, as a WHR of 0.7 remained relatively stable over the time period that was analyzed,1 and among cross-cultural samples.14
> 
> Although there have been contemporary replications of these findings,16 the overall conclusion remains quite contradictory. For example, *in one study, underweight women were rated more attractive than normal-weight or overweight figures, and figures with a high WHR (i.e., 0.86) were considered more attractive than figures with a low WHR across all weight conditions.17* Similarly, it has been demonstrated that *waist size, hip size, and weight can be varied to produce differences in WHR judgments on attractiveness,18* which suggests that WHR is not a stable marker of attractiveness that is independent of body size. Additionally, there have been* several studies that fail to find cross-cultural support, as countries with limited Western exposure demonstrate preferences for larger WHRs.19,20* Others have noted that *the original WHR figures did not allow for the examination of the effects of hip versus waist size, but rather only examined the two together.21* In fact, *when waist and hip size are individually manipulated to calculate WHR, waist size has a significantly larger influence on attractiveness ratings than hip size.22 *Furthermore, the original research only included figures with WHR ranging from 0.7 to 1, and thus,* it was not possible to determine whether the often-selected 0.7 WHR is optimally attractive, or whether an increased range would lead to different results.18* The verdict about *WHR as a primary indicator of attractiveness has yet to be derived, but there seems to be little agreement between it and other measures of bodily and facial attractiveness.23*


The endnotes on this article that allegedly provide points of contention with my argument are 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 as shown below. 

17 Puhl RM, Boland FJ. Predicting female attractiveness: waist-to-hip ratio versus thinness. Psychol Evol Gend 2001; 3: 27–46.



Phul et al said:


> Thirty-four male and thirty-four female participants examined a series of slides. Each slide featured two images of a woman in a bathing suit. One of the images showeda woman with a WHR between .70 and .71, while the other image had a WHR of .73 to.74. Previous research has only compared larger incremental differences (e.g., .60 vs. .70vs. .80). Half of the images were taken from Men’s Interest magazines and half fromWomen’s Health magazines. The women in both images had comparable reported BodyMass Indexes and were shown from a frontal view, but their faces were not visible. Maleparticipants found the low WHR images significantly more attractive than did female participants.


Notice what was claimed in the review article vs. what was actually stated in the footnoted study above. There were no "underweight models" used in the Puhl study, although they were mentioned as being used in a previous study by another research team (Singh & Young 1993). Hmmmm.

Interestingly, footnote 17 source does a total takedown of footnote 18 below, accusing Tassinary & Hansen of "selective data reporting and interpretation, and completely unrealistic drawings." Hmmmmm.

18 Tassinary LG, Hansen KA. A critical test of the waist-to-hip ratio hypothesis of female physical attractiveness. Psychol Sci 1998; 9: 150 –5.

I couldn't find this text online outside of a paywall, but I did find plenty of critical references to it claiming, as does footnote 17, that the line art used in imitation of "Singh" was unrealistic and distorted. Here is a study, Waist to Hip and Female Attracitveness, which was conducted in 1998 using photos instead of line art as a follow up to both Singh and Tassinary, yet it was omitted by Fisher, the author of the review. It also shows _"In accordance with evolutionary psychological expectations, a lower ratio was more attractive than a higher one."_ Even more interesting is what they have to say about Tassinary & Hansen: _"Given the dubious quality of Tassinary and Hansen's stimuli (andmethodological problems which will be discussed in the final section), their assertion to haveprovided `a clear and unambiguous disconfirmation of the WHR hypothesis` (Tassinary &Hansen, 1998, p. 155) deserves little credit."_ 

Furthermore, look at what they find later on:_ "Thus, Tassinary and Hansen's complete set consists of 27 figures. In addition to their own figures, they also employed Singh's stimulus set. The data from Singh's set replicated the well established inverse relationship between WHR and attractiveness. Their own stimulus set, however, yielded a diametrically opposed picture. Overall, the results that are depicted in Fig. 4 (Tassinary and Hansen's 1998 R. Henss / Personality and Individual DiÄerences 28 (2000) 
p. 153), indicate a positive WHR attractiveness correlation! Strikingly, the authors do notcomment on this fact."_

Hmmm. So we can also forget about footnote 18. 

19 MarloweF,WetsmanA.Preferredwaist-to-hipratioand ecology. Pers Indiv Differ 2001; 30: 481–9.

These guys wanted to prove that the otherwise universal preference for .7 waist hip ratio was not an artifact of the hunter gatherer lifestyle but was in fact a product of the introduction of agriculture. So they used Hadza men (the last true H-G people in Africa) who had a preference for .9, .8, and 1.0 hip waist _when there was no obesity._ Hadza men indicated that they thought the drawings of women with the lower ratios were unhealthy looking and frail. Since Hadza women are only about 5 feet tall, a fact not commented on in this study, I'd say the Hadza men have a point. Hadza women are thin by any standard. 

20 Yu DW, Shepard GH. Is beauty in the eye of the beholder? Nature 1998; 396: 321–2.

This one is almost identical to the Hadza study, but with Matsigenka people of Peru, who are slash and burn farmers, hunters, and gatherers. There preferences were much the same as the Hadza: straight up and down, or what Yu refers to as "tubular," with smaller waists being perceived as sickly. Again, the Matsigenka are small people, _the average adult woman is only 5' tall and 99#._

While these two studies would seem to have pulled up two remote isolated groups for which the golden ratio doesn't work, the women are not obese, and are height weight proportional. Hmmmm.

21 Forestall CA, Humphrey TM, Stewart SH. Involvement of body weight and shape factors in ratings of attractiveness by women: a replication and extension of Tassinary and Hansen (1998). Pers Indiv Differ 2004; 36: 295–305.


This is a study of what _women_ find attractive in other women. LOL. From the abstract: _ "*In general, participants preferred figures that had WHRs around 0.7.* As body size increased, larger WHRs tended to be more preferred. Figures with small and medium waists and hips were generally preferred regardless of body weight. But, figures with large hips were preferred less regardless of other shape characteristics. Results suggest that body weight, waist size, and hip size all interact to influence women's ratings of attractiveness of other female figures."
_

So, in general, the golden ratio rules even among the perceptions of women. Hmmmmmm.

22 Rozmus-Wrzesinska M, Pawlowski B. Men’s ratings of female attractiveness are influenced more by changes in female waist size compared with changes in hip size. Biol Psychol 2005; 68: 299–308.

All I could find outside the paywall was this from the abstract:
_"Attractiveness was correlated negatively with WHR, when WHR was manipulated by waist size."_ This certainly doesn't debunk the golden ratio. Hmmmm.


23 Thornhill R, Grammer K. The body and face of woman: one ornament that signals quality? Evol Hum Behav 1999; 20: 105–20.

From the abstract: _"Independent ratings of photographs of faces, fronts with faces covered, and backs of the same women are significantly, positively correlated. The correlation between the ratings of different photos implies that women’s faces and external bodies comprise a single ornament of honest mate value, apparently constructed during puberty by estrogen and also probably by developmental adaptations for symmetry. Thus, women’s physical attractiveness in face and body honestly signal hormonal and perhaps developmental health."_

This one doesn't debunk the golden ration, either. In fact, it suggests that the women with nice bodies are also going to have nice faces. Hmmm.

Also, Miss Fisher makes this comment, also quoted above: _the original research only included figures with WHR ranging from 0.7 to 1, and thus,* it was not possible to determine whether the often-selected 0.7 WHR is optimally attractive, or whether an increased range would lead to different results.*_* However, more recent research in China found a preference for WHR of 0.6 to 0.7, even more wasp waisted than the ratio she doesn't like. I'm sure she was looking for 2 or a 3 there somewhere, but it just doesn't come up.*


----------



## always_alone

Turns out, some actually do say bigger is better:

Size matters for heroes, not zeroes - News & events - ANU


----------



## Machiavelli

always_alone said:


> "some researchers have claimed that a WHR of approximately 0.7 is universally most attractive, *whereas others have found inconsistent findings, or suggest the importance of other factors,*"
> 
> "Although WHR and BMI are correlated, *they lead to different conclusions*"
> 
> "Similar to WHR research, BMI and its role in attractiveness is *not cross-culturally consistent *"
> 
> 
> IOW, results on the actual ratio and it's relative importance are inconsistent, both within and across cultures.
> 
> However, with objectification becoming increasingly prevalent and globalized, the range of ideals does seem to be getting narrower and narrower.


Okay, I just did a take down for you on the article.


----------



## Machiavelli

always_alone said:


> Turns out, some actually do say bigger is better:
> 
> Size matters for heroes, not zeroes - News & events - ANU


n agreement with what research has already told us, the women preferred taller men and men with broad shoulders and narrow hips (V-shaped, rather than pear-shaped).

That would be the golden ratio, again. Just the male version.


----------



## always_alone

Machiavelli said:


> .
> 
> Hmmmm.


There are some serious flaws with your analysis here. 

Most notably, you are once again making the mistake that a low ratio is the same as thin. It most absolutely is not. A low ratio means someone who has a small waist relative to hip, and this can encompass a huge range of weights.

And in fact many studies find that weight or BMI is a more important indicator of attractiveness, although of course, results on that are equally inconsistent.

But the upshot here is that you are utterly missing the significance of these studies on conclusions about the universal appeal of the 0.7 ratio. 

In addition, a huge number of the studies that support the conclusions you are so wedded to are also criticized for relying on poorly constructed and crude line drawings.


----------



## Faithful Wife

ReformedHubby said:


> I think most men who live in the real world recognize that women get lewd comments in public a lot more than men do. But, I don't think most men know what it feels like to feel degraded by comments from the opposite sex under the guise of "flirtation". Which is why I think most are indifferent to it. Its tough to empathize and understand something you never experienced.


Yes. Especially when most men would truly enjoy to have lustful sexual attention from a woman, particularly a woman they are attracted to.

I made a post about that here in this section awhile back...I think it was called "do men want to have their bodies worshipped too?"...to which I already knew the answer was yes.

Then there are the fine lines of gradation between what makes it fun to be lustfully worshipped...to what makes it a little less fun...to what makes it feel threatening or degrading...to what makes it downright terrifying. This is a complicated process, and I don't know if men can experience the terrifying part unless they are being stalked by another, bigger man...or if they are young and vulnerable.

I'm all for lustful worshipping of each other's bodies anytime it is mutual, though. I especially think that women could benefit in many ways by learning to worship their male partners' bodies in a way that is similar to the way men like to do it to their female partners' bodies. Including worshipping their ideal-or-not-so-ideal peens. 

(as long as everyone is happy with that...I'm not saying women should do it if they don't want to...then it is any fun)


----------



## TopsyTurvy5

I have no problem if women want to objectify me. Why? Because if they do I don't have to be with them if I don't want to. It is really pretty simple. 

If a woman doesn't want to be with me because of my penis size, that is definitely their issue, and I would be glad to be rid of her. 

On the other side, I think attraction is just a fact of life- for both sexes. I personally like petite women with blond hair. That is just what I'm attracted to. Now I'm not making catcalls to women with those features or objectifying them in other ways, I just am attracted to those women. 

The OP sounds like, generally speaking, she is very bitter toward men, which is sad. I feel sorry for her. I understand she is trying to attack men in an area they are vulnerable. In the end there is nothing I can do about my penis size, so I don't let people who might objectify me bother me. End of story.

Lastly, I have no idea where all these people who think that 6.5 is average are coming from. This thread inspired me to do some research and EVERY legitimate penis related site lists the average size as significantly smaller. Take a look at this chart
Average Penis Size Chart

Clearly 6.5 is almost an inch above average. Wiki says it is about 5.5-5.8, as do most of the other legitimate sites. I bring this up because I think there are quite a few men out there who needlessly worry about this topic.


----------



## The Cro-Magnon

Plan 9 from OS said:


> Who sponsored the study and how exactly did they go about getting this data? Was it simply based on asking women what size they prefer? Did the women even measure their partners? Depending on how they did the study, the it most likely comes across as highly subjective.
> 
> I suppose you could have a sample size of a couple hundred women, get a whole range of dildos based on length and girth combination that are also made of the realistic feeling material and do the study that way. Highly doubtful it went down this path though because that would definitely be too clinical plus would not factor in the quality of the lover in the first place - which is the biggest determinant for sexual satisfaction.
> 
> Most likely, it's a survey put together to get men insecure about their wangs and to buy enhancement drugs or other products to get into the "ideal area". Considering the ideal for women is roughly 1" above the averages in length and girth leads to a lot of disappointed ladies I suppose...
> 
> I have a hard time buying this study since there is so little info provided about the actual study in the article.


Really brah?

It's official: penis size does matter › News in Science (ABC Science)

Women like a tall guy with a big cawk.

Wow, like we weren't already aware of this fact and it wasn't already painfully obvious.

Life is ugly, and Nature doesn't give 2 figs about "gender equivalence" and "NAWALT" etc.

It just is what it is, and we all know it.

Whattyado? It's not like these are things a man can change.

Off to commit suicide by mod now by posting a thread in the ladies lounge about the ideal vagina that women need to possess, LOL


----------



## TopsyTurvy5

The Cro-Magnon said:


> Really brah?
> 
> It's official: penis size does matter › News in Science (ABC Science)
> 
> Women like a tall guy with a big cawk.
> 
> Wow, like we weren't already aware of this fact and it wasn't already painfully obvious.
> 
> Life is ugly, and Nature doesn't give 2 figs about "gender equivalence" and "NAWALT" etc.
> 
> It just is what it is, and we all know it.
> 
> Whattyado? It's not like these are things a man can change.
> 
> Off to commit suicide by mod now by posting a thread in the ladies lounge about the ideal vagina that women need to possess, LOL


If you are referring to the Australian study, those were manikins and the penis was flaccid. There have been several scientists, sociologists, etc.. who have mentioned that it really has to do with symmetry and desired body shape- not size. In other words, it is the appearance not the size. (Again, each penis in the Australian study was flaccid, which as we know, has no bearing or correlation on the size when erect.


----------



## PreRaphaelite

CuddleBug said:


> I measured myself a while ago and I am 6 3/4 to almost 7 inches. Average I would say.


No, that makes you well hung. Congratulations stud.


----------



## ReformedHubby

This thread has been an eye opener for me. People may think I have lived in a cave all my life but I had no idea that men would be this sensitive about this. Size does matter. Who cares as long as the little guy (pun intended) is getting plenty of action. Honestly if you're a guy that has taken this chart seriously and are spending time trying to refute it. You might as well just post in all caps I am insecure and I have a little one! Well played AA, well played.

I've always thought men were more self conscious about height, but this thread has proven me wrong on that theory.


----------



## Machiavelli

always_alone said:


> There are some serious flaws with your analysis here.
> 
> Most notably, you are once again making the mistake that a low ratio is the same as thin. It most absolutely is not. A low ratio means someone who has a small waist relative to hip, and this can encompass a huge range of weights.
> 
> And in fact many studies find that weight or BMI is a more important indicator of attractiveness, although of course, results on that are equally inconsistent.
> 
> But the upshot here is that you are utterly missing the significance of these studies on conclusions about the universal appeal of the 0.7 ratio.
> 
> In addition, a huge number of the studies that support the conclusions you are so wedded to are also criticized for relying on poorly constructed and crude line drawings.


Naw...either you aren't reading the studies or I'm not being clear in my exposition. What ALL the studies referenced in the article you linked to tell us, aside from the one which was debunked by other researches for general poor design and forced conclusion, is that there is a universal sexual appeal to the Golden Ratio in neolithic and later societies. I actually said it had been in place worldwide for 5000 years, based on art and that was actually pretty close to correct, since neolithic farming began 12,000 years ago and then started spreading out. The first 16 references in your article make that case for me, the next group of notes 17-23 were supposed to debunk that. A couple of them did not say what the article's author claimed they said, and one was considered worthless by numerous expert opinions. The two that were valuable to your argument that the golden ratio is not "universal" were the Hadza (paleolithic) and the Matsigenki (mesolithic) with regards to their meal acquisition. So, the totality of the "counter" references supports the argument that the Golden Ratio, if not completely universal and an artifact of the Paleolithic Era, is a universal artifact of the Neolithic Era and the beginnings of stationary farming. That means it applies to all people who have passed into the Neolithic farming revolution, but not the remnant paleolithic or mesolithic societies, according to Yu et. al. and Marlowe et. al.

As I said in my first comment on this, you're going against 5000 years of history. Make that 12,000 years of history.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Reformed....Men and women both get insecure easily, and the reasons for this are mostly the same for both genders...we all want to feel wanted, beautiful, sexy...and when there are messages everywhere that you "don't measure up" somehow, you tend to believe those messages. And even if you do "measure up" there will still be a million people who measure up even better than you do, so people still may have no real sense of security.

Yes, many people can fight off the onset of insecurities...but even if you (any you) were able to do so, that doesn't mean that the constant "you don't measure up" messages are ok. There are ways we can make this better for everyone.

And by the way, this specific peen insecurity is actually painful to see and hear in person. I have heard it directly from so many guys and I just hear the self-doubt and sickening fear in them. It makes me really sad...I think all women know a man will act this way if his size is made fun of (or however the insecurity happens), and we feel bad for them. But many men do not feel bad for a woman if she is feeling "less than" in some area, instead, they either mock her, make fun of her, or attribute this to something that women do.


----------



## Faithful Wife

PreRaphaelite said:


> No, that makes you well hung. Congratulations stud.


I thought this was referred to as "the TAM phenomenon".


----------



## brokeneric

Are there threads like 'Ideal breast sizes' also?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Yes...there have been many.


----------



## brokeneric

Faithful Wife said:


> Yes...there have been many.


:scratchhead: Why? They may come in different shapes and sizes but that makes them diverse not imperfect.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Well, I agree with you on that and I personally am not opposed to boob threads (or boobs)...but what tends to happen again is a form of "shaming" women who have "less than perfect ones" or even just shaming women who don't declare feeling perfectly and totally secure with theirs. Always alone's point in this thread was to show that this happens when we poke and men's insecurities, too.


----------



## brokeneric

Faithful Wife said:


> Well, I agree with you on that and I personally am not opposed to boob threads (or boobs)...but what tends to happen again is a form of "shaming" women who have "less than perfect ones" or even just shaming women who don't declare feeling perfectly and totally secure with theirs. Always alone's point in this thread was to show that this happens when we poke and men's insecurities, too.


I have 2 kids. So safe to say my little bro is functional. For me, beauty is in utility. Just my .02.


----------



## Thunder7

Let me weigh in on this boob vs penis size thing. First off, I am not taking sides or looking to offend anyone. But here's why I don't really equate one to the other. Boobs, while potentially visually stunning to look at, are not essential to the physical act of sex. The penis is. Now whether the size of it matters is neither here nor there. Perception is reality in the mind of the person wielding the sword. 

So, comparing the size of boobs to the size of the penis is like comparing a nice snow jacket to a shovel in a blizzard. The snow jacket looks nice, and there are many different styles, but it doesn't effect snow removal. However, what effect does the shovel have in a blizzard, if the shovel is of a sub par standard? Potentially, a direct effect. 

Does that make sense? Either way, shaming anyone for their natural attributes, male or female, is a deplorable practice.


----------



## brokeneric

You have what the lord gave you. Make the most of it.


----------



## always_alone

Machiavelli said:


> Naw...either you aren't reading the studies or I'm not being clear in my exposition.


Or you are purposely overlooking all contradictory information, to preserve your overly simplistic views.

Cross-cultural variation is exhibited in Spain, England, Italy, and parts of South America, Africa and Asia. And probably elsewhere too. And even within one culture there is much debate about the relative importance of the various attractiveness indicators. If you actually read through these studies, you would see that indeed it's been quite challenging to establish consistent findings.

And it's not just the contrary studies that are flush with methodological problems. Again, if you read the studies, those supporting the 0.7 ratio also note the dangers of response bias given the artificiality of experimental conditions. All told, we don't learn much at all, except that normal healthy women are viewed as attractive. 

The irony of all this is that you introduced this line of thought as proof that objectification is bull****, but really what you've demonstrated is just how hell bent our culture is on reducing our perceptions of women to one measurement or another.

So thanks for that!


----------



## always_alone

I find it very intriguing that there is a constant and endless stream of media and situations where women are objectified, but if you dare to introduce an instance where the same might be true of men, the immediate reaction is to retaliate with some more objectification of women.

It really does suck to be objectified, doesn't it?


----------



## always_alone

Faithful Wife said:


> But many men do not feel bad for a woman if she is feeling "less than" in some area, instead, they either mock her, make fun of her, or attribute this to something that women do.


Or worse, tell her that she *should* feel that way because, well, frankly she *doesn't* measure up, and that's just the objective facts, ma'am.


----------



## Faithful Wife

brokeneric said:


> You have what the lord gave you. Make the most of it.


I do agree...but I still believe that there could be a much better effort made by everyone to be kinder to each other, and that we need less media driven images and more personal interaction with peers and loved ones.


----------



## WyshIknew

We all have our insecurities to one degree or another. My winkie isn't one of mine.
I am rather proud of mine, I like it a lot and so does my wife.

However I have my own insecurity which I know if it was targeted would leave me with a shattered ego.

As FW says, just be nice to each other.


----------



## Machiavelli

always_alone said:


> Or you are purposely overlooking all contradictory information, to preserve your overly simplistic views.
> 
> Cross-cultural variation is exhibited in* Spain, England, Italy, and parts of South America, Africa and Asia.* And probably elsewhere too. And even within one culture there is much debate about the relative importance of the various attractiveness indicators. If you actually read through these studies, you would see that indeed it's been quite challenging to establish consistent findings.
> 
> And it's not just the contrary studies that are flush with methodological problems. Again, if you read the studies, those supporting the 0.7 ratio also note the dangers of response bias given the artificiality of experimental conditions. All told, we don't learn much at all, except that normal healthy women are viewed as attractive.
> 
> The irony of all this is that you introduced this line of thought as proof that objectification is bull****, but really what you've demonstrated is just how hell bent our culture is on reducing our perceptions of women to one measurement or another.
> 
> So thanks for that!


But your survey article, as documented by the source studies cited in footnotes 1 through 23 says just the opposite!


----------



## Cosmos

Faithful Wife said:


> Reformed....Men and women both get insecure easily, and the reasons for this are mostly the same for both genders...we all want to feel wanted, beautiful, sexy...and when there are messages everywhere that you "don't measure up" somehow, you tend to believe those messages. And even if you do "measure up" there will still be a million people who measure up even better than you do, so people still may have no real sense of security.
> 
> Yes, many people can fight off the onset of insecurities...but even if you (any you) were able to do so, that doesn't mean that the constant "you don't measure up" messages are ok. There are ways we can make this better for everyone.
> 
> And by the way, this specific peen insecurity is actually painful to see and hear in person. I have heard it directly from so many guys and I just hear the self-doubt and sickening fear in them. It makes me really sad...I think all women know a man will act this way if his size is made fun of (or however the insecurity happens), and we feel bad for them. But many men do not feel bad for a woman if she is feeling "less than" in some area, instead, they either mock her, make fun of her, or attribute this to something that women do.


:iagree: Well said, FW.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Uh, this is old news and I've seen this chart many times. Huffposts publish date is funny though... 3/02/2014. lol

I have no problem with this preference if its accurate and I'm not ideal... darn. Then again, I've learned to live with certain things not being ideal. I happen to be balding. There is no point in worrying about that which you cannot change. There's always someone better, bigger, more beautiful what have you... so what? Whether this measure of penis preference is true or not, there's probably a size range most women would prefer. I'm quite sure women aren't completely indifferent to size. 

No argument from me. 

Not quite the result you hoped for AA? Should I argue how unjust it is because I'm not the ideal? Should I curse ideals because I'm going bald and ideally, I'd have hair? C'mon. I'm pretty happy with myself still somehow. Possibly because security doesn't come from external opinion. You can take such messages as "you're not good enough", or you can simply select the person for whom you are. We can't all have a mate in the top 1% of every physical preference. Tradeoffs and acceptance are a part of life.

Know what my response to balding was? Shaving my head, not cursing female preference or a media culture that highlights good hair.


----------



## WyshIknew

I think it is the result she expected.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> It really does suck to be objectified, doesn't it?


No actually. I quite like being objectified.

Either when someone says I'm a sexy dish or my gf says I'm a great f*ck. Hells yeah on both accounts.

Woe is me that someone would want my body. :\ Wtf is that?


----------



## samyeagar

I see men on this thread taking issue with the chart because it doesn't necessarily reflect reality, but I am not sure many, or any of us are feeling objectified in the way that was hoped or suggested...


----------



## Faithful Wife

So sam....do you really think that making men feel objectified was always alone's intent?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

WyshIknew said:


> I think it is the result she expected.


The arguments over ideal WHR were primarly between AA and I, so by result, I mean my response.

I'm not at all surprised to see unhappy male responses to penis size preference anymore than I am to see unhappy female responses to WHR.

omg... women prefer well hung men! Tell us something we didn't know, right? Oh darn, we can't all fit the majority preference in all things. Uhm... duh?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Also might be important to note that anyone's preferences are quite meaningless if you can't get it. You'll just choose the best you CAN get... and we like to reach as much as possible.

Women call this "having standards". When men do it, its called being a pig.


----------



## samyeagar

Faithful Wife said:


> So sam....do you really think that making men feel objectified was always alone's intent?


She did say that her intent was to throw this in here just to see the mens reactions, so it was with the intent to provoke, and she was the one who hinted towards it being about making men feel objectified and to see how they feel about it.

Personally, I don't feel objectified at all. I know full well that I am as average as they come in the size department, and I also know full well that each of the three women I have been with have had partners larger than me, and it doesn't bother me one wit because I also know damn well that I am the best lover any of them have had.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

MrAvg said:


> We all know men and women are all built anatomically different. *The trick in life for success as a couple or partners is to make sure the plug fits correctly in the socket before you turn on the power. Power being married or a committed relationship.*


 We waited till our wedding night to stick it IN...and he couldn't get it IN...and he is a Mr Average....just like your name... probably a darn good thing...any bigger would have KILLED ME!.... I've never rode another to compare..and maybe that in itself is the blessing...

It's always done it's magic, I can't complain.. every girl needs one.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

^ That's another reason I could never have waited for marriage. I'm not criticizing your choice, but to me, sex is far too important to not know if you even enjoy it with someone you're going to marry. I realize that it might not come into play often... but with such and easy and enjoyable solution, I can't see the sense in it.

No offense you to at all SA. I know people have a lot of other reasons for waiting that I don't share.


----------



## Tall Average Guy

I agree with much of what you posted, but not this:



Faithful Wife said:


> It makes me really sad...I think all women know a man will act this way if his size is made fun of (or however the insecurity happens), and we feel bad for them.


Many women don't.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> *That's another reason I could never have waited for marriage. I'm not criticizing your choice, but to me, sex is far too important to not know if you even enjoy it with someone you're going to marry. I realize that it might not come into play often... but with such and easy and enjoyable solution, I can't see the sense in it.
> 
> No offense you to at all SA. I know people have a lot of other reasons for waiting that I don't share*.


Yes, I know all of this, it comes down to what is most important to the couple - my husband is very Romantic, and this is what I deeply wanted.. it was more about WHO I was with over how his rod rocked me in the moment..... ya know.. as we both knew I orgasmed *E A S I L Y* , wantingly...years before we married, it was never a worry -that my parts were going to fail us...."1sts' meant a lot to both of us....I've read enough here to know this is another compatibility issue in itself so it seems... ...many could care less and would even spit on it. 

I'm the type of chick that would want to TIE and entangle myself with a man so it wouldn't be at all wise for me to sleep around, I'd want to chop his balls off ...if he left me.. (exaggerating of course -I'm not Lorena Bobbitt)

Given the trouble we had to get IT IN... another man would have dumped my ass .. so I most certainly handled it best for who I am ..and what WE wanted.. I know his type is a weird according to you.. but that's OK.... different strokes for different folks...

I am also the type that WOULD COMPARE...(just being honest here)...and what if I felt a former Lover was more masterful in bed... I think the memories would haunt me.. or I'd be telling him to do it like this.. do it like that.., might even get frustrated...at least he only has my fantasies to compete with....he can live with that.


----------



## Faithful Wife

samyeagar said:


> She did say that her intent was to throw this in here just to see the mens reactions, so it was with the intent to provoke, and she was the one who hinted towards it being about making men feel objectified and to see how they feel about it.
> 
> Personally, I don't feel objectified at all. I know full well that I am as average as they come in the size department, and I also know full well that each of the three women I have been with have had partners larger than me, and it doesn't bother me one wit because I also know damn well that I am the best lover any of them have had.


Sam, I think her real intent was more to raise the awareness about the double standard, and about how cruel we can end up being toward each other "in the name of attraction preferences".

I see it as similarly to you when someone posts a thread about "who would you do if you had a free pass", to which you intellectually can see that this can be a cruel thing to say and do to your partner...but when you say that, people rush in to just tell you that you are insecure and that you must be trying to "control" your spouse's fantasies or something.


----------



## TopsyTurvy5

always_alone said:


> I find it very intriguing that there is a constant and endless stream of media and situations where women are objectified, but if you dare to introduce an instance where the same might be true of men, the immediate reaction is to retaliate with some more objectification of women.
> 
> It really does suck to be objectified, doesn't it?


Yes, it does. You want to be objectified? Try this: Do women really want to marry for money? - Telegraph


----------



## TopsyTurvy5

Faithful Wife said:


> Sam, I think her real intent was more to raise the awareness about the double standard, and about how cruel we can end up being toward each other "in the name of attraction preferences".
> 
> I see it as similarly to you when someone posts a thread about "who would you do if you had a free pass", to which you intellectually can see that this can be a cruel thing to say and do to your partner...but when you say that, people rush in to just tell you that you are insecure and that you must be trying to "control" your spouse's fantasies or something.


See if she just wanted to raise awareness she would have presented scenarios/situations/etc... for BOTH genders. To me, she sounds bitter and angry toward men.

I just posted a link to a study showing that women want to marry a wealthy man. So, men are objectified for their ability to make money. Should we start a thread about that?


----------



## Caribbean Man

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Uh, this is old news and I've seen this chart many times. Huffposts publish date is funny though... 3/02/2014. lol
> 
> I have no problem with this preference if its accurate and I'm not ideal... darn. Then again, I've learned to live with certain things not being ideal. I happen to be balding. *There is no point in worrying about that which you cannot change. There's always someone better, bigger, more beautiful what have you... so what? Whether this measure of penis preference is true or not, there's probably a size range most women would prefer. I'm quite sure women aren't completely indifferent to size. *
> 
> No argument from me.
> 
> Not quite the result you hoped for AA? Should I argue how unjust it is because I'm not the ideal? Should I curse ideals because I'm going bald and ideally, I'd have hair? C'mon. I'm pretty happy with myself still somehow. Possibly because security doesn't come from external opinion. You can take such messages as "you're not good enough", or you can simply select the person for whom you are. We can't all have a mate in the top 1% of every physical preference. Tradeoffs and acceptance are a part of life.
> 
> Know what my response to balding was? Shaving my head, not cursing female preference or a media culture that highlights good hair.


