Does size define masculinity?
Find a Conversation
Does size define masculinity?
| Sat, 10-29-2005 - 4:51pm |
Several threads over the last 6 months have got me wondering:
Does size define a guy's masculinity?
If you'd answer yes, then how much weight would you attribute to this physical feature in how you view a guy's masculinity?
If you'd answer somewhat, then what weight would you attribute to a guy's size in your list of masculine attributes both physical and personal?
If you'd answer no, then what attributes both physical and personal do you define as being masculine?
Blonde

Pages
I judge masculinity by a man's clothed appearance. My cues are things such as hair length and facial structure. Basically, if his hair is cropped nice and short and he has a masculine facial structure I will perceive him as being more masculine than a man with longer hair and a effeminate (sp?) facial structure.
I also look at things such as his build. Big shoulders and biceps give me the perception of masculinity. But not too big. Eg; body builders just look out of proportion (IMO) rather than masculine. Intonation and speaking patterns also persuade me one way or the other.
Penis size? I would already have my thoughts set in concrete by the time I see his penis. So, it would change nothing.
<>???
Bad news for me, my brothers, cousins and our own boys (who are now having children of their own). We all have long hair (about half of us wear braids) and most of us can't grow much in the way of beards. Most of us also have ear rings.
And when we walk a dark street, women tend to cross to the other side when they see our silhouettes coming towards them. The smallest of us is 5' 11" and most of us are described as "muscular", even in our 50's, and even with our long hair.
What is "masculine"??? As George puts it:
On the day i was born
The nurses all gathered round
And they gazed in wild wonder
At the joy they had found
The head nurse spoke up
Said "leave this one alone."
She could tell right away
I was bad to the bone
I broke a thousand hearts
Before i met you
I'll break a thousand more, baby
Before i am through
I wanna be yours, pretty baby
Yours and yours alone
I'm here to tell ya, woman
That i'm bad to the bone
I'll make a rich woman beg
And i'll make a good woman steal
I'll make an old woman blush
And i'll make a young girl squeal
I wanna tell you pretty baby
What i see i make my own
I'm here to tell you pretty woman
That i'm bad to the bone
Now when i walk the streets
Kings and queens step aside
Every woman i meet
They all stay satisfied.
I wanna tell ya, baby
What i see i make my own.
And i'm here to tell ya, pretty woman
That i'm bad to the bone
----------
Going back to my own words, I've found that women seem to care more about whether a man is "masculine", than if he's a "man". They find the "bad to the bone" boys to be masculine, and pay no attention to the man who will do whatever he has to do to do the right thing.
..."The book, A Mind of It's Own: A Cultural History of the Penis".. been-there dont believe everything you read. Im Sure not all world leaders, kings, generals, war heros, anciant roman gladiators had large penises, or were judged by them at all. Actions speak louder than a large penis to anyone with brains. Like anything else, a view or opinion of a man and his masculinity is in the eye of the beholder. To judge a man and how masculine he is by his penis size is a very shallow view , at best. It makes for good locker room banter, but then we arent talking about Einstien type conversations here either. I was a college athlete, and am fully aware of the BS spewed by "young" men and their belief that a big penis is all they need to please a woman....Ive never had an issue with my size because I am larger than average, and I have always been amused when unknowing immature men rave about some guys penis.
"The book, A Mind of It's Own: A Cultural History of the Penis, shows how all throughout history in cultures penis size has represented strength, power, masculinity, etc. He delves well into our course of history concerning the penis. It's as though DNA has programmed mankind to be this way from the beginning."
Having traveled alot I have seen the artifacts that would agree with this point, i.e. statues with huge penises were venerated in some places in the past. However, in many cultures a large penis was considered to be brutish and animalistic, i.e. in Ancient Greece males with smaller penises were considered to be much more masculine and ideal. And in Viking culture males that were too big were considered to be a laughing matter.
Blonde
I think the recent post about different cultural valuation of penis size is a legitimate consideration for this thread. As mentioned, some societies have perceived large penises as desirable, while others have valued smaller penises as masculine. I think that the modern American culture values large penises as desirable and more masculine.
To illustrate, I was getting ready to take a shower earlier this week in my house and disrobed in the bedroom. I walked past our large mirror and literally did the cartoon-double-take. It was quite cold in our house, and my penis had shrunk to comical proportions. For the record, I am tall with broad shoulders, and an athletic build. I play basketball a couple times a week, and work out about four times per week. I think generally I have some of the classic “masculine” characteristics, and have a slightly larger than average penis. Nevertheless, despite my contentedness with my appearance, and general self-confidence, I stopped in shock when noticing how small my penis looked in the mirror. I don’t feel as though my masculinity washed away in that moment, but I could not help but think my reflection looked less-masculine, and perhaps a bit juvenile. Perhaps as Blonde suggested, equating penis with masculinity is DNA-ingrained, but I think the cultural considerations were a partial stimulus for suddenly thinking I looked less-masculine in my shrunken-state.
