Why Are You REALLY Here?

I am going to address an issue which has bugged me pretty much since I made an account here.

The issue is users who come here, not to learn about PE or contribute to meaningful threads, but to find as much evidence as possible that size doesn't matter at all.

Most of these users are just wanting information, but a significant percentage of them are bordering on trolls.
Every time someone makes a post which demonstrates the advantages of PE in the bedroom, some juvenile, small ego fucker has to jump on the thread and drag up
the same old troll arguments.

1. "Women can't estimate size"

This is used imply that because women in general don't estimate size well (of their boyfriends lie about their size), that their estimate mistakes are somehow mirrored in what
they feel in their vaginas. Women don't "mistake" the feeling of a guy's size. That is just stupid, ego pandering rubbish. It doesn't even make sense.

2. "All women who like big dicks are size queen freaks"

This argument is also used in order to marginalise women who prefer larger penises, paint them as a freakish minority of the female population, and allow the poster to delude himself that 99% of women
won't care about the benefits of PE.

3. "Cow pussy!"

Ugh. I really detest this frat-boy phrase. Assuming that any woman who can take a big dick is loose, and that the average woman couldn't possibly handle it is just a demonstration of sheer ignorance of female anatomy, and makes the poster sound like he's 15.

4. "They're all sluts"

Again, trying to portray women who enjoy size as whores is not only illogical, but is an attempt to drag down women for their sexual preferences. What about a woman who has a well endowed husband, and has only ever slept with him? Is she a whore too? Are you a whore because you like a tight vagina? Grow up.

Ultimately, the purpose of this forum is to learn. To learn about PE, sex, life, and other interesting shit. If you want to refuse to acknowledge that PE gives you an advantage, and focus on your ego, instead of accepting reality, and improving your situation with PE, then fine, but please stay off threads which you only join in order to vent your ego-driven anger at another poster who is simply stating the truth.

In short, if you can't be positive, or keep quiet, go join a group for angry men who want to bitch about womens' sexual preference.

I honestly think most women don't care much about size. For the average woman, it probably ranks somewhere past 10th most important thing she is looking for a in a guy. HOWEVER, the average woman also doesn't care much about sex either, but for the average guy sex is the number 1 most important thing.

So to me the real question is, does size matter to the small percentage of women who actually care about sex, and I think the answer is yes, it matters a lot. And since those are the only women I care about (I'm not gonna waste time with someone who doesn't have the same priorities as me), why would I ask the opinion of the majority who don't care much about sex in the first place?

ShadedSam;582712 said:

I honestly think most women don't care much about size. For the average woman, it probably ranks somewhere past 10th most important thing she is looking for a in a guy. HOWEVER, the average woman also doesn't care much about sex either, but for the average guy sex is the number 1 most important thing.

So to me the real question is, does size matter to the small percentage of women who actually care about sex, and I think the answer is yes, it matters a lot. And since those are the only women I care about (I'm not gonna waste time with someone who doesn't have the same priorities as me), why would I ask the opinion of the majority who don't care much about sex in the first place?

Click to expand...

Sounds like you've been dating the wrong women. Almost all of my past girlfriends cared about sex, and often initiated it. I think the majority of women enjoy sex a lot, at least the ones I've dated. I do agree with you that size is not even in the top 3 qualities most women look for, but you get guys here saying it doesn't matter at all, which is more them trying to convince themselves than actual experience talking.

concur with all what Tiger said. There's a lot of misogyny running in this forums, be it owed to mental immaturity or to really bad experiences (usually hugely exaggerated in their validity as general rule). In almost every case it reflects a profound insecurity, sometimes deeply covered by a "machismo" stance, that plays with derogatory vocabulary and faked self-consciousness. Could explore this in a lot more elaborated manner, but I don't have the time nor am I willing to engage in smud fight.

WildTiger;582714 said:

Sounds like you've been dating the wrong women. Almost all of my past girlfriends cared about sex, and often initiated it. I think the majority of women enjoy sex a lot, at least the ones I've dated. I do agree with you that size is not even in the top 3 qualities most women look for, but you get guys here saying it doesn't matter at all, which is more them trying to convince themselves than actual experience talking.

Click to expand...

Most "Girls" want allot of sex. Most "Women" could care less. Women just want to be loved and appreciated and they will give you sex in return if you give them that, I am still trying to understand this. Of course woman hit that age where they are horny more often then men.

