I saved this for a friend

Putting asides any awkwardness or what not, and the fact that to ask implies strongly you intend to have sex (which you may not,) asides copping a feel, which an be unreliable at best, especially if he is a grower not a shower, the entirety of human history and the very fact this thread exists tells us that you can’t just ask a man about his penis size and rely on an honest or objective answer. That puts aside that most men don’t measure the length, diameter, and total displacement of their penises, and few if any women have committed the science and effort in to recording these numbers and memorizing what the ideal metrics for their optimum range based on experience. I think it’s more an eyeballing thing. So either way you face a moment where she’s gonna have to inspect the D, and make a call. It seems the natural time would be in the moment. You may get a courtesy BJ, HJ, or something at least even if she rejects it. Either way the junk inspection is critical on a hook up because...

Beyond the male propensity to protect ego or misjudge size, beyond the subjective nature of terms like “big” (most straight guys have the biggest D they’ve ever felt...) is the fact that both sexes may not be honest or forthcoming on hygiene or STI’s, so at that point you kinda want to check the goods for obvious red flags and work it in to the forepaly so it’s not weird and awkward. I mean- ask yourself this as a straight man looking for a hookup- would you be willing to take a dick to protect her feelings? If the answer is “no,” then there’s really no reason to expect a woman to do so for you.

The fact that the guy has his pants off and his penis exposed to a girl he just met and isn't in a relationship with who then rejects him based on the size of his penis size implies strongly that the original intention was to have sex, so I find that point a bit moot (no offence).
Also, while I can concede that diameter does play a pretty major role, the post wasn't getting into diameter and total displacement, merely length. And most men I've encountered, when asked, do seem to know the general length of their penises. Then again, I don't go around asking most men I know about it, so that is admittedly not the largest sample size. Still, most women don't have the length of 6 inches exactly imprinted in their brains, either. As you say, sometimes it is more of an eyeballing thing

That said, given the average penis size is less than 6 inches, and that's NOT a hard thing to find out, I still think it's far more considerate if you know this is a common issue you have, to mention it to the guy beforehand. He has the option of excusing himself, then. But that's just me, personally, and clearly everyone is different

We can agree that folks are different it seems- but I just can’t follow some of the points of your logic. At what point, and in what way, is a woman supposed to be up front about caring about penis size? Should it be the first thing out, like “hi. I’m Nancy, if we get along, and decide to possibly have sex, and if I find your penis unacceptably sized, I reserve the right to call this all off. If that bothers you, you should leave.” And then we return to- what is unacceptable? That is the question that would be on that persons mind if they didn’t run away or think “am I on a hidden camera show?” And then- we are left with the fact that without seeing the thing, the woman has no way to describe to the man what she is looking for unless she’s taken some measurements or has awesome savant special acuity, save for using generic terms, and even if she says: “good size...” hers and his idea of what that is may differ. So now she must take a chance on his word and opinion, and if she sees it..

And their definition of good size doesn’t match up..... she still had to either reject him or parry the sex, or just do it anyway. So we always come back around to the beginning- that until it’s face to face, its speculation, and until it is a known commodity, one can’t make an educated guess as to wether one wants to engage that particular member.

Doesn't seem that difficult. If you can tell someone you want them to rub their genitals inside your own until you're both covered in each others bodily fluids, saying "you should know, I only fuck guys with penises at least this big" hardly seems a stretch. A visual demonstration may even be in order. Also, why would that even remotely be the first thing you say to them? Unless you see someone and know instantly that you are going to fuck them, and that they will consent to fucking you, using that as your opening line would be ridiculous. I merely said it should be brought up at some point BEFORE you've gotten the guy naked. Maybe he'll want to go ahead and risk it anyway, but at least you've given him the opportunity to back off, and I see no reason why that's an unreasonable thing to do. I understand a lot of people *won't* either because they won't think to do it, or they can't bring themselves to swallow their own pride/nerves

To me, it's no different than a guy saying to a girl "I only fuck girls with size D breasts."
Maybe she's wearing a baggy coat, or a push-up bra, so he can't tell right away. If she knows or at least has an idea that she's not size D, or if she even suspects she might not be big enough-- OR too big-- or that the guy maybe isn't someone she's down for sleeping with after all, she can now back out of it and find someone more worth her time, and the guy can as well. If she goes through with it anyway, it's now knowing full well she might not be what the guy is expecting.
The alternative is waiting until he has her naked, looking at her chest and then telling her "that's not good enough," and then, apparently maybe offering oral as a consolation prize. At that point the damage is already done, and maybe it won't be the least awkward conversation of your life, but if you CAN avoid fucking up someone's self esteem to that degree, it seems worth the effort to at least try.