:iagree:

Funny,

i basically said the same thing almost 10 pages ago.
But nooooooooo.
Nobody listened.
CM didn't " get it" because he has " beauty privilege ", yada, yada, yada, blah, blah, blah.

Know what?
Well CM is a black man that grew up in an era when all the faces on the television, on the billboards , in the banks and in the magazines were white.
But CM didn't let that affect the image of himself neither has it ever stopped him from loving his black self.
CM never blamed " the system" or cursed the media for not representing him, CM represents himself.
CM simply loved and worked on himself and years later, when he became a fashion model there were pictures of_ him_ in magazines and the newspapers.

No , CM has never subscribed to the bullsh*t greiviance and victim syndrome.
And it's a shame when someone has to resort to manipulating people's perceived insecurities to forward their own agendas.
But, whatever.

And , no. 
Having a decent height , a toned body and an above average penis has never won CM a business contract, or helped him build a lucrative business.
Neither did having his fair share of women help him find and marry a decent woman of another race who truly loved and respected him.
Hard work and confidence in himself did.
LMAO.

_" Emancipate yourself from mental slavery,
None but ourselves can free our minds..."_
Redemption Song ~ *Bob Marley.*

That^^^, is CM's motto.


----------



## Faithful Wife

TopsyTurvy5 said:


> See if she just wanted to raise awareness she would have presented scenarios/situations/etc... for BOTH genders. To me, she sounds bitter and angry toward men.
> 
> I just posted a link to a study showing that women want to marry a wealthy man. So, men are objectified for their ability to make money. Should we start a thread about that?


I can appreciate that this is how it likely looks to some people. Not everyone is going to "get it"....and that is ok, always still made her point to many people.

As for the men being objectified for their ability to make money thread, go ahead and start one. As FF said, others have done so already. 

I'm not sure what you think the results would be?


----------



## WyshIknew

My wallet is the ideal size.


----------



## Faithful Wife

CM, I mentioned the beauty privilege thing to you because you specifically mocked men who might feel insecure about their peen size or body as WEAK, you made a specific point to do so.

I was just pointing out that I found it odd that a 6'7" adonnis would mock other men for feeling insecure about their body...when you clearly would not have the "benefit" of knowing how they might feel about their bodies, since you can't know what it is like to be born a small man with a small peen.

Which has nothing to do with "business contracts"...so I'm not sure what your point was with that, nor what being born poor has to do with being 6'7". They are not related, when we are talking about beauty privilege. Apparently you don't quite understand what the term means.

But if a woman who looks like Giselle were spouting off about how she "doesn't get why women are so WEAK and insecure about how they look", most people, even men, would be like "what would you know about this, Giselle?"

Also I'm not sure what's up with talking about yourself in the third person....


----------



## Caribbean Man

FrenchFry said:


> At the same time you were working on yourself, there were people out there agitating for more diversity. You were probably one of them.
> 
> No man is an island. While we all should do the work we can to be happy with ourselves, we can also do the work with other people to change our lives to how we think it should be reflected.
> 
> No point in worrying about things we cannot change? There is a bit more diversity in advertising, yeah? You might not have worried about it. Someone did.
> 
> 
> Thanks someone.


Diversity in advertising was never an issue in our struggle.
The struggle which I was a part of was for control of our country's abundant oil and gas resources from the foreign multinationals that controlled it.
It was a bloody struggle and people lost their lives.
We achieved control , educated and empowered ourselves.
The advertising agencies then had no choice , but to target us nationals, because we now had MONEY and money is POWER.
Advertising goes where the money is.
The only thing people really respect is power.


Much thanks to people like Che Guevarra and later on , Robert , Nesta "Bob" Marley.


----------



## ReformedHubby

Faithful Wife said:


> Which has nothing to do with "business contracts"...so I'm not sure what your point was with that, nor what being born poor has to do with being 6'7". They are not related, when we are talking about beauty privilege. Apparently you don't quite understand what the term means.


Not CM but I think I get what he is saying. He is trying to point out that there are better ways to deal with adversity. Basically a lot of the issues that modern women complain about I think other minorities can identify with them. I do think there are parallels between being a women and a black male in the corporate/business world. But complaining doesn't get you anywhere, only working towards your accomplishments does.


----------



## Faithful Wife

But RH...CM was complaining that I told him he has beauty privilege. That is a stand alone thing...it has nothing to do with class privilege. You can be poor yet still be beautiful....and again, I brought up the beauty privilege thing to him BECAUSE he straight up mocked men as being WEAK for feeling insecure about their bodies.

Again...Giselle mocking women for being insecure about their bodies would simply make Giselle look delusional.


----------



## TopsyTurvy5

Faithful Wife said:


> I can appreciate that this is how it likely looks to some people. Not everyone is going to "get it"....and that is ok, always still made her point to many people.
> 
> As for the men being objectified for their ability to make money thread, go ahead and start one. As FF said, others have done so already.
> 
> I'm not sure what you think the results would be?


I love your first sentence- enjoy being condescending much?

What exactly am I not getting? Always isn't interested in an objective look at objectification of people, she is trying to make men see what interprets as the objectification of women. 

As I said previously, objectification happens to BOTH genders. If you don't want to be objectified, then don't allow yourself to be. Have confidence in your strengths and awareness of your weaknesses. If other men or women want to be objectified, then that is their business. 

Lastly, my point on the men making money thread was this: If I started a thread about that, would the people jumping to Always defense also support that thread? I tend to think the issue is one of trying to force men to see something- to punish them in a way. My comment back would be, objectification goes both ways. Either support getting rid of it for everyone or you come across as bitter.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Ummm...I really wasn't being condescening. I honestly "get" that some people will not get always' points on this thread, while others will. Try to chill, ok? This isn't a contest.


----------



## TopsyTurvy5

Faithful Wife said:


> Ummm...I really wasn't being condescening. I honestly "get" that some people will not get always' points on this thread, while others will. Try to chill, ok? This isn't a contest.


The implication is that I don't get it.


----------



## Faithful Wife

No, the implication was exactly what I said...which is that I understood that some people wouldn't get her point. And the reason I'm saying that is because I personally feel sometimes that always's points get lost in her posts and words because her emotions stir up many things that don't reflect her actual point...thus, she sometimes appears to be stirring sh*t because she's angry at men. Although I do get her points, I also see the anger sometimes.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Faithful Wife said:


> But RH...CM was complaining that I told him he has beauty privilege. That is a stand alone thing...it has nothing to do with class privilege. You can be poor yet still be beautiful....and again, I brought up the beauty privilege thing to him *BECAUSE he straight up mocked men as being WEAK for feeling insecure about their bodies.*
> 
> Again...Giselle mocking women for being insecure about their bodies would simply make Giselle look delusional.


I was going to let this pass but you repeated it twice.

So please , can you show this forum where I MOCKED ANY MAN OR MEN on this thread about the size of their bodies or penis?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Your post number 46 on this thread.


----------



## Caribbean Man

FrenchFry said:


> .
> Beauty is power, especially for women. It's not a bloody struggle, but it's understandable that if this is our currency there are a few options:
> 
> *expand the definition of beauty so more are powerful
> *destroy the currency by making it obsolete
> *use what we have as leverage
> 
> or a delightful combo of all three.
> 
> I'm not a body image warrior. I just appreciate those who are.


I would have to disagree with the first two of your options. 

*Beauty cannot realistically mean power because beauty is subjective. If it is subjective it can't really count as " currency."
The definition of power is globally understood.

*You can't destroy something that doesn't exist.

*A definite yes to the third one.
The only option is to use what you have as leverage and therein lies your power.
The relevant question would then be,

_" What do you have?"_


----------



## Deejo

*Re: Re: The ideal penis: Men and objectification*



Faithful Wife said:


> Well, I agree with you on that and I personally am not opposed to boob threads (or boobs)...but what tends to happen again is a form of "shaming" women who have "less than perfect ones" or even just shaming women who don't declare feeling perfectly and totally secure with theirs. Always alone's point in this thread was to show that this happens when we poke and men's insecurities, too.


Whoa, whoa, lets keep the record relatively straight.

WOMEN post the boob threads, and I have never ever seen anyone posting here indulge in boob shaming.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Faithful Wife said:


> Your post number 46 on this thread.


Here's a _exact replica_ of my post # 46 for EVERYONE to see.

Originally Posted by *Plan 9 from OS* View Post

_I didn't feel threatened in the least regarding the chart. It makes me more bemused than anything since the laws of nature alone should indicate that the size/shape of most penises and vaginas are compatible given what we know about biology and evolution. As a species, we'd have a serious problem if a typical woman cannot be fully satisfied by a male with a normal penis. 

That alone indicates that it's a cheap marketing trick to prey on weak men's insecurities. All I care about is how happy my wife is in the sack._

:iagree:
Exactly! [ hope you didn't mind me fixing it for you!]

*End of Quote.*

The word in red is the word I inserted , and the words in blue are the words in my original response to Plan 9 from OS post.

Just so that everyone could judge for themselves, whether my post was in any way " mocking" men with small penises.


----------



## TopsyTurvy5

Faithful Wife said:


> No, the implication was exactly what I said...which is that I understood that some people wouldn't get her point. And the reason I'm saying that is because I personally feel sometimes that always's points get lost in her posts and words because her emotions stir up many things that don't reflect her actual point...thus, she sometimes appears to be stirring sh*t because she's angry at men. Although I do get her points, I also see the anger sometimes.


Ahh...thank you for explaining. I misunderstood.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Deejo said:


> Whoa, whoa, lets keep the record relatively straight.
> 
> WOMEN post the boob threads, and I have never ever seen anyone posting here indulge in boob shaming.


:iagree:
Except a certain poster who kept posting horrendous pics of " man boobs " and was later banned.

I posted on that thread and every single man, and even women, had their preferences and and were literally " objectifying " the type of boobs they like.


----------



## always_alone

TopsyTurvy5 said:


> I tend to think the issue is one of trying to force men to see something- to punish them in a way. My comment back would be, objectification goes both ways. Either support getting rid of it for everyone or you come across as bitter.


I have said multiple times throughout this thread that I think men are objectified too, and that this is a bad thing.

Even so, I'm still the bitter man-hating feminazi who's just ugly and can't accept herself for what she is, and so pillories men for sport.

Sometimes I feel so misunderstood...


----------



## always_alone

Faithful Wife said:


> No, the implication was exactly what I said...which is that I understood that some people wouldn't get her point. And the reason I'm saying that is because I personally feel sometimes that always's points get lost in her posts and words because her emotions stir up many things that don't reflect her actual point...thus, she sometimes appears to be stirring sh*t because she's angry at men. Although I do get her points, I also see the anger sometimes.


I also have a bad habit of using overly colorful hyperbolic metaphors --which I think a lot of people don't appreciate very much.

One of my many character flaws.


----------



## Faithful Wife

CM...then if you say you didn't mean it the way I thought you did, I believe you. I thought wrong. Maybe you can see why I thought what I did though? The way it came out just seemed like you were saying "only a weak man would be insecure about this anyway".

Peace.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Deejo said:


> Whoa, whoa, lets keep the record relatively straight.
> 
> WOMEN post the boob threads, and I have never ever seen anyone posting here indulge in boob shaming.


Ok please don't make me go look this up but...

I remember on samyeager's thread about shirtless men I said something about the difference is that women have boobs and most boobs are awesome and are going to attract a man's eye...and someone came along and said "not really, most average boobs aren't that great".

And then there was another thread about porn boobs, and the question was, do they make you not appreciate real boobs. I think that one was by ntamph. And a I think a few people made remarks about how "oh well, if they are better, they are better" and basically saying that some boobs really aren't that good and fake ones are many times better.

So again, I hope I don't have that wrong because I'm not going to go search, but I do recall some people chiming in to say that if your boobs aren't really great based on whatever criteria they were talking about, then you really shouldn't show them off, with the implication being, you should not be "proud" to show those shameful things.


----------



## Faithful Wife

TopsyTurvy5 said:


> Yes, it does. You want to be objectified? Try this: Do women really want to marry for money? - Telegraph


Hmmm....does this honestly make you (Topsy) feel objectified?

Keep in mind, I do not know your story...so maybe a woman just emptied your bank account or something, if so, I am sorry...

But does it make you feel that you mean nothing to a woman but what you can provide her in cash?

And do you think most men feel this way? Or do only the men who actually have a lot of money feel this way?

Conversely...I kind of thought men with a lot of money felt ok with this and knew they could actually bargain for "better" women with money. If that is the case, is it the women objectifying the man, or the man objectifying the woman?

For the record, no man has ever supported me, nor did I ever think one would...mamma always told me I'd have to support myself, and I have done so.


----------



## brokeneric

Deejo said:


> Whoa, whoa, lets keep the record relatively straight.
> 
> WOMEN post the boob threads, and I have never ever seen anyone posting here indulge in boob shaming.


Boob shaming? 
Sacrilege. They are the proof god exists. Just my .02


----------



## OhGeesh

Nope don't measure up ;( 

I'm too short girth I'm good  

That's what high end vibrators are for!!


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> .
> 
> Sometimes I feel so misunderstood...


I understand you. I see what you're trying to paint. Its just that I don't agree with your interpretations.


----------



## WyshIknew

Goodnight all, thanks, I enjoyed the discussions today.


----------



## PreRaphaelite

Actually I have a different take than a lot of you about this "chart". I don't see it as demeaning because it objectifies, i find it amusing because what it reflects to me is the obsession with quantifying everything which is so much a part of this statistic driven culture.

This is just a stupid exercise in the idea that you can quantify pleasure, and that you can determine the "ideal" size for a woman's sexual satisfaction. That's because it feeds the anxiety over uncertainty, and everybody wants certainty. As if we can reduce a woman's sexual pleasure to a number and then do what's necessary to "fit" the number.

What about women who don't enjoy penetration as much? This whole thing turns the c0ck into a fetish. Ah yes! The key to sexual pleasure is. . . .*drumroll*....the Johnson! As if that same cliche hasn't been repeated for a thousand years. It's just a rehash of that tired old thing.

Sexual response and the pleasure we get from it are too varied for this sort of stuff to mean much at all. Yes I'm sure lots of women do enjoy penetration, but penetration isn't the end-all of making love is it?

The thing that might demean people the most is not that they don't measure up to some pseudo-standard, but that they feel pressured to conform to a pseudo-standard. Our sexual lives are so much more than the sensation of a c0ck, but somehow it's as if we're led to believe that what they say about well-endowed males is all true.

And all it takes is for a few women to repeat this stuff and all of a sudden it is passed off as scientific truth.


----------



## TopsyTurvy5

Faithful Wife said:


> Hmmm....does this honestly make you (Topsy) feel objectified?
> 
> Keep in mind, I do not know your story...so maybe a woman just emptied your bank account or something, if so, I am sorry...
> 
> But does it make you feel that you mean nothing to a woman but what you can provide her in cash?
> 
> And do you think most men feel this way? Or do only the men who actually have a lot of money feel this way?
> 
> Conversely...I kind of thought men with a lot of money felt ok with this and knew they could actually bargain for "better" women with money. If that is the case, is it the women objectifying the man, or the man objectifying the woman?
> 
> For the record, no man has ever supported me, nor did I ever think one would...mamma always told me I'd have to support myself, and I have done so.


No, not at all, but then I don't have a job that pays me a significant amount of money.  I do have a couple of friends who make a significant amount of money and it is something they are concerned about. My father-in-law acknowledges this is what happened to him, so it definitely is an issue. 

I guess I would say the same thing, don't women who are beautiful use that to their advantage at times? (Able to get a wealthy husband.) Is it only objectifying if it is against your wishes?


----------



## Faithful Wife

It is complicated, yeah. It has always seemed to me that any woman who used looks to get a rich man (and granted, I don't know very many women like this - - not my crowd, I guess?) was getting the short end of that deal unless somehow the rich man was also a man she would want to f*ck silly on the regular. But that's just how I think.


----------



## rush

I do not know my girth but I know I am not big, but what I lack there I believe I make up with other skills and personality


----------



## Caribbean Man

The reverse or _backward rationalization_ by some on this thread is simply amusing.

" All animals are created equal! But some are more equal than others.."

Part of the human condition.


----------



## Tall Average Guy

always_alone said:


> I also have a bad habit of using overly colorful hyperbolic metaphors --which I think a lot of people don't appreciate very much.
> 
> One of my many character flaws.


It would be much less problematic if you gave men who do the same the benefit of the doubt.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Tall Average Guy said:


> It would be much less problematic if you gave men who do the same the benefit of the doubt.



EXACTLY!

OCEAN. 
Agreeableness, or the " A" in the big five.


----------



## hookares

Faithful Wife said:


> It is complicated, yeah. It has always seemed to me that any woman who used looks to get a rich man (and granted, I don't know very many women like this - - not my crowd, I guess?) was getting the short end of that deal unless somehow the rich man was also a man she would want to f*ck silly on the regular. But that's just how I think.


And right you are. Money isn't everything. Unless, of course, you have none and the reason you don't is because you cheated on your provider and he or she has dumped you.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> No actually. I quite like being objectified.


Okay, then DvlsPns, let me make your day. You can join always_alone's dream team of sexually objectified men.

Oh wait, you're average? Oh, well sorry, that won't work then. Only 10s can play. Dismissed!

The rest of the cutie rods should put on their pejazzles and bop on their pedestals. The show is about to begin.

And quiet on the set. Remember sexy boys are there to look pretty. No one wants to see your mouth move.


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> EXACTLY!
> 
> OCEAN.
> Agreeableness, or the " A" in the big five.


Oh, I know. Trust me. No one likes a woman with a strong opinion and will.

She should be just smart enough to go along with whatever the prevailing wisdom is, or keep her mouth shut.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> Oh, I know. Trust me. No one likes a woman with a strong opinion and will.
> 
> She should be just smart enough to go along with whatever the prevailing wisdom is, or keep her mouth shut.


*Agreeableness:* (friendly/compassionate vs. analytical/detached).
_ A tendency to be compassionate and cooperative rather than suspicious and antagonistic towards others. It is also a measure of one's trusting and helpful nature, and whether a person is generally well tempered or not._
Big Five personality traits - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Life works best when you treat people the way you expect them to treat you. A person can disagree strongly, without being disagreeable.

If you want posters to give leeway to your idiosyncrasies, then it's only fair if you too are prepared to understand and accept that they too would have theirs.


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> Life works best when you treat people the way you expect them to treat you. A person can disagree strongly, without being disagreeable.
> 
> If you want posters to give leeway to your idiosyncrasies, then it's only fair if you too are prepared to understand and accept that they too would have theirs.


I get what you're saying, but I really don't think I can manage "cooperative" and "helpful" as a response to hurtful and objectifying sexism. I just must disagree strongly.

And if others see that as bitter and hateful, and want to come back with strong disagreements of their own, well that's their prerogative. It's a public forum, and I surely don't expect people to agree with me.

But, I will point out that despite what you say, disagreeing strongly is almost always interpreted as disagreeable, particularly and especially when it comes from a woman. That's why aggressive men are considered "manly" and "assertive", and "stating their mind" while aggressive women are just "*****es"

I'm generalizing, of course, but let's not pretend the playing field is entirely equal.


----------



## Tall Average Guy

always_alone said:


> Oh, I know. Trust me. No one likes a woman with a strong opinion and will.
> 
> She should be just smart enough to go along with whatever the prevailing wisdom is, or keep her mouth shut.


No, that is not it at all. I am fine with an opinion. I know many women with strong opinions that I respect greatly. But they don't play the victim the minute someone disagrees. They treat others with the same respect they demand. They hold themselves to the same standard that they hold others to.

So if you expect others to excuse your posts due to your weakness of "using overly colorful hyperbolic metaphors", you may want to consider extending that courtesy to men who do the same. To do otherwise invites that very treatment that you now decry.


----------



## Tall Average Guy

always_alone said:


> I'm generalizing, of course, but let's not pretend the playing field is entirely equal.


A generalization through which you view all male posters, yet immediately object to when applied to you. Is your goal to persuade folks, or is it wrap yourself in a blanket of self-righteous indignation? You have your opinions and will do what you want, but at some point, think about your goal.

I will leave you and your thread alone now.


----------



## always_alone

Tall Average Guy said:


> No, that is not it at all. I am fine with an opinion. I know many women with strong opinions that I respect greatly. But they don't play the victim the minute someone disagrees. They treat others with the same respect they demand. They hold themselves to the same standard that they hold others to.
> 
> So if you expect others to excuse your posts due to your weakness of "using overly colorful hyperbolic metaphors", you may want to consider extending that courtesy to men who do the same. To do otherwise invites that very treatment that you now decry.


I'm not "playing the victim", I'm arguing against views that I disagree with. And I always aim to argue the point, rather than hurling ad hominem insults.

So I honestly don't see why you would call it playing the victim? Maybe you'd explain that?

Oh, and I wasn't looking for excuses, just making an observation. You wanna call me on my sh1t, I'm fine with that. But I may argue against it if I disagree with the assessment.


----------



## PreRaphaelite

This discussion is interesting for sure, but realize it isn't going to stop this sort of thing from becoming more prevalent.

Sex is an industry, and if "women and their preferences for penis-size" sells, then no amount of moralizing will make any difference. 

All it takes is to make women feel ok about it using the rhetoric of empowerment and it will work. "I have a right to express my preferences for big/thick/big but not too big members attached to the appropriate man. . . It's empowering for me after denying *my* desires for so long," etc. etc. etc.

Men can laugh cynically at the whole thing as say that we knew it all along, and the rest of what women say is just a cover-up for what we knew they really wanted. --and so much for feminism..etc, etc., etc.


----------



## Tall Average Guy

always_alone said:


> I'm not "playing the victim", I'm arguing against views that I disagree with. And I always aim to argue the point, rather than hurling ad hominem insults.
> 
> So I honestly don't see why you would call it playing the victim? Maybe you'd explain that?


Easy enough. CM made the following comment:



> Agreeableness, or the " A" in the big five.


You did not address it, or explain why you disagreed, or anything like that. Rather, you actually went straight to the ad hominem:



> Oh, I know. Trust me. No one likes a woman with a strong opinion and will.
> 
> She should be just smart enough to go along with whatever the prevailing wisdom is, or keep her mouth shut.


So rather than address the merits, you fell back to being a poor picked on woman. This post indicates that they only reason a man could be disagreeing with you is because he doesn't like a woman with strong opinions and believes such a woman should keep her mouth shut. 



> Oh, and I wasn't looking for excuses, just making an observation. You wanna call me on my sh1t, I'm fine with that. But I may argue against it if I disagree with the assessment.


My point is that you expect others to take into account your idiosyncrasies, such hyperbole, and not take your statements literally, yet your continually fail to extend that same courtesy to men. People that routinely hold others to a higher standard than they hold themselves to are rarely as persuasive as they could be. But sadly, your posts off make me question whether that is your end goal.


----------



## always_alone

Tall Average Guy said:


> Easy enough. CM made the following comment:
> 
> You did not address it, or explain why you disagreed, or anything like that. Rather, you actually went straight to the ad hominem:


Point taken. I'll admit my reaction to being told that I'm the one who needs to be agreeable when it's actually others calling me names was knee jerk and hostile.

My goal was not to persuade, as I simply assumed my POV would, mostly be dismissed, but for those who share similarities in mindset. My goal was mostly to generate discussion on thoughts and experiences that have been troubling me lately -- and this I've achieved in spades.

And no, I don't really expect anyone take my idiosyncrasies into account. I fully understand that they are part of what makes me deplorable


----------



## Tall Average Guy

always_alone said:


> Point taken. I'll admit my reaction to being told that I'm the one who needs to be agreeable when it's actually others calling me names was knee jerk and hostile.
> 
> My goal was not to persuade, as I simply assumed my POV would, mostly be dismissed, but for those who share similarities in mindset. My goal was mostly to generate discussion on thoughts and experiences that have been troubling me lately -- and this I've achieved in spades.


Well I appreciate you being honest about it, though I disagree with your assumption on being dismissed. I don't believe this was your actual goal, but no need to get into that.



> And no, I don't really expect anyone take my idiosyncrasies into account. I fully understand that they are part of what makes me deplorable


My 12 year old son used to do this as well. The moment he is criticized (such as when he does not put effort into something), he immediately plays the poor me routine, focusing on how he is just no good. It is a pretty childish attempt on his part to avoid the real issue. He does not like to be introduced to his faults either. Good luck in your pot stirring.


----------



## always_alone

Tall Average Guy said:


> My 12 year old son used to do this as well. The moment he is criticized (such as when he does not put effort into something), he immediately plays the poor me routine, focusing on how he is just no good. It is a pretty childish attempt on his part to avoid the real issue. He does not like to be introduced to his faults either. Good luck in your pot stirring.


Gee, thanks for the character analysis, but you clearly have no idea what I'm about, or what motivates me.

I'm not looking for your sympathy, and am more than happy to own up to my faults. Indeed I'm pretty open and frank about them, yet to you it's all just evidence I'm playing the poor me victim card. 

I don't get it.

But, whatever. I can't control yours or anyone else's interpretation of me.


----------



## Tall Average Guy

always_alone said:


> I'm not looking for your sympathy, and am more than happy to own up to my faults. Indeed I'm pretty open and frank about them, yet to you it's all just evidence I'm playing the poor me victim card.


Of course. You chose the word "deplorable" to characterize yourself, not me. If it were merely a fault, you would note it as a weakness but are working on, but you did not do that. Since you clearly don't view yourself as deplorable, my conclusion is that it is you taking on what you think others think of you. hence the victim hood.

But I also know it does not matter. I am a man, and nothing I can write will persuade you otherwise. So I will leave you and your thread and wish you luck.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> I fully understand that they are part of what makes me deplorable


I've always been a fan of our arguments. 

Not sure why arguing with you would lead you to believe anyone dismisses you. Dismissing you would be to say you're not worth arguing with. I have written a couple thousand posts to prove otherwise. haha


----------



## brokeneric

Penis size is like arguing about bullet calibers. People keep saying .22lr is puny. Ask them can I pop in the chest with 1 and look their reactions.

Ideal penis is one that can get up and do its job.


----------



## reggie500

brokeneric said:


> Penis size is like arguing about bullet calibers. People keep saying .22lr is puny. Ask them can I pop in the chest with 1 and look their reactions.
> 
> Ideal penis is one that can get up and do its job.


This implies that "getting the job done" cannot be qualitatively different in different instances. There are many ways to get the job done, and some will surely be more impressive in a real sense.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Created2Write

Firstly, someone wanting your body _isn't_, on its own, objectification. It just means that someone wants you, and that's a good thing. Objectification goes beyond sexual desire, something that some of the men here don't seem to be grasping. 

Secondly, I really don't like the "why worry about what you can't change" attitudes because it's far too simplistic. My husband finds me smokin' hot, and I know that for an absolute fact. And I really and honestly don't give a flying fart in space what anyone else things of my looks, whether that be my pant size, my cup size, my hair color and length, my height...expect for one person: _me_. My body has changed in ways I didn't expect as I've aged and gone through pregnancies, and it has taken hours and hours of work and effort and disappointment and frustration to try and understand my metabolism, and get into the shape I want to be in, even though I've never been unhealthy or close to it. 

I support being healthy, but in our society "healthy" has come to mean something incredibly specific: fit and ripped, which is highly exclusive. One can be extremely healthy without being ripped like we see on magazines and in television. And one can be fit and ripped and be incredibly _un_healthy, yet it continues to be the standard to which the majority of women and men are measured. How can I believe my husband when he tells me that I couldn't be more sexy to him, when I know that I don't look like a Victoria's Secret model? 

And it goes the other direction, as well. My husband worked out nearly three times a day in high-school, and was in pristine physical condition. He works out once a day now, and is still in amazing shape. He has a body worthy of being worshipped(and I do!), yet he's still dissatisfied with it because he no longer works out that often. To me, he's a god. But, because he doesn't look the way he used to, he's dissatisfied. 

See, I really do like my body, but because of the standard set by so many men and women to look a certain way, I don't feel like I _should_ be happy with it. And I'm a size 4. _That_ is my biggest issue with the "why worry about it" activists.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Confused. If you're not happy with something, you work toward changing it, exactly as your doing. Ripped fit isn't necessarily achievable for most imo, its just something to strive for. Even if you never get there you're closer than you were before striving. I have a quote I like, "I am not a good runner, but I am infinitely better than someone who doesn't run at all." My motivation isn't to be perfect. My motivation is to strive to always be better. Some people don't like that mentality and prefer something more comfortable and complacent.

Thinking one is not good enough is the mistake, not one's desire to always improve. I'm good enough now, but I'll always work to be better. I enjoy the process and accomplishment. That's just how I'm wired.

Don't worry about what you can't change is really simplistic. Acceptance, when it comes down to it, is nothing more than a state of mind. A choice.


----------



## always_alone

Created2Write said:


> See, I really do like my body, but because of the standard set by so many men and women to look a certain way, I don't feel like I _should_ be happy with it. And I'm a size 4. _That_ is my biggest issue with the "why worry about it" activists.


I agree with what you say, especially about remembering that sexual attraction and objectification are two very different things.

But I don't think the ideal itself is the problem. It's the ideal combined with the message that looks/body are the only things that matter, combined with being treated like a piece of meat rather than a whole person.

What I found most illuminating about this thread was the immediate impulse to resist being reduced to one measure by asserting the value of the whole person.

I could relate!


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

I don't think there's anything wrong with acknowledging that looks are critical. If the man isn't attracted, he's probably not going to seek a relationship. Looks ARE very important, but as critical as they are, everyone is still restricted to what they can get. Beautiful people typically marry the other beautiful people. I'm not competing for women against Ryan Gosling. Why stress about it?

On the objectifying front, I do find a certain kind of attraction to be objectifying. Many women lust for their husbands because they love their husbands. When they look at him, they see more than someone else does. I wouldn't consider this objectification. They usually didn't lust for him the first time they saw him even if they thought he was cute (mostly). The lust I and others I talk to experience is not a cute "oh, she's attractive", its a graphic, possessive, objectifying lust initially. "I want that." A distinctly different character from liking someone as a person or simply thinking someone attractive.

I'm not "appreciating" that hot girls body. I want to borrow it for a little while regardlessof anything else about her. Thats objectifying, most men do it, and its an important part of how our sex drive works.


----------



## Code-Welder

Tall Average Guy said:


> A generalization through which you view all male posters, yet immediately object to when applied to you. Is your goal to persuade folks, or is it wrap yourself in a blanket of self-righteous indignation? You have your opinions and will do what you want, but at some point, think about your goal.
> 
> *I will leave you and your thread alone now.*


After contributing absolutely nothing to benefit the topic of this thread.


