Jump to content
Mental Support Community

PROBLEM: The word "Average" & Defining the TRUE Sizes


johnlucas
 Share

Recommended Posts

OK. For my next post after my introduction I want to dispel a commonly held but ineffective notion when discussing penis size.

AVERAGE.

What does this really mean? And how can this term EVER be helpful for understanding penis size or more importantly how to USE that size effectively.
Simple. It doesn't.

Averages are working computations that depend on the data input to the equation.
Because of this they're not static, they're not objective.
They're
subjective because no one has EVER or WILL EVER compute the sizes of EVERY SINGLE MAN on Planet Earth to reach a definitive conclusion.

You don't know who made up that sample or how biased the selections were in determining WHO gets sampled.
The "Average" will always move depending on who's sampled.
Can 5,000 people REALLY tell you about the entire world?

Many small-sized men are OBSESSED with this "Average" thing & I learned that EARLY in my studies on this particular self-image topic.
To me, it looked like a bunch of guys checking daily sports scores or stock market reports to see how good they did.
If they came closer to a stated average report, they felt relieved. If they didn't come close, they felt dejected.

I thought it was absolutely INSANE that men would cling to these incomplete & ineffective reports for a boost of self-esteem.
Because first of all, the only thing Averages can tell you is that there are more built like you. That you're not alone.
It NEVER says anything about how to USE that size to its optimum or how to break the stifling prejudice small men face.

If the Average says 5.5 inches but the women of the world look down on men with 5.5 inches, this didn't solve anything.
You "made the cut" on some incomplete scientific report but in the real world you're still treated with the same disrespect you desperately want an escape from.

So if Average is not a good term, what should we use John?

Use this.

MEDIUM.

Unlike AVERAGE, the word MEDIUM is a FIXED range. It's static. It doesn't move. It's objective. It's definitive.

Average has to get an external sample but Medium is internally defined within itself.
MEDIUM will ALWAYS be the MIDDLE, the CENTER of 2 points.
If there's a North Pole & a South Pole, the MEDIUM between these poles will always be the Equator.

Yes, Medium.

The way you speak about things determines the way you think about things.

When you begin using MEDIUM instead of AVERAGE to describe size, you are making the penis size topic CONCRETE instead of all Loosey-Goosey like it has been.
You are putting yourself more in control of the topic instead of letting the topic control you.
You don't weaken yourself by having to wait for a report to tell you you're good enough.
You strengthen yourself by knowing how Medium fits into the grand scheme of things & can make a plan & a strategy with that solid concrete knowledge.

Yes, Medium.
The same term you use for your T-shirts & your Icees from the convenience store.
The same term you use for your pizzas when you order on the phone or online.

Sounds so mundane huh? But that's exactly the term you need. Penis size is just another realm of measuring things.
Measuring things is mundane.

And just like your T-shirts, Icees, & pizzas, if there's a Medium there's gotta be a Small & a Large, right?
Those 2 points, those 2 poles we talked about earlier.
Medium is ALWAYS the Middle between 2 points.

But hold on a second.

Don't you find it funny that while we can define the sizes of T-shirts, Icees, & pizzas, NOBODY has EVER defined the sizes of penises???
All these scientists out here dropping these ridiculous "Averages" reports yet no one even did the bedrock basics & defined what size was what yet???
How in the hell are you gonna talk about penis size when you haven't even defined what size is which?!

You can't breakdown a car without understanding the chassis.
You can't breakdown a program without understanding those strings of code.
You can't breakdown a recipe without understanding the ingredients.

This is basic elementary stuff here & nobody has ever done it.

That's why I maintain that sexology is in the DARK AGES right now.
A bunch of doggone amateurs with half-knowledge trying to advise somebody when they haven't even executed the most basic steps yet.
And THAT'S why so many people come to Internet Forums for Sex Advice.
They can't trust these quacks & their "official" story. The sexologists are not doing their job.

Sex is one of the CORE components of human life & THIS is what they have to offer as knowledge???
I'm just a regular everyday man & even I figured out this simple idea.