Thank you. Out of all the posts I've made at this forum, many of them going indepth in an attempt to validate the true reality of things, you are the only one to say I might have a point worth considering. The politically correct atmosphere at this forum is quite strong, but detailed study and observation doesn't always back all of it up, and I run into brick walls when I point things out with details.
That post was just a general outlook, and mainly just to mention the book in case anyone would like to read it. I have that book, but haven't finished it yet. I've recently tried to find it so that I could finish it, but can't seem to locate it at this time since things have been moved around. I knows it's under something though.
>>Having traveled alot I have seen the artifacts that would agree with this point, i.e. statues with huge penises were venerated in some places in the past. <<
I'm not sure that I buy into that view completely. Powerful phallic objects like columns and stuff representing the penis. I'm inclined to think that it is wishful thinking on the part of many anthropologists.
Honestly, if you lived in a society that did not have hi-tech engineering, space-age materials, and an incredible amount of resources (materials and labour), what would you build that looked impressive, and was pretty simple to erect? You'd build a column made of stone or wood. What else looks as impressive as a tall column and is as easy and economical to erect? If you had thousands of labourers that you could kill off during the building process and time and money, you'd expand the tall column and build something tall AND wide - a pyramid or a city or a dome (think Pantheon).
A column is a quick and easy way of building something that makes people go "Wow!". You go high vertically as high as you can. To get bigger and more impressive you have to go tall AND wide in three dimensions and covered a larger area. Maybe erect several columns in a square and put a roof on top, or more domes and columns on top of that - mayan and asian temples etc. Most european cathedrals are, at their most basic, just a collection of columns with a roof on top of more columns and a roof.
So I think that those that say that every column you see is just a big phallic symbol are mistaken. It sounds like a good theory though.
Does size define masculinity? Should culture really decide for us what defines our masculinity? It shouldn't, for when it comes down to it who we are comes from within. However, it is very difficult to not care what our peers think, what our culture thinks, about us. I don't know Blonde, but you seemed to indicate you may think there is a balance in history between the number of cultures that considered a big penis as masculine, and the cultures that considered a small penis as masculine. It's not even close. Of course one can then take the stance Humpdaddy does, and undermine the book without having read it and seeing how much research the author has gone into. It's true, one can't believe everything we read, but it's also true we can believe some things we read. Some things in history, and I'm not just talking about penis, we know happened as it is recorded history.
How much it matters in a culture can also be dictated by one's perception. In other words, how much emphasis I perceive our culture as putting on it may be different from someone elses. Perception and what to accept as truth can be very tricky. I don't believe I have all the answers, but I read and study because I want to be as accurate as I can be in my opinions. I pay close attention to some things it seems that almost everyone will miss, or if they notice it they don't say anything.
Let me give an example. This example may not be considered valid by some, but at least it shows how things are not always as they perhaps seem, and that at least an inconsistency should noticed and not blindly accepted just because we like what the poster said. One should have at least think about it before accepting something (anything, not just penis discussions.
Here's the example (I know this pertains to size, but it's a good example):
How often have you read females post that "size doesnt matter". Fair enough. But then some, after having just said size doesnt matter, will continue and say something that doesn't fit their statement, or at least should raise an eyebrow for readers who think about what is being said. Females continue, "I'll take an average size that knows how to use it over a bigger size that doesn't". Inconsistency. Why did she feel the need, when comparing, to have the smaller one know how to use it and the bigger one not? If size doesnt matter to her, what's that all about? But the following posters won't even notice this a bit, and will post their agreements with her. I only partially believe her at this point though (it then indicates to me size matters at least a bit to her), or at least I have a reason to have doubt, but no one else seems to have noticed.
So that I hopefully can make myself perfectly clear. What if a woman asks me if breast size matters. Now, I start by saying breast size doesn't matter to me. Then I follow it up by saying I'll take a woman with a good personality and average breasts over a woman with a bad personality and big breasts. Shouldn't that raise an eyebrow? If breast size truly doesn't matter to me none whatsoever, then why would I bring personalty into this and put the good personality on the side with the smaller breast, and the bad personality on the side with the bigger breasts? It indicates I do have a preference after all. I may indeed not even realise I do, as I may be in denial. Often people hate to believe anything considered superficial has some control over them. Or I could just be lying, as one member here said about females in her dismissal of polls. One member here believes half of women lie on polls, but you can bet that member has always agreed with and never thought twice about any inconsistency when a woman post that size matters and then follows it up with something not quite in line with that statement.
Pages