----------



## Created2Write

I didn't mean that the ideal is the problem. If others want to be ripped, then more power to them. I wish them success. But I don't agree that ripped is something everyone should strive for. It's a personal choice, and it should be. If someone wants to be ripped because they like the athleticism that comes with it, or because they want the challenge of the discipline it takes to get there, or if they just like the way a ripped body looks, then by all means, go for it. But that doesn't mean that those who don't want to look like that are lazy and/or complacent, or are, somehow, settling for less than they should. 

And I don't agree that objectifying women is in a mans sexual nature. Not one bit. Again, objectification goes beyond wanting a woman for sexual pleasure. Looks being "important" is relative, because everyone values looks differently. Being attracted to someone, yes, is vital, and looks usually play _a_ part in that. My husband always said he was too vain to date or marry a homely girl, and I think it's healthy for people to be with someone they're attracted to. Attraction, sexual desire, lust...those things _are_ in a person's nature, whether male or female. But objectification is a _choice_, imo. 

Why? Because people are, often, attracted to things that have nothing to do with how someone looks. Even if that attraction is only used for the purposes of finding an f--- buddy, and has nothing to do with anything other than sex. Objectification _can_, in some relationships, be used mutually for increased sexual arousal and satisfaction, but that is a choice those people make, and it _isn't_ the same as natural sexual desires and wants.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> its a graphic, possessive, objectifying lust initially. "I want that." A distinctly different character from liking someone as a person or simply thinking someone attractive.
> 
> I'm not "appreciating" that hot girls body. I want to borrow it for a little while regardlessof anything else about her. Thats objectifying, most men do it, and its an important part of how our sex drive works.


So there's you, insisting that all men do objectify women, and that it's essential to your male nature, then there's this other thread full of outraged men saying that they don't objectify women, and were all quite offended that any woman would think to accuse them of seeing women as objects.

How confusing can you get?

For the record, I rather hope that your attitude is the exception, rather than the rule, as I find it rather nauseating.

I suppose not as many men have had the misfortune of knowing what it's actuall like to be "taken" without any regard for your peson?

On the other thread, they say it *is* "appreciation".


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I don't think there's anything wrong with acknowledging that looks are critical. If the man isn't attracted, he's probably not going to seek a relationship. Looks ARE very important, but as critical as they are, everyone is still restricted to what they can get. Beautiful people typically marry the other beautiful people. I'm not competing for women against Ryan Gosling. Why stress about it?


Just wanted to add that the problems around objectification aren't about finding a mate, or who you're attracted to.

It's about what defines you as a person and what your possibilities are (or are not). And research shows it has much the same effect on men as women. It's just that you guys don't have to put up with quite as much of it, and it doesn't permeate your lives quite so thoroughly.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> So there's you, insisting that all men do objectify women, and that it's essential to your male nature, then there's this other thread full of outraged men saying that they don't objectify women, and were all quite offended that any woman would think to accuse them of seeing women as objects.
> 
> How confusing can you get?


Yeah, you're going to get that when people have different understandings of what objectification really is. That confuses you?

Women express it as a bad thing, so of course men are going to explain that they dont do the bad thing. I'm sorry, but the first thought that arrives upon seeing a hot woman is pure possessive lust. "I want to f that", even if you avoid describing it in such crude terms. I think that's objectifying in the very same manner that a good career makes a man significantly more attractive to women (this is scientifically proven). Initial male thoughts are generally not, "I wonder if she's a great person" or "I just want to get to know her". I dont buy for a second that most guys have the latter initial reaction. If that nauseates you, then men nauseate yout. You may as well say a dog's instinct to chase nauseates you. You dont like the way I think most men think, so much so that I wonder if you hate most men entirely. Note how virtually every female social problem seems to be rooted in some male cause to you. 

I think the sort of man that would appeal to you would be thought of by most other men as somewhat passive and feminine. To each his/her own.

There is nothing wrong with the objectification I describe, whether its a man' objectifying a womans body or a woman objectifying a man's career success. These objectifying elements are part of attraction - a big part. We want what we want.



always_alone said:


> I suppose not as many men have had the misfortune of knowing what it's actuall like to be "taken" without any regard for your peson?


Are you really going to draw an equivalency with rape here? A man can want a woman for her body and not violate her self determinism. Does female preference for 8" penises or fat wallets mean women want to rape or rob men?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> Just wanted to add that the problems around objectification aren't about finding a mate, or who you're attracted to.
> 
> It's about what defines you as a person and what your possibilities are (or are not). And research shows it has much the same effect on men as women. It's just that you guys don't have to put up with quite as much of it, and it doesn't permeate your lives quite so thoroughly.


It only defines you if you allow it to. Plenty of people choose to not be defined by objectifying notions of beauty or income, and dont strive for either.


----------



## RandomDude

*Pulls down pants*

Objectify me!


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Initial male thoughts are generally not, "I wonder if she's a great person" or "I just want to get to know her". I dont buy for a second that most guys have the latter initial reaction. If that nauseates you, then men nauseate yout. You may as well say a dog's instinct to chase nauseates you. You dont like the way I think most men think, so much so that I wonder if you hate most men entirely. Note how virtually every female social problem seems to be rooted in some male cause to you.
> 
> I think the sort of man that would appeal to you would be thought of by most other men as somewhat passive and feminine. To each his/her own.
> 
> There is nothing wrong with the objectification I describe, whether its a man' objectifying a womans body or a woman objectifying a man's career success. These objectifying elements are part of attraction - a big part. We want what we want.


Yet, men respond in much the same way when reduced to their sexual characteristics. They immediately discount the relative importance of their physical measurements, and are quick to reassure that women care about the whole person. 

It isn't about just me and my reactions, or even just about women. It makes men uncomfortable and unhappy too. How do you explain that?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> Yet, men respond in much the same way when reduced to their sexual characteristics. They immediately discount the relative importance of their physical measurements, and are quick to reassure that women care about the whole person.
> 
> It isn't about just me and my reactions, or even just about women. It makes men uncomfortable and unhappy too. How do you explain that?


I explain it as a natural human desire for acceptance and underdeveloped sense of awareness that the only acceptance they ought be concerned with is self-acceptance. Nobody else defines you. Everything else is you trying to get what you want.

If women were vocal about finding a man with the ideal 8" penis, well, those women can pass me up. I don't have one. In any given comparison to men, I'm going to be inferior in some aspects and superior in others and I will appeal as best I can to the women who have what I'm looking for. The will to "improve" oneself is entirely a choice based on who you want to appeal to, the worth of doing so, and whether its even realistically achievable.

If one does nothing at all, there is still someone out there who is your match - many people in fact - who also feel no need to appeal on looks, or income... or whatever objectifying measure you name. If you're hypersensitive to physical objectification, then you're probably going to find someone who doesn't do it or is quiet about it (and I'd bet he'd have a lower drive); if a man is hypersensitive to "size queens", then he's probably going to seek a more sexually selfless woman. It all takes care of itself imo. That so many people have these sensitivities is why we associate being forward about such wants as somewhat classless or shallow - but who am I to judge someone else's priorities just because I don't conform to them? That's rather convenient. It all sounds so much like saying "You don't want me, so what you want is wrong."


----------



## ocotillo

always_alone said:


> ....then there's this other thread full of outraged men saying that they don't objectify women, and were all quite offended that any woman would think to accuse them of seeing women as objects.


:scratchhead:


----------



## Faithful Wife

I don't know if this is a troll thread or not...but this will continue to be a problem going forward...

http://talkaboutmarriage.com/sex-marriage/167361-marriage-size-pen-girls-help-please.html


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

^ this is one reason I regret the increase of privacy/shyness in locker rooms and what not. Old men have seen plenty of other real men and have fewer of these issues. Guys who played sports see plenty of other real men. Men in the military have seen plenty of other real men.

From my experience playing sports and being in a squad bay with a 100 butt naked men facing each other... we're all more alike than different. Even the outliers weren't that significantly bigger or smaller. I'd have put money down that not a single guy in there was outside the 5-7 inch range when erect.

I haven't seen many erect penises in real life and from what I've read there is little correlation between flaccid size and erect size, but what I've seen sure does fit the bell curve. I think size matters, it just isn't a deal breaker or maker for most.


----------



## Created2Write

Lust is not, by itself, objectification. Lust can lead to objectification, but having lustful thoughts, feelings, and urges doesn't mean a man is objectifying a woman.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I explain it as a natural human desire for acceptance and underdeveloped sense of awareness that the only acceptance they ought be concerned with is self-acceptance. Nobody else defines you. Everything else is you trying to get what you want.


I think you're missing the bigger picture here. Again, this isn't about finding a good mate, it's about the climate we must live in. You don't see it because it doesn't affect you, but FW just posted a link on the other thread to a French movie that sums it up nicely.

And you are wrong about the link between HD and objectification. My h is very HD, and her personhood actually factors into his sexual attraction.


----------



## always_alone

ocotillo said:


> :scratchhead:


You would characterize it differently? If so, please do! 

I realize that a part of that outrage had to do with the mistaken assumption that women were equating objectification with assault, but certainly there was a fair amount of arguing that men are just "appreciating" women, and the problems around objectification are just a figment of the feminist imagination.

Wasn't there?

Or do we all agree wig Dvl's that objectification is an intrinsic and inescapable part of male sexuality? And I suppose women's too, for that matter, since it's happening to men more and more.


----------



## always_alone

Faithful Wife said:


> I don't know if this is a troll thread or not...but this will continue to be a problem going forward...
> 
> http://talkaboutmarriage.com/sex-marriage/167361-marriage-size-pen-girls-help-please.html


Not sure why everyone thinks this is a troll thread. It's a very real question/issue, and I though by approaching it from the opposite perspective, it would gain some traction and become up for real discussion.

Which it did, I guess, as there is also another thread on the very same topic.

I guess I should've started with that video you posted instead -but I hadn't ever seen it until today.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Like I said, different ideas of what objectifies someone. If you want someone's body, knowing nothing about them but the fact that they're hot - I think that's objectifying. That that objectifying lust - craving her body, is an important element in most/many men's sex drive.


----------



## samyeagar

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Like I said, different ideas of what objectifies someone. If you want someone's body, knowing nothing about them but the fact that they're hot - I think that's objectifying. That that objectifying lust - craving her body, is an important element in most/many men's sex drive.


And often times the very first element in a relationship before the man gets to know her personhood.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Like I said, different ideas of what objectifies someone. If you want someone's body, knowing nothing about them but the fact that they're hot - I think that's objectifying. That that objectifying lust - craving her body, is an important element in most/many men's sex drive.


And women's too, since men are also objectified?

And what of all of the negative repercussions felt by both sexes from being treated as interchangeable means to an end? All always inevitable?

I'm with Created2Write, I just can't see sexual attraction or lust as objectifying. Humans have always had sex, lust, and desire, but we haven't always done so thought treating people as less than human.


----------



## ocotillo

always_alone said:


> You would characterize it differently? If so, please do!


I'm just trying to understand you and where you're coming from. My impression is that you're well read enough to wield a good working definition of objectification, since there is no shortage of feminist scholars who have written about it.

On page 5 of the 'Other' thread, you told Caribbean Man that, "It [objectification) has nothing to do with playing thought police or mandating who someone should or should not be attracted to. It has to do with the way people are treated and how it impacts their lives in very real and concrete ways." 

He asked you how the thoughts of a "random stranger on the street" would satisfy clinical definitions of objectification and the conversation meandered into the root causes of a pretty heinous crime. 

If you are contrasting male responses after that point to DvlsAdvc8's personal definition of objectification, then I think you might be equivocating.


----------



## samyeagar

always_alone said:


> And women's too, since men are also objectified?
> 
> And what of all of the negative repercussions felt by both sexes from being treated as interchangeable means to an end? All always inevitable?
> 
> I'm with Created2Write, I just can't see sexual attraction or lust as objectifying. Humans have always had sex, lust, and desire, but we haven't always done so thought treating people as less than human.


Ultimately, people are interchangable, and do exchange people through out their lives.


----------



## Created2Write

I can look at a man and judge, by his appearance, whether or not I'd have sex with him. This isn't objectification, this is simply a statement of which man could illicit sexual arousal in me. I could even decide that I _want_ to have sex with him, without knowing anything about him, and that still wouldn't be objectification. It would be a statement that the guy is crazy attractive to me, and my motor's running, _not_ that I'm objectifying him.


----------



## always_alone

ocotillo said:


> I'm just trying to understand you and where you're coming from. My impression is that you're well read enough to wield a good working definition of objectification, since there is no shortage of feminist scholars who have written about it.
> 
> On page 5 of the 'Other' thread, you told Caribbean Man that, "It [objectification) has nothing to do with playing thought police or mandating who someone should or should not be attracted to. It has to do with the way people are treated and how it impacts their lives in very real and concrete ways."
> 
> He asked you how the thoughts of a "random stranger on the street" would satisfy clinical definitions of objectification and the conversation meandered into the root causes of a pretty heinous crime.
> 
> If you are contrasting male responses after that point to DvlsAdvc8's personal definition of objectification, then I think you might be equivocating.


I find this tough to articulate, so bear with me.

I do not think lust or sexual attraction are objectification. I'm not trying to tell Dvl's or anyone else who they should be attracted to, who they should pursue, who they fantasize about. All none of my business.

But I do fear that someone who is inclined to view another person as an interchangeable, disposable, violable object is probably inclined to treat them that way as well. Indeed, we see examples of this sort of thing all the time.

Are you saying that Dvl's really does speak for how men view women? If so, then why all the outrage, and why so difficult to acknowledge the difficulties that women face every day?

Dvls, at least, is pretty open that he doesn't much like women, except for their looks and bodies. 

I'm not saying this well, I know. I just wish I could understand it, so I could put it to rest already.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> And women's too, since men are also objectified?


Got me, I'm not a woman. My sense of it is that women objectify men mostly in other ways. I've only met a handful of women for whom penis size was actually anything remotely of a priority, for example. Where as you tend to view men and women as seemingly identical, I tend to think of us as quite different in drive/motivations.



always_alone said:


> And what of all of the negative repercussions felt by both sexes from being treated as interchangeable means to an end? All always inevitable?


Who said anything about treating people as interchangeable means to an end? That I lust for one woman or another for their type of body, being only interested in their bodies at that moment, doesn't mean I would treat them like they are nothing but bodies. That's the difference between what I'm describing and being a sociopath. I'd rephrase this question to focus on the negative repercussions of popular opinion - and sure, there's plenty. There always will be. The right waist, the right breasts, the right penis, the right hair, the right color eyes, the right car, the right house, the right career... blah blah blah... but we want what we want. These aren't defining elements of person. To my mind, they're somewhat objectifying.

If what I describe isn't objectifying to you, and objectification to you is the stricter sense that one treats a person as NOTHING but an object, with no acknowledgement of their personhood - then that's a sociopath and an extremely small minority of the population.



always_alone said:


> Humans have always had sex, lust, and desire, but we haven't always done so thought treating people as less than human.


You think humankind is doing something new just because we're able to plaster it in mass media?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Created2Write said:


> I can look at a man and judge, by his appearance, *whether or not I'd have sex with him*. This isn't objectification, this is simply a statement of which man could illicit sexual arousal in me. I could even decide that I _want_ to have sex with him, without knowing anything about him, and that still wouldn't be objectification. It would be a statement that the guy is crazy attractive to me, and my motor's running, _not_ that I'm objectifying him.


If all you want from him is sex based on his body, how would that not be objectifying him? What is your definition of objectification?


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> If what I describe isn't objectifying to you, and objectification to you is the stricter sense that one treats a person as NOTHING but an object, with no acknowledgement of their personhood - then that's a sociopath and an extremely small minority of the population.


Oh, if only that were true. Sadly it isn't only the sociopaths. It's widespread throughout society.


----------



## Created2Write

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> If all you want from him is sex based on his body, how would that not be objectifying him? What is your definition of objectification?


I didn't say that was all I would want, but even if I had, my point would be the same. I don't see NSA sex as objectification on a general scale. People like to fool around. Sexual desires, sexual wants, and sexual satisfaction _are not_ the same as objectification. Even if all you want from a woman is sex, you likely don't see a walking vagina. You don't just grab her, tell her you're going to have sex with her, and take her right then and there. More than likely you talk with her, try to make her laugh, flirt with her, maybe flatter her even, buy her a drink or two...in essence, you're acknowledging that she's a human being with a mind of her own, a personality, likes and dislikes, etc. Even if you have no intentions of anything beyond a ONS with this woman, you're still behaving respectfully and considerately, even if you wake up the next morning, leave and never talk to her again. 

To me, objectification isn't the wanting of sex, or even the wanting of _only_ sex, but the mindset that a woman's only true value is in her f---ability; that could include her looks, her actual performance in bed, her willingness to put out, etc. Defining objectification as merely what a man wants from a woman blurs the lines considerably and, imo, seeks to simplify something that can, and should be, complicated. It's why I don't entirely understand the idea of husbands and wives mutually objectifying each other. I know FW has said that she and her husband do this, and I believe that they do and that it's a healthy choice they've made for themselves, but I do have a difficult time seeing what she describes as objectification. Having sex just to have sex because you feel like it isn't objectification in my mind unless you're disregarding the other person in every way other than sex, and I don't see how one can do that when they're in love. 

I could be over-thinking it...I do that a lot and often miss the point.

My husband uses me for "just sex" sometimes. He often gropes me while I'm asleep, and oblivious to what's going on. He likes anal play, I'm really not hot for it, so sometimes he'll finger me while he gets off. And I do not see that as objectification. 1) He knows I don't care if he gropes me while I'm sleeping because I've told him so, so it's not as if he's trying to be sneaky and play with a part of my body that I want him to leave alone, 2) He respects who I am as a person, and would never hurt me or take advantage of me, even though I'm a heavy sleeper and likely wouldn't know about it if he did, 3) He appreciates me for more than my body and, even when using my body for his physical pleasure in that moment, doesn't view me _only_ as a tool for his physical pleasure. 

This is why I say that objectification is a complicated thing to define. In some circumstances, a husband groping his wife while she's sleeping _could_ be objectification. In others, it isn't.


----------



## Created2Write

Yeah, I agree with AA. While there are different levels of objectification, and different kinds, there is absolutely no shortage of it. 

Now, before this thread goes all crazy like the other objectification thread did, I _do not_ believe that all or most or the majority of men are predators, or that all or most or the majority of men objectify women or even want to. However, it _is_ a serious issue and isn't rare. I was objectified by two of my ex-boyfriends and one guy I almost dated. It wasn't severe in any of the situations, and I'm thankful for that, but it was still wrong.


----------



## Sandfly

always_alone said:


> But, at least I'm now clear that I'm one helluva fat, ugly feminazi that likes to pillory men for sport.


I don't imagine you as fat and ugly - see, this is your problem.

This is an actual problem you have which shines through in everything you post - you assume hostility

So you prepare for hostility,

Then you feel satisfied to have been proven right...

like some sorta feminazi !!

No, you're sweet.


----------



## Sandfly

always_alone said:


> Women in the Victorian era were also quite objectified, although it had a much different flavour than today. Then it was more porcelain doll, while today is much closer to barbie doll.


 Were they? Says who. And by whom?



always_alone said:


> I do not think that people throwing themselves at another person is necessarily objectification, whether they are women, men, heterosexual, homosexual. I also do not think being that person who others are throwing themselves at are necessarily objectifying anyone.
> 
> So what is...??
> 
> Gender is irrelevant.
> 
> I'm guessing you actually have no idea what it feels like.
> 
> What is 'it', first?
> 
> I grant you, I've seen some enjoy the paycheck and the attention that comes from it for a short while. But it doesn't exactly generate respect for others or good feelings in the long term
> 
> _Being treated shabbily is not the same as objectification_. If it were, we'd all be subject to it constantly, in all places and periods of history.
> 
> So what is it?
> 
> Tell me, do you realize the correlations between body image, eating disorders, depression (etc) and objectification? For both women AND men?


I'm up to maybe page 15, and you still haven't bothered to share what you think 'objectification' actually means, even though CM has asked several times... 

Wars against abstract concepts ... After the war on 'terror' is over in 70 years time, we can have the war on objectification.


----------



## Sandfly

FrenchFry said:


> Er...she got called fat in this thread. No assumptions there.


I must have missed it. 

Who could possibly know if she was or not?

Where is it, please, and the one where she is called ugly.

EDIT: well moderator, I can't find it, there's stuff about binobo monkeys, the incredible hulk needs a poo pretty bad - funny picture, BTW, he's really straining.... there's one about the 7 year itch... nope.


----------



## always_alone

Sandfly said:


> Were they? Says who. And by whom?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm up to maybe page 15, and you still haven't bothered to share what you think 'objectification' actually means, even though CM has asked several times...


Let me refer you to FrenchFry's awesome post, which deserves reposting, and although not exactly a definition, it does give a very good picture of exactly what objectification looks like.



FrenchFry said:


> What is missing, and I think what always_alone is identifying is that there are several structures in place that are strictly about molding people to ideals and branding those who do not fall into that ideal as less than.
> 
> The reaction that men have to being put into one of these molded ideal is the exact same reaction that women have to being put into the structures.
> 
> The difference is that this particular structure (the chart) doesn't influence the power of men in any meaningful way. So the agitation is totally normal but also easily blown off.
> 
> 
> Women who get put into these structures are affected by it. Not by your personal attraction but the majority of our worth to the world is judged on how nice we are to look at.
> 
> If this was a world where power was in high correlation with penis size, the agitating would be the same. I'm just imagining things like:
> 
> *Women doing studies on penises proving that the ideal penis is ideal for a reason. These are of course not culturally influenced, but they are right because science. Women dominate science by the way because we are just naturally better at it due to our lack of worrying about our penis.
> 
> *A ridiculous amount of commercials from industries focusing on the ideal penis and if you buy our product and get closer to that ideal...you are more worthwhile as a person (buy it.) Most of these are manipulated...but you can get closer. It's a matter of effort and taking care of yourself. You want to be successful, right? Can't do it without taking care of your penis as well. Women create these commercials, own the company and are making the majority of the money but you know...the men are in the commercials so they are the ones promoting the ideals. Men just need to stop buying into what we are selling.
> 
> *Other industries use the ideal penis as a selling point. Beautiful, perfectly sized penises oiled up and glistening on top of a martini glass. Draped, posed penises on trucks. Airbrushed, penises close to an expensive watch. These penises vary slightly (with some of the variences there for an exoticness factor) but all fall within the ideal penis range. The reason being "sex sells," of course and ideal penises are the sexiest things. Just trying to make a little money here. Join my penis agency, you have a good look.
> 
> *Ideal penises being the key factor in how seriously you are taken as a person. Ranging from how much money you make, how dateable you are, how competent you are. Women will say that it's not really the biggest factor but you can't help but look around and say "really now," which also may be rewarded in these manners when you buy a little penis makeup, put on some extenders and get a promotion the next day.
> 
> *Less than ideal penises doing really big and awesome things, getting to the top of their field---and then they see their heads on a meme proving how worthless they are compared to the hotter more ideal penises. The ideal penises prove an ideology right, otherwise why would they even be there?
> 
> ---Corollary: On newscasts, all male newscasters are standing with their desk being strategically placed to highlight how perfect their penis looks. Maybe colorful scrotum covers to really set it off. No penises over 45 though. They don't test well on camera. Women don't pay attention as much
> 
> *Also, you want to insult a man who doesn't agree with you? Hello, men are super-sensitive about their penis. Let's call it skinny. We are talking about politics/sports/science/video games? Doesn't matter, you are a short penis and your opinion doesn't matter. Try getting longer and thicker or hey...some women like the short ones. (The ones who can't get any better!)
> 
> *Women amongst themselves will give the penis a number as it strides by. Not to be offensive or anything, we just like to rate penises. It's what we do. Hey, we will still love you if you are a less than ideal. We also like personalities. We just noticed your penis first and rated it and used that rating to decide if you are worth talking to. It's biology. You have seen the science, right?
> 
> *We love men too, don't get us wrong. Really. We don't just love your penis. You drive us crazy, you don't think correctly, you have terrible habits, you act like you have a personality disorder. We have nothing in common with you. You have crappy interests, you spend your time on stupid endeavors. You are easily manipulated (buy my book, I can show you how ladies) I definitely don't understand why you spend so much time in the bathroom blowdrying your pubic hair. But we love you in spite of these things. (Dang, look at that one!)
> 
> *Men have noticed that ideal penises are a way to make cash...and invest in the idea so that they can make some of the scratch despite not having a perfect penis themselves. Women are constantly pointing them out as reasons that it's not just women who think this way.
> 
> *Stories about penises that once they reach the ideal, they get rewards and riches beyond their greatest desires. Ideal penises getting discovered hanging out at the beach become multi-millionaires who travel the world. Yes, of course there are less than ideal penises who manage to do so...but their story isn't as interesting for whatever reason.
> 
> *All the penises in porn are artificially extended, and look perfect on camera. Super enthused all the time and every woman looks at these penises at least a little bit. These penises are bringing PERFECT orgasms without caring what the woman looks like at all and are so good at looking good orgasming most of us don't really care about the reality of the penis at all. Somehow even though we all watch these penises doing their thing, we can separate reality from these penises. We just want you guys to put a little ring on it every once in awhile for variety. Nothing extreme though.
> 
> 
> I'm just attracted to (my version) of an ideal penis. I don't know why you guys are so down on yourselves about your penis. You should embrace it, there will be someone out there who loves your whole package.



For a more traditional definition, I will refer you to CM's post #64 on the other thread, and Cosmos' links in post #264 and #272. I also recommend FaithfulWife's cool video in post #421.


----------



## Sandfly

I did read that comment. Flew over my head.

I'm not up on my American colloquialisms, this was saying the OP is fat? 

I didn't read it that way. I thought from the word 'trunk' it meant a big arse. I also didn't think it was directed at the OP.

Goes to show how much interpretation is going on.

To get from that to 'fat ugly femenazi' is a massive leap worthy of the Chinese people's republic, in my opinion.

The comments on the other link are atrocious, however.

EDIT: now reading the definitions of objectification, thanks


----------



## always_alone

FrenchFry said:


> If said person actually posted "fat ugly feminazi" they would have been banned.


Truth is, I've been called all of these things, right here on TAM, although admittedly not all on this thread. It was also said that I'm bitter and out to punish men.

So I wasn't even being hyperbolic this time, although I did take a bit of poetic license by running them all together into a single insult.


----------



## Sandfly

OK, well FF's 'switch' technique in her post, together with all the _practical examples_, puts some flesh on this abstraction.

OK, well ... good argument. But try this on for size:

I could post the same thing in the context of men being judged by their wallets, and I have done.

There's loads of threads on TAM where it is abundantly clear that unless a guy is pulling in more cash than his missus, she's going to find him inadequate and start shagging other guys. Open admissions, in fact.

_There's your equivalent_. 

There's no need to use penis examples - though they were good! - because the equivalent 'objectification' of men does already exist. 

Y'all say in the other thread that money and status is not 'sexual objectification', that it's not the same - but it is! Just look at the ugly politicians who have mistresses, or the series 'Texan billionaires' or 'sheikh' (mills and boon themes) - their power/cash makes them (unlikely) sex objects - not to be _looked at_ which is the men's version of objectification, but to be _talked about on TV_, to be _read about in magazines, _which is the lady's version of it.

Doesn't matter what a man's other qualities are, just like it doesn't matter what a woman's competence actually is.

Funny, because here I am, one of them that accepts or rejects on the basis of personality and definitely not looks.

Can you educate girls into appreciating the pauper instead of the prince? Please do so, because money doesn't interest me at all, but _apparently_ I need it for the sake of someone else.

Women "settle for" something less than mr. Darcy and find happiness. Men settle for someone not as good looking as Audrey Hepburn.

Nevertheless, they still read pride and prejudice and 50 shades, and men still watch 'my fair lady' with plenty of wistful and deeps sighs (maybe just me). 

They eventually discover how empty these forms of pornography are.


----------



## jld

Sandfly said:


> Funny, because here I am, one of them that accepts or rejects on the basis of personality and definitely not looks.
> 
> Can you educate girls into appreciating the pauper instead of the prince? Please do so, because money doesn't interest me at all, but _apparently_ I need it for the sake of someone else.
> 
> Women "settle for" something less than mr. Darcy and find happiness. Men settle for someone not as good looking as Audrey Hepburn.
> 
> Nevertheless, they still read pride and prejudice and 50 shades, and men still watch 'my fair lady' with plenty of wistful and deeps sighs (maybe just me).
> 
> They eventually discover how empty these forms of pornography are.


There are plenty of women on these boards who say they are supporting the men in their lives -- Maricha and Scarlet Begonias come to mind. And many more work full-time along with their husbands -- Coffee Amore and skype come to mind. They are not interested in men for money.

I read a few months ago that under 30s women in the UK are making more now than their male equivalents, so you are probably going to be in good shape, Sandfly. You will probably meet a younger woman who will support you.


----------



## Sandfly

jld said:


> You will probably meet a younger woman who will support you.


Ha ha! You're always cheering me up, jld.

I prefer older women, but looking ahead a couple of decades I guess she'll have to be younger again next time.

And she'll support me? Ooh la la!

I Wish 

Actually, I think I'll save my wishes for a bigger penis. (Joke!)


----------



## sandc

Doesn't matter whether I measure up or not. It's all she's getting so...


----------



## always_alone

FrenchFry said:


> I agree there is a form of male non-sexual objectification.
> 
> What I do believe this thread and your post highlights and is about is that it sucks--and we should stop basing our worth as humans around these things.
> 
> I'll stand by you all day on that, Sandfly.


Hear, hear! Me too.


----------



## ocotillo

always_alone said:


> But I do fear that someone who is inclined to view another person as an interchangeable, disposable, violable object is probably inclined to treat them that way as well. Indeed, we see examples of this sort of thing all the time.
> 
> Are you saying that Dvl's really does speak for how men view women? If so, then why all the outrage, and why so difficult to acknowledge the difficulties that women face every day?



I agree with DvlsAdvc8 in the sense that there is a primitive, two-year old deep, deep down inside us who's natural response to anything pleasing to the eye is selfish. Sometimes that's appropriate, sometimes it really depends on the circumstances and other times it's completely, totally, utterly wrong. But don't all of us have thoughts pop into our minds from time to time that we immediately realize are wrong and aren't terribly proud of afterwards? (I sure hope it's not just me.) Putting inappropriate thoughts out of our head as quickly as they pop into it is just good mental hygiene.

Why outrage? Because sometimes there is an implication of gender-wide moral inferiority that creeps into the discussion. 

