Thunder's Place

The big penis and mens' sexual health source, increasing penis size around the world.

sexualenhancement.org

Wow, that’s pretty big. That means 1 in every 10 men are emotionally and financially supporting some other guy’s child, thinking it’s his. Sucks to be “average”. :D

24 Hours, you are making the mistake of thinking that alpha male status is determined only by penis size. If I recall correctly, the computer-generated faces preferred by the ovulating women were narrower and more masculine. Saying penis length alone determines alpha males is like saying only waist-to-hip ratio determines a pretty woman.


I think it's the woman's job to tighten up to fit her man--it's lots easier for us.

Buy my book! The Orgasmic Diet by Marrena Lindberg

A man looks at a waist to hip ratio hopefully being 68 to 70% on a female. A female looks at the man’s face especially the jawline to gauge her determing factor. Or so goes the theory……….


“You see, I don’t want to do good things, I want to do great things.” ~Alexander Joseph Luthor

I know Lewd Ferrigno personally.

Then there is the handome sons theory and the idea that facial symetry reflects better genetics.


“You see, I don’t want to do good things, I want to do great things.” ~Alexander Joseph Luthor

I know Lewd Ferrigno personally.

Originally Posted by zaneblue
24 Hours, you are making the mistake of thinking that alpha male status is determined only by penis size. If I recall correctly, the computer-generated faces preferred by the ovulating women were narrower and more masculine. Saying penis length alone determines alpha males is like saying only waist-to-hip ratio determines a pretty woman.


I don’t think the Alpha male status is strictly determined by his penis size, but I think that some of the characteristics (excluding the facial ones) of an Alpha male (i.e. tall, big features, “cock sure”, ruthlessly confident) could be indicators of a guy with a big dick. Women get excited by this type of Alpha male, and those same characteristics PROBABLY give women some perceived “insight” into the size of his penis.

Of course this is all a generalization and there will be tall confident guys with small dicks out there for sure, but I would imagine that if a guy is really tall with big features (big boned, big hands, big feet), is completely cock-sure and overly confident - odds are probably in favor that he will have a big dick, or at least he’ll truly believe he has a big dick.

I agree that women appreciate symmetry in men’s faces the same way as men do in women, but when women are REALLY looking for specifically ALPHA MALES a 160 lb “pretty” looking Calvin Klein model with a chiseled narrow physique that isn’t cock sure about himself is probably not going to cut it. One might assume either by his hesitancy or lack of an overbearing persona that he’s not hung the way an Alpha male is expected to be. He certainly could be hung, but that’s not the impression he leaves and this is all about odds of finding a large penis.

Really, I’m just thinking out loud. Who can really know for sure what kind of subliminal incentives and motivators are actually driving us? :D

Originally Posted by twatteaser

Then there is the handome sons theory and the idea that facial symetry reflects better genetics.

I wonder if this is the kind she’d marry, and the Alpha male is the kind she’d fantasize about cheating with?

There is a thread on facial symmetry on here someplace.


“You see, I don’t want to do good things, I want to do great things.” ~Alexander Joseph Luthor

I know Lewd Ferrigno personally.

Yeah I remember that one. That was interesting.

24 Hours—the flip side of all that—the day before a woman’s period starts if she lets her hormones take over, she will fuck anything with an erection. No chance of pregnancy but huge chance of infidelity, I’d say much higher than at ovulation. Of course hormonal birth control can throw this all off in women.


I think it's the woman's job to tighten up to fit her man--it's lots easier for us.

Buy my book! The Orgasmic Diet by Marrena Lindberg

I guess this theory rings true to me because there does seem to be two penis size preferences for most women: “adequate” and “ideal”. From what I’ve gathered from polls/discussions/and life experiences “Adequate” seems to be average size. “Ideal” seems to be thicker than average for a fuller feeling (greater stimulation) and a size longer than average so that it can produce cul de sac (penis/vaginal) orgasms.

So we seem to find that a majority of women would find their ‘ideal’ to be bigger than what the majority of men can offer. There MUST be some significance (in the evolutional sense) to this - that women would prefer something that is so scarce that they’ll likely experience their ‘ideal’ here and there, but the odds (due to the numbers available) will likely ensure that they will settle for less than their ‘ideal’ when it comes to their lifelong mate. There’s ALWAYS some evolutionary reason for these seemingly inexplicable “natural selection” inequities and it ALWAYS has to do with better ensuring survival of the fittest over time.

The above theory atleast addresses this paradox: “The above explanation tries to make sense of this phenomenon by assuming that the female incapacity for vaginal orgasms with men with penises of an average size has been developed in the course of evolution in order to make sure that the females of the human species will seek out sexual relationships with alpha males (large penises) in spite of being bonded to lesser males (average penises).”

You can see how this would better ensure survival of the species, because this female desire for a ‘big penis’ helps to ensure that superior genes do the reproducing. Fooling the “inferior male” ensures that these “genetically superior” offspring get provided for financially and emotionally and therefore survive. Even if these programmed motivators only actually affects 1 in 10 relationships - that is VERY significant over the course of time (millions and millions of years). These programmed “drivers” ensure that reproduction TRENDS towards survival of the fittest.

