Small dicked men are easily the most hated people on the planet. The sheer number of times someone is accused of having a small cock paints a pretty clear picture of how hated they are world wide. Small dicked men are bullied and shamed their entire lives and there's no sign of that ending any time soon.
So is suicide a reasonable reaction to this?
Why/why not?
>>29743544
death, painless death almost feels like cheating given the circumstances of our world
we are tied to the bonds we were given at birth to both man and nature, death cuts these bonds. To cut them before the time or for no good reason is a "crime", because it alleviates us from the task we have been willed from wherever to do. which by the way, is in itself insignificant, but on a large scale not so much
To embrace machinery is perhaps to begin the process of breaking the cruelty and rigidness of this world, to bow is to throw your fate with the random chance of nature
Am I justified in killing women? They're trying to kill me so would it count as self-defense? I know i wouldn't be legally covered but I would be morally covered in killing women, right?
>>29743591
Matryoshka brains, Artificial Intelligence and Transhumanism are perhaps solutions, ways to break the cruel and random way nature acts. Luddites often cite how man must be tied to nature as it is his "form", and straying away from it only makes the average man weaker, a relier on technology and thus not suited to the future, it is a pessimistic form of thinking, to give up ones hands to the random and unstoppable forces of chance and nature.
But that is not how humanity has rolled. For centuries the nations that have made history did not bow to nature, they did not let chance guide them, they forged their paths with the creations of man, admittedly somtimes inspired by nature. As we progressed we slowly bent the will of the world to our favour, and realised we had so much more uncontrolled. not in our grasp.
At this crossroad some want to give up, say this is the limit, but if we are to truly be free from as much cruel chance as plausible, then we must say no.
It is not mankind to bend to the will of the world. It is mankind that will shape it.
>>29743544
>Why/why not?
Because fuck other people and what they think. There's so much more to life than sex. Besides, it's not like anyone on this board is ever going to get laid anyway.
I'd wager that being short is a much worse curse than having a small dick.
>>29743705
Why is it worse? At least people know straight away that you're short. Small dicked men have to make some kind of connection and then get their hearts broken over and over and over again.
>>29743725
>Why is it worse?
Because, at least for a robot, it means more problems in life in general. People don't take you seriously, you earn less, you're automatically rejected by the vast majority of women and so on. Having a small dick only affects one very particular aspect of life that unless you have a micropenis can be manageable anyway.
>>29743701
tl:dr don't kill yourselfs, skynet/matrix is near
>>29743701
Ironic, considering /r9k/ is all about people complaining that their life sucks because of the hands they've been dealt.
>>29743544
The longer the dick, the more likely you are to be a virgin. The taller you are, the more likely you are to be a virgin.
It has a lot less to do with the size of the penis, and more to do with how that affects the owner psychologically. There are guys with big/average sizes that act like insecure pieces of shit just because they have a low IQ or whatever too, and guys with small ones that are still confident and aren't sore losers.
>>29743693
Everyone is trying to kill you, because you suck. You need to be put out of your misery sooner than others.
Why are you guys obsessed with penis size?
Who cares.
>>29743844
If your life sucks, try to go contribute to something that will make it not suck permanently
I'm planning to go into the AI industry If I can someday just for that.
Don't just complain about the hands you've been dealt, strike a blow at the person that gave them to you (not really a person, more like entity i guess)
>>29743884
Big tough man here.
>>29743888
Why are women? Every time someone does something bad the first thing women do is attack them for their penis size. How many times have people accused Hitler of having a small cock? Why is Hitler compared to me as an insult? Why do normies and women consider small dicks worse than genocide?
>>29743860
>because they have a low IQ
I find it's usually the other way around. Low IQ people don't generally give a shit or even really contemplate such things.
>>29743889
Tell that to the people complaining about "Chad" and "roasties" and whining that they aren't attractive or tall or have big dicks.
>>29743925
They sometimes realize they'll never understand things fully and get mad. They get to the point where they're actively willing to parasitize other people or harm them because they can affect them in some way. This includes trying to reproduce.
>>29743944
What's wrong with hating Chads and roasties? After a while a person notices that most of the hate they get in their lives comes from a certain subsection of society and it's totally reasonable to hate them.
At this point I am morally justified in going on a mass shooting because of their behavior.
>>29743967
You're morally justified in killing yourself, it's the best thing you can do with your life. It would be a travesty for you to pass along any part of yourself to some poor soul.
>>29743984
wooo, you're tough.
>>29743944
wish they'd do something about it
when the matrix is activated all of vapidity will scream, they will realise in this world man will be free of the damnation of the world, they will scream of everything from the terminator to the daleks to stop it, these vermin shall be left behind so that their children and enact vengeful hatred for their selfish ways.
The people of vapidity will make a lunge for "humanity" and "brotherhood" against the mechanical "menace" in time, mark my words, they will hold onto every vapid undeserving physical gift they were given, Those with the soundness of the mind or brain will likely see the lucidity and advantages of the new system.
>>29744009
I'm not the one trying to justify going on a shooting spree like a fucking 12 year old inbred.
>tfw 6' penis
>decided never to fuck a girl again
>one girl wanted to fuck
>told her my dick is small
>she just stood there speachless
>"haha didn't think you'll ever hear that?" thinking by my self
>she still wanted to fuck
>then I did a little speach how she would feel no plasure etc.
>she still wanted to fuck
>mfw women fuel on rejection
>licked her pussy anyway
can't wait to repeat it again with some other girl
I really decided not to fuck a girl again, it's just pathetic with a penor this small.
inb4 hurr mine is smaller, lel you than obviously never had sex before
>>29744031
forgot the complimentary average female vagina pic
>>29744018
I don't need to try to justify anything. It would be pure self-defense. I don't care what the enemy has to say about it because the enemy justifies all their behavior to themselves anyway.
>>29744031
>never had a small penis to begin with
>"hey things worked out good for me lad"
>>29744031
>6" penis
>small
>>29744098
The world is an arena and you couldn't broadcast harder to people that you are losing, even more so than the avg. robot. I implore you to play in traffic.
>>29744098
what you talking about? every one of 5 girls I fucked had a fucking tunnel (from my perspective), the moment she gets wet enough it's fucking over, it's like fucking air.
>>29744031
>6''
privileged cunt
>>29744135
I want to spread around my misery before doing that desu.
>>29744283
I guess the most I could have expected from you is to admit you're trash and that's why no one wants to fuck you.
>>29744421
I know you think you're being edgy or something, but this is really no different for me than watching TV.
"omg he told me to kill myself, just like all of society does every day, how insightful!"
>>29744462
No you did your job. Because of whatever humility that's left in your rotten soul, everyone knows not to follow by your example.
