When it comes to sex. Not relationships.
I was in a late evening hookah bar reading Lolita and a pair of women and one of their boyfriends took a table next to mine. They were pretty loud and boisterous. I eavesdropped occasionally, mostly unintentionally as I was trying to read through my book. Eventually the woman who wasn't with her boyfriend talked about how boring sex with her ex was. The boyfriend, a bit drunk, bothered her for details. His loud insistence eventually persuaded her to list off a couple of reasons, and when she landed on size there was a laugh from the group. The man grew noticeably quiet after that and the subject immediately changed. It was an awkward moment for the group, or at least somewhat awkward.
I've always thought that there is little attention paid to how frequently and how much "size" discussions occur. When men talk about it it's either in some sickly erotic BDSM/Exhibitionist/Exploitation standpoint or deafness/ignorance. I'm pretty sure that it's always been a topic for women and it's frequently mentioned and/or bragged about. The difference is that in the 21st century it is now much more in the open, and re-emphasized as more important. It shows a power shift dynamic from men to women when it comes to open lewdness.
I guess you might say turnabout is fair play. And there's a point to that. Women are frequently displayed in open sexual nature on billboards and in movies. I think this is especially noticeable in the film industry; I can think of four male actors who still work who are some of the greatest at their craft, but only one woman of a similar caliber (Meryl Streep). However, it seems to me that the quality of this openness is fundamentally different.
As Jason Segel said in an interview for his movie "Forgetting Sarah Marshall," if one looks at any listing of porn videos you'd find an assortment of women, ranging from very young to very, very old, from fat to thin, small titted to big titted, pretty to ugly, but unless you're watching something exploitative the man almost always has an enormously big dick. This consistency becomes depressing only when one considers the inherent inequality that is on display. Any woman, regardless of "what" she is, can get laid. The same cannot be said for any man as a universal prerogative.
The conclusion is thus: Women are to be loved, men are to be judged. The formal factor that determines this judgement is penis size. A great lover can come with any equipment. A good go at foreplay can do wonders in the bedroom. However, having a big dick automatically qualifies a man to be put into the universally loved category while not having one means that the entitlement that comes with that is simply not available to men.
Now, usually men place a bigger emphasis on sex than most women. So it probably means less to the average woman to be in this universally loved category, but that probably makes it worse for an average man who does put an emphasis on sex (read: nearly every man). A woman has access to this category (sex), but has a choice on how much to partake in it.
I don't think that women grasp this concept. The resentment doesn't come from the fact that women find big dicks attractive or sexy like some (and it's only some) men find big breasts attractive. It's that it's a signaling component of life experience that entitles some over others.
Meanwhile, the life experiences removed from women (like the military, or sports) are corrected through societal measures to promote an umbrella of inclusion. I am not indicting this social correction either way. I'm merely saying that to see inclusive measures help one sex and not help the other becomes corrosive on the spirit. Why would one want to live in a world where you are judged undesirable or incapable? Especially for something that means so much as sex does?
The answers seem to be twofold:
1. Sex doesn't mean that much. Which is a pill that nobody really believes in.
or
2. This is just the way things are. Which puts questions on the extent or value of equality in society.
I realize that I'm significantly generalizing here from just a sample discussion that I didn't really know the context of. I guess I think that the penis size issue in the minds of women and men is on a different wavelength. If there are discussions to be had on collective morality and right and wrong then I think it's something that should at least be discussed. If not, that's fine too, nobody has a responsibility to assuage an idea if they don't want too. But for me, I find it hard to justify existence in the face of such discussions sometimes.
I do PE for two reasons: The first is out of a fear of losing out to evolution and life experience assuming the unfairness of the world and sheer violence accompanied. The second is out of a desire to simply be the best I can for the women I'm with. I think that the latter is the healthier path, but the former seems to be what actually is. If so, PE becomes becomes one of the few threads with which I can justify my existence. Am I wrong?
