Published in PNAS ...
... where else?
Boffins bearing tape measures appear to have confirmed that in the trouser department, size really does matter. But it's not the only thing prospective mates are eyeing when they give chaps the once-over. In fact, todger size "interacts with body shape and height to determine male sexual attractiveness", so that a "greater …
Hand size is what counts, measure the distance between the top of your finger and the wrist.
A tall man with little hands, that's a give away to any woman that the guy is under endowed.
Heard that while working at home while the wife and the rest of the yummy mummy club were having a coffee morning. It's distressing that women can be so shallow.
"There is NO CORRELATION between hand size & penis size - it's just another urban myth."
Says the man with small hands. :p
<Quickly puts own hands in pockets so nobody notices their size>
Tra-lala-la. Nothing to see here. Move along.
Paris, because I gather she's seen a few men's, er, hand sizes.
>>."There is NO CORRELATION between hand size & penis size - it's just another urban myth."
> Says the man with small hands. :p
Says the man with large hands. :-)
Really, I have heard it all, supposed to correlate with nose size, ear size, arm length, forehead height (negatively). But I have heard good evidence, on good authority, that it does not correlate with anything else, and certainly not general size. Fred West for example, a bear of a man, had a small penis (it came out at his trial - no, not in that way).
What is very plausible though (and I've been told) is that a todger of any given size looks relatively larger on a smaller man.
Being 6'5" and 220lbs has always been fantastic for me. Yes the cool cars and overall badassness surrounding me doesn't hurt either. But there aren't that many women that have seen my penis. I've had my share of women but except for a couple of drunken romps in college I just don't go whipping my DNA cannon out for inspection. The women I've been with found me attractive before I pulled out the stiff one eye on them so unless you're running about with your dong on display or are being reviewed sans pants prior to sex I don't see how this study applies in a clothed civilization.
They didn't provide evidence that ALL women find larger penises more attractive. They found evidence that a small group of Australian women do. I believe these are the same women that are statistically most likely to sleep with a bloke on the first date, too. Perhaps the results would be different with a more prudish sample group.
I'll admit that the results of this study likely actually DO apply to Paris Hilton...
More to the point, it's a survey. Ask a conscious question, get a conscious answer. People will always rank on the variables when they're consciously ranking. Gaze analysis, skin galvanisation (for arousal) etc are much more objective ratings.
The problem is that woman aren't turned on by grey polygonads, so there is no objective measure to be made here.
The problem is that woman aren't turned on by grey polygonads, so there is no objective measure to be made here.
That's funny, I've never had any complaints from the many women who've had cause to fondle my smoothly curving grey checkered torso and genitalia. Oh yes!
"3" flaccid? Isn't everyone?"
The range of flaccid sizes is quite considerable. Some expand more than others - but the erections mostly end up within a close range for a given genetic population.
On a naturist holiday it was surprising to see a family of relatively small framed English men for whom "hung like donkey" was not just an optical illusion. As was said in M*A*S*H of the dentist - "wouldn't like to see that angry",
I had a girl friend, no make that a friend who was a girl, who'd taken a personal research project on the subject and didn't think much to normal stereotypes, she didn't think it varied much between the difference genetic populations.
You have to admires some people self sacrifice in the name of scientific research.
"she didn't think it varied much between the difference genetic populations."
Unless she really went for it, I don't think her sample size is as big as that of the major condom manufacturers, who sell smaller condoms in India, for starters. The same happens in quite a few places. She was wrong, due to insufficient data, that simple :)
(Obviously, they never mark them "small" and so forth, that would be a wonderful way to lose sales)
>MEN LIKE BIG TITS!!!!!!!
There is variation in men's preferences, just as there is in the body shape of those they fancy.
However, to paraphrase Dawkins, sexual selection accelerates evolution. Say you were a peacock with a big tail. Your mate is attracted to your big tail. She inherited that preference from her mother, so the chances are that her dad had a big tail too. Therefore your offspring will have two sets of genes for a big tail- those inherited from you, and those inherited from the father of your mate.