>>29744486
lol, are you a woman or something? Are just a normie that's getting angry because how shitty you are is being pointed out?
>>29743544
Well I honestly feel bad for tiny dick dudes.. 5 years ago it would have been okay but now all the girls watch porn and are raised hyper sexual from day one and they all have fetishes for being dominated or black dudes or whatever.. if you have a tiny dick now you may as well just accept your fucked and hopefully a big gay guy will make you his sub fag.
>>29744570
You didn't prove anything but your own worthlessness as a human being. You need to really sit down and think about how much the world doesn't need someone like yourself instead of validate your existence by being a threat to the general public. Stop being a fucking nuisance or just end it. Seriously I'd say the same thing to Elliot. Stupid piece of shit who's too used to hearing their own thoughts echoed back to them to see how far you've sunk.
>>29744588
K Y S
Y S K
S K Y
>>29744621
>threat to the general public.
omg no not the general public, the people responsible for literally every single problem in the world. They deserve to die.
>>29744652
I have met a lot of decent people with small dicks but most of them are retrograde, spiteful, hyper-aggressive little tools who would be better off with a god damn dirty cunt.
>>29744631
Sorry about your tiny dick dude
>>29744588
I dont feel sorry for them. They're freaks and it's good that girls are selectively breeding them out.
>>29744754
thanks, but still kys
>>29744730
Maybe they're bad people because they've been forced to deal with people like you their entire lives?
Normies are so retarded it's ridiculous.
>bully person their entire lives
>that person turns into an asshole
>"geez guys wots tis guys problem lol"
This is why you people deserve to die in mass shootings.
>>29744810
>hurr they're a normie because they're not a shitty person
Don't try to garner pity now you fucking sociopath. You don't speak for everyone here. You don't get bullied because of things you can't help, you get bullied because you are driven by insecurity, and instead of fixing what you can about yourself you want to inflict the fallout of that insecurity onto unsuspecting people. You're a parasite. Kys.
>>29744878
poor baby xxx
pm me hun
xxxx
>>29744810
Honestly tho what is it about having a tiny dick makes you not able to stick up for yourself. Everyone had to deal with shit talk and depending how you react determines if you keep getting bullied. Every autistic beta talking about being an ass hole because he was bullied is really saying I'm a tiny dick beta who couldn't learn to stand up for myself so it's everyone else's fault... honestly embarrassing when I see people say that shit
>>29744947
How are people even going to know I have a small dick? A person can be bullied over their small dick without ever telling anyone about it. They can see the bullying on TV/movies, hear it on the radio and read it online, in magazines or literature.
>>29744986
>How are people even going to know I have a small dick?
Acting like it sure helps. Wanting to rape or hurt people, abusing power.
>hurr Game of Thrones is dick shaming
>>29744986
Because all the betas who non stop complain have tiny dicks
>>29743544
It's just the easiest way to insult somebody. The reality is girls don't give a shit unless it's a literal micropenis (or they're shallow entitled sluts)
>>29745016
If a girl says your dick is too small, just say her vagina's too big. Seriously that's all. You can both walk away pissed off and unable to accept that the size is relative and it's nothing that can be predicted but for fuck's sake, don't let this govern your life because some people get fucking fisted.
>>29745015
>implying I'm dumb enough to complain out loud, especially about this.
Guaranteed death sentence.
>>29744031
>tfw 6' penis
>told her my dick is small
negro pls, that ain't no small dick
>>29745057
But you're smart enough to shoot up a mall or hide in the bushes waiting for Stacy to walk by like a nog.
>>29745057
Honestly man not even being mean but if you can legitimately get into cuckold porn it would help you out. Then you would get sexually turned on by being inferior genetically. I'm actually trying to help you.
I mean I would think you're a degenerate beta but it would probably turn you on so you wouldn't care.
>>29745061
maybe, but it's still inadequate, except if she has a tight vag or is a 12yo. Tight vag on a normal developed woman is like winning a lottery
>>29745135
>yfw your wife's son will prevent society's collapse
>>29744031
6 feet is pretty big senpai
>>29743544
depends on what you define a small penis, unless youre literally talking about an actual micropenis which is pretty rare.
not every guy is a pornstar, and i could garuantee that most men in relationships who have average or below penises
>>29743967
It's not just the hating on Chads and roasties, it's the complaining, the blaming of them for robots' lives being so shitty, not their own problems or laziness.
>>29745518
This, the Chad level people are TRYING to get you to hate them, it's when you think so low of yourself that you see everyone who's life doesn't completely suck as being on that level. It's perfectly understandable to be a misanthrope but be the change you want to see regardless of whether or not you "get yours" in life. You aren't owed anything by getting a shit hand, you owe it to the world to be honest with yourself and move on with your life instead of becoming a useless blight.
>>29744588
this. More girls are getting sexual from an early age, watching porn and generally have higher expectations of guys. While all girls are born with a tight pussy, unless we win the genetic lottery, we're born with an average or small dick and bigger is better right? If a girl isn't happy with your size she can just move on to a guy with a bigger dick. We're disposable.
>>29745554
>We're disposable.
That's how sexual reproduction works anon. Look at fish, and spiders. In mammals they're only bigger to protect their tribes and their offspring, it's an illusion.
>>29745580
yeah I know, its a depressing thought
>>29745590
No reason to be depressed. Both sexes are a double edged sword. Just enjoy yourself.
>>29745606
can't enjoy myself with a tiny dick and crippling social anxiety, senpai
>>29745554
I have a big dick and I'm gonna die alone regardless, everyone is disposable
>>29745632
Tiny dick, no dick, broken dick, who cares. And this whole system of reproduction is broken, so society is broken. No shame in feeling a sense of depersonalization, it's really weird. But you're not a normie, you still have insight into things.
I can't say just give up on love because maybe people really need that to kick things off in their head. But if so, that makes us even more broken as a species.
Small dicks are more comfortable than big dicks.
I ain't orgasming from penetration, honey, so your dick ain't everything. Skill with your fingers and tongue is a must. Otherwise, I'll have to do it myself, and then I may as well be single and masturbate, it'd be cheaper .
>>29745720
One of those, huh?
>>29745755
One of those what?
>>29745791
nawmsayin
>>29745811
No, I don't know what you're saying.
>>29744010
Say vapid again
>>29743820
Is it really that bad? I'm 5'7 and have a nice girlfriend and a pretty satisfying life. As long as you don't let your height make you insecure and unlikeable you shouldn't have any problems
>>29745507
Honestly when guys give this stupid advice about girls not caring it makes me cringe, I know a lot of girls who will make fun of other dudes they've fucked dicks they care a lot and I bet they say the same about me when they find a bigger one.. girls are all shallow man I promise all of them.