Well if the sexologists won't do it, I will. So let's talk about those 2 points & how they relate to the Middle.
Let's define the sizes in spite of these incompetent sexologists.
ALL sizes. UNIVERSAL sizes. (Just in terms of length for now)

Defining The Sizes

If there's a Medium, there has to be a Small & a Large.

SMALL

MEDIUM

LARGE

OK, that's a start. But it still doesn't tell us much.
We got the categories but we haven't defined what goes INTO those categories yet.
We need numbers to go with these letters.

Since I'm American, I'm gonna use this outdated English measuring system for the numbers (Americans always using contrary systems).
Let's number these categories in terms of inches.

Now we know that micropenises exist that are less than 3 inches erect. That means there's a possibility of someone being 1 inch or maybe even less.

That will be the end point for the Small category.

We also know that Jonah Falcon exists & he's 13 inches erect.
We also know that human growth goes into the Ripley's Believe It Or Not category which defies categorization.
There MAY be someone in the world even larger than he is but they haven't publicized themselves.

But to make it simple we'll use Jonah Falcon as the end point for the Large category.

With 0 inches as the end point for Small & 13 inches as the end point for Large, 0 inches to 13 inches will be our range to work from.
All we have to do is place this range into these 3 categories evenly.

13 ÷ 3 = ??? Ummm, uhhh......

SMALL

1 inch & less

2 inches

3 inches

4 inches

MEDIUM

5 inches

6 inches

7 inches

8 inches

LARGE

9 inches

10 inches

11 inches

12 inches

13 inches & more

Wait a minute. There's too many in the Large category. That's not even representation.
And even if I capped the Large category at 12 inches to make it easier to divide by 3, these ranges don't seem accurate somehow.
5 inches & 8 inches work completely differently & so does 1 inch & 4 inches & so does 9 inches & 12 inches.

If I considered the Ripley's factor & used 15 inches as the range so it also could be divisible by 3, I would STILL have the same problem.
1 inch in the Small category with 5 inches. 6 inches in the Medium category with 10 inches. 11 inches in the Large category with 15 inches.
These categories are WAY too broad! Maybe we need some more categories.

Since we HAVE to have a centerpoint with Medium, we MUST use an odd number as a divisor.

So let's go to the next odd number: 5.

XTRA SMALL

SMALL

MEDIUM

LARGE

XTRA LARGE

Those new categories sound pretty decent don't they.
They better pool the micropenises types & the Jonah Falcon types in their own category to make a more accurate representation.
The most EXTREME of the extremes so we jazz it up & use X-tra.

Now let's input the numbers. We can add the Ripley's factor into this one since we have a special XTRA category just for this situation.
So let's work from 0 to 15 inches & place numbers in the categories evenly.

15 ÷ 5 = 3. Much better.

XTRA SMALL

1 inch & less

2 inches

3 inches

SMALL

4 inches

5 inches

6 inches

MEDIUM

7 inches

8 inches

9 inches

LARGE

10 inches

11 inches

12 inches

XTRA LARGE

13 inches

14 inches

15 inches

Hmmm. It almost seems right. It quarantines record setting sizes like the micropenises & Jonah Falcons pretty good but the other categories still seem way too broad.
I don't think anybody rightfully thinks of 6 inches as Small. Or 9 inches as Medium.

If I used 10 inches as the range so it could be divisible by 5, it leaves out the more common Large sizes that are smaller than rare Jonah Falcon.
It would be 2 to a category with 1 & 2 inches being XTRA SMALL, 3 & 4 inches being SMALL, 5 & 6 inches being MEDIUM, 7 & 8 inches being LARGE, 9 & 10 inches being XTRA LARGE.

The XTRA categories are for the most extreme rarest sizes & 9 to 10 inches aren't THAT rare.

This category of 5 is not TOO bad but it's still not quite accurate enough.
We need more categories. Some inbetweener categories that flesh this system out better.

So if 5 won't work let's go to the next odd number: 7.