ShadedSam;582712 said:

I honestly think most women don't care much about size. For the average woman, it probably ranks somewhere past 10th most important thing she is looking for a in a guy. HOWEVER, the average woman also doesn't care much about sex either, but for the average guy sex is the number 1 most important thing.

So to me the real question is, does size matter to the small percentage of women who actually care about sex, and I think the answer is yes, it matters a lot. And since those are the only women I care about (I'm not gonna waste time with someone who doesn't have the same priorities as me), why would I ask the opinion of the majority who don't care much about sex in the first place?

Click to expand...

I read a study that was done about how women prefer tall men with a large flaccid penis. When I shot ���� (Insert name dropping here)>>>*Bang Bros, Monsters of Cock, Reality Kings, 8th Street Latinas*, I asked most of the actresses what was the perfect size dong and I used a dollar bill (6.14 inches long) for reference and a majority said that the dollar was at the perfect length, especially the Monsters of Cock actresses.

WildTiger;582714 said:

Sounds like you've been dating the wrong women. Almost all of my past girlfriends cared about sex, and often initiated it. I think the majority of women enjoy sex a lot, at least the ones I've dated. I do agree with you that size is not even in the top 3 qualities most women look for, but you get guys here saying it doesn't matter at all, which is more them trying to convince themselves than actual experience talking.

Click to expand...

Sounds like you have been dating young girls and not women. Or dating women in their peak. Most girls that fuck all their younger years away don't care about cock when they become women, this is a known fact.

LIGHTNING;582720 said:

Sounds like you have been dating young girls and not women. Or dating women in their peak. Most girls that fuck all their younger years away don't care about cock when they become women, this is a known fact.

Click to expand...

And you would know this better than anyone

doublelongdaddy;582732 said:

And you would know this better than anyone

Click to expand...

Im the master at not getting pussy any longer.

LIGHTNING;582740 said:

Im the master at not getting pussy any longer.

Click to expand...

yeah right...you not only get pussy but you get select grade!

doublelongdaddy;582748 said:

yeah right...you not only get pussy but you get select grade!

Click to expand...

Yeah I was the master at that a couple years ago when the relationship was new. Sex gets old I guess for pretty much everyone no matter who you are with. I need to read some sex relationship posts now lol.

LIGHTNING;582753 said:

Yeah I was the master at that a couple years ago when the relationship was new. Sex gets old I guess for pretty much everyone no matter who you are with. I need to read some sex relationship posts now lol.

Click to expand...

.....Stanley do good job

There's a lot of misogyny running in this forums, be it owed to mental immaturity or to really bad experiences (usually hugely exaggerated in their validity as general rule). In almost every case it reflects a profound insecurity, sometimes deeply covered by a "machismo" stance

Click to expand...

This is right on. Most people get into PE for one of two reasons (with some overlap) --

1) to further their power/virility in the sense of 'Mens sana in corpore sano' (the Greek concept of "a Strong Mind in a Strong Body"). Knowledgeable, Strong, Capable, ... Hung. It all follows. Competency and the ability to, whatever the subject, Conquer .. are all genetic imperatives for the top males .. as those things are all sought and desired by the top females. Being able to cause more anticipation and bring more pleasure .. to Conquer the sexuality .. of a partner would tend to aid in loyalty/fidelity, and as genetic imperative it's essential to the male that their own children be born from their mates, not someone else's with whom they've sneaked around and cheated with. Using your own labor to unknowingly raise another guy's offspring, while you yourself having none, is just right-out at the the genetic level. It's like murdering the life-efforts of every ancestor that put you there.

2) At some point in the past, one or more partners, or potential partners, have told the person that they were 'small', ... or insultingly to some .. even "average".

To be called 'small', as a male, is insulting. It's akin to 'weak', 'incapable', 'undesirable'. It might or might not be true, but anyone with some testosterone in their system would want to 'solve' that, because solving (conquering) things is the very definition of virile male energy. It's not just ego, it's hardwired in the cells. And of course most people would want to be well-thought-of, rather than poorly-thought-of.

Logically, -most- people are Average, .. that's just statistically what 'average' is .. but if someone is above average/great at everything else they do ... being thought of as "Average" at something is annoying. Something, again, to be solved.

[And just ahead of time to say ... status can be changed, both up and down, so don't think of these terms as accusational or insulting, they're just points of reference and comparison.]