>>29743860
This. People are actually far more understanding than you'd think. The trouble is that many men who fret over having an 'undesirable' feature allow it to make them bitter and insecure. This demeanour makes them unlikeable, and whenever a personal setback occurs it's blamed on the feature and not the personality. It's a vicious cycle
>>29743889
This. As long as you can excel in one area, you'll probably be fine in the long run
tfw have a fetish for small dicks
tfw they are adoreable
>>29746032
I bet you deep down want a fat thick cock in you while youre held down
Is 6 inches too small? I don't want to be laughed at when I finally get laid.
>>29746109
If you're over 18 and a Virgin you're going to get laughed at anyway
>>29745994
Lol, so small dicked men should just expect women to be understanding of them? What a fucking joke.
>>29746199
>implying I can't lie
desu I can just tell everyone I'm not a virgin and done. If I fuck a girl she's going to be someone I don't know anyway so I don't give two fucks what she thinks.
>>29745720
Then why are women and their minions trying to kill all the small dicked men?
>>29746212
....yes? My best friend has a small dick (probably 4 inches - I know because he used to tell me about it when he was drunk and feeling insecure) but he has a kind and attractive girlfriend. He has a cool personality and is pretty accomplished, and that clearly makes up for his small dick.
>>29746238
Nice persecution complex. I know being a genetic dead-end is hard but don't let it cause you to become paranoid like this.
>>29746199
Reminder that one in ten people, or around 13% of people are a virgin at around 20-24, source here.
>http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/03/on-late-in-life-virginity-loss/284412/
>The average American loses his or her virginity at age 17. Virgins make up 12.3 percent of females and 14.3 percent of males aged 20 to 24.
You're not that unusual, and being a virgin at 18 doesn't make you some laughable irredeemable social outcast.
>>29746275
She has a plus-sized dildo or two on the side
>>29746292
Nice inferiority complex you've got there
>>29745837
A lesbian
>>29746292
You do realise entire length isn't the same as insertable length, right anon? And that dildos are much, much less popular than vibrators, which are small?
>>29746306
Well, yes. It came free with my dick.
>>29746344
Self-deprecating prop comedy everyone, learn from this man but don't talk about your vagina if you're female. They're all ugly and no one wants to think about them unless they have to.
>>29746281
I'm right though, doesn't matter if I'm paranoid or not. Women are engaging in this shaming because they want small dicked men dead, they don't do this shit by accident.
>>29746275
Well that's stupid. Women don't emphasise with groups they don't belong to or don't find attractive. There is the occasional outlier but my statement generally holds true.
>>29746344
50% of men have a below-average (<5-5.5 inch) penis. Most men are capable of sustaining long-term relationships. Get off /r9k/ and stop wallowing in self pity
>>29746372
>Women are engaging in this shaming because they want small dicked men dead, they don't do this shit by accident.
They don't want you dead they just don't want you passing small dick genes along in case your sons join the SDIDF too.
>>29746413
I guess it's more of a genocide then.
>>29746365
What are you talking about?
>>29746383
>Most men are capable of sustaining long-term relationships
I'm not one of them though
>>29746372
Perhaps your misanthropic (and pretty profoundly illogical) worldview is a bigger turnoff than your small penis
>>29746444
No, it's sexual selection. Which inherently is genocide. You can't fight it by polluting your own species.
>>29746464
Well maybe, but the point still stands, which is that a lot of men with relatively small penises clearly are
>>29746444
Are we engaged in genocide against fat girls then? Or girls with small breasts? Clearly not. Fuck off with your bizarre persecution complex
>>29746286
Hahahaha well at least you can feel better about being the bottom 13% of the world
>>29746502
I am being persecuted though. At least we can agree on that.
>>29746465
There's men out there that beat their wives and women still love them. Hell, wasn't there some French guy that got his wife to bring him a kid for him to rape during a visit?
Character quality or being an asshole has absolutely nothing to do with attracting women. Women are horrendously bad at measuring character.
>>29746548
I'd hardly say that one in ten people are laughed at for not having sex mate, seeing as it's pretty common. In any university, a bit more than a tenth of the people you meet will be virgins. Slightly more if you consider that there's also 18 and 19 year olds there.
Your blind swings of "haha you're a virgin" are kind of dumb mate.
>>29746485
Having a long-term relationship with someone doesn't mean you satisfy them sexually
>>29746566
You're thinking of 'women' as though they're a monolithic bloc. Of course there are women in abusive relationships (usually as a result of self-esteem issues) but most do not respond favourably to severe mistreatment. Additionally, many men (again, usually the insecure ones) find themselves trapped in emotionally abusive relationships. As for women being 'horrendously bad at measuring character' - men do the exact same thing. Many of us have had friends who have had attractive but horrible girlfriends. I don't see that there's any good evidence of poor character judgement being particularly gendered.
>>29746593
Well no, but I find it hard to believe that 50% of men in relationships find it impossible to satisfy their partners (particularly given that penetration is less important than clitoral stimulation)
>>29746566
>fuck off with your bizarre persecution complex
>So you agree I'm being persecuted then
Can you not read?
And psychological abuse is hardly the same anon.
>>29746593
Most women can't orgasm from PIV sex. A girl that can't get off from it isn't going to be any more satisfied if you're ramming 8 inches in there than if you're using 5 or 4 inches, if anything the 8 inch dick is likely to just cause discomfort, as the cervix is a real thing.
So it stands to reason that those people are satisfied to a reasonable degree with their sex life if they're in a happy long term relationship.
>>29746671
>I find it hard to believe that 50% of men in relationships find it impossible to satisfy their partners
I find it hard to believe over 50% of people believe in God but it still happened.
>>29746671
Maybe because they're not billionaires, kek
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1121122/Why-rich-men-better-bed--Women-orgasms-wealthy-partners-study-finds.html
>>29746699
delet nao
>>29746680
Tell yourself that. If your girlfriend says she doesn't love being absolutely stuffed full and fucked hard, she is lying to you.
I never get off when I get a blowjob, but O sure as fuck love getting them and enjoy a good one more. Same deal.
>>29746671
>>29746680
I'd like to believe you are right, but to be honest it's not a risk I'm willing to take.
>>29746636
They are and on an individual level do everything they can to ensure of this. This is why women screech at anything remotely out of the norm.
>>29746680
I'm a second class citizen. How am I not being persecuted?
>>29746680
Even your girl says (even believes) she can't cum during sex, she hasn't fucked a guy like me.
It isn't all about size, definitely isn't abouy jackhammering her like it's a competitive sport, but size helps and being in shape helps for a few reasons.
Some grills can only get off internally from really rough, deep sex and never get that. I had a girl nearly break me when she realized she loved having her cervix hit, discovered she could squirt.
Get good, anon.
Name a one problem men receive from having a small dick
Pro-tip: you can't
>>29746879
Being encouraged to kill yourself for your entire life?