There are a lot of similar theories out there. I appreciate them because they do help to provide some “method for the madness”. :D

Originally Posted by zaneblue
24 Hours—the flip side of all that—the day before a woman’s period starts if she lets her hormones take over, she will fuck anything with an erection. No chance of pregnancy but huge chance of infidelity, I’d say much higher than at ovulation. Of course hormonal birth control can throw this all off in women.


Here’s an interesting study about women’s preference for another common characteristic of the Alpha Male - dominance:
http://channels.netscape.com/men/pa…amen&floc=wn-ns

It shows that women (during ovulation) prefer dominant men: “.. women who were ovulating at the time rated the ‘dominant’ men as the sexiest, and this correlation was particularly true for women who were in an exclusive relationship.”

Originally Posted by 24 Hours
So we seem to find that a majority of women would find their ‘ideal’ to be bigger than what the majority of men can offer. There MUST be some significance (in the evolutional sense) to this - that women would prefer something that is so scarce that they’ll likely experience their ‘ideal’ here and there, but the odds (due to the numbers available) will likely ensure that they will settle for less than their ‘ideal’ when it comes to their lifelong mate. There’s ALWAYS some evolutionary reason for these seemingly inexplicable “natural selection” inequities and it ALWAYS has to do with better ensuring survival of the fittest over time.

The above theory atleast addresses this paradox: “The above explanation tries to make sense of this phenomenon by assuming that the female incapacity for vaginal orgasms with men with penises of an average size has been developed in the course of evolution in order to make sure that the females of the human species will seek out sexual relationships with alpha males (large penises) in spite of being bonded to lesser males (average penises).”

You can see how this would better ensure survival of the species, because this female desire for a ‘big penis’ helps to ensure that superior genes do the reproducing. Fooling the “inferior male” ensures that these “genetically superior” offspring get provided for financially and emotionally and therefore survive. Even if these programmed motivators only actually affects 1 in 10 relationships - that is VERY significant over the course of time (millions and millions of years). These programmed “drivers” ensure that reproduction TRENDS towards survival of the fittest.

There are a lot of similar theories out there. I appreciate them because they do help to provide some “method for the madness”. :D

All of “these theories” make very serious unproven, and false, assumptions.

On such assumption is that women’s response to sexual stimulation has remained constant over those “millions and millions of years”. That assumption has been demonstrated to be false. Zaneblue’s diet clearly demonstrates that the level of women’s orgasmic response is dependent at least upon diet. Her diet has also shown that the level of response can change in a small fraction of a lifetime, let alone millions and millions of years.

[:-Y So Zaneblue, had you realized that your diet had significant implications for some of the basic assumptions of anthropology? :) Maybe someone would be interested in funding a study for that purpose. :) ]

Further, “those theories” don’t even explore the question of why the pre- Homo Sapien females are having unforced sex at all when most of the time those women are not experiencing orgasm. In current times men usually have to actually put effort into trying to make sex enjoyable for a woman.

Over “millions and millions of years” we have to look at what the actions, and reactions, are of those pre- Homo Sapien beings that are, almost certainly, ruled much more by their baser animal urges than we are today. Thus, to a large extent, if the action was not providing direct positive reinforcement (e.g. orgasm), why was it being performed?

Another example of an unproven assumption is that such theories assume that both penis size, and distribution of penis size, have remained more or less constant over that period of time. There has been discussion in other threads that indicates there may have been a general change in penis size within living memory (i.e. < 100 years).

Another: They assume that penis size is completely dependent on genetics. The existence of PE absolutely demonstrates that this assumption is false.

I do not have the time to go into this in the detail that this deserves. It also leads into topics I am not yet prepared to begin to cover. Thus I will stop here.

To a large extent, you appear to be relying on the “theories” presented by people that gain a financial benefit from convincing others to think a certain way about this subject. Relying on the statements of such people is rarely a good idea.

makyen

Originally Posted by makyen
[:-Y So Zaneblue, had you realized that your diet had significant implications for some of the basic assumptions of anthropology? :) Maybe someone would be interested in funding a study for that purpose. :) ]

To a large extent, you appear to be relying on the “theories” presented by people that gain a financial benefit from convincing others to think a certain way about this subject. Relying on the statements of such people is rarely a good idea.

Yes and yes. Exactly. You laugh, but I strongly suspect the anthropological connection. My diet is the caveman diet, at least the very well-fed caveman diet. Cavemen with plentiful food supply would be eating very similar to my diet, with the primary calories coming from fat and protein sources all very high in omega-3 fatty acids and low in omega-6 fatty acids. Of course there would be calories coming from fruits and vegetables, but primarily vegetables—they didn’t have the year-round high-sugar engineered uber-fruit that we have today. And grains or starchy fruits or vegetables were very scarce indeed. And squatting rather than sitting on chairs does tone the PC muscles somewhat.