But in the Beta male, a long series of such annoyances, to which their response has been mostly one of passive-aggression or inaction, and therefore failure and resentment, .. rather than in the more Alpha male an action-taking, active betterment, and subsequent success .... the Beta male builds up a character of either anger or acquiescence. They have a baseline of remaining self-esteem beneath which they do not want to be further 'pushed'. Their lack of success, or sufficient success, would indicate that they should restock and resurge in a different or better way. But stuck in a spiral, things becomes 'other people's fault' -or- 'beyond their capacity' .. and their tendencies for inaction, and for anger (or acquiescence) pattern and repattern, layer upon layer, until it's most of their character-script.

Eventually they can even Conquer the former matter of the failure (weakness, ignorance, inability, penis size) but yet still retain and act-out the original feelings of anger or powerlessness, rather than -already mentally or physically equipped- go on to thrive and rise above it.

As an extra matter, because the histories of either success or failure are, upon examination, related ... such conditions of character: assuredness/confidence, friendliness, happiness .. are the TOP several things that females look for in a Male. Anger and feelings of inability/patterns of inaction - not so much. "Penis size" as a singular thing, true or not, there is social pressure on the female (not to be 'a slut') to demure and say 'No'. But for the Male, penis size can be very directly linked to confidence, and therefore success at all manner of subjects, and therefore happiness, and therefore friendliness, gregariousness, .. etc, .. the Precise things that females want in a mate.

Indeed an angry male mate is the last thing a mentally and physically healthy female would want, because even a Beta male (because it's a patterned perception rather than necessarily a physical reality) is still 33% stronger than her on a pound-for-pound basis, .. plus Twice her size. We're frikkin SCARY to chicks. We're huge. We're stronger. We're more aggressive. A great smile and conveyance of a friendly character is one of the best first things to have be shown. We might be dangerous, but if friendly we're not dangerous to them, which they in our company then equals not potential peril .. but the exact opposite - protection and security.

The guys who can make the jump back onto the tracks will take their new higher ability (at whatever matter) to stop failing and to go resurge, conquer and thrive.

In those stuck in their patterns though, per WildTiger and Satyr's observations, derision and dehumanization of the entire female gender is of course one of the fallouts. Angry over previous failures (or hyperbolic attacks), and feeling as though they cannot do anything to change it (which is just in their head) it comes out caustically, aimed at people (the chicks) who are largely just operating on their innate DNA imperatives .. they way 'you' should be, and the caustic response just perpetuates the issue, making it bigger and even further ingrained as a pattern.

I wanted to go a couple of other places with this but getting distracted by daytime stuff, forgot what I was going to say..

There are of course castrating toxic chicks out there, ... a head full of bad script themselves, they'll fight in dirty ways, trying to harm the psyche of someone to make themselves feel good. But you have no control over that. The only thing you can control is your reaction to it.

Either call them what they are, .. idiots, ... or if you feel like you want to ... go change the circumstance, grow in knowledge or competence or strength or .. size, until any possible future attempt at such an attack would just be laughable. That's my answer. After a lot more than my fair share, and all of those declaring it the most they'd ever came etc, some psycho -thrilled with the sex-- nonetheless, mad about some drama, wanted to have a go at me the best she could figure out ... called me, at 6.5", 'average'. It almost is, quite a bit to the high side, but she meant it as an attack, and I took issue with it. The last time I saw her in person it was accidentally at a bookstore, she and her shiny new fiance. She burst into tears and ran out of the building, the bewildered guy chasing after her. What better way to tell the world that you're happy with your life-choices than by bursting into tears and running out of a public building? -- LOL. Meanwhile now I'm at 9, and everyone (except you) has certainly enjoyed the hell out of that, so .. a BIG thanks from them, and .. eat me. :cool:

I asked most of the actresses what was the perfect size dong and I used a dollar bill (6.14 inches long) for reference and a majority said that the dollar was at the perfect length -Lightning

Click to expand...

Chicks really aren't amazing at estimating physical things. I always recall a "20/20" episode where they were (standing next to it - looking at it) asking guys and gals how wide they thought the Mississippi river was there at New Orleans. The guys were pretty accurately guessing half a mile, the gals were saying 100 yds or even a 100 feet. (OMG). That's off by 9 to 26 times. (!!) '100 feet across', .. it's a staggering 200 feet DEEP. (Anyway).. A US dollar is 6.14 inches long, but it's also 2.61 inches Wide ... which as a penis would be a girth of 8.2 inches .. which is bigger than a soda can. It's possible that secondary dimension, not in discussion but there in observation, had something to do with the replies..?

I think if you did a test of banging a sample group of warmed-up sexually interested chicks with two penises, one @ 6.14 by (say) 5 ... and the other @ something more like (by PE standards still just medium) 7.6 by 5.7, .. after they finished quivering, and uncramping their legs and toes, over having the second penis .. they'd express that they preferred it.