>>29746757
>Tell yourself that. If your girlfriend says she doesn't love being absolutely stuffed full and fucked hard, she is lying to you.
That's a real great source and argument anon. I could just as easily say that if your girlfriend says she does love those things, she's lying to you and is actually a jewish infiltrator trying to trick you into feeling insecure and as you didn't actually provide any source or proof to it, it's just as credible.
>I never get off when I get a blowjob, but O sure as fuck love getting them and enjoy a good one more. Same deal.
That doesn't answer my question anon, you dodged it completely. Would you cheat based on the rumor that a chick was good at it?
You not getting off to it is actually useful here, as most women aren't capable of getting off with PIV sex only.
>>29746800
You're not a second class citizen. You need to get out more.
>>29746844
>Even your girl says (even believes) she can't cum during sex, she hasn't fucked a guy like me.
This has nothing to do with my girl, mine can. But scientifically speaking, most cannot orgasm due to PIV sex alone. The number's put at around 30%, but often is much lower.
Also, I couldn't care less about how great at sex you are, it's not relevant at all to the conversation at hand, and your bragging is just obnoxious.
It's generally accepted that squirting isn't a thing, either.
>>29746904
Why do you give a shit what other people say about you?
>>29743701
I forgot about that show
>>29746928
>things I haven't experience don't exist and i can find numbers that say so
>studies prove things that people don't know about themselves are impossibru senpai
Right, buddy. So any pics of your girl?
>>29746928
>This has nothing to do with my girl, mine can.
wew
>>29746941
This.
What other people say about you is none of your business, anon. Fuck 'em.
>>29746965
You're being retarded mate. You're at this point claiming that your dick is defying medical science.
>>29746971
That's not me, my hat has a wider brim.
>>29746941
>>29746978
Because when you try to be friends with them or fuck them, it matters a lot what they say about you
>>29746978
>What other people say about you is none of your business
Well ... it is. But still fuck 'em.
>>29746979
Just so you know, here's a source.
>https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/all-about-sex/200903/the-most-important-sexual-statistic
And a quote supporting what I'm saying, proving it's not just some numbers, but medically recognised thanks to many, many studies.
>This statistic comes not from just one study, but from a comprehensive analysis of 33 studies over the past 80 years by Elisabeth Lloyd in her fascinating book The Case of the Female Orgasm (Harvard University Press).
>>29746587
Classic Virgin thing to say.. your crush is gagging on cock right now
>>29746979
>medical science
Harhar wow. And you wonder why you can't get a girl to cum. But "it's alright, anon. Most grills can't."
Keep reading your fluffy study results, in the real world WHO a woman is fucking makes a big difference. If they go by reports or surveys, that's just a matter of those women not having fucked somebody good enough to make them cum.
If they actually use toys and try to stimulate women, you are double retarded because sex is very much mental.
All of the whiners on here who are 'saving it for a hit virgin' can wait for their unicorn. I'm taking orgasm virginities, that's where it's at son.
>>29747032
How is that relevant to what I said at all?
>>29747045
So you're legitimately arguing that you have a magic penis then?
You could use the whole "Oh well they just haven't done X thing" to discredit any statistic by the way anon, because it's completely lacking in any sort of proof or logic behind it.
I could get a piece of data saying that 100% of people without any form of pulse for longer than 20 or so minutes die, and then go "Yeah but if they really thought about it hard enough they'd be fine", and have as much credibility as you don't right now.
Feel free to keep believing you have the magic touch, whatever keeps you going.
>>29747015
See
>>29747045
And remember that there was a time when female orgasm was considered a myth. You can look at 'results' all day, numbers don't alter reality. They simply quantify things based on how the data was gathered.
That you don't see the flaw in your link gives me great keks, though.
>>29747099
The female orgasm was considered a myth when it was extremely poorly understood, and not even considered decent to study. The first studies on the topic supported what I'm saying, that clitoral stimulation is the important factor in the female orgasm.
>You can look at 'results' all day, numbers don't alter reality.
You're right, they don't alter reality, they just represent it.
>That you don't see the flaw in your link gives me great keks, though.
Are you going to point it out, or just hold it over my head?
>>29743884
Skekekekekeeeeeeh!
That's right!
Everyone hates those who are righteous, so arrogant they be!
If it wasn't for those pesky goyim laws you'd be dead or suffering!
If only we could open the gates and bring Hell to Earth!
Usheheheheheh!
Well, we do our part, the best we can to make that reality at least somewhat true!
Gehehehiiiiheheheeeeeh!
>>29747090
How is it not.. your some guy who is bringing up Virgin stats meaning your clearly a Virgin and you're trying to make some point about how girls never cum and it's completely normal to have about shrimp dick and have your partner be completely unsatisfied.. if you aboutctually think for 2 minutes you would realize the amount of autism your spewing isn't even worth arguing.
>>29747090
>making a woman cum is like raising the dead senpai
Getaloadofthisguy.jpg
I'm saying that, according to your 'study', 70% of women simply haven't had sex with a guy who got them off.
"I've never seen the sun and moon in the same place together, they're the same person!" logic is hilarious. Any biologically healthy woman is perfectly capable of cumming.
Sorry you'll never experience that, but don't spread misinformation. Fuck off with that shit.
>>29747136
>>29747045
It's BOTH. It's so insanely difficult to make it happen that it's both WHO and HOW. It's so difficult, that MOST girls lie because it's so stupid how difficult it is for them to achieve orgasm if they've done any kind of honest sexual exploration, even by themselves.
Hell, no it's not your problem. If you care at all, you'll try, but my god try your best or just get it over with like most people do.
>>29746985
Why do your friends know your dick size?
>>29747136
>Are you going to point it out, or just hold it over my head?
>>29747099
>based on how the data was gathered
The point made was obvious.
The absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, you should probably kill yourself. Don't go bringing science into things if you don't understand bare-bones statistical limitations.
>>29747194
Because when the talk is about dick size and the only people in the room are close friends, it would be rude not to tell.
Naturally, I was the smallest
>>29747194
If people pass comments about dicks it still hurt when their insults apply to you to.
>>29746680
"Then he told me girls don't cum most the time and they don't like big fat cocks dominating them"
>>29747152
>the joos caused my partial ego death and I'm still holding on with no semblance of self awareness bawwww
>>29747159
Shit, does that mean the people who did the research originally were all virgins too?
>>29747160
>I'm saying that, according to your 'study', 70% of women simply haven't had sex with a guy who got them off.
And I'm saying that this is a baseless claim. From what we see demonstrated consistently in studies, that 70% of women have yet to meet a man who can get them off via PIV alone, sure, but that's because they aren't fucking capable of it.
