Originally Posted by Kinser79

I'm going to need sauce from that besides your personal experience. Considering that the vast majority of females seem to indicate an almost complete inability to achieve orgasm from intercourse alone.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Reprodu...ory?id=8485289

As for being like Eric, I have sources, I have data, I have facts. Eric argues from complete ignorance.

As for sauce....howabout instead of letting others doing the thinking for you use your own brain and listen to what women want? Women outside of those studies from many different sources. There is a big world wide web out there for that. Do your own studies. Be an independent thinker.

Originally Posted by Taramarie

A strong man who does not need to answer back to childish comments is the "bigger" man. But keep on "rubbing" him if you wish.

That's the beauty of it. He answered without answering. Instead he made a move like "okay I'm ignoring this assclown" while at the same time signalling "go after Rubio" to the take down people. It is clearly obvious to anyone who is paying attention, is listening to the internet chatter, and having an understanding of generational theory helps too.

Of course i did not read the article. Yes of course, you know best when it comes to straight women...

So you plan on arguing from ignorance and then in the next breath accuse me of behaving exactly like Eric? Interesting. Totally hypocritical, but interesting.

One does not need to be with loads of men to know preference. Have you never heard of toys? Straights have them. Only you can answer yay or nay to whether gays do. I do not give one shit about whether you are gay or not in order to talk about this. I am proving those "scientific results wrong by what i have experienced and i also doubt they were able to test every single female in the world to gather whether large is preferable or not. Call me a skeptic on this one. You should be proud....a millie is thinking for herself!

Anyone who has ever used a sex toy (and I assure you I have--got a drawer full of them if you include the paddles and handcuffs--yes I am a degenerate faggot) knows that a dildo is not the same thing as a penis. They do not feel the same, they do not function the same (considering most dildos do not come with the rest of a human attached to them), the only thing they are similar in is that a dildo vaguely resembles an actual penis. As such to claim to have knowledge about actual penises from experience one needs to actually have experience with actual penises.

Also, no you're not because that is not how science works. Want to prove these studies wrong do your own studies (not that I think you have the connections for them) and actually prove them wrong. What you are presenting is nothing more than your own unverified and unverifiable opinion. Science > Opinion and all that.

Originally Posted by Taramarie

You also are the last person who should be talking about this given you are not female nor straight. You have no experience on this, only data that does not take into account every single female. Call me a doubter on your "facts."

You are free to doubt, I question everything. That said one does not need to be female to read about and understand female sexuality, nor does one need to be heterosexual to read about and understand heterosexual sexuality.

Originally Posted by Taramarie

That is disgustingly incorrect I can tell you that for certain. Only a waste of time if the man thinks regardless of size penetration alone will do the job.

So you've been with a below average male then? You can tell me from your unverified and unverifiable experience that one with less can satisfy most women without other techniques? Considering the location of the G-Spot even the largest man would have difficulty reaching it by mere penetration which is why I said orgasm is difficult in women without foreplay. Do try to keep up.

Originally Posted by Taramarie

Kinser you are amusing.

I'm glad I amuse you. Watching this trigger you amuses the hell out of me. Otherwise I'd have to talk about boring politics all the time, or worse listen to Eric drone on about his latest prediction which he'll only remember later if it actually comes true by random chance.

You can literally look up a ton of studies on this that clash with others. It depends on the group.

Enough studies have been conducted to demonstrate statistically that females prefer tall well endowed men and that most females consider anything less than the human average to be a waste of their time. I'm sorry that that does not conform to your prefered world view--but those are the facts.

Originally Posted by Taramarie

As for sauce....howabout instead of letting others doing the thinking for you use your own brain and listen to what women want? Women outside of those studies from many different sources. There is a big world wide web out there for that. Do your own studies. Be an independent thinker.

In other words you have absolutely no sources, no facts and no statistics. In short absolutely nothing to base your line on.

As for being an independent thinker I would have hoped you would have understood that to mean, go gather your own evidence, see if that evidence conforms with reality and if it does then that must be the truth. You know doing teh sciences. Independent thought is not proclaiming whatever thing you want to be true to actually be true without any evidence to back it up. That is the very thing Eric does, and well Eric doesn't think.