Why so difficult to acknowledge the difficulties that women face every day? I think that is unfortunate and unfair. In the end, it's probably human egocentrism making it difficult to truly put ourselves into the other person's shoes. Sometimes men point out that women can be just as obtuse in their own way by assuming that it must be really great to be a man because society is obviously set up to benefit them. That might be a valid counter observation, but it certainly isn't helpful.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> Oh, if only that were true. Sadly it isn't only the sociopaths. It's widespread throughout society.


It's the definition of a sociopath. Someone who does not see other people as having any value but what they can be used to obtain.

Do you really think this is widespread throughout society? And I thought I was pretty cynical.


----------



## Created2Write

I, personally, don't think inappropriate or sexual thoughts necessarily mean that someone is objectifying that person. That's why I don't akin objectification to sexual desires, sexual drives or sexual wants.


----------



## Created2Write

Eh, that's really not the definition of a sociopath. 

Dictionary.com Sociopath:
"a person with a psychopathic personality whose behavior is antisocial, often criminal, and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience. " 

They often don't feel empathy for others or remorse, and it can include someone who only seeks to use others for their personal gain, but there are people who do the exact same thing(use others for personal gain) without being a sociopath. _That_ is what runs rampant in society.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> Dvls, at least, is pretty open that he doesn't much like women, except for their looks and bodies.


This is a huge mischaracterization of me. A reasonable case can be made that I carry some frustration over what I perceive to be female inconsistencies (the whole "what you say you want != what you actually go after" thing), but it cannot be said that I don't like women but for their bodies.

But for my physical attraction, women are just like anyone else with the exception of most often having quite different interests from me. Don't mistake my preference for having male friends - based on our shared interests and way of being - for a dislike of women. I have several female friends who share more interests with the guys than the girls - and even they characterize themselves as such. They're comparatively rare. I'm usually interested in dating the ones that are attractive... leaving only the ones I'm not attracted to as friends. In fact, one of the ways women "game" men is taking on his interests. Many women will incorporate themselves into the things he loves. Its pretty damn good game.

I'm in the group of people who says that a man and woman cannot be friends if any attraction exists. I know there are plenty of people on this forum who disagree (I think all the ones I know of are in this thread already lol) - but that's MY opinion on it. Attraction in opposite gender friendships causes bad things to happen in direct proportion to the amount of time spent together.

Who I'm friends with is not gender biased. It's biased by interests and the ability to relate to one another. I do not dislike women. I do however hate the mall, romantic comedies and indie music. Enjoy football? Rock climbing? Electonic music? Sci-fi geek? Politics and economics? We might be friends. Add a sexy body to that and I'm probably going to hit on her.

That's how it works for me.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Created2Write said:


> Eh, that's really not the definition of a sociopath.
> 
> Dictionary.com Sociopath:
> "a person with a psychopathic personality whose behavior is antisocial, often criminal, and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience. "


A synonymous definition is not a counter-point. Now ask yourself, why is their behavior "antisocial, often criminal and lacking in moral responsibility or social conscience"?

-Because they don't see people as having any value but what they can get from them. They don't see people - they see cardboard cut outs. That IS the clinical definition of sociopath.


----------



## Created2Write

Electronic music....Does Daft Punk count?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Created2Write said:


> I, personally, don't think inappropriate or sexual thoughts necessarily mean that someone is objectifying that person. That's why I don't akin objectification to sexual desires, sexual drives or sexual wants.


Then we're not arguing anything. You're taking a stricter definition than I do, and I reject objectification as you define it as much as you do. I however, think its a lot more gray than that, and we all objectify and are objectified in many many ways without it being necessarily harmful or wrong.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Created2Write said:


> Electronic music....Does Daft Punk count?


They're more the grand daddy's of the genre, but sure. Now if she's down to hit bassnector, datsik, excision, nero and deadmau5 shows and paint parties, great! If she's also intellectual, geeky, physical, and adventurous - she's awesome in my book and we'd probably be great friends. If she's all that and attractive... we can't be friends. I want to date her.

Its not that there aren't women who share my interests, its just that there are far fewer women than men who do.


----------



## Created2Write

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> A synonymous definition is not a counter-point. Now ask yourself, why is their behavior "antisocial, often criminal and lacking in moral responsibility or social conscience"?
> 
> -Because they don't see people as having any value but what they can get from them. They don't see people - they see cardboard cut outs. That IS the clinical definition of sociopath.


I agree that this is an aspect of psychopathy, but I maintain that there are people who use others for their personal gain without being sociopaths. 



> Then we're not arguing anything. You're taking a stricter all encompassing definition than I do, and I reject objectification as you define it as much as you do. I however, think its a lot more gray than that, and we all objectify and are objectified in many many ways without it being necessarily harmful or wrong.


You assume too much. I don't think that objectification is black and white, easy to define, nor do I think all objectification is bad. I believe there are different kinds of objectification, as well as different levels of severity of objectification. I just don't think that objectification is a biological urge, or that it's the same as having even intense sexual wants.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> Let me refer you to FrenchFry's awesome post





French fry said:


> The reaction that men have to being put into one of these molded ideal is the exact same reaction that women have to being put into the structures.


Yep, not falling within some "idealistic structure" can make one feel pretty bad. Does that make the structure false?

If some study was able, with 100% accuracy, to prove that 8" is the ideal penis for 80% of women, with a complete and satisfying justification as to why - should we still just say "blah! Structures suck! How dare you declare that there is a mold that most women want."

It is what it is. What are you actually saying you want done about it? Women shouldn't be allowed to declare such as their ideal preference? Should we pretend the preference doesn't exist so everyone feels better?


----------



## Created2Write

As was said earlier, no one has said that the preferences shouldn't exist. AA even said that it's not the ideal that bothers her, it's how society uses that ideal, both men and women. Personally, I could care less what the majority of women say they want. It has no bearing whatsoever on what I want. I could care less what any man says he's attracted to, or what would would be his ideal. As long as I'm my husband's ideal, I am perfectly satisfied. The issue, imo, lies when that ideal is used against those who don't fit the mold. 

It's not objectification to have an ideal or a preference. It's not objectification to be attracted to blondes more than brunettes. However, it _is_ objectification to insist that any brunettes you date dye their hair. Having a preference isn't the issue, even if the majority of people share that preference. It's how you act on that preference that can cause the problem.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Created2Write said:


> I agree that this is an aspect of psychopathy, but I maintain that there are people who use others for their personal gain without being sociopaths.


To engage in the sort of all-encompassing objectification you accept as the definition, one would have to be a sociopath.

The rest of us objectify in narrow bits, accepting that the other person has feelings, and our anti-social behavior is usually limited to cutting off anonymous people in traffic, a classless but relatively harmless whistle at a hot woman - most often under the impression that its complimentary, speeding, and relatively minor slights - and feels guilt at doing larger harm. These harms almost always have rationalizations, "the speed limit in that area is just ridiculous".

The sociopath doesn't have to rationalize. They took what they wanted because they're the only actual PERSON. Everyone else is just a tool... an object.

To mesh objectification with a regular person's more mild anti-social behaviors (and we ALL do some of them), I think you have to accept something like my more limited/nuanced sense of objectification. I know you're a person with feelings, but that sense is somewhat overridden or suspended temporarily by more primitive thinking/motivations with little or no actual harm done to you. Sexual thinking is about as primitive as it gets.



Created2Write said:


> You assume too much. I don't think that objectification is black and white, easy to define, nor do I think all objectification is bad. I believe there are different kinds of objectification, as well as different levels of severity of objectification. I just don't think that objectification is a biological urge, or that it's the same as having even intense sexual wants.


I didn't assume... I'm drawing conclusions from what you've stated. If you'd want someone only for their body, then I can't see how that's anything but objectifying them. If you're saying there are levels of objectification now, and objectification is not the all encompassing personhood robbing thing that others seem to be expressing, then... we agree? 

A sexual want can be objectifying or not. If all you want is that body, then yeah, its objectifying. In men, very often the spark of our desire is very much objectifying even in our love relationships. We see you walk through the room in your underwear and we crave what we SAW - and we would crave it regardless of who you actually are. All we are thinking in that sparking moment is literally, "I want that right now."


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Created2Write said:


> As was said earlier, no one has said that the preferences shouldn't exist. AA even said that it's not the ideal that bothers her, it's how society uses that ideal, both men and women. Personally, I could care less what the majority of women say they want. It has no bearing whatsoever on what I want. I could care less what any man says he's attracted to, or what would would be his ideal. As long as I'm my husband's ideal, I am perfectly satisfied. The issue, imo, lies when that ideal is used against those who don't fit the mold.
> 
> It's not objectification to have an ideal or a preference. It's not objectification to be attracted to blondes more than brunettes. However, it _is_ objectification to insist that any brunettes you date dye their hair. Having a preference isn't the issue, even if the majority of people share that preference. It's how you act on that preference that can cause the problem.


I don't know. Hair color preference doesn't seem very objectifying. Is someone "using" her for her hair? Think of foot fetishes. A hair fetish maybe? He sexually wants her for her feet... he wants her for her boobs... she wants him for his penis. Is that objectification?

So what exactly is the problem with how society uses these ideals? Is it really a problem that a mass of people honestly say "a size X is ideal", or is the problem that someone feels bad that they aren't that ideal?

I also object to the notion that men face less pressure. We simply face different sets of ideals. Most men will quickly point out career success and income as the major pressure on their sense of worth. Sexual performance is probably a close second - to be the biggest, hardest, longest lasting and best lover she's ever had. We have plenty of these too. FW is very fond of pointing out the height ideal in my previous discussions with her... perhaps I'm too short for her, or she's quite tall and she's a stickler for that ideal height differential. But again, it is only matters if you buy into it. Nobody decides your worth but you.

Most people do exactly as you have done in this post - "I could care less what any man says he's attracted to, or what would would be his ideal. As long as I'm my husband's ideal, I am perfectly satisfied."

We do the things that are necessary to get/keep the mate we want and our culture reflects these things we do and want. I'm always wondering in these vague discussions of culture and objectification and blah blah blah... what exactly does any propose to do about it? Tell women to not choose men with good careers so men don't feel career pressure? Tell men not to uplift slender women so big women don't feel body image pressure? Don't advertise in popular media that these preferences exist? Really... what's the end game here? No more wealthy muscley hunks in movies and no more victorias secret models? Or should we make these characters not reflect the widely held ideal. Instead of a well-to-do Ryan Gosling, we'll put a broke Jonah Hill in the lead role and replace VS' Adriana Lima with Roseanne Bar?


----------



## rush

FrenchFry said:


> I would reject it.


So after all of this what is the ideal length?


----------



## Created2Write

Simply put, I don't agree with you about the sociopath issue. 

In my opinion, using someone for your own gain is a part of objectification, but it isn't the only part. You see things as objectification that I don't see as objectification. For me, objectification is difficult to define on the broad scale because, in some situations, those definitions might _not_ represent objectification. People who practice S&M or bondism, for instance. In a non-consensual situation, those things would absolutely be objectifying. And horrible. But in consensual situations, they cease to be objectifying. 

That's why I believe objectification is a choice, and I don't believe that "we all do it". Some choose it to get what they want, others choose it because they like to be objectified, and others choose it because it adds spice to their relationship. But it _is_ a choice.


----------



## rush

FrenchFry said:


> Going full circle here:


Well I am out of the running..........


----------



## Created2Write

Hahahaha!


----------



## rush

I am guessing that guy is herman?


----------



## always_alone

ocotillo said:


> But don't all of us have thoughts pop into our minds from time to time that we immediately realize are wrong and aren't terribly proud of afterwards? (I sure hope it's not just me.) Putting inappropriate thoughts out of our head as quickly as they pop into it is just good mental hygiene.
> 
> Why outrage? Because sometimes there is an implication of gender-wide moral inferiority that creeps into the discussion.
> 
> Why so difficult to acknowledge the difficulties that women face every day? I think that is unfortunate and unfair. In the end, it's probably human egocentrism making it difficult to truly put ourselves into the other person's shoes. Sometimes men point out that women can be just as obtuse in their own way by assuming that it must be really great to be a man because society is obviously set up to benefit them. That might be a valid counter observation, but it certainly isn't helpful.


Yes, I'm sure we all do have inappropriate thoughts, but while some quickly pass, or are cleared out, others are nourished, shared, encouraged, even celebrated. 

It's fine when no one's getting hurt, but what happens when they are? So much discounting of the effects as harmless, even though the effects are standing right in front of them. 

Many men seem to think they like objectification, probably because they associate it only with their own sexual attraction to the objects they see. It is framed entirely as ideals and rankings, and so they conceive it as only a problem for those women who they are not sexually attracted to, the "less thans."

But then they complain about their beautiful wife's poor body image, and wonder what went wrong. Or her dissociation from her own sexuality and lack of interest in initiating or expressing it. Or why she finds it so hard to believe when he claims to love her, or why she accuses him of only caring about her sex.

Can they not see the connections here?

Perhaps as objectification happens more and more to the men, the connections will become more obvious.


----------



## Faithful Wife

French Fry....If I asked my husband "what is the ideal breast size?", he'd make the same gesture as that pic.


----------



## rush

So I guess the snynopsis is the bigger the better?


----------



## WyshIknew

always_alone said:


> Yes, I'm sure we all do have inappropriate thoughts, but while some quickly pass, or are cleared out, others are nourished, shared, encouraged, even celebrated.
> 
> It's fine when no one's getting hurt, but what happens when they are? So much discounting of the effects as harmless, even though the effects are standing right in front of them.
> 
> Many men seem to think they like objectification, probably because they associate it only with their own sexual attraction to the objects they see. It is framed entirely as ideals and rankings, and so they conceive it as only a problem for those women who they are not sexually attracted to, the "less thans."
> 
> But then they complain about their beautiful wife's poor body image, and wonder what went wrong. Or her dissociation from her own sexuality and lack of interest in initiating or expressing it. Or why she finds it so hard to believe when he claims to love her, or why she accuses him of only caring about her sex.
> 
> Can they not see the connections here?
> 
> Perhaps as objectification happens more and more to the men, the connections will become more obvious.


I think many men would laugh about 'being objectified' but I think the reality would perhaps be a shock to them.


Ages ago I posted a pic in the old what are you wearing thread to show my new shoes.

It drew a number of comments from a couple of the lady posters. I know they meant it in fun but I got a little embarrassed and blacked out the part of the pic they were pulling my leg about.

That was a single incident meant in humour, so I can quite imagine what a constant stream of this would feel like.

There is one big difference that I can see. I may be wrong of course, plain men like myself rarely or never get objectified.
So unless you can try and imagine yourself in a woman's situation it is difficult to empathise.


----------



## nuclearnightmare

Faithful Wife said:


> Some women do pick a man based on his package, some based on his wallet, some based on his personality....some based on a combination of these and more items.
> 
> I didn't actually read the chart because I assumed it is the same as one I have seen before, and I knew AA's reason for opening this thread. I don't want to taint anything by actually stating a number of inches as my preference...too tacky. I will just say, my husband's is perfect. And yes, I considered it when picking him. But had he not checked off all my other boxes having to do with how wonderful he treats me, the peen wouldn't have mattered.


FW:
"
Some women choose a man based on his package? "Choose" as in choose to marry? Based solely on that? That's what the above is saying.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Well I can't say I've ever heard any woman say they chose a husband based solely on the package...no. Definitely no. 

I've known quite a few to pick a man to casually date or for FWB based largely on the package...and once in awhile, other things will mesh well too and a relationship develops.

I'm not saying this is outwardly common...I just know a lot of highly sexual women who would actually say these things outloud.

I know one woman who claims with one guy "oh he's the biggest and best ever!" and then some other guy "oh he's not that big but he's the best ever!" I think she just likes peen, period.


----------



## nuclearnightmare

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I don't know. Hair color preference doesn't seem very objectifying. Is someone "using" her for her hair? Think of foot fetishes. A hair fetish maybe? He sexually wants her for her feet... he wants her for her boobs... she wants him for his penis. Is that objectification?
> 
> So what exactly is the problem with how society uses these ideals? Is it really a problem that a mass of people honestly say "a size X is ideal", or is the problem that someone feels bad that they aren't that ideal?
> 
> I also object to the notion that men face less pressure. We simply face different sets of ideals. Most men will quickly point out career success and income as the major pressure on their sense of worth. Sexual performance is probably a close second - to be the biggest, hardest, longest lasting and best lover she's ever had. We have plenty of these too. FW is very fond of pointing out the height ideal in my previous discussions with her... perhaps I'm too short for her, or she's quite tall and she's a stickler for that ideal height differential. But again, it is only matters if you buy into it. Nobody decides your worth but you.
> 
> Most people do exactly as you have done in this post - "I could care less what any man says he's attracted to, or what would would be his ideal. As long as I'm my husband's ideal, I am perfectly satisfied."
> 
> We do the things that are necessary to get/keep the mate we want and our culture reflects these things we do and want. I'm always wondering in these vague discussions of culture and objectification and blah blah blah... what exactly does any propose to do about it? Tell women to not choose men with good careers so men don't feel career pressure? Tell men not to uplift slender women so big women don't feel body image pressure? Don't advertise in popular media that these preferences exist? Really... what's the end game here? No more wealthy muscley hunks in movies and no more victorias secret models? Or should we make these characters not reflect the widely held ideal. Instead of a well-to-do Ryan Gosling, we'll put a broke Jonah Hill in the lead role and replace VS' Adriana Lima with Roseanne Bar?


:iagree:

Especially assertion that men DO NOT have it easier in life than women do. Men kill themselves at a rate 4-5 times that for women (statistics for US I believe). That's enough for me to recommend that anyone arguing generally that a woman's life is harder than a man's - in western cultures at least - to simply give it up. No credibility.....

For specific aspects of life - sure. Just don't go general with it.


----------



## nuclearnightmare

Faithful Wife said:


> Well I can't say I've ever heard any woman say they chose a husband based solely on the package...no. Definitely no.
> 
> I've known quite a few to pick a man to casually date or for FWB based largely on the package...and once in awhile, other things will mesh well too and a relationship develops.
> 
> I'm not saying this is outwardly common...I just know a lot of highly sexual women who would actually say these things outloud.
> 
> I know one woman who claims with one guy "oh he's the biggest and best ever!" and then some other guy "oh he's not that big but he's the best ever!" I think she just likes peen, period.


Ever hear of men who date the shortest, most petite women possible? Using the same "proportionality" hypothesis that some women employ.....but in reverse.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Yes, have known several men like that. I have a lot of Asian girlfriends. They know who chases them and why.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Deejo said:


> I thought it was a shot below the belt ...


Sorry I gave this place the shaft. My stiff resolve to stay away has suddenly become flaccid, as you are a master debater and tugged me back in.


----------



## WyshIknew

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Sorry I gave this place the shaft. My stiff resolve to stay away has suddenly become flaccid, as you are a master debater and tugged me back in.


Hey, no sucking up to Deejo.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

WyshIknew said:


> Hey, no sucking up to Deejo.


Sorry, my brain was just throbbing.


----------



## Deejo

LOL.

Nothing like a good penis thread on a Sunday.


----------



## always_alone

All this joking is very stimulating, but this thread wants something that can stand up under scrutiny.


----------



## WyshIknew

I think I'd best _limp_ out of this thread.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Deejo said:


> LOL.
> 
> Nothing like a good penis thread on a Sunday.


The swell of double entendres in your posts make it hard to compete.


----------



## Cosmos

Deejo said:


> LOL.
> 
> Nothing like a good penis thread on a Sunday.


Penis thread? I've examined my SO's member most carefully and cannot find any threads on it whatsoever:scratchhead:


----------



## WyshIknew

Nothing quite as good as some vibrant intercourse (social) after a long walk in a stiff breeze.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

WyshIknew said:


> Nothing quite as good as some vibrant intercourse (social) after a long walk in a stiff breeze.


It's an afternoon delight.


----------



## ocotillo

always_alone said:


> All this joking is very stimulating, but this thread wants something that can stand up under scrutiny.


For some reason, that makes me think of H.G. Wells description of how his fictional three-legged creatures walked.


----------



## Rockymts

my penis is the ideal penis.

that's just how I roll!!!!!!!

besides I couldn't change it if I wanted to.


----------



## NobodySpecial

I am struggling to understand. FF's post made sense to me. ANd still kind of didn't. FW's post about a man making a comment about a 12 year old chest just skeeved me right out. What does that man think the 12 year old will feel about that comment? I KNOW what the 12 year old might feel. I was one. I remember feeling totally disgusted when an adult relative told me he wished I was older, wink wink, nudge nudge. But what on earth did HE think? I am pretty sure he wasn't thinking, oh man I am a creeper. I just LOVE being creeper.

What, as a responsible member of society, do I DO to change the dynamic? I am not even sure what I see in the media IS objectification. (I don't ever see advertisements.) Do we want to look at average people? I mean I like looking at attractive people in movies. Is i objectification to think Samuel L Jackson is hot? But Brad Pitt is not? Based on the latter's tabloid behavior? 

If my husband watches porn with two consenting adults who have chosen to make money this way, who is being objectified? Her? Him? Me? 

I am asking not poke holes because I genuinely don't get it.


----------



## Maria Canosa Gargano

Leaving behind objectification.

I think there are damaging stories we tell ourselves about men and women that individual men and women go on and replicate.

Men are degraded and called lesser if they don't reach a certain career level.

Women are for their looks.

Then individuals will do harmful things believing that its ok because they have heard stories about the other gender and its normal. I think reversing the "objectification" of the other gender and putting in something specific to our gender in order to understand what the other is going through is beneficial. I know that when some examples were given to me about what men go through using female gendered things, I understood a lot more the pressures they went through. 

Examples of individual women hurting men by measuring them up to what "defines a man" is by talking degradingly of SAHD, acting shocked when a man makes less than his wife, or rating a man by the amount of money he has.

Examples of individual men hurting women is by talking openly about what "number" a woman is in front of their female SOs and other such situations.

Its the idea that a man or woman has to reach a certain level in order to be worth respect. 

I agree with those who say that there will always be judgments and self-judgement is the most important. That is true in a screwed up world. 

But I don't think asking if we can change how screwed up it is is not worthwhile either.


----------



## altawa

Maria Canosa Gargano said:


> Leaving behind objectification.
> 
> I think there are damaging stories we tell ourselves about men and women that individual men and women go on and replicate.
> 
> Men are degraded and called lesser if they don't reach a certain career level.
> 
> Women are for their looks.
> 
> Then individuals will do harmful things believing that its ok because they have heard stories about the other gender and its normal. I think reversing the "objectification" of the other gender and putting in something specific to our gender in order to understand what the other is going through is beneficial. I know that when some examples were given to me about what men go through using female gendered things, I understood a lot more the pressures they went through.
> 
> Examples of individual women hurting men by measuring them up to what "defines a man" is by talking degradingly of SAHD, acting shocked when a man makes less than his wife, or rating a man by the amount of money he has.
> 
> Examples of individual men hurting women is by talking openly about what "number" a woman is in front of their female SOs and other such situations.
> 
> Its the idea that a man or woman has to reach a certain level in order to be worth respect.
> 
> I agree with those who say that there will always be judgments and self-judgement is the most important. That is true in a screwed up world.
> 
> But I don't think asking if we can change how screwed up it is is not worthwhile either.


I can agree on some levels with this. But also, this thread shows a broader problem of generalization, and a refusal to acknowledge the most basic difference between men and women in physical attributes and the people they are attached to:

If a woman has a problem with her physical attributes, she can have surgery to fix them (and they are almost outpatient surgeries today they are so common). Boob enlargement, boob reduction, butt lift, butt reduction, tummy tuck, botox, lips, lipo, etc. I'm not saying she should do these things, but she has the option. (My wife has said she is afraid of dieting because her boobs would get smaller...I told her I didn't care, I love her for her, not her boob size, and no matter what size they are they will always make me happy).

When a woman decides to make fun of a guy and his **** size......there is exactly zero, absolutely nothing, that a guy can do about it. Not. One. Thing. Ever. And, to top it off, it is not only women that make fun of a guy's **** size, just like it is not only men that chide a women for her body. People of the same sex know what buttons to push to hurt others of that same sex, and do it in an effort to feel superior.


----------



## Maria Canosa Gargano

altawa said:


> I can agree on some levels with this. But also, this thread shows a broader problem of generalization, and a refusal to acknowledge the most basic difference between men and women in physical attributes and the people they are attached to:
> 
> If a woman has a problem with her physical attributes, she can have surgery to fix them (and they are almost outpatient surgeries today they are so common). Boob enlargement, boob reduction, butt lift, butt reduction, tummy tuck, botox, lips, lipo, etc. I'm not saying she should do these things, but she has the option. (My wife has said she is afraid of dieting because her boobs would get smaller...I told her I didn't care, I love her for her, not her boob size, and no matter what size they are they will always make me happy).
> 
> When a woman decides to make fun of a guy and his **** size......there is exactly zero, absolutely nothing, that a guy can do about it. Not. One. Thing. Ever. And, to top it off, it is not only women that make fun of a guy's **** size, just like it is not only men that chide a women for her body. People of the same sex know what buttons to push to hurt others of that same sex, and do it in an effort to feel superior.


I get what you are saying too. I agree especially with your last sentence.

However, I do not really care about how easy it is to change our physical appearance. I care about the disrespect we show when we judge men and women to these standards for the individual. We look at the cm differences between penis size and shame a man for that slight difference. He attaches shame to his body when his body is truly an amazing machine. We do the same to woman's bodies as well.











We then have people growing up feeling shame for their existence. In some ways I think that will always be a part of a society as societies have their ideals that they live up to as they are more concerned with replicating themselves than buoying up the individual per se. 

As an individual living in a society, I can decide to replicate those ideals and place them on the individual in front of me. I could expect of my fiance to make a certain $ threshold to consider him a "real man" who could be my partner. If he is lower than what is normal for a real man, must he strive to be average or above average? 

What about his values for that job? What about his satisfaction. Why are my values about his job more important and why do I feel that it is my right to judge him so? 

A man can look at a woman and decide what number she fits and tell her. How much of a "real woman" does she measure up to be? A 5, a 10? If she is a 5, must she strive to be a 10 because that is what woman do? 

What about her values for where she places her energy. Maybe she prizes most that what he prizes least. Maybe her values are on other activities than maintaining her appearance. Why does what he determines as beautiful make him feel that it is his right to judge her so?

When I say judge, I do not mean to make a discernment. I mean to place a lower value on that person.

Instead I choose to consider him as my partner because of his totality. His mind, his soul, and body. I do not elevate one aspect of who he is and judge his worth by that. I think we have to consider if that is what we are doing and if we are showing respect to the being in front of us. Are we looking at a set of attributes or are we really looking at THEM. That does not mean we don't make discernment. You may discern if you would like a man who makes a certain amount of money, or a woman who looks a certain way. But placing a lower value judgment on that person means we are no longer considering if there are other values than ours.

I want to go through my life with my eyes open and let life in. I don't want to go through life only letting those that met my checklist in.

As far as attraction. I do not think we must force ourselves to be this or that. I accept that I am more attracted to a certain type of look. But I do not try to force that look as a universal claim. I do not dictate beauty to the world. I think nearly all here have said that as well.

I cannot say, "This statement is harmful, this billboard, this way of looking",

But I will say that we must ask if we are open to receiving others as they are instead of what image we have of others. We must also see if our actions are adding to this world or hurting it? 

Maybe this may seem to have nothing to do with objectifying on a societal level. I think it is a problem for all humans, but I only have individual solutions. This is mine.


----------



## Dollystanford

6-7 inches long, fat, able to maintain erection for at least an hour


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

The purpose of this thread to enlighten men to the potential hurt of "ideals" applied to women, by analogizing to an area stereotypically sensitive to men isn't lost on me, but there's a small flaw (harhar ) in such an analogy to an aesthetic ideal/most common preference.

Given a peg and a hole there are mechanical concerns. A 7 inch peg is unsuited to a 6 inch hole. A fat peg is unsuited to a very small hole. A thin peg is unsuited to a large hole. So I think this is quite different than say, predominant body shape preferences and what not, which has no mechanical concerns.

Yes, the vagina can adjust significantly, but I'm not sure that's much consolation to the woman currently experiencing a painful fit and discomfort. The "ideal" in this case is driven by *mutual* fit and the common size of women. If the vagina were easily measured, I'm fairly certain men would express an "ideal" vagina size that corresponds to the most common size of penises. So this reported "ideal" is the same as saying that "most vaginas are x size", rather than an arbitrary ideal (aka most common preference) as say, body shape.

The ideals of "ripped abs" or height or V-shape torso would be a better analogy to the pressure of ideals placed on women as these are similarly arbitrary. Alas, those analogies wouldn't suit the motivations of the OP because I suspect these don't really bother as many men as penis size is believed to. 

I don't have a problem with any expressed ideal, whether arbitrary or not, but the analogy problem did come to mind when I saw this thread pop back up. The reported preference size above the male median should be expected. It's predicted by the fact that human males have evolved ever larger penises than other primates and this information presents it's cause: female selection.

The median male has probably always been less than ideal to the median female. However, if you're a secure, rational, average-sized male... the logical conclusion is to not give a damn, because she's limited by what's available to her. At maximum, that size preference can only be met by a small fraction of males. So without dropping that standard, or increased male acceptance of partner-sharing / cheating, she is very unlikely to achieve a long term partner relationship... another of her "ideals".

With that, let's return to the OP's intent with this thread, which is highlighting the hurtfulness of ideals and objectification in a way that might be received by men, and why a hurt caused by ideals is really only an element of undisciplined thinking. For some reason, some people are inclined to think in terms of perfection and single traits rather than best attainable match to a large number of ideals of differing value/weight. People hate the notion that we "settle" for someone, but that's exactly what we all do. We take the best we can get and call that "perfect for us". The person we can get who best meets our ranking of many ideals we probably share with society at large. If you could do better, you would have. If you can have good looks and a great personality, you'll take it. If you can't, you might sacrifice a bit on looks, for a good personality. You might improve one ideal, but it's likely to come at the expense of another. You might even refactor the priority you give to each preference. Dating when we're young is partly about figuring out how to prioritize, because few of us can meet them all perfectly. We're learning what is most important to us.

The article's data, if true, combined with the fact there are so many women in committed relationships with so many men, is an example of sacrificing one ideal in preference for another. Proof of female prioritization of something (or some set of things) far more than penis size... so much as to render penis-size preference largely irrelevant. If she could do better on all fronts... she would have. And ultimately, this is true of absolutely everything anyone feels insecure about in regards to relationships. Insecurity is simply illogical, even if you don't measure up to the ideal in question, even if the person measuring is your partner. If that ideal had priority over other traits you bring to the table, they wouldn't be with you if they could meet them all.