Perhaps. But I hate to point out that push up bras, shape wear, make up, fake lashes, and many more things exist to alter the “natural” appearance of a woman, and from “chew off your own arm to escape in the morning” to “once we were steady she let herself go...” men have been lamenting, even dumping women after discovering what they are naturally endowed with for a long time. I also have to point out that in general, it tends to take much more for an average man to turn down sex than a woman- another well documented social phenomenon. I also have to mention that while things like breast size can contribute to arousal and attraction, once aroused they have no functional bearing on sexual sensation. In a “blind test” using glory holes with erotic and pornographic material to stimulate arousal, then using the supplied holes and genitals and ranking the experience in satisfaction, do you think men or women would give higher scores in general, and do you think men or women would have...

A greater “range” in their scores based on satisfaction to the genitals as an effect of their partners genital dimensions? Now, I can’t argue the idea that saving face is a bad thing where practical. You say as much and like saying “not having war is better than war,” it is true- but what is the practical solution? I’ve a million tongue in cheek replies, like men carrying notarized business cards with their photo and an ink imprint of their penis from several angles- but I’ll skip that and ask seriously, how would you propose that conversation go? I’ll be the man, you can be the lady. We have never met, we are in a bar and I’ve caught your attention, said hi, and made 5 minutes of innocent small talk. You think I’m cute. How do you proceed to save my ego possible embarrassment?

Your first point just furthers my argument. If the men had been honest about what they wanted, or the women had been honest after deciding they were considering having sex, the women wouldn't have been wasting so much time in a relationship neither of them would ever be happy in.
You don't have to go up to every random stranger and open the dialogue with "hi, my tits are small and I only fuck guys with 7inch penises," but if you can't bring that up at even one point before you're about to let someone rub their genitals all over you, then I don't personally see how you could ever be comfortable enough to LET them do that in the first place. But, again, a lot of people can't let go of their pride or nerves enough to bring such a thing up because it's just not done

Your next couple of points are irrelevant because it's was never about whether a guy would be more willing to turn down sex. And it was never claimed breasts were as sensitive as a penis. What we were discussing was a scenario where a guy may have a very specific size he has decided he wants to deal with. His reason for this is irrelevant, it's what he's decided. Without that size breasts, like your friends with smaller penises, it's a deal breaker for him

I like how you pretended you weren't going to include the tongue-in-cheek responses by giving examples of them, and thereby including them. <.<
Just to clarify I'm not trying to attack you or your friend at all, I'm literally just saying I think there's a (perhaps) better way to try and go about doing things that might save some self esteem in the long run.
-
As to your scenario, I can't really partake in the scene you've set because I lilterally would not be thinking about having sex with someone I'd only spoken to for 5 minutes. This may be an unsatisfactory response to you, but I already stated you don't have to bring it up at the beginning of the conversation. Just at some point preferably before you encourage the person out of whatever environment you started in (in this case the bar), and definitely before you've gotten them naked.

If I were trying to slip it into the course of casual conversation, I'd probably say it in such a way as "sorry, I only go for guys over this many inches" blunt and to the point, or, if I were feeling Cheeky, "You have to be this big to get on MY ride," and potentiality offer an example of size with my hands. At that point it would be up to him to respond and then me to reiterate that I'm serious and what I mean

No offense taken, and I understand. I’m not one for causal encounters as such myself. I feel that in most every practical regard it is better to know someone well enough to avoid scenarios like we discuss or worse (or in some cases be invested enough to put value elsewhere) before sex- putting asides subjective morality on the issue of “hooking up with strangers.” That said I do understand some people feel different, and it pertains to this discussion, with exception to very horrible humans, or perhaps medically negligible penises, this scenario would likely only occur in such a casual encounter or early stage of dating where emotional bonding and personal investment as well as commitment or intentions were all unknown or unformed. So in that context:

Unless you specifically plan to have a “spontaneous unknown sexual encounter” with a specific person (which takes the spontinatiy out of the whole deal...) until it’s sexy time, you may not have intended to have sex at all. Sex isn’t always an act of determination, sometimes you just want to make out, or do some light touching, cuddle, oral, “petting” etc. In that moment though- hormones... you get worked up or feel a “chemistry” and maybe you decide to just go all in. So you’re making out, you start getting undressed, and you see.... something that you just don’t like. Something you can’t- you just no longer want to continue. And that’s the end. Before that point you wouldn’t have thought sex was a possibility, now it is not. But since it wasn’t your explicit intent to start, why ask the question? Why would we ask people sexual questions because there is some possibility we might want to have sex with them latter? That also ignores the fact that they might not want to have sex with...

.. us either. And in the same vein as your above logic- it implies that sex is likely. So what if you then decide you don’t want to have sex, when they are thinking “she threw down the dock question, she wants to have sex!” Then you don’t follow through and they are still left to wonder what they may have done since you seemed ok with their size as is. I get the desire to minimize harm, but sometimes people aren’t compatible. Be it a hook up or a relationship, 9/10 times if you expose the most sensitive parts of yourself to a person, all your faults and flaws and issues, if you dump them on a person all at once before they’ve gotten to see the ballance points in your virtues- it will end badly, and at the very least you’ve given intensely personal information to someone you might not want to have it. Expose yourself as much as you are comfortable. If you can’t handle penis rejection don’t show your penis until you’re sure she’ll like it.

I have to point out that I did say somewhere near the beginning of those how no one is obligated to have sex at any point. But to me this wouldn't be so different than birth control. Even in hot and heavy scenarios, most people are of enough state of mind to be able to stop and go "wait wait, do you have a condom/are you on the pill/etc etc," and if this is as big an issue for them as it seems to be where you literally can't enjoy sex with someone who lacks this specific feature, it seems to me that it would often be near the forefront of your mind anytime you get close to having sex with someone new. Much like people who are into BDSM I wouldn't think would leave it to the last second to say "by the way, I need you to choke me until I pass out so I can orgasm" (as an example)

And yes, sometimes people aren't compatible, it just seems like this would be something best gotten out of the way early on. Otherwise it seems like you're genuinely just wasting everyone's time, which isn't something I'd think most people would want to do. But that's just the practical side of my brain talking. People have been known to waste years of their lives with a person they're not even remotely happy with, so a few hours isn't that big a stretch.
Either way, as you say, if the person can't deal with rejection, casual sex is almost definitely probably not going to be their cup of tea
I'm mostly just surprised this seems to be such a common theme I've seen lately, with people telling girls to stop judging guys based on their size. It's always seemed like something guys put more pressure on each over than girls, but perhaps it is women doing it more

As a side note - the sheer amount of time/length of the comments we've spent talking about penis rejection is both impressive and baffling at this point

I give credit where it is due. I haven’t and wouldn’t imply you’d said otherwise, I took specific note of you mentioning a persons right to say no at any time. I also understand the crux of your position isn’t that a person doesn’t have the right, but that having a right doesn’t always mean it is the most humanitarian or philosophically “right” thing to exercise. One has the right to be racist, and that doesn’t make racism right- just as one has the right to laugh at their partners naked body- but that doesn’t make that “right” either. Personally I wouldn’t reject a partner for falling short of my expectations physically unless it was some sort by of danger or other matter. However- the distinction I want to make is that expectations are two sided here. Unless explicitly satiated (which it may or may not be) you can’t know, even if naked, that sec was intended. You must assume she was going to have sex with you. Love and arc and romance all carry the possibility of rejection...

.. at any time, for any reason. How is refusing to have sex because a penis is too small for your tastes any different than refusing to kiss someone who has bad breath, or who smokes or has other tastes you don’t like? How is it worse than refusing to go down on an unshaven partner, or not liking uncircumcised penises? How about finding out a partner has debts, a non violent criminal past, an ex wife, or refusing to sleep with someone who has children? It comes down to preference and experience. If you know that it’s common that many people find uncut foreskin gross, or don’t date single parents, or might have problems dating an ex alchohic, should you disclose that? Probably. As early as possible- but you still need to feel secure enough and like things are moving in that direction no? Most people don’t like putting out such personal business unless they know they need to right? So if we agree that feelings can be saved through early disclosure....