XTRA SMALL

SMALL

MEDIUM-SMALL

MEDIUM

MEDIUM-LARGE

LARGE

XTRA LARGE

That sounds pretty good there. Lots of complexity yet still simple enough to wrap your mind around.
Hmmmm. But 7's a tricky number to divide by. Don't wanna deal with a bunch of fractions. Wait a minute. I KNOW!

We can use 14! That number would give us tight categorization & STILL cover the Ripley's effect!

14 ÷ 7 = 2. PERFECT!

XTRA SMALL

1 inch & less

2 inches

SMALL

3 inches

4 inches

MEDIUM-SMALL

5 inches

6 inches

MEDIUM

7 inches

8 inches

MEDIUM-LARGE

9 inches

10 inches

LARGE

11 inches

12 inches

XTRA LARGE

13 inches

14 inches & more

This seems a LOT better. The sizes in these categories are close enough to each other where the category label can accurately describe the function of these sizes.
It quarantines the most extreme of extremes into their categories yet allows the middle parts of the range to be grouped in a more sensible manner.
It ALSO forces us all to rethink what LARGE really is.

Subjectively 7 inches can seem large to somebody & small to someone else.
To André the Giant a 6-pack of beer is just an appetizer but to Emmanuel Lewis ("Webster") it's hangover city.
To a human an anthill is just a pile of dirt but to that ant an anthill is a mountain.

That's the problem with subjective viewpoints when you want CLARITY. When you want CONCRETE solid knowledge.
You don't want opinions & POVs. You want THE FACTS. Facts that may even dismantle a previously held worldview but facts nevertheless.

When you see 9 & 10 inches in the objective category of Medium-Large, it puts into perspective how large LARGE really is.

The Rock (Dwayne Johnson) is about 6' 4" tall & well over 250 pounds. That's a very big man in any person's estimation.
But he posed in a picture with 7' 1" Shaquille O'Neal & 6' 6" Charles Barkley & The Rock looked like a little boy next to them.

therock1.jpg

Here's a wider shot with Mark Wahlberg in the mix.

a77694a188881a03eb7833e4208fcbb1.jpg

The funny thing I discovered by making this size category is how Large-sized men are just as insecure about their sizes as Small-sized & Medium-sized men are.
The only difference is that their insecurities are alleviated with so much positive attention.
They get constant affirmation to offset any potential self-doubt.

There's a certain forum I showed this size grouping to & the members of that forum were sounding just as unsure of themselves as I heard the smaller sized men sound.
They were emotionally attached to their previously believed category of LARGE & now I downranked them to MEDIUM-LARGE in this objective chart.
THEY WERE NOT HAVING IT. Hahahahahaha! :lol:

It's like a guy built like The Rock thinking he's the biggest thing around in town & then a Shaq & Charles Barkley show up.
Now he doesn't feel so big anymore.

***********************************************************************************************************

However, there's still a problem with this.

Even though we came up with a good system of categorization with more accurate number groupings, we still have to remember that the only ones who use the English measuring system are the Americans!
Even the English don't use the English system anymore! They use Metric like the rest of the world.
And in Metric, these number values we used would end up in a bunch of decimals & fractions.
Human beings hate fractions & will always try to round up or round down those kind of numbers to make them whole.
But doing that would throw off the accuracy of such a chart. The groupings wouldn't be quite right.

And if we tried to make a whole number chart based on Metric, then the Americans would be screwed up since they still use the English system.
10 centimeters = 3.93700787401575 inches
What the hell does that mean? Most would stop at the 3 & count it as 3 even though it's actually almost 4 inches being in the neighborhood of 3.9.

So if English system is limited & Metric system is limited, what system should we use to measure penis size?

Well hear me out on this one.

We're gonna need a NEW Unit of measurement based on function & sensation.

What's the smallest degree that a difference in size can be felt?
Maybe this new unit of measurement should be called Penile Units or something like that. PU's?
This is yet undiscovered & will need scientists measuring women for "Vaginal Units" (VU's?) to find out where the degrees of function & sensation differ in intercourse.

Because let's remember the whole purpose of measuring. It's for the function of tools.
You don't look down on your 3/16 wrench when you use your 7/16 wrench.
You know that each size of wrench has a particular purpose & that all of them are important.
You carry each of your wrenches on your tool belt because you don't know which wrench you'll use at one time until you work on the project.