This reconciles the existence of ideals/most commonly held preferences with eagerly accepting and appreciating a partner that doesn't meet them all perfectly. The notion that "they may not be perfect, but they're perfect for me" is really just a romantic way to say "the best I can get." I'm not hurt by the fact that my average size penis isn't the "ideal" penis according to women. My penis is not the sum of me, I can't alter it if I wanted to, and in the final analysis women aren't choosing penises any more than men are choosing breasts. Ideal or not, it is but one trait among many traits and many ideals... the sum of which will determine how well I can meet my own blend of widely held preferences. I don't expect to meet them all, or meet all of someone else's. I know that I'll get the best I can get, and the same goes for her... and that is a perfect match - "best for me". So why care about one factor except as to be bitter that your sum of traits can't get you more than they do? Is it really about personal hurt? Or are we really just angry that we can't do better ourselves because of the trait? A projection of sorts?


----------



## Fozzy

You said



DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I don't have a problem with any expressed ideal, whether arbitrary or not, but the analogy problem did come to mind when I saw this thread* pop back up*. The reported preference size above the male median should be expected. It's predicted by the fact that human males have evolved ever larger penises than other primates and this information presents it's cause: female selection.


lol


----------



## jaquen

Dollystanford said:


> 6-7 inches long, fat, able to maintain erection for at least an hour


I love a woman who knows exactly what she wants! :smthumbup:


----------



## poida

Dollystanford said:


> 6-7 inches long, fat, able to maintain erection for at least an hour


I'm lucky to have that, but you do realise that is well above average don't you?

It's kind of like a man saying he only likes women with firm D cups.


----------



## Dollystanford

I didn't say I only liked those penises

That is the ideal penis

If you lined a load of penises up in a row then that's the one I would choose and take home with me


----------



## jaquen

Dollystanford said:


> I didn't say I only liked those penises
> 
> That is the ideal penis
> 
> If you lined a load of penises up in a row then that's the one I would choose and take home with me


Exactly, we all have our ideals. Doesn't mean we can't enjoy plenty outside of that.

I don't see your ideal much different than somebody who's grand preference is a partner with low bodyfat and visible abs.


----------



## ocotillo

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> It's predicted by the fact that human males have evolved ever larger penises than other primates and this information presents it's cause: female selection.


--Too bad we lost the baculum in that process...


----------



## larry.gray

Dollystanford said:


> 6-7 inches long, fat, able to maintain erection for at least an hour


You must have a high or out of line cervix. I fit that description and I can hurt my wife's if I'm not careful with it.


----------



## askari

....Ladies...many of you have indicated your 'ideal' penis length and girth etc
But Cavalier or Roundhead?


----------



## jaquen

larry.gray said:


> You must have a high or out of line cervix. I fit that description and I can hurt my wife's if I'm not careful with it.


Don't women vary in depth in the same way we vary in size?

A lot of women can take a penis above the average range with no problem, and no need for the man to be "careful".


----------



## Dad&Hubby

jaquen said:


> Don't women vary in depth in the same way we vary in size?
> 
> A lot of women can take a penis above the average range with no problem, and no need for the man to be "careful".


Without a doubt. My wife is smaller than average I'd guess (I'm dead on average in length, but girthy and I fill her up and can cause discomfort if I'm not careful)...my ex-wife.....well let's just say my penis disliked the echo.

But as a society we don't talk about the "volume" of a woman. It's almost like it's assumed all women are the same and the only size discussion is men.


----------



## jaquen

I find some of the reactions to Dolly's ideal post...telling.


----------



## hookares

We each should be allowed to have our partners be equipped with whatever is desired in order to have the "premium fit".
Since my split from my cheating ex wife, I have gone through a whole slew of perfectly fine women whose only flaw was failure to be able to pick up a half dollar from a table with their genitals.
I saw that once in a bar in Mexico and was very impressed.


----------



## Healer

Sometimes the 40 pounds of danglin' fury between my legs can be a nuisance, like when I run out of underpants. People stare - men and women. 

The woman I'm seeing told me the other day "this is embarrassing, but do you want to know what I call you to my friends? The firehose". 

Highly inappropriate.


----------



## Healer

Code-Welder said:


> *One that works when needed and often. Without medication.
> *


What if men said of women that the ideal ***** would be one that works when needed and often. Without lube.

?


----------



## Thound

Makes perfect sense to me. I'm so enjoyable that 1 night with me, and she is satisfied for several weeks.


----------



## Healer

From my experience, most women enjoy a large penis. That doesn't mean they don't enjoy an average sized penis as well.


----------



## BetrayedDad

Ex used to complain my penis was too big and cheated on me with guys with smaller d!cks. Gf thinks it's "perfect" and can't stop talking about it. In my opinion there is no optimal size. It depends on the vagina your sticking it in and what feels good to that particular girl. It's all relative...


----------



## Forest

WorkingOnMe said:


> I think I first saw that chart 3 or 4 years ago. It was all just made up numbers then, and it still is. Back then you could check the image with tinyeye and easily see that it was originally made up as a marketing thing for a hack company selling male enhancement pills. Now if you check it with tinyeye it's referenced at 43 other sites. It's designed from the get go to appeal to men's insecurity and get them to buy pills.




So, the graph itself is a hoax, based on an ad from a penis pill peddler. How does that end up in Huff post as The Authentic Guide...?


----------



## hookares

Healer said:


> From my experience, most women enjoy a large penis. That doesn't mean they don't enjoy an average sized penis as well.


Yeah, right! It's no secret that undersized units are much in demand with ALL women.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

jaquen said:


> I find some of the reactions to Dolly's ideal post...telling.


Telling of what pray tell? I'm in her ideal range (though I don't know what she considers fat).

I'm just saying that it's a given that women's ideal will be higher than men's average size because women selected ever larger penises over the course of our evolution. But because the majority of women won't be able to achieve both their size ideal and their monogamy ideal, it's really a non-issue for men.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

hookares said:


> Yeah, right! It's no secret that undersized units are much in demand with ALL women.


:scratchhead: The same could be said of men and breast size, but I still prefer B-cups.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening DvlsAdvc8
Why? 



DvlsAdvc8 said:


> snip
> I'm just saying that it's a given that women's ideal will be higher than men's average size because women selected ever larger penises over the course of our evolution.
> snip


----------



## nuclearnightmare

I don't know.......probably bad luck to post something when conversation turns to this topic but here goes.

(question to women)
I assume that you are not automatically attracted to someone for that characteristic alone. surely some guys are well above average in that area but with a face that can make you throw up in your mouth (a little). doesn't a woman tend to have orgasms with men she is attracted to, and have more difficulty acheiving those with a man she is not attracted to......even if the latter has the perfect "tool."


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening DvlsAdvc8
> Why?


Why what? Why is it given? I have several reasons:

The first is an ever increasing cranium size requiring an ever larger vaginal opening so as to achieve the necessary stretch to give birth. So as our infant brains evolved larger, so too must the vaginal opening and it's plasticity. Smaller women (err... pre-women) likely had a higher mortality rate during childbirth.

So now you have larger vaginas. If women have a pleasure preference for as tight a fit as is comfortable and prefer those males more often than smaller males (or an aesthetic preference derived from the popularity of better fit) - more children would be born to larger males than smaller males - resulting in the larger penis trait becoming more common in future populations. For the smallest of females, mating with the ever larger male becomes increasingly difficult/painful unless they can find the ever rarer small male, thus reducing their offspring and thus the larger vagina trait is passed on at higher rates.

This is an inevitable genital arms race. Probably all started with the evolution of bigger infant brains naturally selecting the larger vagina female. The penis has been trying to keep up ever since. It's PUNishing work. 

However, that arms race might be over with today now that sex and procreation have been largely severed, small women can have caesarians rather than see their traits selected out by mortality, and even further with monogamy becoming prominent (meaning most people get one child-rearing mate, or few, relative to our evolutionary ancestors).


----------



## Tubbalard

jaquen said:


> I find some of the reactions to Dolly's ideal post...telling.



True, but I also find her post telling as well. 50+ yr old woman giving descriptions such as "fat" to describe a penis? Lol. That's party girl language.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

:scratchhead: How else would you describe the preference?


----------



## Tubbalard

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> :scratchhead: How else would you describe the preference?



You think thats the only way to describe it? I just thought it was funny.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Tubbalard said:


> You think thats the only way to describe it? I just thought it was funny.


Pretty much. I mean, people are less familiar with girth measurements than length. So how should she describe it? Thick?

See what I mean? Is there any way that seems less sophomoric? Probably not.


----------



## Tubbalard

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Pretty much. I mean, people are less familiar with girth measurements than length. So how should she describe it? Thick?
> 
> See what I mean? Is there any way that seems less sophomoric? Probably not.



Yes, thick, thickness, girth are the usual words. Describing it as fat is more colloquial style language.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Tubbalard

_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jaquen

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Telling of what pray tell? I'm in her ideal range (though I don't know what she considers fat).


Just telling that, collectively, we men are very accustomed to stating our physical preferences for women's private body parts.

Yet so often when a woman states a preference for larger-than-average penis size, the reaction is pretty pissy, sarcastic, or dismissive. I don't think Dolly said anything particularly controversial, or even remotely inciteful, yet the reactions to her comments, and similar ones, have an element of butthurt that I find telling of our collective male insecurity.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Jaquen...thank you for saying so. It's so obvious to me (and most women) that men do this.


----------



## Deejo

Talk about staying power ... this thread has been poking around for over a year.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening all
I think expressing a preference is OK except when it might hurt someones feelings. 

So - I would be careful expressing a preference for a body type that was different from that of the person I was with. I wouldn't say I like large breasted women to a woman who was small -breasted (actually I prefer small btw), unless I was sure that she would not be bothered / offended by it.

The trick with penis size is that in general you don't know. The guy standing in front of you may already be feeling very insecure. Unlike breast size, you can't tell at a distance. So politeness would suggest being careful about discussing it. 

There are also varying sensitivities to different issues. Women are more likely to be insecure about breast size than hair color. Men more likely insecure about penis size than height. Both may be insecure about weight.


----------



## jaquen

I agree, one should be absolutely aware and sensitive when it comes to discussing personal ideals with their committed partner.

However the line should be drawn there. I don't think anybody else should be knocked for stating their prefrences around strangers, as long as they're polite and considerate enough not to bash people who just happen to fall outside their ideal.


----------



## Faithful Wife

As men do...all the time. Though there's no allowance for the feelings of others. In fact, they will go out of their way to explain how gross women they are not attracted to are. Regardless of who is listening or reading.

But not all men.


----------



## jaquen

Faithful Wife said:


> As men do...all the time. Though there's no allowance for the feelings of others. In fact, they will go out of their way to explain how gross women they are not attracted to are. Regardless of who is listening or reading.
> 
> But not all men.


Lets be honest, both men and women do this all the time. The comments people make among their friends, or other members of the same sex even, aren't much of a bother to me.

I just meant in the context of letting down an interested party easy. I don't think there is any excuse, or reason, to be rude or nasty to somebody interested in you just because you don't find them attractive.

But even with that sometimes people lash out because if feels like a knock to their ego. A "wow, if this person thinks they have a shot what the hell do I really look like?" moment. Pathetic, yes, but the ego is sensitive in a lot of people.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Yes, I don't know how anyone could justify saying something cruel to someone like "your x is too big/small/fat/skinny/whatever"....even if you do think it, there's no point in saying so...it isn't like the person can change it. I know some people do say dumb stuff like that to each other...I always assumed it happened when they actually wanted to hurt the person, because why else would they say it? Sad.


----------



## jaquen

Faithful Wife said:


> Yes, I don't know how anyone could justify saying something cruel to someone like "your x is too big/small/fat/skinny/whatever"....even if you do think it, there's no point in saying so...it isn't like the person can change it. I know some people do say dumb stuff like that to each other...I always assumed it happened when they actually wanted to hurt the person, because why else would they say it? Sad.


I honestly believe that the majority of the time when we openly, intentionally insult someone else it's not about them but how we feel about ourselves.

A person who is truly secure in themselves isn't going to have an overblown, buffed up ego. Therefore they won't feel insulted if someone "too big/small/fat/skinny/whatever" approaches them. They might even be flattered. Something is wrong with a person who lashes out at another human being for merely having interest in them. We all are entitled to our private views about the looks of other people, but there's almost no reason to stoop to the level of personally insulting somebody else's looks to their face like that.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

jaquen said:


> Just telling that, collectively, we men are very accustomed to stating our physical preferences for women's private body parts.
> 
> Yet so often when a woman states a preference for larger-than-average penis size, the reaction is pretty pissy, sarcastic, or dismissive. I don't think Dolly said anything particularly controversial, or even remotely inciteful, yet the reactions to her comments, and similar ones, have an element of butthurt that I find telling of our collective male insecurity.


Oh. I agree with that. I'm not sure if it's all insecurity though... I suspect a lot of it just has to do with unfamiliarity. Men aren't used to most women (upstanding women anyway) being very vocal about physical preferences.

Instead, it's usually fluffy stuff like "his vibe, attitude, the way he carries himself, confidence"; persona.

I think it's a good thing for women to be more expressive of their preferences and an important part of owning their sexuality.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> Yes, I don't know how anyone could justify saying something cruel to someone like "your x is too big/small/fat/skinny/whatever"....even if you do think it, there's no point in saying so...it isn't like the person can change it. I know some people do say dumb stuff like that to each other...I always assumed it happened when they actually wanted to hurt the person, because why else would they say it? Sad.


If it's legitimate rather than intended to be hurtful, or abusive, I think there are tactful ways to say these things. I only really see it coming to play if a person is letting themselves go. 

For me personally, it would probably as difficult to declare she needs to work on something, exercise, diet, whatever; as it is difficult for her to hear. Fortunately, I've never had to.

I mean... at some point something would have to be said right?


----------



## Kobo

always_alone said:


> The Authentic Women's Guide to the Ideal Penis
> Penis Size Guide: Women Reveal Ideal Length And Girth In Easy-To-Follow Guide
> 
> Do you measure up? Or do you think like most of the male posters that the "ideals" don't matter, that women are shallow for judging based on size, and that porn has given us completely unrealistic expectations of what real men look like?


Here's a secret most men over the age of 16 have stopped worrying about the size of their ****s.


----------



## Faithful Wife

I'm pretty sure the dozens of men at TAM who go on and on about their penis size every time this topic comes up are over 16.


----------



## nuclearnightmare

jaquen said:


> *Lets be honest, both men and women do this all the time.* The comments people make among their friends, or other members of the same sex even, aren't much of a bother to me.
> 
> I just meant in the context of letting down an interested party easy. I don't think there is any excuse, or reason, to be rude or nasty to somebody interested in you just because you don't find them attractive.
> 
> But even with that sometimes people lash out because if feels like a knock to their ego. A "wow, if this person thinks they have a shot what the hell do I really look like?" moment. Pathetic, yes, but the ego is sensitive in a lot of people.


in bold. there you've hit it exactly. neither gender has cornered the market on rudeness, insensitivity or cruelty to the opposite sex.


----------



## Ntsikzo

Faithful Wife said:


> I'm pretty sure the dozens of men at TAM who go on and on about their penis size every time this topic comes up are over 16.


16 or 60 I reckon the best way to know if your penis size or performance is satisfactory would be from your ex-girlfriends. Since they are in the past and have nothing to lose or gain they will be the most objective. 

The problem with reports like these is that you may suddenly find yourself insecure and unsure whether your partner is faking or truly satisfied.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Right. And when women say "the problem with men always looking at porn is that I feel insecure that you may be comparing me to others and not satisfied with me" many men say "well that's stupid and don't blame your insecurities on me and men are always going to look".

That's why when the massive amount of male insecurity is show cased so well on these penis threads, it makes me chuckle.


----------



## askari

I used to be very 'penis aware'....I was convinced I was small. 

Though all the women who have met 'him' (except my wife because Iw as her first and she - claims - to have nothing to compare 'him' to) have said I am a comfortable 'fit'! Perhaps they were just being polite!

I am still very 'nude shy' outside of the family home. 

There is only one male friend who I don't care if he seems me naked...we've known each other for years and years. He is hung like a donkey!! 
We take the pi$$ out each other about it!

I think that no matter what women say to us, most men think they are below average size.

One of the best things a woman can say(in a sexual context) to a guy is "I love your c0ck"...


----------



## Abel402

It has recently brought to attention by my doctor as he was giving me a checkup. He said there are two types of mens penis.

There are men with showers, and when their penis is not aroused you will basically see the entire thing....it may grow a tiny byt but not a lot.

Then he went on telling about the others(the growers) These men can have a 1-3" flaccid penis, but you get him erect and it has the power and size to fully arouse to 6-8


----------



## Ntsikzo

Abel402 said:


> It has recently brought to attention by my doctor as he was giving me a checkup. He said there are two types of mens penis.
> 
> There are men with showers, and when their penis is not aroused you will basically see the entire thing....it may grow a tiny byt but not a lot.
> 
> Then he went on telling about the others(the growers) These men can have a 1-3" flaccid penis, but you get him erect and it has the power and size to fully arouse to 6-8


That's true Abel. The only problem with being a grower is when you come out the shower in the gym and the guy standing next to you is dangling what looks like double your size.:lol:

What I have noticed though, is that when I was in my twenties and very skinny my D*** size was much bigger than now. I think its got to do with a bit of weight gain.:scratchhead:


----------



## askari

Ntsikzo said:


> That's true Abel. The only problem with being a grower is when you come out the shower in the gym and the guy standing next to you is dangling what looks like double your size.:lol:
> 
> What I have noticed though, is that when I was in my twenties and very skinny my D*** size was much bigger than now. I think its got to do with a bit of weight gain.:scratchhead:


Or perhaps you just aren't as lucky as your fellow country men!

IMBUNTU!!!!


----------



## just got it 55

Deejo said:


> Talk about staying power ... this thread has been poking around for over a year.


And my penis size hasn't changed a bit

55


----------



## Faithful Wife

askari said:


> I think that no matter what women say to us, most men think they are below average size.


No, I think many men are either confident or just don't care or don't compare. Just as there are plenty of women who are confident.

I just wish that the men who are insecure could have more compassion for the women who are insecure. But sadly, when men are insecure about this they expect women to cater to their insecurities (such as with the comment you suggested). I don't think any of us should cater to each other's insecurities, instead we should have compassion and adult understanding.


----------



## PieceOfSky

Faithful Wife said:


> I just wish that the men who are insecure could have more compassion for the women who are insecure.





You seem to be saying men who are insecure have insufficient compassion for women who are insecure. Is that what you are saying?



If so, who exactly are you talking about? Your choice to speak of "insecure men" instead of "some insecure people" suggests to me you see all insecure men as the same in this regard. How do you know what is in their heads?



I can imagine there are those who cope with insecurity by being cold and belittling and contemptuous towards others, including those of the opposite sex and/or with similar insecurities. It is a disservice to all to lump insecure men with people like that.



Askari's comment did not sound like an expectation of catering -- though, I am not sure what that would mean in the given context.


----------



## karole

Faithful Wife said:


> I'm pretty sure the dozens of men at TAM who go on and on about their penis size every time this topic comes up are over 16.


So true and we know that all men posting on TAM are "above average" because most of them make that point on every penis thread. LOL


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> Right. And when women say "the problem with men always looking at porn is that I feel insecure that you may be comparing me to others and not satisfied with me" many men say "well that's stupid and don't blame your insecurities on me and men are always going to look".
> 
> That's why when the massive amount of male insecurity is show cased so well on these penis threads, it makes me chuckle.


Strange... I just don't see the tons of insecurity on the matter that you do. Don't get me wrong, it is an area of insecurity for many men, but I'm not seeing the show case.

Regardless, you know what men do with that insecurity? They deal with it. At any moment a man could say "I feel you might be comparing me to past partners who were larger", but most men don't actually say this. A fraction do, but such a statement is nowhere near as common as women expressing a porn insecurity (and that's not even a person he's touched!).

IMO, all insecurities are rather meaningless. If your partner could do 
"better", in all likelihood, they would have. So why care at all, except to protect a large ego that demands being the best of all things a partner could possibly want?


----------



## jaquen

Faithful Wife said:


> I just wish that the men who are insecure could have more compassion for the women who are insecure. But sadly, when men are insecure about this they expect women to cater to their insecurities (such as with the comment you suggested). I don't think any of us should cater to each other's insecurities, instead we should have compassion and adult understanding.


Lets be fair though, men in the US (and most western societies) are socialized to cater to their own lover's insecurities. While some of us can be quite open and honest with each other, or when talking about women in general, it's hugely taboo, for example, to even mention your wife or girlfriend's weight gain, sagging bits, or spreading lines.

It's so stigmatized to mention a woman's weight, for instance, that many men will remain silent long past the point where a wife's weight problems are interfering with her health or their sex life. 


Plenty of men lack compassion for women's body insecurities, in general (though one could argue it's more an issue of understanding than compassion). But lots of us are expected to, and do, either cater to our women's insecurities or remain silent, regardless of what our feelings might be.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> I don't think any of us should cater to each other's insecurities, instead we should have compassion and adult understanding.


What exactly is compassion if not catering to insecurity? "Aww, you poor thing?"

I think all insecurities are pointless... everyone generally has a couple, and if you can't change them, then get over them. They're a burden of your own thought, not someone else's burden. Greater mindfulness goes a long way.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Jaquen, true... age insecurity is so pervasive that even asking a woman's age is taboo.

It's just dumb. The burden of an insecurity ought to fall on the person who has it. There should be no catering. You're not going to get any younger, so just accept it.


----------



## Faithful Wife

jaquen said:


> Lets be fair though, men in the US (and most western societies) are socialized to cater to their own lover's insecurities. While some of us can be quite open and honest with each other, or when talking about women in general, it's hugely taboo, for example, to even mention your wife or girlfriend's weight gain, sagging bits, or spreading lines.
> 
> It's so stigmatized to mention a woman's weight, for instance, that many men will remain silent long past the point where a wife's weight problems are interfering with her health or their sex life.
> 
> 
> Plenty of men lack compassion for women's body insecurities, in general (though one could argue it's more an issue of understanding than compassion). But lots of us are expected to, and do, either cater to our women's insecurities or remain silent, regardless of what our feelings might be.


Right, and I think both sides are doing each other wrong by catering to insecurities like this. It actually creates MORE insecurity.

Men have such fragile sexual egos because women for too long were not willing to just have adult conversations with them and with each other in their presence. This is changing now finally.

Then we have the other side of this...

Consider how the average guy poster at TAM tries to explain to women that they really shouldn't bother having insecurities about porn and about their man checking out other women, "because it is simple biology and it will always happen, so save your energy and worry about something you can do something about".

Um, ok. So here's a sample of the other side of this argument from me to an imaginary partner who is insecure about peen size.

"Save your energy, it is simply biology for women to want a bigger and better peen and no matter who you are, someone else has a bigger and better one. And yeah sometimes I'm going to fantasize about your brother because I can see his bulge is bigger than yours, and I'd love to have someone just like you only with a bigger peen...but that doesn't mean I don't love you just like you are, honey, you have nothing to worry about. It is just that no matter what you do or who you are, you will never satisfy a woman's need for variety and bigger always means better, and you will never ever be the biggest, ever. Sorry. But don't spend your energy on it, and how DARE you be insecure anyway, don't bother me with that nonsense, that's all just your own mind and nothing to do with reality".

(note: I'm writing this to make a point, not because this is something I would actually say to a partner)


----------



## Colonel Angus

This ol' dog gets a chuckle when a man or woman, tries to tell others, that their preferences are the norm. Just because "birds of a feather, flock together" doesn't mean that there aren't other "birds of different feathers" which may be just as many, if not more, in numbers.







If I overstayed my welcome, just tap me on the head.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> "Save your energy, it is simply biology for women to want a bigger and better peen and no matter who you are, someone else has a bigger and better one. And yeah sometimes I'm going to fantasize about your brother because I can see his bulge is bigger than yours, and I'd love to have someone just like you only with a bigger peen...but that doesn't mean I don't love you just like you are, honey, you have nothing to worry about. It is just that no matter what you do or who you are, you will never satisfy a woman's need for variety and bigger always means better, and you will never ever be the biggest, ever. Sorry. But don't spend your energy on it, and how DARE you be insecure anyway, don't bother me with that nonsense, that's all just your own mind and nothing to do with reality".


The thing is, even if this is truth why should it matter to him? If she can get "better", whatever it be, by all means go get it. Wouldn't she have if she could? If he could get the hyperbolic sexual dynamo with the big butt, slim waist and giant t*ts, sweet personality and brilliant mind, shouldn't he?

Any insecurity is all in the mind of the insecure. If she prioritizes a bigger peen, and he doesn't have one, she wouldn't still be with him. You may be able to improve one trait, but it almost certainly comes at expense of another. If you can meet your preferences with fewer tradeoffs, then by all means you should. That person is by definition a better match for you.

I find it entirely unlikely that anyone absolutely perfectly and ideally fits anyone across all measures/traits - there's far too many to even remotely believe such a match would be possible, much less common. Rather, there are a lot of pretty good fits. There is always something that one would prefer a partner have, not have, do or not do. Whether it be better physical characteristics, better listening skills, greater empathy, more ambition etc etc. That this marriage forum exists is a testament to this.

That we can identify what those things would be doesn't mean we are not content with what our partner is. Even if you don't meet your partner's idea of absolute perfection on every trait, it's still pointless to be insecure, because they still chose you and willingly made tradeoffs according to their priorities. There truly is always someone out there who is better looking, better endowed, smarter, funnier etc etc. But the fact remains that when one person chooses another, it is on the basis that that person possesses the best combination of traits according with their priorities that they could get. If not, they'd still be shopping.

The sooner you realize insecurity is all in your head, and entirely meaningless, the sooner you stop worrying about it. No woman who is interested in me, prioritizes a thick head of hair. So it would be a lower priority, if one at all. If she can meet that preference as well as all the other traits I bring to the table without tradeoff, then she wouldn't choose me in the first place. So why should I care? Whoever picks me will do so because I'm the best they can get - the best fit for their prioritization of traits. So insecurity is just illogical, and really more of an egotistical bitterness that we can't be perfect in every imaginable way.


----------



## Ntsikzo

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> The thing is, even if this is truth why should it matter to him? If she can get "better", whatever it be, by all means go get it. Wouldn't she have if she could? If he could get the hyperbolic sexual dynamo with the big butt, slim waist and giant t*ts, sweet personality and brilliant mind, shouldn't he?
> 
> Any insecurity is all in the mind of the insecure. If she prioritizes a bigger peen, and he doesn't have one, she wouldn't still be with him. You may be able to improve one trait, but it almost certainly comes at expense of another. If you can meet your preferences with fewer tradeoffs, then by all means you should.
> 
> I find it entirely unlikely that anyone absolutely perfectly and ideally fits anyone across all measures/traits - there's far too many to even remotely believe such a match would be possible, much less common. Rather, there are a lot of pretty good fits. There is always something that one would prefer a partner have, not have, do or not do. Whether it be better physical characteristics, better listening skills, greater empathy, more ambition etc etc. That this marriage forum exists is a testament to this.
> 
> That we can identify what those things would be doesn't mean we are not content with what our partner is. Even if you don't meet your partner's idea of absolute perfection on every trait, it's still pointless to be insecure, because they still chose you and willingly made tradeoffs according to their priorities.


Just to throw a curve ball to what you said above: What if the partner is only holding on to you until the type of person their looking for comes along?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Ntsikzo said:


> Just to throw a curve ball to what you said above: What if the partner is only holding on to you until the type of person their looking for comes along?


Does that change anything? Does any relationship come with guarantees? The moment a person believes they can do better, in all probability they will. And honestly, why shouldn't they?

I'll even proffer an example that is rather common. Cases where one spouse's attractiveness relative to the other dramatically changes. As soon as you change the balance of what a person has vs what a person can get, you're likely seeding dissatisfaction.

And when it all falls apart you'll hear the common tune: "I was unhappy in the marriage." Even when the truth is, "I got hotter, and they let themselves go." A myriad of other dissatisfactions are then conjured to cover for the less politically correct ones. Rationalizing. Demonizing. etc.

The rarity are those who stay committed in spite of the relative balance tipping decidedly in their favor. Even FW has previously mentioned that if her hubs gained a large amount of weight such as to lose her attraction, that she wouldn't stay in the relationship if he did not act to correct it. The balance between what we have and what we can get is CRITICAL to wanting to keep what we have.


----------



## Colonel Angus

Ntsikzo said:


> Just to throw a curve ball to what you said above: What if the partner is only holding on to you until the type of person their looking for comes along?


That is always the risk in any relationship.


----------



## Dollystanford

Won't somebody think of the balls too?

ps I'm not 50+! Cheek


----------



## Runs like Dog

the perfect one is the one that's in you.


----------



## Fozzy

This is the longest penis







thread I've ever seen.


----------



## Colonel Angus

For a penis thread, folks sure have user their tongues a lot.


----------



## Ntsikzo

Dollystanford said:


> Won't somebody think of the balls too?
> 
> ps I'm not 50+! Cheek


They are the Power behind the thrown:rofl:


----------



## jaquen

Faithful Wife said:


> "Save your energy, it is simply biology for women to want a bigger and better peen and no matter who you are, someone else has a bigger and better one. And yeah sometimes I'm going to fantasize about your brother because I can see his bulge is bigger than yours, and I'd love to have someone just like you only with a bigger peen...but that doesn't mean I don't love you just like you are, honey, you have nothing to worry about. It is just that no matter what you do or who you are, you will never satisfy a woman's need for variety and bigger always means better, and you will never ever be the biggest, ever. Sorry. But don't spend your energy on it, and how DARE you be insecure anyway, don't bother me with that nonsense, that's all just your own mind and nothing to do with reality".



In both scenarios each partner should concentrate on making a mutually satisfying, fulfilling sex life possible and letting the rest go. Nothing good comes of trying to compete with fantasies, unless said fantasies actually impact real life.

Now if it gets to the point where a man's (or woman, since we chronically ignore the fact that women too consume pornographic material) desire for a more porn looking/acting woman impedes his ability to be satisfied with his partner, or a woman's desire for a huge c0ck leaves her chronically dissatisfied with her man, than both should be brutally honest and perhaps move on.


----------



## always_alone

Deejo said:


> Talk about staying power ... this thread has been poking around for over a year.


Actually, there was quite a long refractory period, while it caught a second wind. It's getting old, after all, and can't quite get it up like it used to.

But please try and refrain from poking fun; it can't help it if it isn't able to perform like the younger, more nubile threads.


----------



## Faithful Wife

jaquen said:


> In both scenarios each partner should concentrate on making a mutually satisfying, fulfilling sex life possible and letting the rest go. Nothing good comes of trying to compete with fantasies, unless said fantasies actually impact real life.
> 
> Now if it gets to the point where a man's (or woman, since we chronically ignore the fact that women too consume pornographic material) desire for a more porn looking/acting woman impedes his ability to be satisfied with his partner, or a woman's desire for a huge c0ck leaves her chronically dissatisfied with her man, than both should be brutally honest and perhaps move on.


I agree with this. 