As for doing my own studies--I have better things to do with my time than trying to figure out if women like men with big dicks (I already know that they do) and also people need their coffee and doughnuts.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

That's the beauty of it. He answered without answering. Instead he made a move like "okay I'm ignoring this assclown" while at the same time signalling "go after Rubio" to the take down people. It is clearly obvious to anyone who is paying attention, is listening to the internet chatter, and having an understanding of generational theory helps too.



So you plan on arguing from ignorance and then in the next breath accuse me of behaving exactly like Eric? Interesting. Totally hypocritical, but interesting.



Anyone who has ever used a sex toy (and I assure you I have--got a drawer full of them if you include the paddles and handcuffs--yes I am a degenerate faggot) knows that a dildo is not the same thing as a penis. They do not feel the same, they do not function the same (considering most dildos do not come with the rest of a human attached to them), the only thing they are similar in is that a dildo vaguely resembles an actual penis. As such to claim to have knowledge about actual penises from experience one needs to actually have experience with actual penises.

Also, no you're not because that is not how science works. Want to prove these studies wrong do your own studies (not that I think you have the connections for them) and actually prove them wrong. What you are presenting is nothing more than your own unverified and unverifiable opinion. Science > Opinion and all that.



You are free to doubt, I question everything. That said one does not need to be female to read about and understand female sexuality, nor does one need to be heterosexual to read about and understand heterosexual sexuality.



So you've been with a below average male then? You can tell me from your unverified and unverifiable experience that one with less can satisfy most women without other techniques? Considering the location of the G-Spot even the largest man would have difficulty reaching it by mere penetration which is why I said orgasm is difficult in women without foreplay. Do try to keep up.



I'm glad I amuse you. Watching this trigger you amuses the hell out of me. Otherwise I'd have to talk about boring politics all the time, or worse listen to Eric drone on about his latest prediction which he'll only remember later if it actually comes true by random chance.



Enough studies have been conducted to demonstrate statistically that females prefer tall well endowed men and that most females consider anything less than the human average to be a waste of their time. I'm sorry that that does not conform to your prefered world view--but those are the facts.

Experience as well as ones own research is not speaking from ignorance. Ignorance is to be speaking of something one knows nothing about and just quickly posting up links that are studying a group of women who do not represent the whole, but keep talking. Those are not the facts. That is just facts from a group. There is a very good reason why results differ from study to study. Use your brain. Do try to keep up? I mentioned penetration alone does not bring about orgasm. We are not talking about orgasms, we are talking about preferred size due to best stimulation. Again, something you would not know about. Now who needs to keep up? One thing we can agree on is Eric's predictions and his ego rub when he thinks he has gotten it right. Understanding female sexuality is one thing (reading about it). It is quite another story experiencing it. Likewise it is one thing to read about Africa, but another to go there and experience it. It brings about a deeper understanding.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

In other words you have absolutely no sources, no facts and no statistics. In short absolutely nothing to base your line on.

As for being an independent thinker I would have hoped you would have understood that to mean, go gather your own evidence, see if that evidence conforms with reality and if it does then that must be the truth. You know doing teh sciences. Independent thought is not proclaiming whatever thing you want to be true to actually be true without any evidence to back it up. That is the very thing Eric does, and well Eric doesn't think.

As for doing my own studies--I have better things to do with my time than trying to figure out if women like men with big dicks (I already know that they do) and also people need their coffee and doughnuts.

I have the internet and so do you. Use it. Well if you have better things to do with your time than to figure out what women like and what they dont why do you talk in depth about this or are you secretly bi and curious? If you were not curious, you would not even bother. No instead you lazily turn to studies that confirm what you already think. As it is something you are not interested in you really do not know what you are talking about due to lack of wider study. If interested the stories are out there. If not and you really are not interested, prove it. If not I do believe you are interested. For someone who is not interested, you have made quite a lot of posts showing otherwise

Originally Posted by Kinser79

In other words you have absolutely no sources, no facts and no statistics. In short absolutely nothing to base your line on.

As for being an independent thinker I would have hoped you would have understood that to mean, go gather your own evidence, see if that evidence conforms with reality and if it does then that must be the truth. You know doing teh sciences. Independent thought is not proclaiming whatever thing you want to be true to actually be true without any evidence to back it up. That is the very thing Eric does, and well Eric doesn't think.

As for doing my own studies--I have better things to do with my time than trying to figure out if women like men with big dicks (I already know that they do) and also people need their coffee and doughnuts.