Don't put words in my mouth either, I simply said that you're claiming to have a magic dick that defies the results of dozens of studies on the topic, that I'm absolutely 100% sure touched on this topic you've brought up, by asking "Did you orgasm more with some partners than others". Evidently that wasn't significantly the case, otherwise it would have been mentioned.
>>29747182
>It's so difficult, that MOST girls lie because it's so stupid how difficult it is for them to achieve orgasm if they've done any kind of honest sexual exploration, even by themselves.
It's not difficult at all for a women to get off via clitoral stimulation mate. But now you've gone from "the studies are wrong" to "the girls in it are all lying", in some pathetic attempt to convince yourself that you're some sex god who's totally different to the partners of 70% of those women.
>>29747213
>The absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence
Are you fucking retarded? There is no absence of evidence here, the evidence is right there. 70% of women cannot get off from PIV, no matter the circumstance. Penis size, how long you last, whatever the fuck you change, it doesn't change the fact that there is medical data, right there that's clearly stating that those women absolutely cannot get off from PIV.
It's absolutely possible that you've only slept with women that can, or even ones that were faking it. But either way, that has no fucking impact on the results of the 33 studies, it's just anecdotal evidence.
>>29747251
>doesn't exaggerate his size like every one of his small friends did
Well you went and fucked yourself. You're the go-to little-dicked friend because you were honest.
I've known black dudes who talk about having a huge porksword and turn out to have 5 inches, I've got 8 and still don't tell people my size.
>>29743544
It's not that OP, it's just that a small cock is the least masculine feature.
Lanky<Short<Status<Small cock
A lot of times you see a comedy drawings or comics showcasing the dominance of a short lanky stupid nerdy dude with a big cock over a tall muscular chad with a small cock.
>>29747301
>It's not difficult at all for a women to get off via clitoral stimulation mate.
Then why do I need to do anything short of getting hit in the crotch by a mack truck?
>>29747267
>everyone is a good person looking out for one another
>>29747326
Did this sentence make sense to you at some point?
>>29747266
Fuck man, that picture of girls laughing really hurt my feelings, you should be more sensitive in the future.
>>29747336
>the whole world is jewish
>>29747319
It's not so bad. But the "just be yourself" and "size doesn't matter" pep talk that came after kind of peeved me.
>>29747301
>what you said is true, but (baseless claim) so I win
No. Again, you can't just fill an information vacuum to suit your stance. Way to dickslap the scientific method you fucking mongoloid.
That the women surveyed hadn't experienced a thing means precisely that. They had not experienced it.
That you take that and add 'because impossible' is fucking bananas, mate.
Most people haven't seen ball-lightning, therefore most people are incapable,of seeing it. See how dumb that is?
A biologically healthy woman (no scarrification of the vaginal walls, no nerve damage, a woman with a functional vagina) is every bit as capable as any other woman of orgasm via vaginal penetration.
>>29747301
The fact you seem to think it's scientifically impossible to make girls cum consistently is just making everyone who's not a beta Virgin reading this laugh at you.
I texted screenshots of what you said to girls in my group chat.
>>29747367
Everyone has their own inner Kike
>>29747301
>There is no absence of evidence here, the evidence is right there. 70% of women cannot get off from PIV, no matter the circumstance.
Ooohhh... so this is like the infinite monkeys thing, but real and with vaginas instead of monkeys?
They put a near-infinite amount of sex toys in a near-infinite amount of vaginas, release an army of ultra-chads and watched it all play out, eh?
You may actually be retarded. You can't confirm anything by filling gaps with empty claims, jesus fucking christ buddy.
You must be one of them there scientifical types what gather data for christian publications, eh? "Never seen proof god doesn't exist. Because god exists."
Keep repeating your false claim every time the error is explained to you, though. My sides have launched a space program, they're in orbit.
>>29743544
I've posted my story before. Showed two women my dick and they said it was disgusting and laughed me out of the room. My dick is 6'
Killed my self-confidence
>>29747416
>what you said is true, but (baseless claim) so I win
>strawmanning this hard
>No. Again, you can't just fill an information vacuum to suit your stance. Way to dickslap the scientific method you fucking mongoloid.
As I said, there is no information vacuum. You're just making this up to suit your goals.
>That the women surveyed hadn't experienced a thing means precisely that. They had not experienced it.
As I said, you could use this logic to disprove literally anything. Let me show you
>Oh, gravity doesn't actually effect us all, no-one but me has actually moved the right way to defy it though
>Jewish Reptilians from another dimension are real, most people just haven't experienced contact with them
>It's possible to survive without a brain if you just know how to hold your head correctly
You can't just go "But what if X situation happened?" forever and call it the scientific method.
>That you take that and add 'because impossible' is fucking bananas, mate.
I didn't actually add this. The studies concluded that they were physically not able to, no matter the situation. Not me, but professional medical researchers.
>
A biologically healthy woman (no scarrification of the vaginal walls, no nerve damage, a woman with a functional vagina) is every bit as capable as any other woman of orgasm via vaginal penetration.
[citation needed]
>>29747425
Okay, for one
>trying to virgin shame on /r9k/
And also, I'm sure all those girls think you're very cool for sharing screenshots from a board dedicated largely to the hatred of women that you evidently browse anon.
Please though, I'm serious, those laughing girl images really hurt my feelings, I think I might cry if you keep it up.
>>29747437
Jew funny
>>29747504
It isn't the size, m8.
You have an ugly dick, sorry to say.
Women really appreciate an attractive penis, something that calls out to their mouth "mouuuth... you want me in you... tell the throat to be ready..."
>>29747504
Something does look off about your cock but I can't nail down what is wrong.
Obviously a decent size though and there's nothing REALLY physiologically wrong with it so don't worry man.
>showed two women my dick
That's where you fucked up, I'm assuming they were Stacey sluts who planned to torment you from the start.
I think I might be the smallest here. Never had a chance really. Feels nice that I'm not alone. No woman could ever be pleased by me. I mean, how far would it even go in?
>>29747533
I'm not clicking it just so you know.
>>29743544
Ugly men are much, much more hated.
Insulting dick size just works better because chances are people don't know his dick and he's not going to whip it out to disprove you.
Calling someone ugly either doesn't work because their not, or because you are, or because otherwise it's like kicking someone when they're down.
>>29747533
That's soft though.
>>29747481
>They put a near-infinite amount of sex toys in a near-infinite amount of vaginas, release an army of ultra-chads and watched it all play out, eh?
Did I ever say this?
>You can't confirm anything by filling gaps with empty claims, jesus fucking christ buddy.
You mean exactly like you're doing? Going "my claims are actually better than yours because there's a gap I perceive to be here and I'm just going to fill with data that completely contradicts the results of all those studies".