I just don't understand why some men mock women being insecure when many of the same men are so insecure themselves, that's all. I mean I get it, but why do they not think we can see through them? It is clear as day to us. And yes, it is clear as day to men when women are insecure, but I don't think women try to hide it, they are just openly insecure and men openly mock them. Whereas, men are hiding their insecurities and in general, I don't hear women mocking them.

The quote I said (as an example of what a woman might say to a man who was insecure) is NOT something you read women saying over and over at TAM, for instance. Yet the male equivalent IS something men at TAM say over and over, that was my point. There's a flaw there. I'm not saying this is men's fault, in fact, women are just as much to blame by accepting the mocking by insecure men and not flipping it back in their face.


----------



## hookares

Originally Posted by Deejo View Post
Talk about staying power ... this thread has been poking around for over a year.
The subject of this thread has grown whiskers simply because virtually nobody posting about the issue has the problem. All the guys are at least average or better and the women insist they are married to guys who are "much" larger.
Plain and simple: if you don't have the problem, you don't know what you are talking about.


----------



## askari

IMHO it really is very simple indeed....women like to be told they look gorgeous...that they have really cute 'pert' bums...that they give 'out of this world BJ's'....we guys are really no different.

We like to be told we have a fantastic 'peen' that fits perfectly etc.

If you truly love someone you love the whole package....whether she has a massive bum and tiny tits or he has a fantastic body and a tiny peen...

Everyone wants to be told 'I love you just the way you are'....


----------



## jaquen

Faithful Wife said:


> The quote I said (as an example of what a woman might say to a man who was insecure) is NOT something you read women saying over and over at TAM, for instance. Yet the male equivalent IS something men at TAM say over and over, that was my point. There's a flaw there.


I don't see anything wrong with a man expressing that POV if it's true. I absolutely stand behind the fact that women can feel however they like. But they also do not have the right to project their feelings, and insecurities, on men. Just because a woman thinks a certain way does not mean a man is thinking the same way. 

The flaw is in a woman remaining silent about her truth. If the women of TAM, in the example given, truly believe that there is nothing wrong with wanting men with bigger penises, bigger bank accounts, visible abs, higher heights, whatever, and expressing that as a preference that men should get over, than so be it. I see nothing wrong with that whatsoever. Just as some women need to grow a thicker skin, so many men need to as well.

Because I do see an inherent hypocrisy in a man arguing his right to be visual, and enjoy looking at other women while expecting his woman to not take it personally, getting in a tizzy over a woman expressing a similar POV. But we're humans and it seems hypocrisy and double standards are rules of thumb.


----------



## always_alone

Faithful Wife said:


> The quote I said (as an example of what a woman might say to a man who was insecure) is NOT something you read women saying over and over at TAM, for instance. Yet the male equivalent IS something men at TAM say over and over, that was my point. There's a flaw there. I'm not saying this is men's fault, in fact, women are just as much to blame by accepting the mocking by insecure men and not flipping it back in their face.


It's a socialization issue, IMHO. Women are taught to always be nice, to be thinking of others, to nurture and put others feelings ahead of themselves. So they have a much greater tendency to refrain from saying things that will hurt feelings, and will look for the good to boost people up. 

Men are taught that their opinions are important and should be expressed, and that feelings are something to be suppressed, ignored out of existence. So they will have a much greater tendency to be blunt, hurtful, and then just say "suck it up" if you don't like it (even when they have great difficulty doing so themselves).

And we are all taught that it's perfectly acceptable to grade and rank and judge women's bodies, lining them up for endless beauty shows, etc., but what men require is admiration and respect.

So to my mind, putting it all off on just "insecurity" is a bit of a red herring. The playing field isn't even to begin with.

I also don't think hat having compassion for people is "catering" to their insecurities in any way. Sure, maybe some of us need a thicker skin. But there's also a whole lot of people that really could learn to be a bit more respectful and considerate of their fellow human beings.


----------



## alexm

askari said:


> IMHO it really is very simple indeed....women like to be told they look gorgeous...that they have really cute 'pert' bums...that they give 'out of this world BJ's'....we guys are really no different.
> 
> We like to be told we have a fantastic 'peen' that fits perfectly etc.
> 
> If you truly love someone you love the whole package....whether she has a massive bum and tiny tits or he has a fantastic body and a tiny peen...
> 
> Everyone wants to be told 'I love you just the way you are'....


Yep, this.

Our (males) insecurity about our penises derive primarily from our partners, uh, handling of it. Not from what others say (although it does have an influence).

My ex wife made numerous positive comments about my junk over the years. Never things like "it's huge" or what have you, but rather compliments on it's appearance, feel, etc. My current wife has never once commented on it, negative OR positive.

This general dismissal of my junk has a negative effect on my psyche, as it would most people, male or female. I would imagine it would bother most women if their spouse never once commented on their boobs, ever. Doesn't matter if he's a boob guy or not, you're likely going to feel that they're either not good enough to comment on in his eyes, or even perhaps that he's going by the "if you can't say something nice..." credo.

The reality is that I know my junk is at least adequate for my wife. It gets the job done. I don't need her to worship it.

But in the back of my mind, it doesn't make enough of an impression on her to bother mentioning, if that makes sense.

I mean, every woman here who has had some experience with men has likely run into at least one penis that was worth commenting on at one point or another. Size, thickness, general visual appeal, whatever.

I'm not making any assumptions that my wife has ever felt the need to comment on somebody's junk to their face, it may just not be in her nature to do so. However the fact remains that she has not once commented on mine. And even though I am very comfortable with my junk, actually hearing positive comments from the only person on earth who has access to it would be very welcome.


----------



## Faithful Wife

jaquen said:


> I don't see anything wrong with a man expressing that POV if it's true. I absolutely stand behind the fact that women can feel however they like.* But they also do not have the right to project their feelings, and insecurities, on men. *Just because a woman thinks a certain way does not mean a man is thinking the same way.


And men don't have the right to project their feelings, and insecurities, on women. Yet this entire thread is all about that. That's been my point. I don't know why you think it is ok for men to do this but not for women? I'm talking about men's insecurity about penis size right now. And their constant and blatant insecurity about it which they try to turn around and say is "because" of women, when it is actually because of their own issues. You are the one who said "wow I can't believe how obvious it is that all you guys are so insecure" (or similar) and I thanked you for pointing that out.


----------



## Faithful Wife

alexm said:


> Yep, this.
> 
> Our (males) insecurity about our penises derive primarily from our partners, uh, handling of it. Not from what others say (although it does have an influence).


This isn't true for most men, though it may be true for you. Men become insecure about their peens before WE'VE ever even SEEN one in most cases.


Men are too insecure about penis size to ever stop worrying about it | Oscar Rickett | Comment is free | The Guardian


----------



## jaquen

Faithful Wife said:


> *I don't know why you think it is ok for men to do this but not for women?* I'm talking about men's insecurity about penis size right now. And their constant and blatant insecurity about it which they try to turn around and say is "because" of women, when it is actually because of their own issues. You are the one who said "wow I can't believe how obvious it is that all you guys are so insecure" (or similar) and I thanked you for pointing that out.


You must seriously be going out of your way to ignore the majority of the posts I've made in this thread, including the very one you picked this quote from, to walk away with this impression.

Read again.


----------



## hookares

I still contend that if a man manages to fall inside the alleged "norms' of 5" to 7'', he has nothing to complain about as far as finding a reliable, faithful mate.
Fall far out of the norm and the situation changes markedly.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Jaquen...you said you can see the hipocrisy in a mans "right" to be visual but then taking offense if a woman does the same and I appreciated that. But you also mentioned how it is unfair for women to project their insecurities on men and I simply pointed out men do the same thing. Perhaps you meant they do the same thing and it is also unfair but I did not interpret your hipocrisy statement that way. The hipocrisy does not automatically mean insecurity so I didn't interpret that. If that is what you meant then I missed it, sorry about that.


----------



## Faithful Wife

hookares said:


> I still contend that if a man manages to fall inside the alleged "norms' of 5" to 7'', he has nothing to complain about as far as finding a reliable, faithful mate.
> Fall far out of the norm and the situation changes markedly.


Do you honestly believe women frequently dump men for having a small peen? To the point that a man with a small one should worry about this all the time? Key word is frequently.


----------



## Wolf1974

Faithful Wife said:


> Do you honestly believe women frequently dump men for having a small peen? To the point that a man with a small one should worry about this all the time? Key word is frequently.


I have known a few who have yes. I didn't know the men, since the woman was my friend and not the guy, so I don't know if they had insecurities about it but I would have to assume yes..... however of the women who said that none of them apparently told the guy that was the reason.

What was also interesting to me was that more than one woman has mentioned that being too big was a problem. That was something I hadn't previously thought of. So within the normal range you're likely good to go. Outside that range could be an issue with some. In the end if the partner says it's a good fit that's what matter most


----------



## Faithful Wife

Still doesn't sound like a frequent issue.


----------



## Wolf1974

Sorry maybe I misunderstood then. If you mean does this frequently happen I doubt it. I don't know what percentage of men suffer from things like micro penis. 

For those who do have a well below average penis I would say thier experience is very frequent at being rejected bcause of it

I maybe misunderstood what you were saying


----------



## alexm

Faithful Wife said:


> This isn't true for most men, though it may be true for you. Men become insecure about their peens before WE'VE ever even SEEN one in most cases.
> 
> 
> Men are too insecure about penis size to ever stop worrying about it | Oscar Rickett | Comment is free | The Guardian


FW, I'm not sure you registered what I was saying 

I'm NOT insecure about my peen (love that word, btw!), and never have been. FWIW, and I really don't want to post this here, cause nobody's business, but I'm just under 7" and 6.5" around. I'm also 5'7" tall and ~160lbs, which actually matters in terms of perspective. I'm larger than average down there and smaller than average everywhere else, so this makes it appear even larger than it is.

What I AM insecure about is that my wife has never once said a nice or flattering word about it. She's the one that matters. In my other post, I realize that many women simply don't register to do this (flatter their man's peen), or they don't care, or what have you. I GET that many women simply see a penis as an appendage that has a couple of different uses, and are neither turned on nor off by the sight of a penis. Totally understand that.

As I said, I am not a breast guy, so I've never given a rat's behind how big or small a woman's boobs are. (I have a slight preference for smaller, but it's a complete non-issue). That said, I like my WIFE'S boobs, and she knows this, as I've told her. But the reality is that I like my wife's boobs because they're my wife's boobs.

6+ years of never once making a flattering comment (or ANY comment) about my penis, and of course I'll wonder why.

Let me give you a theoretical example of what I'm talking about: if I was single and met a woman and we slept together, I would not care in the slightest if she complimented my junk or not. Even further, if she commented negatively about it, it wouldn't bother me in the slightest. Why? 2 reasons: a) she's not my wife or somebody who I'd have a major investment in and b) I know what I have down there, I know what it looks like, what size it is, and that there's really nothing anybody can say to actually hurt me in that regard. It's not big, it's not small, it's not different looking (afaik), it's proportionate, etc. And I couldn't care less what some woman who I have no investment in thinks about it.

But I DO care about what my wife thinks about it. My only insecurity about my penis would come from my wife, because she's the one that matters. If 7x6.5" is too small for HER, then I would be insecure, yes. With HER. If she doesn't like the shape, then I would be insecure. With HER. If she doesn't like the way it looks, then I would be insecure. With HER. It is not something I would take with me if I ever found myself single again, god forbid. If she didn't like the size or the shape of it and she told me, it wouldn't affect me in the slightest with other women.

With anybody else in the world, other than my wife, I could care less. Any insecurity derived from my penis is solely based around a partner with whom I have an investment in.


----------



## Wolf1974

alexm said:


> FW, I'm not sure you registered what I was saying
> 
> I'm NOT insecure about my peen (love that word, btw!), and never have been. FWIW, and I really don't want to post this here, cause nobody's business, but I'm just under 7" and 6.5" around. I'm also 5'7" tall and ~160lbs, which actually matters in terms of perspective. I'm larger than average down there and smaller than average everywhere else, so this makes it appear even larger than it is.
> 
> What I AM insecure about is that my wife has never once said a nice or flattering word about it. She's the one that matters. In my other post, I realize that many women simply don't register to do this (flatter their man's peen), or they don't care, or what have you. I GET that many women simply see a penis as an appendage that has a couple of different uses, and are neither turned on nor off by the sight of a penis. Totally understand that.
> 
> As I said, I am not a breast guy, so I've never given a rat's behind how big or small a woman's boobs are. (I have a slight preference for smaller, but it's a complete non-issue). That said, I like my WIFE'S boobs, and she knows this, as I've told her. But the reality is that I like my wife's boobs because they're my wife's boobs.
> 
> 6+ years of never once making a flattering comment (or ANY comment) about my penis, and of course I'll wonder why.
> 
> Let me give you a theoretical example of what I'm talking about: if I was single and met a woman and we slept together, I would not care in the slightest if she complimented my junk or not. Even further, if she commented negatively about it, it wouldn't bother me in the slightest. Why? 2 reasons: a) she's not my wife or somebody who I'd have a major investment in and b) I know what I have down there, I know what it looks like, what size it is, and that there's really nothing anybody can say to actually hurt me in that regard. It's not big, it's not small, it's not different looking (afaik), it's proportionate, etc. And I couldn't care less what some woman who I have no investment in thinks about it.
> 
> But I DO care about what my wife thinks about it. My only insecurity about my penis would come from my wife, because she's the one that matters. If 7x6.5" is too small for HER, then I would be insecure, yes. If she doesn't like the shape, then I would be insecure. If she doesn't like the way it looks, then I would be insecure.
> 
> With anybody else in the world, other than my wife, I could care less. Any insecurity derived from my penis is solely based around a partner with whom I have an investment in.


are you afraid to ask her? I think as a general rule men compliment women's bodies more than they in turn compliment men's bodies. Not sure why just my experience perhaps. But if you asked you may find that she has always loved it. Let her know that you would really enjoy the positive feedback on it.


----------



## 2ntnuf

Reading this article was inspiring and insightful. It was written by a doctor. There are charts and graphs that can be accessed by a link in the article. This is very informative for it's short length. No pun intended. Maybe a little pun. Okay, I'll stop. Take a look.

Small Penis Syndrome: Characteristics and Self-Help Treatment Suggestions - Anxiety Disorders


----------



## alexm

Faithful Wife said:


> Do you honestly believe women frequently dump men for having a small peen? To the point that a man with a small one should worry about this all the time? Key word is frequently.


I wouldn't say "frequently", but I would venture that it happens more than we think, yes.

I've heard of it before (also from women, not the man), and I've heard on more than one occasion women talking about being smaller down there and it being a problem - for them.

Is it the sole reason why any woman would dump a guy? Likely not (though again, I have heard of this happening...). But it certainly plays into it, and/or is lumped in with a myriad of other reasons. So like it or not, it certainly CAN be an issue, if not always the defining one.

Fwiw, I can't think of one similar comparison with a woman's body that a man would specifically break up with her over. I mean honestly, if a woman has a large vagina cavity (and trust me, they exist) it makes very little difference to a man. Yes, a tighter fit is more desirable for a guy, but it's certainly overcome. (no pun intended. Sigh.)

However, a man with a smaller penis CAN entirely deprive a woman of any sort of pleasure through intercourse. It CAN be "too small" for the woman to enjoy, or perhaps even feel. Yet the same man will get essentially the same pleasure from intercourse as he would with any other woman.

I don't think I've ever heard of a guy breaking up with a woman because her vagina was "too big" (or too small). Yet women very definitely do, if the opposite is true. Just the way it is.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Wolf1974 said:


> are you afraid to ask her? I think as a general rule men compliment women's bodies more than they in turn compliment men's bodies. Not sure why just my experience perhaps. But if you asked you may find that she has always loved it. Let her know that you would really enjoy the positive feedback on it.


Your point inspired another thought to consider...

If all of what has been said here is true, then men supposedly *both* mock women's insecurities AND compliment women more often than women compliment men. Somewhat of a contradiction?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Alex...I get ya. I just think that a lot of men have small peen insecurity no matter what any woman says or doesn't say...because those men focused on this body part at a young age and then watched a lot of huge peen porn and never got over it. I think this is typical. 

In your case, I don't buy it that you don't want to post the details, you have done so before in other thread (don't think I'm not paying attention!) 

But also in your case (and I feel similar about Sam yeager's case), I don't think you realize that you can affect your wife's verbal appreciation by asserting yourself and making it known you expect it and deserve it.

As you may have seen or read (but maybe not, that's ok too) I'm a huge advocate of getting women to more openly worship their man's body, with touch and words and ogling and have written a couple of blog posts about it. And I have shared that the way my husband got me to understand this is important was by telling me straight up that it is important and that he knows he deserves it.

There are women who also are with men who never say anything complimentary (or rarely) and those women are also advised to tell their husbands what they need in this area. Anon pink and curious wife are two examples.

I think if we can assert ourselves more we can all get more of what we want and need.


----------



## alexm

Wolf1974 said:


> are you afraid to ask her? I think as a general rule men compliment women's bodies more than they in turn compliment men's bodies. Not sure why just my experience perhaps. *But if you asked you may find that she has always loved it. *Let her know that you would really enjoy the positive feedback on it.


Oh, absolutely could be the case.

But the last thing I want to do is seem like I'm fishing for compliments, NEED my penis complimented, or worse, have her fake it!

It's one of those things that isn't worth bringing up, imo. It really doesn't bother me, as it definitely seems to get the job done and there have been no complaints so far. I honestly think that she just doesn't care about penis, period. Many women don't (unless it's too big or too small, of course...). Many men don't care about the aesthetics of a vagina, either, and I get that. I fall into that category. Yet I like my wife's vagina very much, and I tell her so. Because it's her's.

It's just that little guy in the back of my head asking "why hasn't she ever said anything?"


----------



## Faithful Wife

Alex...in all the literally thousands of threads I've read on relationship forums I've never read one about dumping him or being dumped by her over peen size. It simply cannot be common enough to cause the level of insecurity we see in so many men.


----------



## alexm

Faithful Wife said:


> Alex...I get ya. I just think that a lot of men have small peen insecurity no matter what any woman says or doesn't say...because those men focused on this body part at a young age and then watched a lot of huge peen porn and never got over it. I think this is typical.
> 
> *Too typical, yes. I've known lots of women in my lifetime who have similar insecurities about breast size, who really shouldn't, imo. I get it if you're an a-cup, but if you're a B or a C, you're right in the zone anyway. What do you want DD's for??? (also a-cups are awesome, imo).*
> 
> In your case, I don't buy it that you don't want to post the details, you have done so before in other thread (don't think I'm not paying attention!)
> 
> *LOL!!! What I truly meant is that I didn't want it to seem like I'm looking for a reason to post my stats. Trust me, I'm not like that. Nothing to gain from it on an anonymous forum. And it's nothing to write home about, in any case *
> 
> But also in your case (and I feel similar about Sam yeager's case), I don't think you realize that you can affect your wife's verbal appreciation by asserting yourself and making it known you expect it and deserve it.
> 
> As you may have seen or read (but maybe not, that's ok too) I'm a huge advocate of getting women to more openly worship their man's body, with touch and words and ogling and have written a couple of blog posts about it. And I have shared that the way my husband got me to understand this is important was by telling me straight up that it is important and that he knows he deserves it.
> 
> *Yeah, I agree. But there's an element of feeling like I have to ask for this, which I can't wrap my head around. It's not that I don't feel I deserve it (honestly), it's just that asking to be complimented about something seems rather far from the actual point, know what I mean? If my wife could care less about my penis one way or the other, then I'm honestly okay with that, if that makes any sense. It would be a non-issue to her, which is absolutely fine.
> 
> However, being a human being and all, there's always going to be that tiny seed of doubt in the back of one's mind that says "she's never said anything nice about it, does that mean she doesn't like it?". I think it's perfectly normal to have that doubt. If I ever convince myself that's the case, I'm in trouble!*
> 
> There are women who also are with men who never say anything complimentary (or rarely) and those women are also advised to tell their husbands what they need in this area. Anon pink and curious wife are two examples.
> 
> I think if we can assert ourselves more we can all get more of what we want and need.


----------



## jaquen

alexm said:


> I'm NOT insecure about my peen (love that word, btw!), and never have been. FWIW, and I really don't want to post this here, cause nobody's business, but I'm just under 7" and 6.5" around. I'm also 5'7" tall and ~160lbs, which actually matters in terms of perspective. I'm larger than average down there and smaller than average everywhere else, so this makes it appear even larger than it is.



Dude, I think you may be underestimating things a bit here. For your height that weight isn't exactly skinny, so probably isn't giving you some major boost in the visual department.

Maybe she's never made a comment because it genuinely looks like a normal penis to her? With your height, weight and the given penis measurements it's not out of the realm of possibility that she just thinks you have a normal, typical penis and doesn't feel the need to comment on it. Why take that as a slight against you?


----------



## alexm

Faithful Wife said:


> Alex...in all the literally thousands of threads I've read on relationship forums I've never read one about dumping him or being dumped by her over peen size. It simply cannot be common enough to cause the level of insecurity we see in so many men.


Oh, I agree that it's not common, but it DOES happen.

In all honesty, I would think that when this type of thing happens, it's not quite at the "relationship" level yet, anyway, which is why you wouldn't be reading about it too often on a forum, or in an article.

You know, you go on 2 or 3 dates with some guy and then you sleep with him. Turns out he's too small for you, you don't go out with him again, because the sex just wasn't satisfying to you.

Exchange "small penis" for "terrible technique" or "he lasted 30 seconds" or "he tried to stick it in my butt" and you get the same result. He may be a great guy and you had a lot of fun on those 3 dates, but if the sex didn't do anything for you, there's probably no more dates.

FW, you must have been with a man with a small penis in your lifetime? (or one that was too small for YOU). As you are a self-confessed HD woman who embraces her sexuality (and who has also just mentioned in another thread that you are not highly orgasmic and VERY much enjoy intercourse), surely you must have had a less-than-fulfilling fling or two with a man who was on the small side? I gather you are very much into intercourse, orgasm or not, therefore a partner would have to have adequate size down there, no?

If your husband were lacking in that regard, would you (or could you) spend the rest of your life receiving little in the way of pleasure from intercourse, something that is extremely important to you?


----------



## alexm

jaquen said:


> Dude, I think you may be underestimating things a bit here. For your height that weight isn't exactly skinny, so probably isn't giving you some major boost in the visual department.
> 
> Maybe she's never made a comment because it genuinely looks like a normal penis to her? With your height, weight and the given penis measurements it's not out of the realm of possibility that she just thinks you have a normal, typical penis and doesn't feel the need to comment on it. Why take that as a slight against you?


I wouldn't say it's a slight. It's more that my wife doesn't comment on it. I'd say the same thing if I was 4" or 10".

And no, I'm not slim, but my body type is proportionate. The extra 10 or so lbs I carry are spread out evenly, not relegated to one area. I'm also a life-long athlete so there's a bit of muscle, too. When I was 17, 18, 19, I was 195lbs, but not fat, believe it or not. Not cut, either, though, no six-packs abs or anything. But nobody would have said I was fat back then, either. I'm just solidly built, despite my lack of stature. Mostly in my legs, especially back then.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> Alex...in all the literally thousands of threads I've read on relationship forums I've never read one about dumping him or being dumped by her over peen size. It simply cannot be common enough to cause the level of insecurity we see in so many men.


I don't think penis size insecurity is generally rooted in the notion that she will leave. It's rooted in the egotistical desire to be her best in what many perceive as mattering the most; the arguably most masculine of traits, being a stud. Even if he knows she's never going to leave, most are still going to be dissatisfied if he doesn't think he rocks her world in the sack. Hence one of the major appeals of women in porn - they look really into it. Women are in fact aware of this... it's also why some women fake orgasms. That faking is also insecurity based - the feeling that if you don't, he might be dissatisfied and prefer someone else.

Penis size / sexual performance insecurity stands out loudly, because it's one of only a few areas it's generally acceptable or even encouraged for men to obtain ego gratification. Men can't wh*re up facebook with skimpy selfies to prove to themselves they're beautiful. Men can't dress up for the sole purpose of attention seeking without raising an eyebrow. It's not socially acceptable for men to be overly flashy or excessively grooming. All these things come with some negative feedback. There's no negative side of being a beast in bed. We're largely culturally constrained, or encouraged, to seek our ego gratification in three, maybe four areas: strength, skills, success and sexual performance. Many break out of it, particularly with age, but this is true for a LOT of men. You'll find the exact same insecurity in many men on their abilities and their income as you do on penis size (which is just the most obvious and naïve object to heap responsibility for sexual performance upon).

You won't find many men who are satisfied in a relationship where his wife is only so-so (or less) enjoying his performance in bed. That leaves him only the other two pillars of masculine ego, and thus defensiveness and insecurity. It's little different than women's ego gratification on the basis of appearance. "Tell me I'm beautiful". It's not by chance that men who don't feel they're rocking their wives in the bedroom (either by lack of communication or perception of overly high expectations), tend to retreat to porn where everyone is so enthusiastic. Or why women who aren't given compliments on their appearance tend to lean more heavily on non-physical sources of ego gratification, and despise superficiality. We all want to be super.

And let's be real, both sexes are mocked for ego gratifying behaviors and related insecurities. Do you have any idea how many "mid-life crisis" comments I get for driving a Porsche? lol While my doing so is certainly partly driven by ego, those comments are also driven by ego-related insecurities - the need to knock me down to feel better about themselves. Women are even the worst about mocking social media selfie queens, or the woman overselling her looks at the bar/club. Men and women mock insecurity in equal measure.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Alexm has a good point on women's sexual rejections though. While a woman isn't generally going to leave a relationship with a guy she already knows is smaller or poor performing when she got into the relationship, MANY do jump ship immediately after a poor initial sexual experience.

I have to say I've never gotten a second shot after a dreadful performance (hey, nobody's perfect! ). I've also heard it expressed a number of times by women I'm not sleeping with. If he blows the first time, these women have said there probably isn't gonna be a second time. The guys who were terrible don't get another chance. The mystique... the excitement... whatever it is, has been flushed, and they're no longer interested.


----------



## Faithful Wife

alexm said:


> Faithful Wife said:
> 
> 
> 
> Alex...in all the literally thousands of threads I've read on relationship forums I've never read one about dumping him or being dumped by her over peen size. It simply cannot be common enough to cause the level of insecurity we see in so many men.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I agree that it's not common, but it DOES happen.
> 
> In all honesty, I would think that when this type of thing happens, it's not quite at the "relationship" level yet, anyway, which is why you wouldn't be reading about it too often on a forum, or in an article.
> 
> You know, you go on 2 or 3 dates with some guy and then you sleep with him. Turns out he's too small for you, you don't go out with him again, because the sex just wasn't satisfying to you.
> 
> Exchange "small penis" for "terrible technique" or "he lasted 30 seconds" or "he tried to stick it in my butt" and you get the same result. He may be a great guy and you had a lot of fun on those 3 dates, but if the sex didn't do anything for you, there's probably no more dates.
> 
> FW, you must have been with a man with a small penis in your lifetime? (or one that was too small for YOU). As you are a self-confessed HD woman who embraces her sexuality (and who has also just mentioned in another thread that you are not highly orgasmic and VERY much enjoy intercourse), surely you must have had a less-than-fulfilling fling or two with a man who was on the small side? I gather you are very much into intercourse, orgasm or not, therefore a partner would have to have adequate size down there, no?
> 
> If your husband were lacking in that regard, would you (or could you) spend the rest of your life receiving little in the way of pleasure from intercourse, something that is extremely important to you?
Click to expand...

Skill trumps size for me. The only men I've dumped for anything sexually related simply sucked in bed. 

Actually it was only two men and they both had the same problem and size is sort of involved. Both of them were simply so ignorant about their own bodies that it caused the same problem in both. 

They were both daily masterbators and the net result of this was that they were never fully erect. Strangely though neither of them watched porn with men in it....so they literally had no means of comparison and therefore they didn't actually realize that a stiffy is called a stiffy because it is actually STIFF. They thought just a tiny amount of chubb was normal and acceptable. Um no, it is not.

I asked a lot of questions of both of them that's how I found out about their lack of knowledge. I tried to encourage both to give it a rest, even just for a day or two and the answer by one of them was "why deprive myself?" Oh I dunno maybe because you could maybe actually get hard for sex for once? 

I suggested Viagra as an alternative solution and the same guy said "you think I need it?" 

I was done after that. The ignorance was just too much for me.

Some men can do it daily and not have this issue, I know that. Doesn't matter, these two did have this issue and the sex was terrible.

Not actual dumping, but I have turned down a second or third date due to lack of skills in even kissing on the first or second date. If they can't even get that right it simply doesn't matter what kind of penis they have.


----------



## Lon

Faithful Wife said:


> Skill trumps size for me. The only men I've dumped for anything sexually related simply sucked in bed.
> 
> Actually it was only two men and they both had the same problem and size is sort of involved. Both of them were simply so ignorant about their own bodies that it caused the same problem in both.
> 
> They were both daily masterbators and the net result of this was that they were never fully erect. Strangely though neither of them watched porn with men in it....so they literally had no means of comparison and therefore they didn't actually realize that a stiffy is called a stiffy because it is actually STIFF. They thought just a tiny amount of chubb was normal and acceptable. Um no, it is not.
> 
> I asked a lot of questions of both of them that's how I found out about their lack of knowledge. I tried to encourage both to give it a rest, even just for a day or two and the answer by one of them was "why deprive myself?" Oh I dunno maybe because you could maybe actually get hard for sex for once?
> 
> I suggested Viagra as an alternative solution and the same guy said "you think I need it?"
> 
> I was done after that. The ignorance was just too much for me.
> 
> Some men can do it daily and not have this issue, I know that. Doesn't matter, these two did have this issue and the sex was terrible.
> 
> Not actual dumping, but I have turned down a second or third date due to lack of skills in even kissing on the first or second date. If they can't even get that right it simply doesn't matter what kind of penis they have.


Being able to maintain a very stiff erection is a bedroom skill?

I often have that dilemma, if the pace isn't just right the hardness won't last as long as my desire to please, and so I use hands, mouth, whatever other implements I have at my disposal until we're both spent. Sometimes the pace just clicks for me and the hardness is there as long as needed or until I can't take it anymore.

Even though I am not usually rock hard like in my 20s I'd hardly say I suck in bed, and it has nothing to do with physical desensitization from too much stroking.

BTW I can't believe I haven't commented on this thread before...


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Lon said:


> Being able to maintain a very stiff erection is a bedroom skill?


I don't know that I'd call it a skill, but it's definitely a trait many women prefer. That's not to say one can't compensate and satisfy their partner in other ways. It's up to the woman whether that's cool with her or not.

Generally, absent conditioning (her example problem), stress or health issues, a lack of hardness is psychological - being in your head and focuses on pleasing her, rather than being entirely in the moment, in your own body.