I'm 33, and I've had sex with women from 18 (when I was 24) all the way to 31 (when I was 23). I really haven't noticed this disinterest in sex which is being mentioned in the thread. Good sex is just as vital as real love in maintaining a relationship with a woman. Thats been my experience. Others obviously have a difference experience, but to say women aren't interested in sex...its just not what if reflected in my own experiences, or what I have heard from my mates (I'm Australian).

Asanon;582766 said:

Chicks really aren't amazing at estimating physical things. I always recall a "20/20" episode where they were (standing next to it - looking at it) asking guys and gals how wide they thought the Mississippi river was there at New Orleans. The guys were pretty accurately guessing half a mile, the gals were saying 100 yds or even a 100 feet. (OMG). That's off by 9 to 26 times. (!!) '100 feet across', .. it's a staggering 200 feet DEEP. (Anyway).. A US dollar is 6.14 inches long, but it's also 2.61 inches Wide ... which as a penis would be a girth of 8.2 inches .. which is bigger than a soda can. It's possible that secondary dimension, not in discussion but there in observation, had something to do with the replies..?

I think if you did a test of banging a sample group of warmed-up sexually interested chicks with two penises, one @ 6.14 by (say) 5 ... and the other @ something more like (by PE standards still just medium) 7.6 by 5.7, .. after they finished quivering, and uncramping their legs and toes, over having the second penis .. they'd express that they preferred it.

Click to expand...

Well its well known that men have much better spatial awareness. This is probably because back in the day as tribal hunters, we had to judge distances more often. Throwing a spear at an animal required that. Avoiding an attacking animal's charge required that. Women were feeding babies, gathering plants, and maybe setting traps for small animals back then.

LIGHTNING;582719 said:

I read a study that was done about how women prefer tall men with a large flaccid penis. When I shot ���� (Insert name dropping here)>>>*Bang Bros, Monsters of Cock, Reality Kings, 8th Street Latinas*, I asked most of the actresses what was the perfect size dong and I used a dollar bill (6.14 inches long) for reference and a majority said that the dollar was at the perfect length, especially the Monsters of Cock actresses.

Click to expand...

I appreciate and respect your experience, Lightning, but there is one thing you're not factoring in here. These women are being paid to have sex with these men in front of other people (the crew). They probably don't even find the men attractive to begin with. That is a completely different situation to when a woman thinks a guy is hot, and is having sex with him in private situation. The care factor about what he is bringing to the party is going to change dramatically.

LIGHTNING;582718 said:

Most "Girls" want allot of sex. Most "Women" could care less. Women just want to be loved and appreciated and they will give you sex in return if you give them that, I am still trying to understand this. Of course woman hit that age where they are horny more often then men.

Click to expand...

That not only hitting the nail dead on the head but knocking it straight through the board your hammering it into.

@Asa: I love your thoroughly written posts and always wonder how you manage to find the time to conduct their edition.
Nonetheless I'm very sure, that complex social behavior can't be reduced to biological patterns only (which is what your explanations seem to suggest), though they they play their eminent role for sure. But the genesis and the influence of cultural norms and the institutions that represent them (which again can't be convincingly reduced to a material substrate only) are habitually determining factors, too. In fact biological or more generally material variables on the one hand and cultural or ideal ones on the other reciprocally "mediate" each other (and as well counteract each other, for that matter). There's a dialectical component to every analytical truth. Although I'd love to go into detail on this, I can't right now, just wanted to point that out because such naturalistic approach often serves an incrustation of stereotypes of any kind since it renders every phenomenon as natural fact and therefore fatally and inevitably resistant to intentional transformation (not to transformation per se).

@Lightning: with all due respect but I beg to differ. That women aren't interested in sex and just want to be loved is just not true. I don't know from experience how women and girls in the States are ticking but it certainly doesn't apply to the women I've met here (Germany) or in other European countries I've been. (On a side-note: I've heard from different friends who traveled to the US that espec. younger girls are overcompensating the restrictions they were/are subjected to in a sexually less open society by being very lusty) And I'm 32 so I had a lot of time to meet "real women" and not only "girls". Also I doubt seriously that ���� actresses are a valid representation of women's interests in general. You said yourself that especially monsters of cock actresses were more inclined to average sized (lengthwise) dicks, so where does that point us to? Seems to me it's more likely that professionals tend to be supersaturated in terms of getting oversized cocks (or fake cocks).