Apparently, when played out, this explains why the female preference is usually for a tail that is a little bigger than the population average.
-from the Explosions and Spirals chapter of The Blind Watchmaker.
"The popular science writer Richard Dawkins ...speculated in 2006 that the loss of the bone in humans, when it is present in our nearest related species the chimpanzee, is a result of sexual selection by females looking for honest signals of good health in prospective mates."
That's rubbish. It just wouldn't fit in the trousers, that's all.
"So the question is why do men have such enormous penises?"
If I recall correctly there was a theory that humans are the only primates that mate face to face. Seeing each others faces was considered part of the psychological bonding process. The suggestion was that the missionary position requires extra length in the penis compared to doggie fashion.
Wrote : "In other news: MEN LIKE BIG TITS!!!!!!!"
Yes, but there is a major difference in that a woman can show off her tit size to everyone, even in normal clothing. Men cannot reveal their dick size however until they have already pulled the bird to the point where it does not matter any more - on that occasion anyway.
Some here have claimed that women can tell even when you are fully clothed. I dispute that. For one thing flacid size is no indication of erect size. And having an erection in trousers is something I have always, often with great difficulty, tried to avoid - for one thing it hurts, and secondly you do not know how the girl is going to take it, particularly if you have not long met her, (unless, again, things have progressed to the point where it does not matter any more).
I remember a first date (dating club) when sitting down at a table in a pub I looked down her massive cleavage and got a hell of a boner. I was worried she might ask me to get up for a packet of peanuts, I couldn't have got across the room. I was looking out of the window for distraction; don't know what she made of me. I did see more of her after that ;-) but a pity she had bad breath .....
"there is a major difference in that a woman can show off her tit size to everyone, even in normal clothing"
A friend who was a natural 28AA was mortified when her cottonwool padding floated out of her bikini in the swimming pool. She used to wear very stiff cone bra cups for work and prayed they didn't get squashed.
"In other news:
MEN LIKE BIG TITS!!!!!!!
World-changing stuff. Who knew?"
Not fussed myself. I am perfectly happy with small ones, provided that the person that they are attached to is interesting. A nice smile and the ability to make you laugh, on the other hand, is like Kryptonite. Ok, I do agree with Sir Mixalot, on the other hand, but I wouldn't like anyone to know that I harbour such shallow thoughts...
... a small penis was considered to be a sign of intelligence and good breeding. Only those bestial barbarians were well hung.
Not sure where I am going with this other than to point out that eh... penis attractiveness does change dependent on cultural sensitivities. Or something.
Have a "thumbs up"!
So, you're saying that the ancients had a clear division between intelligence, refinement, shall we say beauty, and virility, lewdness, shall we say eroticism? Further, the correlation between penis size and other attributes of the ancients is exactly the same as suggested in the Register's headline. The cultures may be closer than you believe.
<- I'm saying nothing about this guy's size.
" penis attractiveness does change dependent on cultural sensitivities."
The Ancient Greeks (Athenians?) had a booming medical industry in foreskin extensions. It was considered bad taste for any part of the glans to be exposed. People whose cultures mandated circumcision needed extensive cosmetic surgery if they wanted to succeed in Greek society.
Classical statues show the Ancient Greeks' aesthetic ideal of a stylised small penis with a long prepuce - a "fireman's hose". The testicles are also shown as very compact. Modern day people judge statues on that understatement as seen in both ancient classical and the imitating neo-classical. They often claim that modern neo-realist sculptures' anatomical accuracy is "not real".
There's another theory that says classical statues are modestly endowed because of the self-consciousness of the patron. Do you want a statue in your home that has a bigger one than you? There have been documented cases of sculptures in the classical style being "reduced" for this very reason.
(Of course, this goes hand in hand with the observation that most men of average size believe they are smaller than average because foreshortening makes your own penis look short when you look down at it, compared to seeing another man's when he's naked and standing a modest distance away from you.)
... writing about the complimentary situation, in The Quest, also reckoned that more than one factor is likely to be involved.