You're literally the only person here making up shit to fill gaps that you perceive to be there, though evidently all the highly educated doctors and PhD graduates who worked on the studies and analysis of them disagreed. But I'm sure you know better than them.
>You must be one of them there scientifical types what gather data for christian publications, eh? "Never seen proof god doesn't exist. Because god exists."
You seem to be running out of things to say that aren't strawmen anon.
>Keep repeating your false claim every time the error is explained to you, though
You calling the claim false does not make it false. Nor does you going "But in this hypothetical scenario that I can't actually quantify in a way that can ever be tested, this isn't the case, so haha I win".
>>29747527
>>29747529
I'm not circumcised. Otherwise, it'd help me if you could tell me what's strange about my dick.
>>29747515
>Virgin shame
>Virgin
>shame
>>29747564
Note, I should add, you're not filling them with data, you're filling them with baseless hypothetical situations and claims of your sexual prowess.
>>29747571
Yes, that's what I said anon, did something there confuse you?
>>29747565
It has lots of (completely benign and normal) bumps along the shaft. All guys have them but yours are ESPECIALLY defined. Plus the curve and... you have like a REALLY long head. It's oblong and unpleasant looking and doesn't flare up at all.
And the obvious "jerked off too much" twist/lean
>>29747515
Gravity is a force you actual autist.
We can measure it, it is quantifiable.
Holy shit you're special. Your claim is no different than a claim that "less than one percent of people have climbed everest, therefore 99 percent of humans are biologically incapable of it."
Actually, the above (while still completely false) is less retarded. Because most people would die during the climb. But simply having limbs and a pulse is all that is needed, that the people surveyed for the 'everest climb experiment' hadn't hit the summit doesn't confirm physical impossibility.
How many ways do you need this explained to you before you understand?
I was reading "does size matter" threads on /r/askwomen and one in particular struck a nerve.
"I broke up with my bf because he wasn't satisfying in bed. He had a great personality and I loved him however he wasn't reaching the right spots in bed. Then I met a guy who was hung. It hurt to get it in at first but when I got used to if, omg it was incredible. We are now married"
>>29747571
One of the go-to insults of normies is "virgin"
>>29747529
It's the sharp angle where the head meets the shaft. It's jarring.
>>29747533
Holy fuck. My condolences, anon. Really.
>>29747596
Just remember, no matter what anyone says, you're entitled to anyone you want in self-defence.
>>29747596
>I was reading "does size matter" threads on /r/askwomen and one in particular struck a nerve.
That's like going to /r9k/ for girl advice
>>29747564
>Did I ever say this?
Yes. You did.
>>29747301
>70% of women have yet to meet a man who can get them off via PIV alone, sure, but that's because they aren't fucking capable of it.
Think before you post. The statement above is incredibly wrong, learn to use logic.
>>29747525
That was a bit off, more like everyone is influenced by Satan, Jews more often follow the path of Satan though
>>29747595
>We can measure it, it is quantifiable.
You mean exactly like was done in the studies I'm referring to? While you're going "no they aren't quantifiable because in this hypothetical situation they're wrong". Which is exactly what I said about being able to defy gravity. I'm glad you agree that the logic is fucking ridiculous though.
>How many ways do you need this explained to you before you understand?
Maybe one that actually revolves around something that can be measured, instead of baseless claims of your own abilities in bed? You've not even said what the magic feature apparently is, you've left is intentionally vague so there's no way that anyone could ever say if it was included in the study.
I'll repeat myself though. The conclusion that these women are incapable was not drawn by me. It was drawn by medical researchers, as in people with an MD, as well as analysed after the fact by PhD graduates. But you're claiming that you know better than them, and that your apparently groundbreaking thought of "They just haven't met the right person yet" wasn't considered and evidently ignored.
I'll remind you that the same argument of "They just haven't met the right guy yet" was used to argue that lesbians didn't exist for a long time. Not just the exact same logic as you, but the exact same argument. And look how that turned out.
>>29747654
How is me saying
>70% of women have yet to meet a man who can get them off via PIV alone, sure, but that's because they aren't fucking capable of it
The same as me saying that this happened
>They put a near-infinite amount of sex toys in a near-infinite amount of vaginas, release an army of ultra-chads and watched it all play out
Are you stupid?
>>29747564
This has to be bait, guys.
Pretty much everything he accuses the guy of, HE is doing whereas based anon isn't. This is some bullshit.
>>29747684
I dunno mane
>>29747726
What exactly did I accuse him of doing that I did anon? I'd appreciate if you could provide quotes.
>>29747717
This guy making some good points.... chmmm hhahahahahaha
>>29747739
Gentiles followin the path of Satan isn't uncommon and it's very common they sin. Jews are more likely than Gentiles to do both in excess, with few following the path of the Golden Goyim
>>29747717
>How is me saying
>>70% of women have yet to meet a man who can get them off via PIV alone, sure, but that's because they aren't fucking capable of it
>The same as me saying that this happened
>>They put a near-infinite amount of sex toys in a near-infinite amount of vaginas, release an army of ultra-chads and watched it all play out
That is exactly what you're claiming, are you actually this stupid?
You are claiming that those statistics cover every possibility. Your claim.
Sex is more mental than physical, all those numbers prove is bad luck for the women tested. How small is your dick that you're this afraid of reality?
A survey is not solid evidence. If the 'study' had been done like: "reproductive-age women, artificially induced to orgasm via nerve stimulation, then again with object in vagina, incapable of orgasm while penetrated for some reason" I'd say, sure, might be something there.
You're taking the absence of confirmation and claiming it's confirmation of absence. That's fallacious, you need to educate yourself.
>>We can measure it, it is quantifiable.
>You mean exactly like was done in the studies I'm referring to?
No, dumbass. It is a thing. A force that can be measured. Are you trying to say that penetrative orgasm is a force of nature that is repelled by the women surveyed? What ARE you trying to say?
Really. Explain how women who are all built the same are confirmed incapable orgasm because they haven't done so.
All the data proves is that those women had not done so, exactly as people keep telling you. You are fucking retarded.
>>29747862
Women aren't the same though. They're pussy and wiring and kinks are all different, same as men. Some guys can cum buckets by just having a girl breathe on his dick and others don't cum with 8 women all licking and sucking his dick at the same time.
>>29747862
I said it long ago. He's honestly so stupid it's not even worth arguing
>>29747717
>compares apples to oranges
>"lesbians are proof of physical sexual dysfunction in most wymenz"
Wew, lad.
>>29747862
>That is exactly what you're claiming, are you actually this stupid?
So you actually can't read, cool.
>You are claiming that those statistics cover every possibility. Your claim.
No study can ever cover every possibility. But until you can provide something able to be studied and to prove the data wrong, you can't just beg the question and go "Yeah but what if" and act like that proves it wrong. I already gave exampes of how that's ridiculous.