Nonetheless I'm very sure, that complex social behavior can't be reduced to biological patterns only

Click to expand...

Well there being no junk DNA, you have things being investigated now such as a child's nightmares about wolves, for example, (when all they've ever seen is maybe muppets on PBS) being epigenetically sourced because her great-great-grandmother was attacked by wolves 100 years ago. They say these intelligences (at varying levels and pristinities) go all the way back millions of years. So biology can go a looong way. It's most important imperatives .. mate-selection and such, even more so.

But that's not quite what i was saying. Successes or failures, when repeated, form expectations for the same effect in the future. For successes .. this brings effects which cascade, build upon themselves, into most things females are wired to find attractive in the male: happiness, confidence, dominance, longer-term goal setting .. and for larger goals ..

Repeated failures, or repeated give-ups or never-trys because of expectation of failure, habituates the opposite outcomes.

There's not 'biology -or- culture', writ large these things become each other, .. and at the individual scale one's reactions to their experiences forms their character, and thus informs their psychological leakage (friendliness or hostility, warmth or coldness, confidence or nervousness, vast etc) through body language, tone, actions, word selection, and even smell .. the observations of which are available to the subconscious and often conscious of anyone watching.

It's the expectations of an unavoidable insuperable future negative result, though, that is in error. Habits can have a difficulty in breaking, but all of that is mental [and chemical*] ... not any predestined cosmological fate. No one needs different parents to conquer a goal, all they need is the dedication for an increase in their competence .. and an active handle on their attitude.

[*there's dog wagging tail and tail wagging dog, though, on the chemistry, .. so it too is a specious rationale for excusing protracted failures.]

Then their patterns of success will increase, along with the expectations for further future successes, and subsequent increases in happiness, friendliness, .. less angry derision ... , etc ...

Somewhere in the last paragraph I remembered one of the other points I wanted to mention. Energy levels. Everything is energy, the concept of 'matter' isn't even real beneath the classical boundary. As if the above isn't enough of a hurdle .. if someone gets it going in the wrong direction, most people (of either gender) tend to not be attracted as either friend or mate to anyone of a lower energy. Discordance of energies are offputting. Heck one of the both equipollent and subsequent associations to discordance is directly incompatibility.

When this stuff started getting out 20 or so years ago, every pop-psych joker under the full moon started trying to howl their pallid version of it into print, but you can see it in photographic techniques, infrared for one, kirlian, darkfield .. there are scales (charts) out somewhere which seem reliable as to how the various emotional states are stratified in relation to each other. I'll see if I can post a pic or two when i get a chance.

What we eat, what we do, how we feel, changes that from one minute to the next. Or can. It won't change on its own unless the person, their ens and esse, their (back to the tennis book for a second) .. their "I" and their "myself" change first.

how you manage to find the time to conduct their edition

Click to expand...

I don't. LOL. Half the time I'll get halfway into a post and then have to bail, typically Pasting it out to a draft and never getting back to it. -- I'd like to get into the 'women wanting it or not' thing but have to run. Quick version: per all of the above, either they won't want it ... or they can't help themselves from wanting it. And both of those things can exist in the same chick, in the same hour, given the wrong or right dude for her. Their selectivity, choosiness, will typically increase with some age, and then later decrease again past another range of age. Younger chicks can be less choosy. Some of this is exuberance, some of it is just a lack of wisdom. (Supposedly the number of people who get tattoos on their neck plummets to essentially zero past the age of 25, for example.) If a chick is in a non-choosy state, the acceptable pool of potential sexual partners is larger, if they're in a highly choosy state .. you might have to be the reincarnation of their favorite uncle from his Navy days (or whatever) to have a shot. But the more indicators for positive emotional and physical traits the dude can demonstrate, the larger his pool of potential partners, and the higher his likelihood of getting the exact same chick that just ran ten other dudes off. Knock down their 'armor' and the panties go with it. Age (or mood) aren't 'truths' regarding sexual receptivity, they're just modifiers.

Asa: you don't really contradict my claims as I understand it though I'm a bit skeptic about the various terminological conventions you stress at the same time in one gigantic post
What "really" is "beneath" something else and what above is a very difficult question that can't simply be answered in terms of energy or force or culture or matter, being or thinking. Even the question is posited in a wrong way in my humble opinion: one should - in a most abstract sense -ask what is between the manifold oppositions that define our canon of theoretical explanations and how they interact. Then again this is something which I read out of your lines and which I addressed above.
Cheers

btw: interesting read as usual despite some irritations