----------



## hookares

Faithful Wife said:


> Do you honestly believe women frequently dump men for having a small peen? To the point that a man with a small one should worry about this all the time? Key word is frequently.


Since studies show that less than 5% of men fall below the alleged average size it wouldn't be a common issue for every man. And if a guy has a woman cheat on him and end up dumping him for what she says is his not measuring up as the reason, it may well cause him to dwell on it.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Lon said:


> Being able to maintain a *very stiff* erection is a bedroom skill?
> 
> I often have that dilemma, if the pace isn't just right the hardness won't last as long as my desire to please, and so I use hands, mouth, whatever other implements I have at my disposal until we're both spent. Sometimes the pace just clicks for me and the hardness is there as long as needed or until I can't take it anymore.
> 
> Even though I am not usually rock hard like in my 20s I'd hardly say I suck in bed, and it has nothing to do with physical desensitization from too much stroking.
> 
> BTW I can't believe I haven't commented on this thread before...


Very stiff?? How about ANY stiff. I'm talking so soft you can't even get it inside of you without a shoe horn. And the guy NOT realizing this isn't how sex is supposed to work. Nothing even close to actual stiffness happening, at all, during any part of it.

And then upon questioning this, hearing this was "the best ever" for him. :scratchhead:


----------



## alexm

intheory said:


> I don't know if this would work for you and Mrs.alexm. But, you already have a healthy appreciation of your body. And your wife loves you, right? So, telling her, "*hey don't you think my junk is kind of great?*" is perfectly fine. Even admitting that you need compliments is cute. Well, at least I think it is. It's human and vulnerable.
> 
> If, by some long shot, she said something horrid and mean; well then you know a bit more about her -- and you can act accordingly. But there's not really much of a chance of that, do you think?


I laughed (out loud!) at that! You're right, though. It's just finding words that aren't as funny as that  (that's NO offense to you at all. I was just picturing myself saying those exact words, out loud, to my wife and imagining her reaction!)

Funny thing, though, is that I have no problem doing this in other aspects of my life. My wife is like your husband, awkward receiving compliments and giving them (if they give them at all). So if I feel particularly good about myself one day, I'll say that, out loud, to my wife. "Hey, I'm having a good hair day" or "I really like how I look in these jeans" or something along those lines. And it IS fishing for a positive response, which I usually get. Otherwise I get nothing.

Saying something like "boy, I really like my c*** today!", however, is something entirely different!


----------



## alexm

Lon said:


> Being able to maintain a very stiff erection is a bedroom skill?
> 
> I often have that dilemma, if the pace isn't just right the hardness won't last as long as my desire to please, and so I use hands, mouth, whatever other implements I have at my disposal until we're both spent. Sometimes the pace just clicks for me and the hardness is there as long as needed or until I can't take it anymore.
> 
> Even though I am not usually rock hard like in my 20s I'd hardly say I suck in bed, and it has nothing to do with physical desensitization from too much stroking.
> 
> BTW I can't believe I haven't commented on this thread before...


Yeah, I miss my teens and 20's...

Like most guys my age (late 30's, approaching 40), the hardness factor just isn't there as often anymore.

But I can tell you that my wife notices when it is, however. There is a marked difference in her physical reaction when I'm "over the top" hard vs. "normal" hard. I'm not into morning sex at all (takes me a while to wake up!), but this is when it's the hardest, which is good for her. Problem is, it takes me forever to finish in the morning. I can stay rock hard forever, but my brain isn't functioning well enough to actually get anywhere with it. It's great for her, though!


----------



## Faithful Wife

alexm said:


> Saying something like "boy, I really like my c*** today!", however, is something entirely different!


That's pretty much how my H trained me.


----------



## askari

My wife has never given me a BJ or even kissed my 'junk'. She said it was disgusting and always smelled 'down there'...OK we live in a tropical country but I shower morning and evening...and before even the chance of sex I would always wash down there anyway...call me an eternal optimist!

During one slightly heated discussion on oral sex (I used to do it to her) she said she would do it if I got circumcised.

So..I got circumcised. I didn't do it just for her....being done had always been in the back of my mind...I think its more hygenic and looks better (we are all entitled to our own opinion!...my body my choice).
That was sixteen years ago.

She still refuses to BJ me - and frankly I wouldn't want her to now either - and in those sixteen years - we've been sexless for about ten years now - she has NEVER made any comment about my 'new' peen. Nothing, nada, rien, zilch.

Its like your wife having a boob job and you not making any comment about them atall. Telling your wife or husband behind closed doors that you love her pert tits and tight pu$$y or that you love the look and taste of his c0ck is PERFECTLY OK!

Being completely indifferent to your spouses body or newly 'shaped' tits or newly cut c0ck etc is another nail in the coffin (oops, sorry...'casket' for our American readers!).
Certainly was for me. 

We ALL like to be complimented and have our egos massaged occasionally.....if our spouse doesn't even notice, couldn't be bothered etc then it has a negative effect.

Complimenting your spouses body...or as this is a 'peen' thread, complimenting his peen is very important to a man....whatever his size or 'state'.


----------



## alexm

askari said:


> Its like your wife having a boob job and you not making any comment about them atall.


In your case, it's worse than that. It's as if you ASKED your wife to get a boob job, then she did, and you never touched them, let alone commented on them.

Harsh, man. Just harsh.

But yes, men and women need this type of thing, whether they even realize it or not. My wife has always got comments, and not just from me. She's a very voluptuous woman. Men, especially from a certain demographic, like her butt... lol!

So she's used to positive comments on her body, even if they're not in a positive environment some times. But all the same, they're there, and she has desirable physical traits, and she knows it.

The question is why she doesn't recognize the need for her partner to feel physically desired as well. She's clearly aware of her desirability (though she doesn't play into it by dressing a certain way, etc.) and it's obvious she doesn't hate it, either.

So armed with the knowledge that it makes her feel desirable, if not good about her herself, why not return the favour? :scratchhead:


----------



## askari

Alex, good point....she did indeed dangle the 'if you get cut then I will' carrot...

I suspect there are women out there - you and I are married to two of them - who are perhaps so wrapped up in themselves that they just fail to see or understand (or even want to) that giving compliments is as nice as receiving them.

Many years ago a girlfriend used to whisper things like 'darling I love your c0ck and want it NOW!'....Boy did it make me feel good!

It didn't matter what anyone else thought..all that mattered was that the girl I loved, loved 'it' and me. I felt 15ft tall!

Now I feel 15 inches tall.


----------



## Wolf1974

Faithful Wife said:


> Skill trumps size for me. The only men I've dumped for anything sexually related simply sucked in bed.
> 
> Actually it was only two men and they both had the same problem and size is sort of involved. Both of them were simply so ignorant about their own bodies that it caused the same problem in both.
> 
> They were both daily masterbators and the net result of this was that they were never fully erect. Strangely though neither of them watched porn with men in it....so they literally had no means of comparison and therefore they didn't actually realize that a stiffy is called a stiffy because it is actually STIFF. They thought just a tiny amount of chubb was normal and acceptable. Um no, it is not.
> 
> I asked a lot of questions of both of them that's how I found out about their lack of knowledge. I tried to encourage both to give it a rest, even just for a day or two and the answer by one of them was "why deprive myself?" Oh I dunno maybe because you could maybe actually get hard for sex for once?
> 
> I suggested Viagra as an alternative solution and the same guy said "you think I need it?"
> 
> I was done after that. The ignorance was just too much for me.
> 
> Some men can do it daily and not have this issue, I know that. Doesn't matter, these two did have this issue and the sex was terrible.
> 
> Not actual dumping, but I have turned down a second or third date due to lack of skills in even kissing on the first or second date. If they can't even get that right it simply doesn't matter what kind of penis they have.


FW. Have you ever come across a micro penis?

Micropenis.info

This is what my GF discovered and politely stopped seeing a guy cause of it. I can't blame her or any woman really. How could any woman be satisfied with an erect 2.5 inches? Feel bad for the guys and understanding of the women who are honest to say that's not going to be enough for them.

In your case with these guys how could they cum if they weren't erect? I'm having trouble processing how that would even work :scratchhead:


----------



## Wolf1974

askari said:


> Alex, good point....she did indeed dangle the 'if you get cut then I will' carrot...
> 
> I suspect there are women out there - you and I are married to two of them - who are perhaps so wrapped up in themselves that they just fail to see or understand (or even want to) that giving compliments is as nice as receiving them.
> 
> Many years ago a girlfriend used to whisper things like 'darling I love your c0ck and want it NOW!'....Boy did it make me feel good!
> 
> It didn't matter what anyone else thought..all that mattered was that the girl I loved, loved 'it' and me. I felt 15ft tall!
> 
> Now I feel 15 inches tall.


Wow I feel for ya.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Wolf1974 said:


> FW. Have you ever come across a micro penis?
> 
> Micropenis.info
> 
> This is what my GF discovered and politely stopped seeing a guy cause of it. I can't blame her or any woman really. How could any woman be satisfied with an erect 2.5 inches? Feel bad for the guys and understanding of the women who are honest to say that's not going to be enough for them.
> 
> *In your case with these guys how could they cum if they weren't erect?* I'm having trouble processing how that would even work :scratchhead:


Re: micropenis - no, never seen one in person.

Re: the last question....I had trouble processing it too, but they did! :scratchhead:


----------



## Ntsikzo

alexm said:


> But yes, men and women need this type of thing, whether they even realize it or not. My wife has always got comments, and not just from me. She's a very voluptuous woman. Men, especially from a certain demographic, like her butt... lol!
> :


My country would be one of those demographics


----------



## Faithful Wife

alexm said:


> The question is why she doesn't recognize the need for her partner to feel physically desired as well. She's clearly aware of her desirability (though she doesn't play into it by dressing a certain way, etc.) and it's obvious she doesn't hate it, either.
> 
> So armed with the knowledge that it makes her feel desirable, if not good about her herself, *why not return the favour?* :scratchhead:


(knock knock...is this thing on? testing....hello?)

Alex, I answer questions like this and you really don't respond to my answers. I'll try one more time....

Women are not conditioned to dole out compliments toward men's bodies...we are not conditioned to be attached to our feelings of lust at all. We are conditioned to NOT look and NOT say anything, actually. 

OTOH, men ARE conditioned to look AND to compliment and even to cat call and leer. 

Older men encourage younger men to do this, either overtly or just by example. Older women encourage younger women to ignore the cat calls, but not only that, to ignore their OWN feelings of lust and desire, and what kind of a sl*t would cat call to a man, right?

(me, that's who)

Anyway...do you not understand this? It is really quite simple. Also in your case, your wife has identified her orientation as asexual (or that was the last I heard anyway).

So in her case it is especially true that she's not likely to verbalize her thoughts or EVEN KNOW what her thoughts about your body ARE.

In response to this, I have suggested that you be more assertive and actually TELL her that you want her to be more verbal. Give her INSTRUCTION and make it clear what you want.

But you seem to just ignore this perfectly healthy advice.

All I can do is conclude that you would rather complain about it than be assertive about it.

Therefore...what do you expect? She's not going to wake up one day and "realize" she "should" make you feel better by telling you she likes your junk. Why is that confusing?

You do have a way to address this, I have given you several examples. I can give you more. But unless you are willing to give her INSTRUCTION on this, there is zero chance she will just realize this on her own one day.

Part of why my husband is a sex god is because he has no problem asserting his needs. Far from being intrusive or unattractive to me, this makes me HOT for him.

I'm not saying this will make her hot for you if you did assert yourself in the way I am getting at...but I am saying she is likely to do it for you, and if you make it clear you want her to make it a habit, she likely would.

Not asserting yourself and just wondering why she doesn't do this does not help you get what you want. What I'm proposing does.


----------



## PieceOfSky

Faithful Wife said:


> And men don't have the right to project their feelings, and insecurities, on women. Yet this entire thread is all about that. That's been my point. I don't know why you think it is ok for men to do this but not for women? I'm talking about men's insecurity about penis size right now. And their constant and blatant insecurity about it which they try to turn around and say is "because" of women, when it is actually because of their own issues. You are the one who said "wow I can't believe how obvious it is that all you guys are so insecure" (or similar) and I thanked you for pointing that out.


I haven't really been paying that close of attention, but I get tired of hearing about these sorts of men. Not that you don't have a valid grievance with them. I'll take you at your word that they did what you said they did. I just wish there was a better way to refer to them -- one that accurately reflects the true population of these sorts.




Faithful Wife said:


> This isn't true for most men, though it may be true for you. Men become insecure about their peens before WE'VE ever even SEEN one in most cases.
> 
> 
> Men are too insecure about penis size to ever stop worrying about it | Oscar Rickett | Comment is free | The Guardian


For the record, the insecurity I've had about my penis at various points in my life stemmed from the pervasive bullying a I saw daily back in junior high school. Wasn't always directed at me. But, I had enough back then and I know myself enough I am certain that sort of thing effected me.

Not that it matters, when it came to penis size, most of the bullying was perpetrated by male peers. I can remember a humiliation attempt along the lines of "ha, ha -- is that true, you don't have pubic hair" that was doled out by a female peer.

It didn't help that I was close to a year younger than some of my classmates. It didn't help that I'm more of a grower than a show-er. And it didn't matter that accusations in bullying like that -- about penis size or "accomplishments" or ANYTHING are not required to be fact checked; often they have nothing to do with reality -- just a juvenile attempt to f'ck with somebody's mind (sometimes with a "friend's" mind).

And it really didn't help to hear -- through no fault of my own, directly from her mouth, and before we were ever intimate -- that my first and only partner's previous lover was very well-endowed.

It's true that the insecurity was inside of me. It's true that I alone could fix it and if I wanted that insecurity gone, it would be up to me. But, looking back, the fact I was told seems pretty -- well, not sure what the word is -- but, I didn't enjoy hearing it at the time, and I cannot think of any respectable or understandable reason for why I was told.

In my ripe and sexless old age (48) I look back on the Jr. High stuff as pure abusive non-sense perpetrated by mean-spirited kids. Yes indeed way back when I measured mine, and read published statistics. That was not driven by an egocentric bitterness to be perfect, but out of fear of wondering if I would be able to satisfy a potential partner. I like to think I am over it. I like those who have naturally indifference towards such nonsense, and I greatly admire those who have applied themselves to developing the capacity to not be affected by such things. 

I would agree it is pointless to worry so much about something that is what it is and cannot be changed, and it is extremely dangerous and counterproductive to worry about what "might be in someone else's head."


I don't mind that people have size preferences, or any other sort of preference. I have preferences on all sorts of things, and I have a hierarchy of values. I choose my partner selfishly (in the good sense of the word), and hope for the same in return. I don't just love anyone and everyone. I love someone that is special -- to me. 

I don't mind that people are capable of being hypocritical when it comes to their insecurities and treatment of others. Well, that's not exactly right -- I do very much dislike poor treatment of anyone (that hasn't "earned it"), period. But, the fact people can be hypocritical and hurtful at the same time is something I have come to expect (hopefully without having become cynical -- humans are just how they are). In the general case hypocrites don't amuse me, but I suppose when I come across an egregious instance there might be an involuntary chuckle, perhaps an uncomfortable one. 

I haven't a guess as to how many of which sex vocally objectifies and have a willingness if not desire to make people ponder how they "measure up". I haven't a guess of how many are hypocritical about this sort of thing -- where it's ok to dish it out but not be on the receiving in. 

I find it frustrating hearing how members of my sex are perpetrators of this sort of behavior. I would guess more men than women behave in this juvenile way, but, if that is the case, I don't see the value in talking about it as a men vs. women thing -- which, seems to be happening in this thread at times. (Why am I so concerned about "my sex" getting the focus? I'm concerned about any focus on gender here. It's just easier for me to notice it happening when "men" are being mentioned because I can't help but pause a moment and wonder if he/she talking about me?)

On the one hand, I understand it is difficult to have discussions about how various sets of people behave -- and throughout maintain a clear delineation of who is in the set or not. However, the less clarity maintained about who it is we are talking about, then the less chance we have of truly communicating.

It's been a long time since I looked at the opening posts of this thread. But I recall feeling like it's stated purpose was to give "men who speak recklessly or with an intent to belittle and objectify women" a dose of their own medicine. (Those double-quote marks are not meant to denote a quote of any poster here; rather, it is my own interpretation of what I thought the motive behind the thread was). Suspecting that was the intent, I thought:

1) Two wrongs don't make a right.
2) The only people who will be affected and impact by this thread are the ones who are already insecure and are honest enough to know it, and who are likely sensitive to anyone being objectified or being reminded of how their "stats" stack up. Such impact is not nice or helpful.
3) The intended targets are not likely to be enlightened. 
4) The collateral damage won't be noticed.
5) The war isn't between men and women, it isn't between hypocrites and non-hypocrites. It's between treating people respectfully or not.


----------



## alexm

askari said:


> Alex, good point....she did indeed dangle the 'if you get cut then I will' carrot...
> 
> I suspect there are women out there - you and I are married to two of them - who are perhaps so wrapped up in themselves that they just fail to see or understand (or even want to) that giving compliments is as nice as receiving them.
> 
> Many years ago a girlfriend used to whisper things like 'darling I love your c0ck and want it NOW!'....Boy did it make me feel good!
> 
> It didn't matter what anyone else thought..all that mattered was that the girl I loved, loved 'it' and me. I felt 15ft tall!
> 
> Now I feel 15 inches tall.


Ah, don't. It sucks, but yes, there are people out there (women AND men) who just don't do the compliments thing.

My wife doesn't do it because she's wrapped up in herself, by the way. I see it with the rest of her immediate family, as well. They're not rude people, per se, but there's not a lot of "please" and "thank you", and things like that. Just not very expressive people. My father in law, for example, is crusty and grumpy most of the time, but he'll do anything for you without a second thought and not expect you to return the favor. It's just the way she was brought up.

To be fair, she doesn't point out the negative in things, either. She doesn't build me up, nor does she knock me down a peg. She's never overly excited or happy, and never overly angry or sad. The whole lot of them are just very even-keeled and easy-going.

I prefer, and am glad that I, show strong emotion either way, including the bad. The lows suck, but the highs are worth it. I'm not sure I could function being always in the middle, where things are neither awesome or terrible.


----------



## alexm

Faithful Wife said:


> (knock knock...is this thing on? testing....hello?)
> 
> Alex, I answer questions like this and you really don't respond to my answers. I'll try one more time....
> 
> Women are not conditioned to dole out compliments toward men's bodies...we are not conditioned to be attached to our feelings of lust at all. We are conditioned to NOT look and NOT say anything, actually.
> 
> OTOH, men ARE conditioned to look AND to compliment and even to cat call and leer.
> 
> Older men encourage younger men to do this, either overtly or just by example. Older women encourage younger women to ignore the cat calls, but not only that, to ignore their OWN feelings of lust and desire, and what kind of a sl*t would cat call to a man, right?
> 
> (me, that's who)
> 
> Anyway...do you not understand this? It is really quite simple. Also in your case, your wife has identified her orientation as asexual (or that was the last I heard anyway).
> 
> So in her case it is especially true that she's not likely to verbalize her thoughts or EVEN KNOW what her thoughts about your body ARE.
> 
> In response to this, I have suggested that you be more assertive and actually TELL her that you want her to be more verbal. Give her INSTRUCTION and make it clear what you want.
> 
> But you seem to just ignore this perfectly healthy advice.
> 
> All I can do is conclude that you would rather complain about it than be assertive about it.
> 
> Therefore...what do you expect? She's not going to wake up one day and "realize" she "should" make you feel better by telling you she likes your junk. Why is that confusing?
> 
> You do have a way to address this, I have given you several examples. I can give you more. But unless you are willing to give her INSTRUCTION on this, there is zero chance she will just realize this on her own one day.
> 
> Part of why my husband is a sex god is because he has no problem asserting his needs. Far from being intrusive or unattractive to me, this makes me HOT for him.
> 
> I'm not saying this will make her hot for you if you did assert yourself in the way I am getting at...but I am saying she is likely to do it for you, and if you make it clear you want her to make it a habit, she likely would.
> 
> Not asserting yourself and just wondering why she doesn't do this does not help you get what you want. What I'm proposing does.


I apologize FW. I know I didn't reply directly to you, but I did respond earlier in the thread in regards to your general advice.

I just want to kindly point out that a lot of your responses to me seem to peg me as insecure and unwilling to listen, and I don't believe that to be the case. Any good advice that I've been given here, since 2008, I've taken - as long as it's within my comfort zone. But you have to remember that one piece of sage advice isn't always going to "click" immediately and show positive results. Just because you said something to me yesterday doesn't mean that I'm going to show up today with a whole new attitude and be "fixed".

The reality is, that this particular topic (which I did not start, by the way) really doesn't bother me that much. It bothers me enough to chime in with my 2 cents, and I would much prefer if my wife spent as much time building me up as I do her, but it's certainly not keeping me up at night.

I just feel strongly, as I imagine you do, that two people in a relationship should be making each other feel good about themselves. Hell, I think each partner should also be calling the other out on negatives when necessary. Balance the two, and keep each other in check, with the ultimate aim of making the other person feel that they are valued, cared about, and above all, worth your time and attention.

TAM is a tough place to accurately portray ones self, as any time anybody posts something, it usually IS out of insecurity. If we were all totally confident and secure in ourselves, I'm not sure this place would exist. We would all know what to do and how to handle situations and deal with whatever it is we're trying to deal with, if that were the case.

I value your advice and opinions at all times, and you know that. I know you are a strong personality and that you want to be heard. I know that I will never get everything I desire out of my wife, and I AM okay with that. That doesn't mean I can't put my 2 cents in now and again. And often, my 2 cents is provided so that others in a similar situation as I, will know that they're not alone. It's not always about me and how I can fix MY problem.

FW, you need to understand that, despite what it seems here, I am happy. There is almost always room for improvement in a marriage, including mine. Which is why I stick around here. I learn, I grow, I implement things I've never thought about before. I don't have a perfect marriage, and I'm not looking for one. But I am always looking for improvement, here and there. There's a good community of people here who help keep me on track when I sometimes start sliding off, and they also help keep my eyes open to things I'd otherwise be blind to.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Piece of Sky.... I can appreciate what you are saying in your long post.

But I'm not going to stop making fun of men who are hypocrites in this way.

Which doesn't apply to you OR to Alex or to a lot of the men on this thread. You and Alex and others don't need to take my words to heart and neither does anyone else for that matter....yet just like there are plenty of men around who have no issue with overtly blurting about hot chicks and "no fat chicks" in the same breath, I have no problem blurting about the silliness that is the frail male ego.

Men who are offended by my words even though they don't apply to them, I'm sorry to you. I would hope by now these men are used to me.

However, if these men wanted to shut me up, what they could do is help me shut down the men who are blatently piggish hypocrites, instead of silently reading THOSE posts and doing or saying nothing about them, yet calling me out on MINE.

For the record, THANK YOU AGAIN Jaquen for openly noting the insecurity and hypocrisy. Not that Jaquen has anything to do with my agenda....but I still really appreciated it.

Sky...I can appreciate your story of insecurity and don't judge or mock you...but I'd like to point out that if I or any woman comes in here with OUR story of insecurity, it is not going to be listened to or understood nor is anyone going to be kinder to anyone for revealing it...rather, we will be mocked. THAT is my point with these posts.


----------



## jorgegene

if you never measured your penis, and don't know what size it is, can you be insecure about it?


----------



## I Don't Know

I'd say yes. Maybe not wanting to know the number is part of the insecurity. You have a pretty good idea of what you have even without measuring.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

It's okay though... women suck at eyeball measurements. You'll automatically get 1-3 inches added.  

Maybe this explains why damn near every woman thinks her hubby has 8" or is otherwise "big". lol


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Well I did one of the dumbest things a wife can do back in the day.. I was just rambling about something.. lying there together, probably after we just had sex or something...and out of my mouth...which this was not personal in the least bit of a way..and I say something about God making penis's rather "homely" ... OMG.. really.. I need a filter [email protected]#$









I didn't think a THING of this.. the sad part was.. he did ! Now.. he could have so easily shot back... "Well that doesn't stop you from wanting to climb on!"....something!! (Boy do I not feel this way today.. I think I worship the thing)... 

I asked him yrs ago why he NEVER hinted or asked me for a BJ, trying to get me to go there...he brings me into remembrance of my words.... (yeah I deserved that!) saying.."Now why in the world would I ask you to put your mouth on it ...after THAT"... 

I shot my own self in the foot there. 

Goodness. I've made some blunders back in the day...we can laugh about this now. :rofl: I've come a long way!

The insecurity thing...this has never been something my H cared about ...comparing.. I know what he cares about.. getting me to *"O".*.. since this was never an issue, I think besides that asinine comment of mine... he's been happy with his Mr. Average.

Measurement questions.. everything you need to know.. 

Mr. Average - The true story about penis size, from a site that isn't trying to sell you anything.


----------



## Faithful Wife

I love Dr. Nerdlove, this was a good article. Full of acknowledgement of the things men are insecure about, and what to do about it.

The 5 Most Common Insecurities In Men (And How To Overcome Them)


----------



## I Don't Know

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> It's okay though... women suck at eyeball measurements. You'll automatically get 1-3 inches added.
> 
> Maybe this explains why damn near every woman thinks her hubby has 8" or is otherwise "big". lol


I've told this before but...

I was hanging a picture and asked my wife "right here?" 
She said "up about this much" holding her fingers 3 or 4 inches apart "so about 6 inches?" 
I said "No, but I love that you think it is!"

:smthumbup:


----------



## Anon Pink

askari said:


> My wife has never given me a BJ or even kissed my 'junk'. She said it was disgusting and always smelled 'down there'...OK we live in a tropical country but I shower morning and evening...and before even the chance of sex I would always wash down there anyway...call me an eternal optimist!
> 
> During one slightly heated discussion on oral sex (I used to do it to her) she said she would do it if I got circumcised.
> 
> So..I got circumcised. I didn't do it just for her....being done had always been in the back of my mind...I think its more hygenic and looks better (we are all entitled to our own opinion!...my body my choice).
> That was sixteen years ago.
> 
> She still refuses to BJ me - and frankly I wouldn't want her to now either - and in those sixteen years - we've been sexless for about ten years now - she has NEVER made any comment about my 'new' peen. Nothing, nada, rien, zilch.
> 
> Its like your wife having a boob job and you not making any comment about them atall. Telling your wife or husband behind closed doors that you love her pert tits and tight pu$$y or that you love the look and taste of his c0ck is PERFECTLY OK!
> 
> Being completely indifferent to your spouses body or newly 'shaped' tits or newly cut c0ck etc is another nail in the coffin (oops, sorry...'casket' for our American readers!).
> Certainly was for me.
> 
> We ALL like to be complimented and have our egos massaged occasionally.....if our spouse doesn't even notice, couldn't be bothered etc then it has a negative effect.
> 
> Complimenting your spouses body...or as this is a 'peen' thread, complimenting his peen is very important to a man....whatever his size or 'state'.


Askari, I'm gonna throw a party when you finally leave her! 

My husband had been completely and totally silent on any sort of reassurance of compliment for the first 20+ years. "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all" is how I felt about his silence. His silence communicated negative impression he kept to himself.

Does your wife compliment others? Does she say complimentary things to other people with regard to their appearance or dress? I was asked by a therapist to think of how he compliments others and realized he never commented to anyone on their appearance good or bad. So at least I knew it wasn't just me. Didn't exactly help but I understood it a bit better.


----------



## Anon Pink

Faithful Wife said:


> ... any woman comes in here with OUR story of insecurity, it is not going to be listened to or understood nor is anyone going to be kinder to anyone for revealing it...rather, we will be mocked. THAT is my point with these posts.


FW, I almost always agree with everything you say.

I am only jumping in on this because I have been given wonderful support by several men at TAM and on this thread. While I've seen women in general mocked for their insecurity here and there, I've not seen a specific female member mocked for being insecure. I've seen countless posts in which men have offered support and encouragement and help.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

I Don't Know said:


> I've told this before but...
> 
> I was hanging a picture and asked my wife "right here?"
> She said "up about this much" holding her fingers 3 or 4 inches apart "so about 6 inches?"
> I said "No, but I love that you think it is!"
> 
> :smthumbup:


I'm of course just being humorous, some women are just fine at eyeball measurement. Being bad at it is just common enough to be funny. Try it sometime, it makes fun drinking conversation. Have women show you what 6 inches is. Very few are even close. It's rarely underestimated and most often overestimated. Makes for entertaining conversation.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Faithful Wife said:


> As you may have seen or read (but maybe not, that's ok too) *I'm a huge advocate of getting women to more openly worship their man's body, with touch and words and ogling and have written a couple of blog posts about it.* And I have shared that the way my husband got me to understand this is important was by telling me straight up that it is important and that he knows he deserves it.


 :smthumbup: :smthumbup: My husband would never come out & speak he deserves it... too humble... but I love to do this.. . yeah even after being pretty foolish with my mouth in the past.. I ever made up for it.... I would say I sexually validate HIM far more than he comments on me... probably because I have my mind in the gutter more so.. what I am thinking I just let it out... He eats up the attention..(and I love that he loves it)...it brings us closer....it's something I neglected for a long long time... 



> T*here are women who also are with men who never say anything complimentary (or rarely) and those women are also advised to tell their husbands what they need in this area.*


 It definitely goes both ways.....

I know of an older couple where this man NEVER complimented his wife on anything.... not even on her cooking....which is how this subject came up as I complimented her & said I bet her husband does too...her answer was "NEVER"..... she went on to tell me....it was like 10 yrs /maybe 19 into their marriage ... she will never forget the black dress she was wearing.. she almost fainted when he told her how wonderful she looked in it.. I looked at her like..








..that's insanity.. ...seriously... 

I think women need to know we are desirable.. wanted.. sexually turn our men on... in a look and verbal... My H is more on the quiet side but he definitely goes there ..it means so much....which allows me to lavish back so freely on him.. 

One thing I know about that couple is.. they both have "Acts of service" & Gifts at the top of their love languages... obviously words of affirmation wasn't something she needed much of.. or she'd been really DOWN on him being that way, she'd take it to heart....which never seemed the case... she seemed to accept him LIKE THAT...but I look at them and think... "OMG how boring that would be !!".... 



> I think if we can assert ourselves more we can all get more of what we want and need.


 Hopefully...if communicating was only THAT simple...


----------



## Faithful Wife

Don't get me wrong Anon...as you know I am an advocate of male body worship and also, many of the lovely men of TAM are on my list of favorite people.

But I'm still going to speak out and against the ones who are hypocrites and just plain mean.

Maybe you can relate to this story...

As a young pre teen my female elders warned me about the fragile male ego and how we should never ever do anything to upset them because you will be the one to reap the consequences. 

These were the same women who quietly buried their heads when the men around them had bumper stickers that said "No Fat Chicks!"