>How small is your dick that you're this afraid of reality?
Why would my penis size factor into my believing this anymore than someone with a large dick? Penis size not mattering is just as big an impact on someone who views their size as a positive as it is someone who sees it as a negative.
>A survey is not solid evidence.
These aren't surveys, which I said in my original quote. They were studies. 33 of them in fact.
> If the 'study' had been done like: "reproductive-age women, artificially induced to orgasm via nerve stimulation, then again with object in vagina, incapable of orgasm while penetrated for some reason" I'd say, sure, might be something there.
You're now arguing that the methodology of a study you believed was actually a survey isn't good enough. How did they do it anon, if their methods aren't good enough for you?
>You're taking the absence of confirmation and claiming it's confirmation of absence.
No, I'm not. At all. And I explained why I wasn't already, here.>>29747301
There is no absence of confirmation here.
>No, dumbass. It is a thing. A force that can be measured.
Are you legitimately this dumb? You're drawing a distinction between measuring one thing that's quantifiable, and measuring another based on whether you believe in them or not. While also managing to ignore my entire fucking point by bringing up gravity, that creating vague hypotheticals in which data may be wrong doesn't actually prove that the conclusions drawn are wrong.
cont
>>29747933
That is a mental thing. Just because a few dudes with no willpower cum from touching a female hand doesn't mean those men are wired with a hairtrigger on their dick. See what I mean now?
>>29747934
Yeah, I know. I'm really just clearing up the disinformation so that younger anons reading will know that he's wrong. There are enough people like him who don't know what words mean, gotta BTFO a few as an example.
I'm done with him now, I knew all along he wouldn't see reason. "So smart he's dumb" personified, neckbeard 4lyfe.
>>29747938
He's not totally wrong though. Quite a few lesbians become so after dating a guy or two
>>29747862
>Explain how women who are all built the same are confirmed incapable orgasm because they haven't done so.
Women aren't all built the same though. Are you arguing our genitalia is all identical, and that in fact our brains are all identical now?
>All the data proves is that those women had not done so, exactly as people keep telling you. You are fucking retarded.
As I've said. Your argument is the exact same one people used for lesbians not existing. You're creating a vague situation with no factors that can be discussed or measured, and going "but if this is right, I am right".
I'll point out the flaw in your argument one more time though. You're creating a situation in which you are correct, and using that as proof that you are in fact correct.
You haven't defined this situation in a way we can actually follow up on.
You haven't actually provided any proof that what you're claiming is correct, though I've provided evidence of 33 studies that say that no matter what you change about the sex, the result stays the same.
What you're doing is very circular reasoning. Your entire argument relies on your argument being assumed to be correct. If we assume that you are right, then sure, I'm wrong.
But when you have no evidence that you are in fact right, there's no reason to assume that this is the case.
And as to my point about gravity, I'll try to explain it so you understand.
I provided data pointing towards a conclusion that in many populations and in all circumstances found, 70% of women were unable to reach orgasm via penetration alone.
You claimed that there may be a hypothetical in which this is wrong, so therefore it is wrong. And lets not act like an anecdote is more useful than a hypothetical, they have the same credibility here.
Now compare this to gravity. Obviously we know gravity applies in pretty much all situations we know of, right?
I was pointing out that if we apply the same idea here, it makes no sense
>>29747967
The only problem is the study you linked is just small peins humiliation jerkoff videos
>>29747934
This is the exact same argument that often gets used in political debates that we mock, don't forget that. "If you don't get it now you're too stupid so I can't explain it to you".
>>29747980
Don't act condescending when you've successfully misunderstood the vast majority of my points anon.
>>29748115
No? Did you miss the part where I referred to an article the specifically discusses a text based off 33 studies on the topic?
Here's the book at hand, I'm sure if you dug a bit it would be easy to find the citations included in it.
http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674022461
>>29748161
BBC on blonde videos don't count as a "study"
>>29747994
I'm... really trying to understand how that makes him right.
>>29748190
Oh, you're just pretending to be retarded. I thought you'd made an honest mistake and confused me with someone else, but apparently not.
Also, I have to add how stupid the distinction between physical structure and mental factors in sex is here.
>>29747980
You've claimed that sex is mostly mental before, then gone "we're all built the same so sex should be the same for everyone". That makes no sense. People genitals and sexualities are vastly different, and if sex is mostly mental as you claim, then how we're physically built shouldn't impact it.
I'll never have sex or please a woman because of my 3 inch dick. Even if I found a bitch that wanted the whole 3 inches I'm sure neither of us would get any pleasure from it. I also weigh 300 lbs and if I managed to lose the weight is maybe gain an inch. I'll just have to get a flesh light or something but even then it probably wouldn't even feel good.
>>29748097
>>29747967
>When you so BTFO you samefagging as a grill
Aww shit, son. Got niggas swappin genders in desperation, damage control up to 11
>>29748208
I'm the guy arguing for the studies, and I don't get it either. The whole part where he implied I said
>"lesbians are proof of physical sexual dysfunction in most wymenz"
Was stupid, as I was pointing out the flaw with his argument in other situations we know aren't reliant on that, but I don't get how it would prove me right.
>>29748240
How exactly did I pretend to be a girl? Are you basing this off this part here?
>Women aren't all built the same though. Are you arguing our genitalia is all identical, and that in fact our brains are all identical now?
Because that's pretty vague mate, especially considering I admitted to having a penis in other posts.
>>29748161
Well were not having having a political debate I'm listening to a bunch of probable virgins discuss never giving women an orgasm but your head is so far up your ass you can't see how stupid it really is.
>>29748221
>You've claimed that sex is mostly mental before, then gone "we're all built the same so sex should be the same for everyone".
Yeah, that sounds totally accurate.
Where did he lose you? All else being equal, every woman will have orgasmed while penetrated. The only issue is the mental aspect, not that it is impossible.
Simply, as many have said, that they haven't had sex that made them orgasm. Somehow you keep adding "because impossible" to that, you're stuck in a loop.
>just want to wallow in pity and maybe get some normies angry with my sadness
>people get into arguments like anything in life matters to begin with
>>29748280
>WOMEN aren't all built the same though. Are you arguing OUR
>BLACKS aren't all built the same though. ARE you arguing OUR dicks are all big
See the part where you're retarded?
Attaching yourself to a group, then saying "I never did that! Look at this post where I totally did that and see how mucj I didn't!" is hilarious, though.
>>29748294
Just pointing out that "You're too dumb to understand if you don't already so I don't have to explain it" is a really poor argument in any setting.
And also, I'm not discussing giving women orgasms. My original point was about data shown in many studies, then the other dude went on about how great he was at sex so it must be wrong.