They noticed that virginity was needed
To trap the unicorn in every case,
But not that, of those virgins who succeeded,
A high percentage had an ugly face.
"Perhaps unsurprisingly, they preferred men who were tall, long and V-shaped. Overall, body shape accounted for about 80% of the variation in attractiveness scores, penis size about 6% and height about 5%."
Also, the study doesn't take into account a few things. Such as the female participants may have been biased towards larger penis' based on sexual pleasure, or if you're a grower and not a shower you lose out, and finally other cultures where full clothing isn't typically worn.
So there you have it, unless you are short, O shaped, and have a grower rather than a shower then you might want to consider using a lot of socks.
Then again, if you are tall, V shaped, well endowed and drink too much of tasty beverage in the icon it'll all be for nothing as nothing is making the little private stand to attention.
Whilst a little glib this pop lyric sums up my experience and observation of human activity: women tend to like men who are well-paid, ambitious and, therefore, have enough resources to spend on a family (talking purely about long-term relationships, of course).
For one-night stands it's about pure pleasure so surely the tongue length is as, if not more, important as penis length?
Wrote : "women tend to like men who are well-paid, ambitious"
There is a a problem with that. Women must first be attracted to the man for other reasons to find those things out, because they are not apparent at first sight or even after a few dates. I have known women complain that they were with a partner for several months before they found out that they were in massive debt or that they did not even have a job ("working from home" but in fact playing computer games).
I have always been fairly well off, have risen to a senior job, and had some impressive cars too, but you can hardly go around with a sign round your neck saying it. And inside a social function, how do they know what your car is? In my twenties girls tended to ignore me (ie not pursue a conversation) in open social situations because there were always showier (ie louder, not necessarily better looking) guys around, and guys always outnumber girls anyway. All my GFs I met through dating clubs where the first date is essentially 1 to 1.
I have concluded that women like men who are "entertainers".
Nuke, they go by first impressions, and that means clothing and grooming. Back it up with some tricks and acting and it's another notch on the bedpost. Thing is women keep falling for the same tricks. They keep going for first impressions, even though they've got stung by it before.
"And inside a social function, how do they know what your car is?"
My car for many years was a Range Rover. Most women had no idea that they cost a fair bit to buy and run - so were not impressed. The ones who did know the cost said "Oh Mummy has one of those for shopping".
Wrote :- "My car for many years was a Range Rover. Most women had no idea that they cost a fair bit to buy and run - so were not impressed."
The impression can be negative. I know a guy with a collection of classics including Mercs, Jaguar XJS's, a Range Rover and even a Cadillac stretch limo. But for dates he has found it best to use a run-of-the-mill diesel Audi, and keeps his collection secret.
"women tend to like men who are well-paid, ambitious and, therefore, have enough resources to spend on a family (talking purely about long-term relationships, of course)."
Many women do, and they tend to be the shallow, callous, greedy types who then bitch and moan about 'all men are bastards' because men who are available and well-paid and ambitious find being an absolute bastard is the easy route to promotion and have not yet learned how to be a bastard at work and a loving, sensitive partner at home. This is made worse by such men seeing women as a necessary accessory to aid in their promotion prospects.
However, there are also men whose aim is to get laid as often as possible, and women who are seeking well-paid and ambitious men are easy pickings, simply because they are so shallow themselves. Cue cries of 'all men are bastards' again, as they're used and dumped.
Strangely, both kinds of 'bastard' tend to drive BMW's or Mercedes, although some have moved on to the Audi recently.
Oh, and as a boot note: Women might say they like tall, well hung men, but they are quick to complain that it's too big when it comes to the bedroom.
"a smaller penis was less of a detriment ... than it was to shorter or potato-shaped"
Seriously, I stood next to him @ airport luggage. Short guy and I am only 5'10".
Then again, I've seen him claim that he's invested his $ quite wisely, so he's got 2 things going for him at least.
p.s. Darn Reg changed the article thumbnail on me so now I ain't hardly original, am I?