I have and that is why i have this opinion to the contrary of those studies. That is why i encourage you to do your own wider research as there are way too many to post here plus those links should not be posted here given the subject. But i know you will not as you have said you are apparently not interested....despite showing otherwise.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

That's the beauty of it. He answered without answering. Instead he made a move like "okay I'm ignoring this assclown" while at the same time signalling "go after Rubio" to the take down people. It is clearly obvious to anyone who is paying attention, is listening to the internet chatter, and having an understanding of generational theory helps too.



So you plan on arguing from ignorance and then in the next breath accuse me of behaving exactly like Eric? Interesting. Totally hypocritical, but interesting.



Anyone who has ever used a sex toy (and I assure you I have--got a drawer full of them if you include the paddles and handcuffs--yes I am a degenerate faggot) knows that a dildo is not the same thing as a penis. They do not feel the same, they do not function the same (considering most dildos do not come with the rest of a human attached to them), the only thing they are similar in is that a dildo vaguely resembles an actual penis. As such to claim to have knowledge about actual penises from experience one needs to actually have experience with actual penises.

Also, no you're not because that is not how science works. Want to prove these studies wrong do your own studies (not that I think you have the connections for them) and actually prove them wrong. What you are presenting is nothing more than your own unverified and unverifiable opinion. Science > Opinion and all that.



You are free to doubt, I question everything. That said one does not need to be female to read about and understand female sexuality, nor does one need to be heterosexual to read about and understand heterosexual sexuality.



So you've been with a below average male then? You can tell me from your unverified and unverifiable experience that one with less can satisfy most women without other techniques? Considering the location of the G-Spot even the largest man would have difficulty reaching it by mere penetration which is why I said orgasm is difficult in women without foreplay. Do try to keep up.



I'm glad I amuse you. Watching this trigger you amuses the hell out of me. Otherwise I'd have to talk about boring politics all the time, or worse listen to Eric drone on about his latest prediction which he'll only remember later if it actually comes true by random chance.



Enough studies have been conducted to demonstrate statistically that females prefer tall well endowed men and that most females consider anything less than the human average to be a waste of their time. I'm sorry that that does not conform to your prefered world view--but those are the facts.

Well aware of that given my experience. But I have had the same stimulation from both when it comes to how both are used when just stimulating the gspot compared to deeper penetration. They do feel different, but that certain position is actually very similar and preferable. Many i have read prefer this too. Which is why i am skeptical of studies you talk about. So you see, not just my opinion. Of course as i said, all this is online. I did my own research when i was wondering what others went through and also wondering why the bf was able to orgasm but not me due to just penetration.

Originally Posted by Taramarie

Experience as well as ones own research is not speaking from ignorance.

It is unless you plan on claiming that your personal experience and "research" applies to all or even most women.

Ignorance is to be speaking of something one knows nothing about

So no one has ever written anything about female sexuality at any time ever? Or are you implying that I'm illiterate? If it is the former well that is quite obviously wrong, if it is the latter the fact that I can post in complete sentences and read well enough to answer your posts is evidence to the contrary.

and just quickly posting up links that are studying a group of women who do not represent the whole,

Your experience doesn't represent the whole either, darling. The difference is your unverified and unverifiable experience is not included in scientific data.

Use your brain.

I am, which is why I went for scientific data. Just like if I wanted to argue a point as to the toxicology of this or that drug. If I wanted to argue from a point of ignorance I'd have used anecdote alone. The plural of anecdote is not data by the way.

Do try to keep up? I mentioned penetration alone does not bring about orgasm.

If a man with a smaller penis can hit your g-spot how is he able to do this without actual penetration? He isn't. The vast majority of females require other techniques, as I've said before.

We are not talking about orgasms, we are talking about preferred size due to best stimulation.

Assuming that you weren't trying to get pregnant, the point of the stimulation was pleasure--in short orgasm. Failure to achieve orgasm in that context means that the act itself failed in its desired result.

Again, something you would not know about. Now who needs to keep up? One thing we can agree on is Eric's predictions and his ego rub when he thinks he has gotten it right. Understanding female sexuality is one thing (reading about it). It is quite another story experiencing it. Likewise it is one thing to read about Africa, but another to go there and experience it. It brings about a deeper understanding.

I've never claimed to have experience female sexuality--as such my understanding of it is limited to what I can read. That being said, one's unverified experience and unverifiable experience is not the same thing as actual data. Were it data, both of us could poof into non-existence by Eric claiming we no longer exist. This is how idealism works, and why idealism is inherently flawed.