That's how you should view your penis. As a sexual TOOL.

You will not see SMALL as a liability because once you know what the SMALL category can do, you won't care about the stigmas & prejudices thrust upon you by mean-spirited, empathy-lacking people.
Instead of being controlled by the size topic, you will have control over the size topic. CONCRETE over loosey-goosey.
The subjective opinions will fall to the objective facts.

There ARE adjustable wrenches but since science hasn't allowed us to have adjustable penises yet, we gotta use the old multi-wrench tool belt mentality on the subject.

I made those categories to separate the social baggage from the objective function.
To separate the notions of performance quality from objective size.
So that these descriptions of size are simply matter-of-fact not a judgment call on sexual usefulness.

Those categories grouped the way they are can give shorthand information that every man within that size category can use in the penetration act & beyond.

We ARE different & we work differently. It's physics.

The way a fat man walks & a skinny man walks is different but both of them get to their destination.
What are the rules for the fat man? What are the rules for the skinny man? How do these rules help them reach their goals?

A small-sized man will have sex DIFFERENTLY than a medium-sized man & a large-sized man BUT he CAN bring pleasure with his sexual tool just like they can.

Defining the sizes is only the first step in discovering HOW each size category can do this.
None of this was even possible if we didn't discard the whole notion of AVERAGE to begin with.

So what do you think about what I wrote here? Discuss below & let's go over it.

John Lucas

P.S.: In the forum Measurection where I first proposed this idea in 2006, a woman who went by the name of Segasaurus told me that men would have a hard time separating the social baggage of the words Small, Medium, & Large from the no-bias objective function I intended with that chart.

She told me that maybe I should reterm the categories like they do tornados, hurricanes, & such.

Category 1, Category 2, Category 3 & so on.

I definitely took her up on her suggestion & will tell you that you can replace the names of those lettered Category labels with these numerical Category labels.

XTRA SMALL can be Category 1. SMALL can be Category 2. MEDIUM-SMALL can be Category 3 & so on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The stuff about categories is a whirlwind of futile semantics and vain rationalizations, not unlike the kind that SPS conjures but without the cold scientific detachment that comes with not having a small dick. Only someone with no understanding at all would have used that wrench analogy.

You will not see SMALL as a liability because once you know what the SMALL category can do, you won't care about the stigmas & prejudices thrust upon you by mean-spirited, empathy-lacking people... A small-sized man will have sex DIFFERENTLY than a medium-sized man & a large-sized man BUT he CAN bring pleasure with his sexual tool just like they can.

The only good bits. Ignore evil bitches and find a woman who doesn't mind sacrificing some pleasure to be with you. This is the best case scenario for all of us, and that's all there is. Feelings of inferiority naturally come with knowing other men could fuck your woman better and evading this objective fact with the word "differently" will solve nothing. Not to mention the men who were rejected by good hearted empathetic women. You do not even address these two most important issues of SPS.

But hey, my mistake. This thread is about the word average so I'm offtrack. I don't think that has anything to do with how men feel about their dicks, and that is my opinion on that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/11/2015 at 5:49 PM, CNL said:

The stuff about categories is a whirlwind of futile semantics and vain rationalizations, not unlike the kind that SPS conjures but without the cold scientific detachment that comes with not having a small dick. Only someone with no understanding at all would have used that wrench analogy.

You will not see SMALL as a liability because once you know what the SMALL category can do, you won't care about the stigmas & prejudices thrust upon you by mean-spirited, empathy-lacking people... A small-sized man will have sex DIFFERENTLY than a medium-sized man & a large-sized man BUT he CAN bring pleasure with his sexual tool just like they can.

The only good bits. Ignore evil bitches and find a woman who doesn't mind sacrificing some pleasure to be with you. This is the best case scenario for all of us, and that's all there is. Feelings of inferiority naturally come with knowing other men could fuck your woman better and evading this objective fact with the word "differently" will solve nothing. Not to mention the men who were rejected by good hearted empathetic women. You do not even address these two most important issues of SPS.