I was in a late evening hookah bar reading Lolita and a pair of women and one of their boyfriends took a table next to mine. They were pretty loud and boisterous. I eavesdropped occasionally, mostly unintentionally as I was trying to read through my book. Eventually the woman who wasn't with her boyfriend talked about how boring sex with her ex was. The boyfriend, a bit drunk, bothered her for details. His loud insistence eventually persuaded her to list off a couple of reasons, and when she landed on size there was a laugh from the group. The man grew noticeably quiet after that and the subject immediately changed. It was an awkward moment for the group, or at least somewhat awkward.
I've always thought that there is little attention paid to how frequently and how much "size" discussions occur. When men talk about it it's either in some sickly erotic BDSM/Exhibitionist/Exploitation standpoint or deafness/ignorance. I'm pretty sure that it's always been a topic for women and it's frequently mentioned and/or bragged about. The difference is that in the 21st century it is now much more in the open, and re-emphasized as more important. It shows a power shift dynamic from men to women when it comes to open lewdness.
I guess you might say turnabout is fair play. And there's a point to that. Women are frequently displayed in open sexual nature on billboards and in movies. I think this is especially noticeable in the film industry; I can think of four male actors who still work who are some of the greatest at their craft, but only one woman of a similar caliber (Meryl Streep). However, it seems to me that the quality of this openness is fundamentally different.
As Jason Segel said in an interview for his movie "Forgetting Sarah Marshall," if one looks at any listing of porn videos you'd find an assortment of women, ranging from very young to very, very old, from fat to thin, small titted to big titted, pretty to ugly, but unless you're watching something exploitative the man almost always has an enormously big dick. This consistency becomes depressing only when one considers the inherent inequality that is on display. Any woman, regardless of "what" she is, can get laid. The same cannot be said for any man as a universal prerogative.
The conclusion is thus: Women are to be loved, men are to be judged. The formal factor that determines this judgement is penis size. A great lover can come with any equipment. A good go at foreplay can do wonders in the bedroom. However, having a big dick automatically qualifies a man to be put into the universally loved category while not having one means that the entitlement that comes with that is simply not available to men.
Now, usually men place a bigger emphasis on sex than most women. So it probably means less to the average woman to be in this universally loved category, but that probably makes it worse for an average man who does put an emphasis on sex (read: nearly every man). A woman has access to this category (sex), but has a choice on how much to partake in it.
I don't think that women grasp this concept. The resentment doesn't come from the fact that women find big dicks attractive or sexy like some (and it's only some) men find big breasts attractive. It's that it's a signaling component of life experience that entitles some over others.
Meanwhile, the life experiences removed from women (like the military, or sports) are corrected through societal measures to promote an umbrella of inclusion. I am not indicting this social correction either way. I'm merely saying that to see inclusive measures help one sex and not help the other becomes corrosive on the spirit. Why would one want to live in a world where you are judged undesirable or incapable? Especially for something that means so much as sex does?
The answers seem to be twofold:
1. Sex doesn't mean that much. Which is a pill that nobody really believes in.
or
2. This is just the way things are. Which puts questions on the extent or value of equality in society.
I realize that I'm significantly generalizing here from just a sample discussion that I didn't really know the context of. I guess I think that the penis size issue in the minds of women and men is on a different wavelength. If there are discussions to be had on collective morality and right and wrong then I think it's something that should at least be discussed. If not, that's fine too, nobody has a responsibility to assuage an idea if they don't want too. But for me, I find it hard to justify existence in the face of such discussions sometimes.
I do PE for two reasons: The first is out of a fear of losing out to evolution and life experience assuming the unfairness of the world and sheer violence accompanied. The second is out of a desire to simply be the best I can for the women I'm with. I think that the latter is the healthier path, but the former seems to be what actually is. If so, PE becomes becomes one of the few threads with which I can justify my existence. Am I wrong?
Comment