An academic's perspective

Well, it’s positive in the sense that it’s presented as a reason she lusted for them. My point is that this was mentioned even back then, and therefore not a complete non-issue. If the author meant it as something sinful within a moralistic context is something else.

I’m not a historian either, but my impression again, is that it has often been seen as something to be proud of, something that’s manly, impressive to women etc, while at the same time maybe having something vulgar and ‘pornographic’ to it. For instance, you won’t find any old nude (Western) sculptures with big dicks, just like you don’t find any female nudes in the arts with big breasts. So it wouldn’t have been celebrated in that very ‘official, proper’ sense. If nudity is already risqué, ‘big, in-your-face’ nudity will certainly be. But that’s different from the more popular ‘nudge, nudge, wink, wink’ sense.

Sorry to be off topic:

How sad that the only other psychonaut on the forums (praseo) that i know of is so confrontational and unfriendly and got put on hold. I’m a fan of Sasha Schulgin.

On topic:
I think every field, no matter how mundane, benefits from formal studies and scientific research. I would look towards kinesiology and sports medicine academics to be the first to venture into it.

I would say if she was “lusting” (which was considered a sin in itself) then including the detail that they were large may have been to infer something sinful about those types of men. Mind you, I am not qualified to argue bible interpretation either.

I am by no means saying big dicks have not been around until recent times, but like you said, they, along with big breasts and such were not in the art at the time, as opposed to now a days it is all you see in advertising “art”.

Just re-reading some of the replies on this thread and I think that Tea-Drinker had a good point.

While it would be intellectually satisfying to have a better and more scientific understanding of what works best with PE … my strong suspicion is that a rigorous scientific study/review would not yield much more than we already know.

I don’t think that they would present an improvement on the techniques nor do I think that they would provide any miracle therapy that would minimize the work. I believe that the most likely outcome would be a confirmation that you should start with the Newbie route and listen carefully to what your dick is telling you as you add exercises and tools to your routine.

That said … maybe it is better for the broader population to be in the dark as to the effectiveness of what those on this forum have discovered over the past XX years. If the percentage of men doing PE were to suddenly spike to 85% as a result of a newly scientifically endorsed set of techniques … then the average dick size would then go up by an inch or more. That would end up creating a completely new level of “dick size” anxiety.

To that end … I withdraw my interest in further scientific study and encourage all TP’rs across the globe to keep quiet about what has been learned

+1

Any assumptions made about any member here, or the members collectively, are most likely incorrect. It is only fair to assume that PE attracts people from various backgrounds and circumstances.

Printman, it is common knowledge that lifting Wrights and going to the gym can make you look like. Arnold Schwarzenegger, yet you dont see 85% of people look like him.

Like. Body building, PE takes a lot of dedication and most people wont think it is worth it.

Actually, making it common knowledge might be good for size obsession because having a big dick would no longer be something that is percieved to be rare and special.

Just like how most women today are turned off of over-muscled men because they see them as spending way too much time and effort on their own bodies, our society may get over this “size matters” meme.

Just a thought.

I think this varied throughout history. If my memory serves me correctly, during the renaissance period (and probably for some time after) having a big penis was thought to be bestial and vulgar. In other words, bad. But prior to that, in the middle ages, a big dick was thought a good thing, and celebrated in art.

Contrary to comments made earlier in this thread, I can’t see PE getting popular as a bad thing. I think the persons who say this are probably thinking that the less big dick guys out there, the less competition they will have? But this makes no sense.

Err.. I’m not an historian, but I suspect the adverse is more likely. They say in ancient Greece a big penis was considered neither attractive nor enjoiable, in ancient Rome the adverse was true. In medieval times the body was the receipt of the Devil and should be humilated. In the Reinassance any human trait that was extraordinary beautiful, strong, or just plain big, was likely to be celebrated.

But after all, who reaaly knows? We weren’t there. Exception made for ThunderSS, he’ soooooo old.

Looking around, I have this feeling (maybe I’m not correct though) : USA and UK people are those more interested in achieving a humoungous penis, Europeans less, Asians the least. To be fair, there aren’t many Asians on this site so I could be even less correct about this.

By what right and who’s value is someone else’s opinion about what I happen to value to be taken seriously? Getting a bigger Shlong IS an improvement and someone elese’t thoughts, opinions and ideas about that fact I could care less what they think, its a value to me and seriously that is all that matters. The fact that it matters to thousands of men, is all the evidence I need that certain people posting on this forum need not be taken seriously.

It would be difficult to conduct a clinical trial. Someone with a lot of money could potentially contact a contract research organisation (CRO) in China or some other developing country and ask them to conduct some sort of experiment. It could be feasible to conduct an experiment on rats. Jelqing would obviously not be possible in this scenario. The only realistic way of doing this would be do inject the rats with various growth hormones VEGF, IGF, SHH and all their derivatives and potentially some ED meds such as PGE. The penises would then be excised and weighed on a super accurate measuring scale. They performed a similar experiment using testosterone in an attempt to develop a cure for micropenis. Unfortunately the results seemed to demonstrate that T derivatives were useless. VEGF has been shown to boost smooth muscle content by around 20 percent. The penis is 50 percent smooth muscle. It is perfectly reasonable to assume that concentrated use of growth hormones and/or chronic use of injectable ED drugs could lead to growth.

I don’t think we’re actually in disagreement on anything here. What I guess I’m trying to get at is that the culture of an age is more complex than the short, official, proper, moralistic text-book version. Nobody is saying e.g. the Church glorified big penises, why would they? For instance, we might think of the 16th century as very austere, strict and pious, but popular (peasants etc) culture could be surprisingly vulgar. Which is why even someone like Martin Luther could write in what we now would think of as very crude and almost childish ways about his enemies and things he disapproved of. Often involving buttholes and feces. There were also e.g. songs by acknowledged composers that were all about tits. :)

We’ll just have to agree to agree then. :)