But hey, my mistake. This thread is about the word average so I'm offtrack. I don't think that has anything to do with how men feel about their dicks, and that is my opinion on that.

It's not semantics. It's a total overhaul of how to view this penis size issue.
Trust me, I'm not hear to give you the same kind of answers you have already heard.
I'm pioneering new thought on this issue in order to change the conversation.

Like I said, the way you speak about things determines the way you think about things.

First things first, CNL, I don't believe in "Small Penis Syndrome".
There is no such thing.

What DOES exist is Small Penis PREJUDICE.
What DOES exist is Small Penis HATRED.
What DOES exist is Small Penis DEGRADATION.
What DOES exist is Small Penis OSTRACIZATION.

THAT'S what exists. External forces from other people. External forces from the culture.

It's not a medical issue, it's a social issue.
And it's solvable if we first transform our approach in observing this problem.

You automatically assume that larger men are naturally better in bed.
What if that's not true?
What if there are exclusive techniques only available to smaller-sized men that can have a powerful impact in intercourse?
What if YOU the smaller guy can outperform the bigger guy?

I don't expect everybody here to catch on right away.
Decades upon decades of a negative message doesn't go away overnight.
Piece by piece I'm gonna offer a new way of thinking towards this issue.
A new way that gets you guys off of this tired treadmill of thought that leads you into insecurity, bitterness, & resignation.
Instead of feeling powerless I'm gonna help you get your power.
To change the notion that this is something happening to you that you must deal with & turn it into a notion that you control these events & can actively alter the outcomes.

Reread my overly long post, CNR. And do it without a defeated mind.
Don't read it & dismiss it with a "it's no use" mentality.
I spent the time to define the sizes in order for you to OWN your size & make it your power.

That's one of the most important themes I'm gonna emphasize in my postings.
You guys feel defeated & powerless to change this current set of events.
Once you speak in a tone that shows you DO have power, more power will open up to you.
By me changing the thinking with this post, I hope to help you change your speaking.

We're just getting started, CNR. I got MUCH more to say on this topic.

John Lucas

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/11/2015 at 5:29 PM, Darren15 said:

Completely lost me when I saw 'medium-large' with 9-10 inches. I admit I didn't read in thoroughly but I'll be honest in saying that this completely muddies the waters for me

I'm doing much more than muddying the waters, Darren15.
I'm paving over the puddle! There ain't no more mud! Hahahahaha! :lol:

Yeah in a range from 0 inches to 14 inches, 9 to 10 inches isn't quite as big as we thought.
That's why I put up that picture of The Rock with Charles Barkley & Shaquille O'Neal to make the parallel example in height.
The Rock's a big dude by anybody's measure but put him next to those giants & suddenly he doesn't look that big anymore.

NOBODY would have thought to put that down like I did.
But it's mathematically correct.

The Medium category starts at 7 inches. Exactly HALF of the 14 inch end point range.
7 is the middle of 14.
So that range of 9 to 10 is just an inbetweener between Medium & Large. Hence, Medium-Large.

I KNEW I would blow minds with that revelation.
It's an objective list not a subjective list.
And I found that subjectiveness is a major part of the problem why we can't really get anywhere on this subject.
Too many POVs. Too many opinions & inferences.
There's not enough CONCRETE on the grounds. Too much Muddy Waters. And I ain't talkin' 'bout the blues singer.

You CANNOT talk about size until size is defined.
Until which size is which is determined, you can't go any further on the topic.

The sexologists never thought to do this.
All we're getting is a bunch of BS "averages".
The averages ain't helping anybody.

I don't believe in "Small Penis Syndromes".

It's not a medical problem, it's a social problem.
It's a people problem. It's a prejudice problem. It's a hatred problem.

Get some food & drink to give you the energy to read & absorb my post fully.
Read it over again this time with a clear focused mind & concentrate on what I'm saying here.

Trust me, your mind has just BEGUN to be blown. B)
Wait until I put out my future posts.

John Lucas

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You automatically assume that larger men are naturally better in bed.

What if that's not true?