A woman on my diet doesn’t need a super-gigantic penis to have a vaginal orgasm—average works just fine, and below average is good for G-spot orgasms. Big ones are nice to look at and certainly have their appeal, but hardly an orgasmic necessity. Dominance and manliness are attractive.

I think caveman sexual behavior was probably much more like bonobo sexual behavior, our closest primate relatives. And if anyone was clubbing over the head and dragging off by the hair it probably was the cavewomen.

My study will cost a couple hundred thousand dollars. The only way I am going to get funding, unless it’s federal money, is through commercial interests.


I think it's the woman's job to tighten up to fit her man--it's lots easier for us.

Buy my book! The Orgasmic Diet by Marrena Lindberg

Originally Posted by makyen
All of “these theories” make very serious unproven, and false, assumptions.

On such assumption is that women’s response to sexual stimulation has remained constant over those “millions and millions of years”. That assumption has been demonstrated to be false. Zaneblue’s diet clearly demonstrates that the level of women’s orgasmic response is dependent at least upon diet. Her diet has also shown that the level of response can change in a small fraction of a lifetime, let alone millions and millions of years.


Zane’s diet has nothing to do with the ability of men to deliver cul de sac orgasms. The diet may allow some women who’ve been unable to have cul de sac orgasms start having them, but they’ll still need someone long enough to reach the cul de sac to have them.

Originally Posted by makyen
Further, “those theories” don’t even explore the question of why the pre- Homo Sapien females are having unforced sex at all when most of the time those women are not experiencing orgasm. In current times men usually have to actually put effort into trying to make sex enjoyable for a woman.

Over “millions and millions of years” we have to look at what the actions, and reactions, are of those pre- Homo Sapien beings that are, almost certainly, ruled much more by their baser animal urges than we are today. Thus, to a large extent, if the action was not providing direct positive reinforcement (e.g. orgasm), why was it being performed?


These theories do explore the question you pose. They suggest that women engaged in sex to keep their high-sex driven males (who provided food/shelter/offspring) to commit to them and offer them and their offspring security.

Also, women can have orgasms without well-endowed guys, so it’s not like they can’t enjoy sex without a big dick. This theory merely suggests that women consider their best sex to be ones with penis induced cul de sac orgasms and, thus women seem to prefer larger than average dicks (as they do).

Originally Posted by makyen
Another example of an unproven assumption is that such theories assume that both penis size, and distribution of penis size, have remained more or less constant over that period of time. There has been discussion in other threads that indicates there may have been a general change in penis size within living memory (i.e. < 100 years).


Actually these theories do cover this assumption. They DON’T assume that penis size and distribution of penis size has remained constant as you suggest. As Zane and I briefly touched on earlier, most of these theories suggest that human penises have grown dramatically over millions of years when compared to all other primates such that the human penis is now larger proportionally to the human body then the penis of any other primate.

The theory states that female “natural selection” (i.e preference for a larger penis) has ensured that the human male penis would grow to this extreme. Males with larger penises have been given more opportunities by the gatekeepers [women] to reproduce then smaller men, so their offspring over the years have penises that trend upwards in size.

Originally Posted by makyen
Another: They assume that penis size is completely dependent on genetics. The existence of PE absolutely demonstrates that this assumption is false.


These theories assume that your BORN penis size is completely dependent on genetics. PE doesn’t demonstrate that this assumption is false. Not in the least bit. Your offspring will likely inherit your pre-PE size (not your post-PE size). So the penis size that you and your offspring are born with IS dependent on genetics. What you do with it through PE and your gains are irrelevant to what will be passed down.

Originally Posted by makyen
To a large extent, you appear to be relying on the “theories” presented by people that gain a financial benefit from convincing others to think a certain way about this subject. Relying on the statements of such people is rarely a good idea.


Neither this guy nor his site created this theory. This theory is a popular one that is documented all the time. You watch any “sexual evolution” program on the Discovery Health Channel or The Learning Channel and you will see them mention most aspects of this theory and present it as “truth”. It is very popular amongst the scientific community.

But like I said before, “who knows?”. Theories are theories, not facts. And all theories are based on assumptions, but they have covered the ones you mentioned above.

Originally Posted by 24 Hours
This theory merely suggests that women consider their best sex to be ones with penis induced cul de sac orgasms

I just wanted to mention I have never heard a woman say that. I haven’t exactly been keeping track, but I’d say women who have both vaginal and clitoral orgasms consider the clitoral orgasms the best. Vaginal orgasms are the easiest and certainly add a new type of pleasure to the sexual experience, but they certainly don’t replace clitoral orgasms. Some women prefer cul de sac orgasms to G-spot orgasms, but I think that is mainly tied in with the needing to pee feeling and discomfort with female ejaculation.

My two cents.


I think it's the woman's job to tighten up to fit her man--it's lots easier for us.

Buy my book! The Orgasmic Diet by Marrena Lindberg

Top

All times are GMT. The time now is 12:42 PM.