One does not need to go to Africa to realize how fucked the place is. The only thing the experience can do is enhance the knowlege of how completely fucked it is.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

It is unless you plan on claiming that your personal experience and "research" applies to all or even most women.



So no one has ever written anything about female sexuality at any time ever? Or are you implying that I'm illiterate? If it is the former well that is quite obviously wrong, if it is the latter the fact that I can post in complete sentences and read well enough to answer your posts is evidence to the contrary.



Your experience doesn't represent the whole either, darling. The difference is your unverified and unverifiable experience is not included in scientific data.



I am, which is why I went for scientific data. Just like if I wanted to argue a point as to the toxicology of this or that drug. If I wanted to argue from a point of ignorance I'd have used anecdote alone. The plural of anecdote is not data by the way.



If a man with a smaller penis can hit your g-spot how is he able to do this without actual penetration? He isn't. The vast majority of females require other techniques, as I've said before.



Assuming that you weren't trying to get pregnant, the point of the stimulation was pleasure--in short orgasm. Failure to achieve orgasm in that context means that the act itself failed in its desired result.



I've never claimed to have experience female sexuality--as such my understanding of it is limited to what I can read. That being said, one's unverified experience and unverifiable experience is not the same thing as actual data. Were it data, both of us could poof into non-existence by Eric claiming we no longer exist. This is how idealism works, and why idealism is inherently flawed.

One does not need to go to Africa to realize how fucked the place is. The only thing the experience can do is enhance the knowlege of how completely fucked it is.

Actually it would be quite ignorant to look up studies where they take a group of people and judge the majority of society to be like that group. To look beyond that and take in accounts from others would be wiser to get a more diverse picture.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

It is unless you plan on claiming that your personal experience and "research" applies to all or even most women.



So no one has ever written anything about female sexuality at any time ever? Or are you implying that I'm illiterate? If it is the former well that is quite obviously wrong, if it is the latter the fact that I can post in complete sentences and read well enough to answer your posts is evidence to the contrary.



Your experience doesn't represent the whole either, darling. The difference is your unverified and unverifiable experience is not included in scientific data.



I am, which is why I went for scientific data. Just like if I wanted to argue a point as to the toxicology of this or that drug. If I wanted to argue from a point of ignorance I'd have used anecdote alone. The plural of anecdote is not data by the way.



If a man with a smaller penis can hit your g-spot how is he able to do this without actual penetration? He isn't. The vast majority of females require other techniques, as I've said before.



Assuming that you weren't trying to get pregnant, the point of the stimulation was pleasure--in short orgasm. Failure to achieve orgasm in that context means that the act itself failed in its desired result.



I've never claimed to have experience female sexuality--as such my understanding of it is limited to what I can read. That being said, one's unverified experience and unverifiable experience is not the same thing as actual data. Were it data, both of us could poof into non-existence by Eric claiming we no longer exist. This is how idealism works, and why idealism is inherently flawed.

One does not need to go to Africa to realize how fucked the place is. The only thing the experience can do is enhance the knowlege of how completely fucked it is.

Where in the hell did you get that idea. Please, just look up other accounts....but again did you not say you were not interested? The more messages you leave the more you prove otherwise. As to idealism....i have said time and time again that i have studied this. You can too if you look it up. But you said you wouldnt. So, why continue other than the fact you are apparently so bored you are willing to talk to a woman about a topic he does not care about even though he keeps talking! Hahahaa! As to Africa that is very true but it also gives you emotional experience too as well as seeing it with your own two eyes and understanding what is really going on as some info does not tell the truth or give the whole picture.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

It is unless you plan on claiming that your personal experience and "research" applies to all or even most women.



So no one has ever written anything about female sexuality at any time ever? Or are you implying that I'm illiterate? If it is the former well that is quite obviously wrong, if it is the latter the fact that I can post in complete sentences and read well enough to answer your posts is evidence to the contrary.



Your experience doesn't represent the whole either, darling. The difference is your unverified and unverifiable experience is not included in scientific data.



I am, which is why I went for scientific data. Just like if I wanted to argue a point as to the toxicology of this or that drug. If I wanted to argue from a point of ignorance I'd have used anecdote alone. The plural of anecdote is not data by the way.



If a man with a smaller penis can hit your g-spot how is he able to do this without actual penetration? He isn't. The vast majority of females require other techniques, as I've said before.