What if there are exclusive techniques only available to smaller-sized men that can have a powerful impact in intercourse?

What if YOU the smaller guy can outperform the bigger guy?

The far more significant question which is relevant to a far greater number of us is what if we can't? Accepting that you stand before that question in reality is one of the most important steps to reducing the pain of SPS, and I think it's poisonous to suggest to otherwise. I mean, unless you're talking about the 7 inched guys who come on here; perhaps those questions are relevant to them. I myself would be more concerned with the men who actually have a problem.

So let's hear it. What are these methods exclusive to us?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also I agree w JohnLucas that one's sense of self is absolutely crucial in determining happiness and success. Completely 100 percent agree.

Poor self image is what doomed me and continues to haunt me, albeit less than it did in the past.

Growing up my mother was like "study hard, be a success" but what she failed to see was that I hated myself. By the time she got a clue I got good at hiding it.

The truth is that none of us are more or less valuable than anyone else. We are all just here for a short time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like JohnLucas idea of penis as a tool. One aspect of the tool that small-average guys posess is getting a really hard erection which is key to great sex for both partners. After that having staying power matters. Technique matters. Small-average guys can score big in these categories.

I have no doubt small-average guys can please girls as fingers are considered a great tool for pleasure but how can they be confident and achieve this when their size is weighing them down mentally

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest RandomDude

Re the OP'er

I think you're basically right but maybe overcomplicating things. If you're in a store looking through a rack of shirts there's a range of sizes but you don't really (in my humble opinion) see a massive difference between most of them. So it's likely to be only unusually big or small which would jump to as being out of the ordinary.

Way I see it you have a range around 'middle of the road size', you got middle-middle, middle-high side, middle-low side.....but then you got huge and tiny.

That's basically it, I'd say. (For anything, not just cock sizes!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, dude, Lukaz is right. Statistics are a science, and you can find an average without measuring every penis(at least to a 99% confidence level). And your tiers are way off. The most recent study found that 80% of penises fall within 1.5" of average. That means that 90% of men in your "true" penis size tiers would be medium small or below.

Basically, this doesn't make any sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, dude, Lukaz is right. Statistics are a science, and you can find an average without measuring every penis(at least to a 99% confidence level). And your tiers are way off. The most recent study found that 80% of penises fall within 1.5" of average. That means that 90% of men in your "true" penis size tiers would be medium small or below.

Basically, this doesn't make any sense.

I agree, how can 90% of men fall within medium small but still be considered within that range. It just doesn't make sense to me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest RandomDude

These type of threads constantly get made and yes I get this is the forum for this, but really large, medium, small is all down to different opinions. Does size matter? Doesn't it matter? what is medium? What is large? All these questions can be answered and the answer will all be different. Some women do not care at all about penis size and others do a lot. What we can be honest about is that yes, in most likely cases, a woman will get more pleasure from a larger thicker penis ( let's say 8 x6 ) then a 3 inch inch penis. No amount of trying to change that perception will work. Same as many women will prefer a taller man to a small man. That's just the attraction thing going on.

I reckon 8 inch length x 6 inch girth would be too big for most girls! Honestly! If asked girls say a lot of horse shit about penis size but they don't in truth measure them and don't know what paper sizes actually mean. 8x6 is freaking huge (especially the 6 girth)

Bottom line for girls, either it is big enough, or not big enough, or too big. I don't know where the dividing lines are (64 million dollar question) But 3x3 is too small for most and 8x6 is too big most likely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest RandomDude

You're right actually. 6 x 5 would be good enough for about 90% of women. Anything over 5 is good enough to be honest. Anything below 5 inches and some women may start to enjoy less, but it shouldn't be as big a problem as it's been blown out to be. A woman who rejects a man for that, the man is the one who got the lucky escape.

Show a girl a 5.5 inch cock and she thinks it's at least 6 inch. Show her 6.5 inch and she is thinking 7 or more! I've heard rumours of some 6.5 inch dudes who already have a reputation for being hung!

(I reckon girth is what makes most difference, tho. And I reckon 5.5 inch girth would already be epically big for most!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest RandomDude

you can't really get a definitive answer unless it's extremes of size like 9 inches or 2 inches.