I wonder if these boffins are missing something here. A larger penis may also indicate a semi-erect penis, which might indicate to the viewer that the penis-owner might be attracted to the viewer. And there's (often) nothing more attractive than having someone attracted to you, eh?
They might also compare smiling and non-smiling images.
The pictures accompanying the article are misleading. They imply that shorter men have smaller penises. It is my understanding that the range of penis sizes in a given genetic population is unrelated to their owners' heights.
As has been already pointed out - the flaccid size of a man's penis changes considerably dependent on various factors eg temperature.
Notwithstanding the differences in size of flaccid penises - their erect sizes are in a much closer range. Some expand more than others - but the majority end up pretty much the same size.
A friend fits the description of tall "hunk". His body is in proportion and his height is not obvious until you get close. However for her extra-marital flings his wife prefers short men - because their penis size "looks" bigger relative to their height.
As many have said - what about the grower vs shower issue?
There IS such a thing as "too big"
The hand size to penis size ratio is a fallacy, as is foot size to penis size, as is nose to penis (all told to me in girly chats over the years)
Girth is as important (if not more so) than length
However much you have, it's how well you use it!
Indeed, there's an "optimal" length there.
Too long and the cervix, not really known as an erogenous zone, risks getting bruised (as goes the glans actually). Thus "too" long means not fully entering the vagina.
On the other hand, fully entering brings the mons pubis into contact, or at least aids in stimulation of, the clitoris (in most of the face to face variations at least).
Girth is another matter but length, definitely a trade off taking place there.
"Gay guys are the real size queens... much more demanding than women in that regard."
It's sort of understandable, I hardly notice it unless it is slightly too big- unless it's almost too much, it tends not to be very interesting (though that might be partly because I like the slightly scared, submissive dynamic it brings :D). (WAY TMI, so AC all the way)
Having had to have the awkward "honey, maybe you should buy a bigger strapon" conversation, I was very glad that my partner isn't male. That would have been an unfortunate situation, rather than a hilarious one. I suppose if I was with a guy instead, and he didn't impress in that respect, I would have seemed terribly shallow, too, for looking elsewhere.
How is this research, funded by public money, in the public's interest? Why was this even funded in the first place?
This is EvoDevo research at its most useless
This project was funded by the Australian Research Council; ethics approval was granted through Monash University (MUHREC Approval CF11/1378 2011000764).
Just grumpy cos my last grant on a cancer project was refused.
And cos I have small hands.
AC wrote : - "Most women outside of a porn movie do not like big as it is uncomfortable at least if not painful."
Don't agree. I am big, and I have known women to be scared by it. But the important thing is to be gentle and then they end up unable to get enough of it. I gather that many men (of any size) are quite rough and inconsiderate.
"Being large in thr trouser department is bad. Most women outside of a porn movie do not like big as it is uncomfortable at least if not painful."
Maybe if you just try to ram it in, sure. Start off slowly, get everyone properly excited, and you will see some new facial expressions, and possibly hear some new swear words, after a little time. A little care and attention will allow you to deposit anything smaller than a medium-sized library.
Im just the right size, not too big, not too small, but while women claim they like big men, the reality is that they love the feeling of balls banging away on them.
I have been with girls where I have tickled their cervix and it can be more of a turn off if your a little too rough.
You only have to watch a bluey with a monster member where he's on the other side of the room. where's the fun in that!!
"Without this, even the biggest spam javelin in the history of humanity is unlikely to make much impression on the ladies."
Tell this to the iPhone toting Jeremy Kyle guests! An arguing couple, both as FUGLY as thatcher, the "girl" when asked why she continues to have unprotected sex with the monster, said "cause he's hung like a donkey".
Totally contradictory to what a tax payers report has said.
Without this, even the biggest spam javelin in the history of humanity is unlikely to make much impression on the ladies.
According to a couple guys I know who are rumored, and claim, to have extraordinary organs, a freakishly large tool tends to scare most women off. (Though I seriously doubt one of them has much experience in that department. If he does someone should tell his boyfriend.)
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019