Assuming that you weren't trying to get pregnant, the point of the stimulation was pleasure--in short orgasm. Failure to achieve orgasm in that context means that the act itself failed in its desired result.



I've never claimed to have experience female sexuality--as such my understanding of it is limited to what I can read. That being said, one's unverified experience and unverifiable experience is not the same thing as actual data. Were it data, both of us could poof into non-existence by Eric claiming we no longer exist. This is how idealism works, and why idealism is inherently flawed.

One does not need to go to Africa to realize how fucked the place is. The only thing the experience can do is enhance the knowlege of how completely fucked it is.

Do what? Sorry you lost me there. Never said there was no penetration. And yes they need more variety. My comment "I mentioned penetration alone does not bring about orgasm" says nothing about "no penetration." Now you just look silly.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

It is unless you plan on claiming that your personal experience and "research" applies to all or even most women.



So no one has ever written anything about female sexuality at any time ever? Or are you implying that I'm illiterate? If it is the former well that is quite obviously wrong, if it is the latter the fact that I can post in complete sentences and read well enough to answer your posts is evidence to the contrary.



Your experience doesn't represent the whole either, darling. The difference is your unverified and unverifiable experience is not included in scientific data.



I am, which is why I went for scientific data. Just like if I wanted to argue a point as to the toxicology of this or that drug. If I wanted to argue from a point of ignorance I'd have used anecdote alone. The plural of anecdote is not data by the way.



If a man with a smaller penis can hit your g-spot how is he able to do this without actual penetration? He isn't. The vast majority of females require other techniques, as I've said before.



Assuming that you weren't trying to get pregnant, the point of the stimulation was pleasure--in short orgasm. Failure to achieve orgasm in that context means that the act itself failed in its desired result.



I've never claimed to have experience female sexuality--as such my understanding of it is limited to what I can read. That being said, one's unverified experience and unverifiable experience is not the same thing as actual data. Were it data, both of us could poof into non-existence by Eric claiming we no longer exist. This is how idealism works, and why idealism is inherently flawed.

One does not need to go to Africa to realize how fucked the place is. The only thing the experience can do is enhance the knowlege of how completely fucked it is.

Preferred size for stimulation does not mean just the end result. But as we know you have no gray-scale. Just black and white for you.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

It is unless you plan on claiming that your personal experience and "research" applies to all or even most women.



So no one has ever written anything about female sexuality at any time ever? Or are you implying that I'm illiterate? If it is the former well that is quite obviously wrong, if it is the latter the fact that I can post in complete sentences and read well enough to answer your posts is evidence to the contrary.



Your experience doesn't represent the whole either, darling. The difference is your unverified and unverifiable experience is not included in scientific data.



I am, which is why I went for scientific data. Just like if I wanted to argue a point as to the toxicology of this or that drug. If I wanted to argue from a point of ignorance I'd have used anecdote alone. The plural of anecdote is not data by the way.



If a man with a smaller penis can hit your g-spot how is he able to do this without actual penetration? He isn't. The vast majority of females require other techniques, as I've said before.



Assuming that you weren't trying to get pregnant, the point of the stimulation was pleasure--in short orgasm. Failure to achieve orgasm in that context means that the act itself failed in its desired result.



I've never claimed to have experience female sexuality--as such my understanding of it is limited to what I can read. That being said, one's unverified experience and unverifiable experience is not the same thing as actual data. Were it data, both of us could poof into non-existence by Eric claiming we no longer exist. This is how idealism works, and why idealism is inherently flawed.

One does not need to go to Africa to realize how fucked the place is. The only thing the experience can do is enhance the knowlege of how completely fucked it is.

Which is why i have looked up many accounts of this unlike star gazing. According to Eric if we die and lose all of that knowledge we never existed to begin with anyway. LOL! Despite evidence to the contrary. But then again bones are not who we really are. We are just stars and only that.

You want proof...research some. I want proof too. Proof you actually do not care about this topic. How to do that would not be to comment further on a subject you mentioned you do not care about. But I highly recommend studying this further as I did. I care about it of course because it helped me understand what i was going through and told me something about myself too as well as reading many accounts on the subject from various sites. But, of course you would not be interested.....right? Prove you do not care. If not keep posting or better yet do some reading.

Kinser, I have greatly enjoyed reading your posts. Thanks for being you.
Same goes for Jordan, if he is out there somewhere.
So long, you two.