I immediately saw the hypocrisy and said "f*ck no I will not be part of that nonsense." And I never will.

Again....,I'm saying part of the problem is that women need to look more, touch more, and verbally appreciate more. If people did things my way, no one would be insecure.


----------



## always_alone

PieceOfSky said:


> It's been a long time since I looked at the opening posts of this thread. But I recall feeling like it's stated purpose was to give "men who speak recklessly or with an intent to belittle and objectify women" a dose of their own medicine. (Those double-quote marks are not meant to denote a quote of any poster here; rather, it is my own interpretation of what I thought the motive behind the thread was). Suspecting that was the intent, I thought:
> 
> 1) Two wrongs don't make a right.
> 2) The only people who will be affected and impact by this thread are the ones who are already insecure and are honest enough to know it, and who are likely sensitive to anyone being objectified or being reminded of how their "stats" stack up. Such impact is not nice or helpful.
> 3) The intended targets are not likely to be enlightened.
> 4) The collateral damage won't be noticed.
> 5) The war isn't between men and women, it isn't between hypocrites and non-hypocrites. It's between treating people respectfully or not.


As OP, let me just clarify that this thread was not about a "dose of your own medicine". It was specifically in response to a number of conversations where I was informed that objectification is perfectly fine, it causes no harm, women love it, and I should basically just STFU and stop being so bloody insecure.

So the goal was much more to show that (a) it is not just women who deal with this issue and (b) that men actually do react in much the same way as women when confronted with it. 

That is to show that ultimately we aren't so very, very different, and so rather than justifying one's right to treat others badly, maybe it would be helpful to take a step back and see where we have so much in common, how it affects us, and ideally take steps to correct it.

Now maybe the most hypocritical of the a$$holes would be incapable of agreeing or going along with any of this. But I was pretty sure that most of the participants here would get it.


----------



## Faithful Wife

But instead it was the usual stampede of men wanting to talk about their peens.


----------



## always_alone

Faithful Wife said:


> As a young pre teen my female elders warned me about the fragile male ego and how we should never ever do anything to upset them because you will be the one to reap the consequences.
> 
> These were the same women who quietly buried their heads when the men around them had bumper stickers that said "No Fat Chicks!"
> 
> I immediately saw the hypocrisy and said "f*ck no I will not be part of that nonsense." And I never will.
> 
> Again....,I'm saying part of the problem is that women need to look more, touch more, and verbally appreciate more. If people did things my way, no one would be insecure.


This rings true for me as well. I was told that, as a woman, I should always:
(1) play dumb, so as not to make him (whoever he may be) insecure about his intelligence. Critically important that he thinks he is smarter than me. 

(2) never beat him at any game, because that would make him feel inadequate

(3) never question anything he says, or argue or doubt because men need to be "right" and like women to be agreeable/pliable.

(4) Never, ever earn more than him or be more successful at my career.

(5) Reassure him about his looks, ability, etc. Tell him that he's wonderful, handsome, awesome, etc., so that he would feel appreciated. 


Meanwhile, I was also told that of course he would always be looking at other women, and would lose interest in me instantly if I didn't do whatever it takes to make myself more beautiful to him, according to his standards, as well as go along with everything he says.


----------



## alexm

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I'm of course just being humorous, some women are just fine at eyeball measurement. Being bad at it is just common enough to be funny. Try it sometime, it makes fun drinking conversation. Have women show you what 6 inches is. Very few are even close. It's rarely underestimated and most often overestimated. Makes for entertaining conversation.


So what you're saying is there are countless women out there who tell their girlfriends their husband has a 10" penis?  (I assume the response might be "Mine too!")

MY wife works with measurements every day, and is also good with her hands at home and likes to build things. She knows what 10" is. And 7" and 6" and 5".

I suppose this means that all her girlfriends tell her their husbands have 10" penises, while mine says hers is... not quite that much... :smthumbup:

Doh!


----------



## Anon Pink

Faithful Wife said:


> Don't get me wrong Anon...as you know I am an advocate of male body worship and also, many of the lovely men of TAM are on my list of favorite people.
> 
> But I'm still going to speak out and against the ones who are hypocrites and just plain mean.
> 
> Maybe you can relate to this story...
> 
> As a young pre teen my female elders warned me about the fragile male ego and how we should never ever do anything to upset them because you will be the one to reap the consequences.
> 
> These were the same women who quietly buried their heads when the men around them had bumper stickers that said "No Fat Chicks!"
> 
> I immediately saw the hypocrisy and said "f*ck no I will not be part of that nonsense." And I never will.
> 
> Again....,I'm saying part of the problem is that women need to look more, touch more, and verbally appreciate more. *If people did things my way, no one would be insecure.*


isn't that the truth.

Yes, I think every woman grew up with the "fragile male ego" thing being taught. But I also saw it in action with my brothers. Once they became stronger than me my only weapon was my sarcasm and insulting comments. I knew I was mature when I saw the blink of hurt in my brothers eye and even though I was spitting mad, I apologized immediately....last year... naw I was about 16-18 ish.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

alexm said:


> So what you're saying is there are countless women out there who tell their girlfriends their husband has a 10" penis?  (I assume the response might be "Mine too!")
> 
> MY wife works with measurements every day, and is also good with her hands at home and likes to build things. She knows what 10" is. And 7" and 6" and 5".
> 
> I suppose this means that all her girlfriends tell her their husbands have 10" penises, while mine says hers is... not quite that much... :smthumbup:
> 
> Doh!


lol I can't say I know the answer to that. I do know they talk about sex in greater... ahem... detail... than men tend to, so who knows?

Your anecdote is hilarious! "Why did I have to get the one GOOD with measurements!!?" lol


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> Again....,I'm saying part of the problem is that women need to look more, touch more, and verbally appreciate more. If people did things my way, no one would be insecure.


You probably have me on ignore, but I'm on board with this. If men received more of such attention, more of our focus would likely be inward, just as it tends to be for women. I believe a lot of outward projection of male desire is the result of the way the table is set (by culture, by nature... who cares). The result is that we project, you receive. We're focused outward (your looks), you're focused inward (your looks). Generally speaking, we aren't given much reason or encouragement to put much focus on OUR looks. It happens, but it's pretty uncommon (or I need to be hotter lol).

I don't think insecurity would change at all, but it'd have some positives in terms of a more level playing field.

Maybe instead of a guy having a sticker saying "no fat chicks" (outward focus), he's responding to more overt female feed back and concerned about looking good himself (inward focus).


----------



## jaquen

Faithful Wife said:


> For the record, THANK YOU AGAIN Jaquen for openly noting the insecurity and hypocrisy. Not that Jaquen has anything to do with my agenda....but I still really appreciated it.


You're welcome.

I'm very pro-male, pro-brotherhood; you know that. I don't think there are enough men who stand up for themselves and for other men.

Having said that, hypocrisy is hypocrisy. There is a raging double standard on this topic. 

A guy saying he prefers big tits, long legs, or a nice butt isn't typically challenged at all, by men or woman.


A woman saying she prefers a big c0ck, tight abs or a full head of hair often faces push back from other dudes.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Jaquen...you're my new favorite poster.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

jaquen said:


> A woman saying she prefers a big c0ck, tight abs or a full head of hair often faces push back from other dudes.


I don't get it. I think they should express their preferences more.


----------



## jaquen

Faithful Wife said:


> These were the same women who quietly buried their heads when the men around them had bumper stickers that said "No Fat Chicks!"


My dad was a lot of great things, but he was also a ladies man in his youth and into his middle ages. He'd been with a lot of women and could be a bit of a womanizer. 

My mom struggled with her weight since early adulthood. She gained a lot of weight during her marriage to my dad. My dad wasn't attracted to fat women. He loved my mother, but he made a lot of comments through the decades about her weight. My mom wanted the weight off, not just for him, but for herself, but like many people she failed to get a handle on it, failing more than succeeding. 

Meanwhile, in his 40s, my dad finally got fat after a previously being a very svelte, in shape man. He had me and my younger siblings then too so we've only known him fat. We only knew he use to be in shape for two reasons: a few pictures and the fact that my mother would sometimes, quite dreamily, talk about how my dad use to have a glorious "32 inch waist".


The thing is, despite my father's actions and words, my mother NEVER belittled my dad for his massive weight gain. Indeed I don't recall her mentioning it. She let a lot of things slide.

Finally one day, actually not long before he passed, my dad made an offhand comment about my mom's weight (she wasn't around). I turned to my dad and said "You know, has it ever crossed your mind that she misses your slimmer body too? She sometimes still talks about your 32 inch waist!".

Do you know what? It was like a light bulb going off in this nearly 70 year old man's head. It never even crossed his mind that she felt that way. He finally said "Well why the hell didn't she say something! We could've been making fun of each other's fat all these years!".

Moral of the story? Speak up women. If you see a double standard in your man when it comes to this stuff, verbalize it. A lot of us men aren't trained or socialized to even realize how important visual attraction is for women, or how you too can enjoy a male body for purely sexual reasons. 

Women can go a long way toward helping correct this thought process in men by actually speaking up, breaking old rules and norms and being open and honest about what you really want.


----------



## Wolf1974

jaquen said:


> You're welcome.
> 
> I'm very pro-male, pro-brotherhood; you know that. I don't think there are enough men who stand up for themselves and for other men.
> 
> *Having said that, hypocrisy is hypocrisy. There is a raging double standard on this topic.
> *
> A guy saying he prefers big tits, long legs, or a nice butt isn't typically challenged at all, by men or woman.
> 
> 
> A woman saying she prefers a big c0ck, tight abs or a full head of hair often faces push back from other dudes.


Thier is a raging double standard on a lot of topics here from both men and women on attractiveness, values and personal preference. I'm glad I'm not the only one who sees it
:smthumbup:

I think a lot of people make assumptions thier way or thier view applies to everyone in thier gender. It's not the case. I have never been insecure about my size for example. I'm curious what it would be like to be a "zip thud" but I'm happy where I'm at so not all men are insecure about this stuff. 

Not all women want a "zip thud" either. Friend who loves anal prefers smaller for just that reason


----------



## always_alone

jaquen said:


> Moral of the story? Speak of women. If you see a double standard in your man when it comes to this stuff, verbalize it. A lot of us men aren't trained or socialized to even realize how important visual attraction is for women, or how you too can enjoy a male body for purely sexual reasons.
> 
> Women can go a long way toward correcting this thought process in men by actually speaking up, bringing old rule and norms and being open and honest about what you really want.


Exactly! And here we are, speaking our truths. Pointing out that we too are visual, sexual humans. Talking about what makes us feel happy and hot, and what makes us feel judged and put down.

Yet when we do so, there is often so much pushback and hostility, telling us we are "man-bashers", that we don't really know what we think, that we don't care about looks, or sex, that what we have no idea what we want, what we like, and what we do. 

The issue to speak up (for both men and women) comes also with responsibility to listen (for both men and women).


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

What happens on a forum is rather irrelevant. Women can say something here all day long, but until it's experienced in the wild, no opinions are really going to change.

Hell, the idea that women don't know what they want comes... FROM WOMEN. I can get this response almost invariably when asking about what makes a man attractive: I know it when I see it. If you can't describe/explain something, you don't know it. If you say you want X, but always go for Y... you don't know what you actually want. If you say X physical feature is very important, but are quick to drop it in favor of personality, status or money... then that feature wasn't important like you said.

I don't care about manbashing. Bash all you want, but until female actions are more consistent with claims here, my opinion won't change. When you screw the hottest guy you can get, because he's the hottest guy you can get, rather than contorting and twisting some imagined tale about his persona that turns you off, then I'll believe looks are really , really important to women. When money fails to lure women, I'll change my view. When fewer women condition sex on his relationship potential, I'll start to believe sex is as high a priority to women as it is men. I'll happily sing an entirely different song when the real world reflects more of the word here. But I'm always going to believe what I see women do, above what women say. The way it's expressed here would lead a totally naïve person to believe there's no difference between men and women on these subjects, when it is self-evident the difference is enormous. My town has 10 clubs with female strippers. It has zero clubs with male strippers. But we are to believe women are as interested in male bodies as men are female bodies? Women are just as visual as men? Why are words the only evidence? Women regularly say they want a nice, sweet guy... but the nice, sweet guy gets the least attention from women. I could literally point out dozens of these discrepancies between female talk and female action.

I follow the actions, and I'd love to change my mind on some of these things, but if the actions ever change, I doubt it will be in my lifetime. I listen carefully, to actions. Words are just words, and your last sentence AA, just yet another placing of responsibility for female behavior at the feet of men. If only they'd listen! Meanwhile, you teach us not to, by so often acting in direct contradiction to what you say.

So by all means speak up, but more importantly make your actions consistent with your claims or vice versa.


----------



## *LittleDeer*

DvlsAdvc8 maybe you are hanging out with the wrong women. 

I certainly have myself been with the wrong man in the past. Men who claimed sex was so important to them yet seemingly lost interest. Or were happy with twice a week and the odd bit of affection, whereas I'm after passion and very regular sex. 
Often people's words don't match their actions it's not a male or female thing, it's a human thing. 

Move onto someone who meets your needs and who walks the walk. However it's important to do the same.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

I'm just saying speaking your truths on a forum doesn't mean much and pushback might be is the equivalence of calling "bs" in light of actions that don't measure up to the words

Or something..... Ive been drinking am waiting on ride home

My gf is cool I'm just arguing argumentative


----------



## always_alone

I dunno. All the nice sweet guys I know are married or in happy LTRs, getting plenty of action. Sure, some were single for the short term, say if a relationship turned sour, but it never takes them long to find someone new. The only guys I know who are chronically single are so for pretty obvious reasons: they don't respect women, don't treat them well. Or are wrapped up in commodifying women: porn, strip clubs, prostitutes. 

Most of the women I know are quite sexual, and will always appreciate a hot guy. Unless, of course, he is an a$$hole. While I have witnessed some friends get tied up with these a$$holes (usually because he is just *that* good-looking or *that* good in bed), they usually get tired of being treated poorly in fairly short order, and will extricate themselves.

I do know a few women who aren't that into sex, but they are pretty self-aware about this, and not pretending to be otherwise. One friend, for example, chooses to be single, and then just date or look up an FWB when she feels the need. 

Almost all the women I know also earn their own money and I've never known one to choose a guy because of how rich he is. I realize gold-digging does exist, but in my world, women just roll their eyes at guys who try to impress them with flashes of cash or material possessions.

This idea that women say one thing then do the exact opposite? Well, I'm sure it happens, but am inclined to think that such women are either not particularly mature or self-aware - or are downright manipulative and playing mean games for their own selfish reasons.

Counting the number of strip clubs isn't a much better measure than personal experience and stories. Objectifying and commodifying women is part of our social culture and learned behaviour, whereas the same is just not true for men. 

Although, now that the financial picture for women is changing, this fact is changing too. For example, sex tourism isn't just for men anymore. Lots and lots of women are buying themselves rent-a-studs for their vacation pleasure, among other things. 

I predict that soon we'll be seeing a lot more men complaining about being treated like meat and being held to impossible standards. You can even see the beginnings of it in a place like TAM, where all sorts of men are tying themselves into knots because their wives have a sexual past or independent sexual identities.


----------



## Lon

always_alone said:


> ...I do know a few women who aren't that into sex, but they are pretty self-aware about this, and not pretending to be otherwise. One friend, for example, chooses to be single, and then just date or look up an FWB when she feels the need.


I think most genuine nice guys just want to be the one to fulfill the NSA sex for these women sometimes, but most just aren't good at making themselves available for that our else get overlooked as either the safe relationship material or else as a friend whom these women aren't willing to risk complicating things with, even if these genuine nice guys are physically attractive and/or good in bed. It is hard for a genuine kind sweet guy to find themselves in a purely physical arrangement because there are always a handful of dumb studs from which these women know will suit a casual sex need just fine and are easy to find without having to worry about having to think of what other potential might be there. For many nice guys, being kind and sweet is a sexual liability.


----------



## always_alone

Lon said:


> For many nice guys, being kind and sweet is a sexual liability.


It is not their kindness and sweetness that's their sexual liability. Guaranteed. No, it is something else holding them back.

If it's purely physical sex only wham-bams they want, it's most likely because they aren't lookers themselves, but are hooked on the idea that they have to get with some young super-hottie before it counts.


----------



## Lon

always_alone said:


> It is not their kindness and sweetness that's their sexual liability. Guaranteed. No, it is something else holding them back.
> 
> If it's purely physical sex only wham-bams they want, it's most likely because they aren't lookers themselves, but are hooked on the idea that they have to get with some young super-hottie before it counts.


It's because 1) they are not players and 2) because they are not capable of being players even if they wanted because 3) if they are attractive and kind women want them for serious relationships only and don't want to let them get away and not for a fling (even if that is what both are actually seeking). What is holding them back is they don't got that kind of game that women seeking casual sex are willing to play.


----------



## always_alone

Lon said:


> It's because 1) they are not players and 2) because they are not capable of being players even if they wanted because 3) if they are attractive and kind women want them for serious relationships only and don't want to let them get away and not for a fling (even if that is what both are actually seeking). What is holding them back is they don't got that kind of game that women seeking casual sex are willing to play.


Meh. A lot of FWB situations are actually just that. Friends. With benefits.

No need for game or stereotypical assumptions about what women want or what games they play.


----------



## Dogbert

Seeking happiness in others. :rofl:


----------



## askari

Anon Pink said:


> Askari, I'm gonna throw a party when you finally leave her!
> 
> My husband had been completely and totally silent on any sort of reassurance of compliment for the first 20+ years. "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all" is how I felt about his silence. His silence communicated negative impression he kept to himself.
> 
> Does your wife compliment others? Does she say complimentary things to other people with regard to their appearance or dress? I was asked by a therapist to think of how he compliments others and realized he never commented to anyone on their appearance good or bad. So at least I knew it wasn't just me. Didn't exactly help but I understood it a bit better.


Anon - can I come?!!

My wife (much like Alexm's appears to be) is emotionless. Even our MC said as much. Basically the lights are on but ther is no one in.
Its as if she just doesn't want anyone to get too close to her. She has never had a 'good' female friend with whom she can talk about anything....I have a 'best' male friend I've known for 30+ years. We know each others 'darkest' secrets , confide in each other and have seen each other at our worst! But we both know anything said goes no further. She has NEVER had that.

Last year her parents forgot her 50th birthday - it took them over a week to rememeber. There was no apology or feeling of guilt. Didn't bother my wife either.
Had my parents simply forgotten my 50th, I would have been pretty cheesed off.

Neither does it seem to bother her a jot that I am 'miles' away from her. 
You know when a stranger breaks your personal space and you feel uncomfortable and want to move away? Thats how I feel when my wife gets too close.
Doesn't bother her...neither does it bother her that I am simply no longer sexually interested in her.

She never compliments any one on how good (or bad) they look....she never says 'wow! Look at that (eg. sunset) isn't it beautiful'....or says about a dish 'ummmm...this is lovely..yum...'

Lights are on...no one in.

You asked!!!!


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> I dunno. All the nice sweet guys I know are married or in happy LTRs, getting plenty of action. Sure, some were single for the short term, say if a relationship turned sour, but it never takes them long to find someone new. The only guys I know who are chronically single are so for pretty obvious reasons: they don't respect women, don't treat them well. Or are wrapped up in commodifying women: porn, strip clubs, prostitutes.


The guys I know who are chronically single wouldn't dare step foot in a strip club. They wouldn't dare do or say anything women would even be mildly perturbed by. There's not a whole lot they dare doing to be honest. Except being nice. They're all exceptionally nice. And boring. Nice, boring, and safe. 



always_alone said:


> Most of the women I know are quite sexual, and will always appreciate a hot guy.


Did they sleep with him? Did they show HIM this appreciation, or you? It's pretty rare that women express this to a guy.



always_alone said:


> Almost all the women I know also earn their own money and I've never known one to choose a guy because of how rich he is.


No, with classy women it's not "choosing a rich guy"... it's "not choosing a poor guy." The few I've known who don't have an issue with a broke guy are typically the high achieving women. Women who assume more traditionally masculine roles, typically controlling, with a tendency to dislike common dominant or assertive male behaviors.



always_alone said:


> I realize gold-digging does exist, but in my world, women just roll their eyes at guys who try to impress them with flashes of cash or material possessions.


Perspective is everything. You don't "try to impress". Anyone trying to impress comes off negatively. Being a doctor/lawyer and driving a nice car isn't trying to impress. It's impressive. It's able to do a lot more to woo. The money itself doesn't go far with women. The experiences the money buys, go a long way. Money does weigh in... Guy A with money will always be more desirable than Guy A broke. Having money is also a leading indicator of many other more socially palatable traits - like intelligence and responsibility.



always_alone said:


> This idea that women say one thing then do the exact opposite? Well, I'm sure it happens, but am inclined to think that such women are either not particularly mature or self-aware - or are downright manipulative and playing mean games for their own selfish reasons.


I tend to believe the former, and find it extremely common. There appear to be many things that many women don't even like admitting to themselves.



always_alone said:


> Counting the number of strip clubs isn't a much better measure than personal experience and stories. Objectifying and commodifying women is part of our social culture and learned behaviour, whereas the same is just not true for men.


I agree there, but I'm speaking to what is, not wished or ideal. This is the way it is. What women are and what women do, is going to be heavily influenced by culture... it's also influenced by nature. Whatever the source, it is what it is. I'm sympathetic to the argument that women are culturally indoctrinated to not express some things, and to over express others, and perhaps this gives rise to many of the contradictions I refer (what I am vs what is expected)... but this argument doesn't change reality on the ground for me - where I see lots of contradictions, timidity, reserve, absence of desire, or feigned desire as a lure. And further, the women I'd judge as male equivalents, are very often judged by other women as "tramps", easy or shameless. 



always_alone said:


> For example, sex tourism isn't just for men anymore. Lots and lots of women are buying themselves rent-a-studs for their vacation pleasure, among other things.


I don't know anyone engaged in this male or female.



always_alone said:


> I predict that soon we'll be seeing a lot more men complaining about being treated like meat and being held to impossible standards. You can even see the beginnings of it in a place like TAM, where all sorts of men are tying themselves into knots because their wives have a sexual past or independent sexual identities.


Not if we're getting laid you won't. That's really a key difference between men and women. The impossible standard you refer to isn't a standard. It's an ideal. An ideal that men are quick to toss aside in preference for getting laid. Men may have high ideals, but most have low standards. Most women have high standards. Men default to yes, women default to no. If we're getting laid, I predict you won't hear most men complain about a d*mn thing. One works better when your primary aim is to satisfy your crazy emotional need for relationship, the other works better when your primary aim is to satisfy your crazy sexual desire.

What you cite isn't beginnings. It's regular plain old jealousy. When something is hard to come by, a person is a lot more stingy/protective/paranoid - insecure - of losing it.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> The impossible standard you refer to isn't a standard. It's an ideal. An ideal that men are quick to toss aside in preference for getting laid. Men may have high ideals, but most have low standards. Most women have high standards. Men default to yes, women default to no. If we're getting laid, I predict you won't hear most men complain about a d*mn thing.


I find it interesting when I see men bragging about how low their standards are, how they're happy to stick it into anything or anyone.

And yet when you remind them that all they have to do to get a whole lot more sex is lower their standards a bit, they turn around and complain that she just isn't attractive enough.

Equally ironic is the insistence that "impossible standards" won't matter to men who are getting laid, combined with the rather obvious chagrin with women for having such impossibly high standards because it means they aren't getting laid.

And it's women who say one thing and do another? :scratchhead:


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> I find it interesting when I see men bragging about how low their standards are, how they're happy to stick it into anything or anyone.
> 
> And yet when you remind them that all they have to do to get a whole lot more sex is lower their standards a bit, they turn around and complain that she just isn't attractive enough.


That would be interesting if that was how I characterized it. It's not "lower them a bit". To achieve what your referring to generally requires lowering them hell of a lot more than a bit. Hence, it's mocked by a whole lot of derogatory names like "slumming", "chasing fatties" etc. I tried to explain this imbalance with my "average guy/average girl" analogy. He'll most likely go for her if offered, but she most likely wouldn't go for him if offered. It takes a large increase in his relative attractiveness to induce her. In contrast, very few women will lower their standards for sex - they don't have to, much less want to. Many men do... and the degree required to be even remotely reliable is pretty severe. And unlike men generally, part of most women's standard is to not only be some guy's ONS, regardless of how good looking he is.

The priority placed on sex is very different, with males giving it significantly higher priority as evidenced by what they'll do to get it. Yet on this forum, some would have us believe it's the same priority. This is demonstrably false. Something's worth to you can be described by what you'll give up to get it.



always_alone said:


> Equally ironic is the insistence that "impossible standards" won't matter to men who are getting laid, combined with the rather obvious chagrin with women for having such impossibly high standards because it means they aren't getting laid.


I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here.

I've never said "impossible standards". I said "high standards" (and we're referring to sexual standards in particular - requirements for having sex; and "high" relative to equivalent men). If the average guy would accept an upfront sexual proposition from an average female, while an average female would not accept an upfront sexual proposition from an average male, then I think that speaks to the female having higher sexual standards than the male, and the male prioritizing sex more than the female.

This is a ready fact for men regardless of where on the scale they sit. I think I'm fairly attractive. Yet I cannot reliably proposition women in my ballpark of attractiveness for sex. Even the few of these women open to having a ONS or NSA relationship, are unlikely to do so with me, because they can find a more physically desirable male (above their level if you will) by their sexual availability and not requiring commitment from him. Similarly, women below my level are more likely to accept a very forward proposition from me... but again, we're talking way below and still pretty rare. In fact, no amount of lowering standards produces really reliable acceptance. Take your average female to a bunch of ugly guys and I'm confident we'll see some really reliable acceptance.

When it comes to sex itself, women can reliably trade up. Men trade down. The value of sex to each is thus very clear.

Sure, some are bitter about that. I'm not. It just is what it is: difference in value of sex. Trading on something the male typically values more than the female, so it's a buyers market for males and a sellers market for females. The only thing that annoys me is attempts to call them the same.


----------



## always_alone

Dvl's, you know, it's really too bad that you feel like you (and all other men) have to constantly lower your standards to pursue women that you have no interest in or respect for. 

Maybe one day you'll consider the possibility that there is more than one measure to sexuality, and that there's more to it than ONS and picking people up off the street.

Then again, maybe not.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Thanks AA, I'm in a relationship FYI.

And no, we don't **have** to lower our standards to pursue women, nor do we necessarily lack interest or respect. I didn't lower my standards for my gf, I have plenty of interest in her and plenty of respect for her. You've missed the point and gotten along with your usual deflection. The point was to demonstrate the relative value of sex according to gender in contradiction to the happy joy joy equality expressed earlier in the thread (Oh but for culture!!). You simply do not value something as much as someone else if they place it as their highest priority and you place it behind several other things (like commitment). Everything I've stated has been to that point. Even the example of males lowering standards in preference for sex has interest in her: SEX. I'm sorry you think wanting to have sex with someone is disrespect. I'm certain men don't think they're being disrespected when a smoking hot woman they usually don't draw only wants to have sex with them. Is that too fine a point on it?

Is there more than one measure to sexuality? To my thinking, you're seeking sex or you're not. You have a lot of priorities ahead of having it, or you don't.

The "more to it" you refer to is all the requirements that women generally place priority on ahead of having sex that men generally have far fewer of. Is that not the definition of higher standards? That's not what I feel, that's what I see, and there's a plethora of evidence.

What you don't see is men loading up dating profiles like women do with crap like "NOT INTERESTED IN HOOKUPS!" and "If you only want sex move along!" I can't imagine where some men get the idea that women are anti-sex. lol

There's a reason and it has to do with the difference between what most men are seeking vs what most women are seeking. Generally speaking, you can have sex with a hotter guy if you accept that he's not likely to commit; and a guy can more likely have commitment-less sex, if he accepts that she's less hot. Women want the commitment, so good men and bad men alike play the game (there's a reason for sayings like, "wine her, dine her, 69 her"). Maybe it's even a good thing, because without it, I certainly doubt men would wind up in relationships driven by their unyielding desire to take women to chick flicks and walks in the park. I bet these rank way up there in the priorities of single men.

I propose if sex were readily available with desirable partners without commitment, you'd find a hell of a lot fewer men in relationships, or at least, not settling into relationships until far older. Actually, I don't need to propose it, because it's true according to research. Men who survey as having had sex readily available without commitment, report not settling down into a serious relationship until older than men who receive little interest from women, who tend to settle down quickly. What a coincidence.


----------



## Recoveringws

its not just the size of the dinghy that counts, but the width of the harbor as well.

and some of them have seen too many sea-worthy vessels...


----------



## EnjoliWoman

Personally that chart is way off, leaning toward the too-large arena so I'm surprised someone said it was for men with insecurities.


----------



## claireont

Wow, 40 pages of posts on this subject. That's impressive.

I have pretty strong views on this subject so Im not sure I really want to wade too deeply into the water on this one but I would just say that I think the following is true when it comes to penis size and leave it at that. 

Size matters for some of the women all of the time and to all of the women some of the time.


----------



## Lon

EnjoliWoman said:


> Personally that chart is way off, leaning toward the too-large arena so I'm surprised someone said it was for men with insecurities.


Agreed... I like the "6 inches is the average length" quip, but the chart would make a lot of guys feel skinny-d1cked which does nobody any good. A proud man make a good lover.


----------



## Runs like Dog

Almost everyone is better looking dressed. Body worship? What's your religion - Buddhism?


----------



## ConanHub

To be honest, I believe most women enjoy a penis on the thicker side with a good amount of length but nothing crazy. There are just many other attributes that are more important to satisfying sex and relationships.

If they could have the man they love with the tool that rocked their world for that season of their life, they would jump at the opportunity.
But, there is no way in hell that they would give up a good man for a big Oscar.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Deejo

The chart is a MacGuffin.

It was created with the sole intent of pointing out to insecure men, that they can't possibly measure up.

The chart was not created to be credible.

A A posted it as an analog to men objectifying women.

So the thread isn't using a real chart and isn't even really about penises.

Penis size was just the vehicle that was used to spread open an issue and then jack-hammer home a point about objectification.


----------



## bandit.45

I had a roan gelding as a kid. He had a schlong that had to have been five inches diameter and a foot and a half long. 

I wish I had half of what my horse had.


----------



## jaquen

Deejo said:


> The chart is a MacGuffin.
> 
> It was created with the sole intent of pointing out to insecure men, that they can't possibly measure up.
> 
> The chart was not created to be credible.
> 
> A A posted it as an analog to men objectifying women.
> 
> So the thread isn't using a real chart and isn't even really about penises.
> 
> Penis size was just the vehicle that was used to spread open an issue and then jack-hammer home a point about objectification.


----------



## ConanHub

jaquen said:


>


OMG! LOL!&#55357;&#56835;&#55357;&#56836;&#55357;&#56833;
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------