Yeah, I reckon this gets right to the point. It's about extremes.

Now I'm not trying to knock anyone, but I think it can happen in online penis discussions that guys who are genuinely v small use a super bone press measuring technique to boost their numbers and that complicates things. (It's one reason why I don't like talking exact numbers at all)

If you look at the film by Lawrence Barraclough, he very bravely exposes himself both flaccid and erect. It's just instantly obvious that he is very much below average. I'd say you don't even need to get a tape measure or argue over x or y inches in a case like that. You just know it's an extreme case. (Very sad and I've every sympathy, of course.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
On 6/12/2015 at 3:19 AM, CNL said:

You automatically assume that larger men are naturally better in bed.

What if that's not true?

What if there are exclusive techniques only available to smaller-sized men that can have a powerful impact in intercourse?

What if YOU the smaller guy can outperform the bigger guy?

The far more significant question which is relevant to a far greater number of us is what if we can't? Accepting that you stand before that question in reality is one of the most important steps to reducing the pain of SPS, and I think it's poisonous to suggest to otherwise. I mean, unless you're talking about the 7 inched guys who come on here; perhaps those questions are relevant to them. I myself would be more concerned with the men who actually have a problem.

So let's hear it. What are these methods exclusive to us?

Well, that's what we have to discover.

Sexual research, Sexology in general is in the Dark Ages.
For something as central to life as sex is, it's RIDICULOUS how little we know about it.
The sexologists don't even test things right. It's like they're not really invested in getting proper answers.
The money's in the medicine not the cure, I suppose.

One off the top of my head idea is that small-sized guys should insert their entire balls in the vagina along WITH the penis.
Not just push to the hilt of the penis alone.
Put it all in there. That not only creates a unique sensation for both you & the woman but also provides a seal at the vaginal opening.

Physics matter. You can't do what the larger guys do. You must find YOUR OWN tactics that are unique to yourself.
Just like in the videogame world, you must have your EXCLUSIVES.
Nintendo can survive the giants Sony & Microsoft because of their EXCLUSIVES.
You can't play Mario & Zelda & Pokémon anywhere else but on a Nintendo platform.

So in the sexual sense, the focus should be on penetrative methods that only small-sized guys can enjoy.
And once sexology finds EXCLUSIVE techniques for small-sized men that have equal impact in bringing pleasure, that will eliminate the penis size anxiety.

I will have another post showing a theory on the 5 stages of eliminating a self-image complex.
The 2nd Step is EDUCATION & this is the step that has not been worked on NEARLY enough which is why we keep seeing penis size questions asked in forums & comment boards on the internet.
The ones responsible for the EDUCATION step are not doing their jobs.
The Sexologists have failed you.

When we have a culture that TRULY values Healthcare over Warfare, you'll see much more progress on this issue.
Our priorities are still stacked on blowing people up instead of building them up.
More focused on hacking them up than healing them up.
That's why Sexology is so weak right now.

The answers are not here now but they WILL be here once we commit to truly researching all aspects of sexuality.

John Lucas

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By your insight about exclusive methods I can tell you understand our, or at least my, plight, but that you think these methods are any realer than unicorns is baffling to me. It's an affront to common sense, and if believed in could only exacerbate the root cause of our suffering - the yearning for a prowess our very physicality prevents. In that sense I still think your posts are dangerous in a way. For me there have been two phases of SPS, suicidal fury and depression, and the numb acceptance that I have reached now.

We can't fuck women like they can. That's it. You're short one last bit of honesty in not admitting that, Lucas. I never thought I'd say this, but I think skynight comes closest. We must accept that the specifically sexual pride, inclusive of the unavoidable comparison with other men, which is indulged by other men is simply not available to us, not in the same amounts or ways. The whole challenge is finding a way to do that, but there are so many spiritual and philosophical variables that every person's method will be wildly different, and no method will ever eliminate the pain entirely. But to sit around and hope for a circumvention, especially one like "put your balls in too," or whatever else, is absolutely the wrong wrong wrong thing to try in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...