>>29748306
>Where did he lose you? All else being equal, every woman will have orgasmed while penetrated. The only issue is the mental aspect, not that it is impossible.
All else isn't equal, is my point. If we assume our genitalia (this doesn't mean I'm a woman, to clarify for that other guy) is all the same, which it isn't, there is a major mental factor that impacts our ability to get pleasure from sex, and to orgasm from it.
>Somehow you keep adding "because impossible" to that, you're stuck in a loop.
I've already explained that I didn't add anything, that this conclusion was drawn by medical researchers and PhD graduates.
And I explained why creating a hypothetical in which the data is wrong isn't actually proof of it being wrong here >>29748097
Sure, there's never a guarantee that any data is 100% conclusive. But this applies to all data. Including stuff like gravity.
But you wouldn't claim that gravity isn't impacting us all because you can create a hypothetical where it doesn't, would you? Not unless you can reliably turn that hypothetical into reality at least, and prove that via studying it intensely.
Same goes here. The data may not be entirely accurate. But until you can prove that it isn't accurate, you can't just make assumptions that it's wrong. You need to be able to demonstrate and recreate what proves it wrong, and to do this in a way that's actually provable, not just anecdotes.
That was my entire point about bringing up gravity, but the other poster misunderstood it completely, which I can only assume was on purpose.
>>29744010
This is what it sounds like when below average people try to sound intelligent.
>>29748352
Poor wording maybe, but I was talking about people in general there, not just women. Our genitals aren't all built the same, which is true for both men and women.
I can see why you got confused there, I did word it poorly.
>>29748306
Take your "x% women can't orgasm because of penetration" and compare to the equally valid "x% men can't last 30 seconds without cumming" and you'll see the point.
Those men are perfectly capable of holding their gravy. They simply haven't done so. That doesn't mean it's impossible for those men to last longer, it simply means they didn't do it.
That's as plain and simple as is possible, if you still don't get it then fuck, man. I don't know what to tell you.
>>29748429
You're kind of arguing semantics here anon. Sure, physically those people are capable of doing that. But they've demonstrated they aren't actually capable of doing so for whatever reason.
Arguing that if things were different they would be different is kind of pointless, and also kind of circular logic when you start using it to disprove other stuff.
>>29748398
>I've already explained that I didn't add anything, that this conclusion was drawn by medical researchers and PhD graduates.
So it comes out.
Argument from authority by proxy, anon.
People with degrees make mistakes, especially when it comes to fluff studies.
If Dawkins made a statement tomorrow, "since we can't witness the birth of the universe, god must exist" and a ton of neckbeards became deists it'd be the same logic.
Think for yourself, not what a bunch of cherrypicked data tells you to.
Good luck, anon.
>>29748461
>Sure, physically those people are capable of doing that.
This is literally all anybody has been trying to get across. That one guy refuses to concede on this point.
That people don't do a thing does not mean it's impossible, all I wanted was for him to say "hm, guess that makes sense" rather than spend all this time fighting it.
>>29748487
>Argument from authority by proxy, anon.
That isn't fallacious anon. I'm not relying on their authority, I'm relying on their expertise, which is demonstrated by that degree.
>People with degrees make mistakes, especially when it comes to fluff studies.
33 studies worth of researchers aren't going to all make the wrong mistake anon. And you keep using the word "fluff study", which means nothing.
>If Dawkins made a statement tomorrow, "since we can't witness the birth of the universe, god must exist" and a ton of neckbeards became deists it'd be the same logic.
No, it wouldn't be at all, that's a strawman following completely different logic. Your situation has no logical connection between not being able to view the birth of the universe and the existence of god.
Evidence that most women can't orgasm in varied situations being linked to the conclusion that most women can't orgasm isn't the same at all, there's an obvious link.
>>29748513
How are you not seeing the issue here? You're arguing for a potential thing that could happen in a hypothetical.
You have no ability to demonstrate that this will happen in the hypothetical you've created, you're just assuming it's correct and using that as your entire point.
For something to be scientifically valid, you have to demonstrate that it is correct. I addressed this here. >>29748398 in the second half.
Not once have I denied that I accepted your hypothetical that I would still be right, my entire point has been that your situation has no fucking merit to it, because it's just that. A situation that we don't even know exists.
>>29748640
Their 'expertise' is their authority.
Just like a general can send troops into a dumb situation, lose every man and have people think "well, the man must have had bad intel" rather than "maybe he made a mistake"
A fluff study is a piece that pulls cherrypicked information to make people happy. It makes a publication look good.
The problem is that you think "30 studies say this" rather than "those 30 are the only ones I know anything of, there have been hundreds with different results"
You ought to know this by now: you can never blindly trust an article like this.
You didn't look at the data gathered in each study, you never spoke to a single participant. I'm bailing, this is a trainwreck.
You really need to open your mind and be willing to learn from others, anon. It'll change your life, I promise.
I hope you lool past the "I'm perfect, nobody can give me advice without it being a misunderstanding or insult" reflex that so many have and be willing to rebuild a bit. You're wasting a good mind.
Later senpai
>>29748852
Okay, I get it you're bailing, and I honestly don't care at this point, I've clearly explained to you why your logic is lacking, but I have to say one last thing.
>The problem is that you think "30 studies say this" rather than "those 30 are the only ones I know anything of, there have been hundreds with different results"
I provided a lot of sources. You're arguing for hypotheticals again. If there were hundreds that disagreed, you should have just posted those instead of arguing for a hypothetical situation.
>"I'm perfect, nobody can give me advice without it being a misunderstanding or insult"
I don't believe this at all. But when half the arguments were "you have a small dick", "you're retarded and should kill yourself" or "virgin' then yeah, I'm going to point out that they're all insults. And when someone demonstrated a complete misunderstanding of what I'm saying, then when I explain it more concisely, doesn't even try to argue it anymore, I'm going to claim it's a misunderstanding.
I've spoken to plenty of people that matched my sources with others, were reasonable and addressed all major points with a clear understanding of what they meant, but could point out flaws in what I said as I could point out flaws in what they did, and if it reaches a point where neither is conclusively right, then we've just agreed to disagree. If it's clear that the person has much more knowledge on the topic than me, and has demonstrated this with peer reviewed studies to back it up, then I've got no issues admitting I'm wrong about something. You (or that other guy, I don't know who's who anymore) didn't do any of those things.
So yeah, I agree, this is pointless, and I'm out.
>>29743701
But what does that have to do with dicks?
>tfw cut needle dick
Just erase my existence
>So is suicide a reasonable reaction to this?
No, but I can understand that it is utterly crushing. It is the one thing a woman can do to a man that he can't recover from.
Violence is always the answer, you are a dead man walking anyway.
Size doesn't matter as much as you think. Unless you have a microdick you are fine.