Oh gosh the end ( of here) is really getting close now. Somehow I've got to make time and go through the 35 or so threads that I started over the years and decide what to save. Anyway, I hope everyone fins happiness in their post forum world.

Originally Posted by Taramarie

Actually it would be quite ignorant to look up studies where they take a group of people and judge the majority of society to be like that group. To look beyond that and take in accounts from others would be wiser to get a more diverse picture.

In short your position is that looking up scientific data is ignorant. Duly noted. Seriously I think Eric has infected you with something.

Originally Posted by Taramarie

Where in the hell did you get that idea. Please, just look up other accounts....but again did you not say you were not interested? The more messages you leave the more you prove otherwise. As to idealism....i have said time and time again that i have studied this. You can too if you look it up. But you said you wouldnt. So, why continue other than the fact you are apparently so bored you are willing to talk to a woman about a topic he does not care about even though he keeps talking! Hahahaa! As to Africa that is very true but it also gives you emotional experience too as well as seeing it with your own two eyes and understanding what is really going on as some info does not tell the truth or give the whole picture.

This topic is of no real particular interest to me, but triggering you and watching make a fool of yourself is certainly entertaining. There are very few people on this board who are actually worth debating. Most of the rest have a few memorized talking points, or worse just pull shit from their ass.

I was unaware you were studying human sexuality in school. I thought it was film making or some such nonsense. Your personal experience does not constitute research unless you are including it into the scientific body of knowledge. It is at best anecdote and the plural of anecdote is not data.

Originally Posted by Taramarie

Do what? Sorry you lost me there. Never said there was no penetration. And yes they need more variety. My comment "I mentioned penetration alone does not bring about orgasm" says nothing about "no penetration." Now you just look silly.

Look it is pretty simple. Either you needed stimulation other than penetration to achieve orgasm (the point if you weren't trying to make a baby) or you achieved it by penetration alone. Your previous statements indicate that stimulation other than penetration was necessary from your own experience, or at least that is what you wrote and not what you think you wrote.

Most females actually never experience an orgasm, but that is hardly surprising. Biologically speaking their need for pleasure from sex is far less than their need to have sex to push out a human baby.

Originally Posted by Taramarie

Preferred size for stimulation does not mean just the end result. But as we know you have no gray-scale. Just black and white for you.

Again if the end result is to have an orgasm then it really doesn't matter the size of the male. He isn't going to hit the so-called g-spot trough penetration whether his dick is 7cm or 16 cm or 24cm. It is the location of the clitoris that causes this "problem"

Originally Posted by Taramarie

Which is why i have looked up many accounts of this unlike star gazing. According to Eric if we die and lose all of that knowledge we never existed to begin with anyway. LOL! Despite evidence to the contrary. But then again bones are not who we really are. We are just stars and only that.

Actually your claims were all based on your unverified and unverifiable experiences. I have no doubt that your experiences are indeed real, that you experienced them. However, they do not constitute scientific data and are therefore not relevant to other people.

Eric is right and wrong about us being stars. All of us are composed of elements most of which were formed through the actions of stars being born and dying. Carl Sagan said that we are all star dust. Where Eric is wrong is in that he believes some unknown and unknowable force exists throughout the entire universe and that all of us are the entire universe and the universe is all of us..or something. It starts to sound like the ravings of a lunatic if you listen to him long enough so I stopped after my first week here. Mostly because my time is valuable (as is yours--which is why I told you long ago to stop talking to him) and Eric is only really useful when he can be mocked and held up in derision for my entertainment.

Originally Posted by nihilist moron

Kinser, I have greatly enjoyed reading your posts. Thanks for being you.
Same goes for Jordan, if he is out there somewhere.
So long, you two.

Well there is a new forum being set up now. Hopefully I won't end up in a sea of lib-tards. You'd think a communist would be more comfortable around them but seriously most of them give me the creeps.

Also Eric hasn't put you-know-who up there yet. Thank whatever gods there may be.

Originally Posted by Taramarie

You want proof...research some. I want proof too. Proof you actually do not care about this topic. How to do that would not be to comment further on a subject you mentioned you do not care about. But I highly recommend studying this further as I did. I care about it of course because it helped me understand what i was going through and told me something about myself too as well as reading many accounts on the subject from various sites. But, of course you would not be interested.....right? Prove you do not care. If not keep posting or better yet do some reading.

He probably doesn't, he's gay. Why would a gay man care about what penis size matters to a woman or women in general? As far as your point, he's gay and he has no sexual experience with a female and therefore is clueless as far as what has worked with women and what would most likely work with you in particular.

Originally Posted by nihilist moron

Kinser, I have greatly enjoyed reading your posts. Thanks for being you.
Same goes for Jordan, if he is out there somewhere.
So long, you two.

I signed up. I'm not sure how much I'm going to participate in the new forum but it would be cool to have you around and weigh in from time to time.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

He probably doesn't, he's gay. Why would a gay man care about what penis size matters to a woman or women in general? As far as your point, he's gay and he has no sexual experience with a female and therefore is clueless as far as what has worked with women and what would most likely work with you in particular.

Sush...she might figure out I sometimes enjoy triggering her and watching her fly off into a tizzy.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

He probably doesn't, he's gay. Why would a gay man care about what penis size matters to a woman or women in general? As far as your point, he's gay and he has no sexual experience with a female and therefore is clueless as far as what has worked with women and what would most likely work with you in particular.

Course he doesn't. He is just simply a troll who has no life so he trolls people on here for amusement. I feel really sad for him tbh.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

In short your position is that looking up scientific data is ignorant. Duly noted. Seriously I think Eric has infected you with something.



This topic is of no real particular interest to me, but triggering you and watching make a fool of yourself is certainly entertaining. There are very few people on this board who are actually worth debating. Most of the rest have a few memorized talking points, or worse just pull shit from their ass.

I was unaware you were studying human sexuality in school. I thought it was film making or some such nonsense. Your personal experience does not constitute research unless you are including it into the scientific body of knowledge. It is at best anecdote and the plural of anecdote is not data.



Look it is pretty simple. Either you needed stimulation other than penetration to achieve orgasm (the point if you weren't trying to make a baby) or you achieved it by penetration alone. Your previous statements indicate that stimulation other than penetration was necessary from your own experience, or at least that is what you wrote and not what you think you wrote.

Most females actually never experience an orgasm, but that is hardly surprising. Biologically speaking their need for pleasure from sex is far less than their need to have sex to push out a human baby.



Again if the end result is to have an orgasm then it really doesn't matter the size of the male. He isn't going to hit the so-called g-spot trough penetration whether his dick is 7cm or 16 cm or 24cm. It is the location of the clitoris that causes this "problem"



Actually your claims were all based on your unverified and unverifiable experiences. I have no doubt that your experiences are indeed real, that you experienced them. However, they do not constitute scientific data and are therefore not relevant to other people.

Eric is right and wrong about us being stars. All of us are composed of elements most of which were formed through the actions of stars being born and dying. Carl Sagan said that we are all star dust. Where Eric is wrong is in that he believes some unknown and unknowable force exists throughout the entire universe and that all of us are the entire universe and the universe is all of us..or something. It starts to sound like the ravings of a lunatic if you listen to him long enough so I stopped after my first week here. Mostly because my time is valuable (as is yours--which is why I told you long ago to stop talking to him) and Eric is only really useful when he can be mocked and held up in derision for my entertainment.

Had a long day at work so i will not bother. It is just more trolling just to trigger me and i cannot be bothered with you tbh. No more bread for you troll. Seriously, I just feel sad for you now. Only people who like to deliberately piss people off are those who have the saddest existence on this planet to derive pleasure in infecting people with their internal hate. Get a life and get some help.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

I signed up. I'm not sure how much I'm going to participate in the new forum but it would be cool to have you around and weigh in from time to time.

I've been registered on the GD forum for years but haven't read it in a long time.
I'm just tired of generational theory, tired of the same old discussions that mostly go nowhere. If Trump ends up being the Orange Champion the lib-tards will go even crazier and who needs that.
As for penis size, my personal opinion is that it's like Goldilocks and the Three Bears.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

Oh gosh the end ( of here) is really getting close now. Somehow I've got to make time and go through the 35 or so threads that I started over the years and decide what to save. Anyway, I hope everyone fins happiness in their post forum world.

Apparently, posters are decamping to a many alternate platforms, and the community will degrade accordingly. I'm still deciding whether I'm still interested in pursuing this topic further on any platform. I want to add my regrets at the closing and fond farewell to all of you. As early as it may seem, I'm sure many are already gone. It's hard to attend the funeral.