... why is it the woman’s job to ask or tell? The default is the opposite. Not that we meet and I bring up: “so... I don’t date people who used to have substance abuse issues.” but for you to mention to me, even casually, “here’s a picture of my beautiful child...” or “I know this is a problem for some people so I’m going to get it out of the way...” it’s easier and more practical for the person with the potential issue to say what it is than for each person to spend all night asking back and forth all their possible few breakers. Not to mention they may forget a few that come up later. So the guy brings up: “so, my dick is xyz inches” or “kinda tiny” “is that gonna be a problem?” and see where it goes. Then we are back at square 1, what is “kinda tiny” and length isn't the only number that maters. To remove gender- men or women can be terrible in bed. Should they tell you upfront that they are terrible? What if they think they aren’t? Only One way to know.

As a side note- we have discussed this at... GREAT LENGTH haven’t we (ha ha!) my favorite kind of conversation. Intelligent, civil but with some teeth, and ultimately just about learning and interacting. I appreciate your participation but don’t want to impart any expectation of obligation.

I understand where you're coming from, although if we take into account the scenario you suggested earlier (meeting a random person at a bar and flirting etc), and then consider that you then presumably left the bar (or are about to be registered on the sex offender list) and went somewhere private, likely kissed among other things, and have now taken off clothes, if sex isn't at least heavily implied by both parties as the end point there, I have no idea what the alternative would be haha. If it's meant to be strip poker, they've missed a couple steps
I do feel there is a bit of a line between physical "limitations" than criminal or financial ones, since criminal and/or financial usually require conscioius choices on the person's part, whereas, unless you're willing to go to extremes, most physical "limitations" can't be rectified. Even bad breath is something that's easy to fix.

As you say, everyone has the right to dismiss anyone else for whatever reason, but I do think that the bulk of responsibility would lie on the person with the "problem." Just using race as an example, it's not up to an Asian person to ask everyone they meet "hey, are you okay with me being Asian?" If they approach someone, and that person seems amenable enough, it only makes sense they'd assume there isn't a problem unless told otherwise. The person who doesn't like Asians would néed to inform them "sorry, I'm not into you," preferably before getting them naked. Granted, race is (usually) much easier to get a general feel for than penis size, but at least if they have the heads up, when they ARE naked, they'll know to expect it might not work out. If it does, then even better.
I guess it kind of follows the philosophy of an optimist can be disappointed, but a pessimist might be pleasantly surprised.

And it's true, compatibility doesn't lie solely in penis length by far, that's just the issue this post was talking about, and so I was specifically addressing it.
Being terrible in bed is a relative thing a lot of the time it seems, and arguably what constitutes a "large" penis can be relative for people as well, though that just leads me back to "if the girl has a general concept of how small is too small for her, then that's what she should work off of."
True, a guy with a smaller sized penis could announce this to anyone he intends to sleep with, but since most of them might not even have an issue with it, it seem a slightly unnecessary action on his part.

Honestly, the amount of puns in this conversation is getting a little out of hand haha! It has been one of the better debates/conversations I've had on here, or on the Internet in general. Normally they devolve quickly into ridiculousness and petty shots and then you're left there thinking "I don't even CARE about this subject anymore." You usually manage to offer different perspectives on a lot of topics in a rather eloquent manner.
I'll admit when I initially saw it was you responding part of me went "oh shit," because I knew it was about to get real and intellectual on a whole other level, and I wasn't quite sure I was prepared to take you on. In a good way, though. Like 98% in a good way

There is where I have trouble following your logic. The person with the problem should be responsible. Should someone ask every single person at the musesum if they need an alternate language audio guide, or should the person who knows they likely won’t understand most of the exhibits ask the desk? Should the restaraunt advertise itbhas no “paleo” or “vegan” or “gluten free” options, or should you check the menu online before choosing the restaraunt so you know you can eat there? So... who has the problem? The person with “the problem” is the person who stands to lose the most. I’m not going to ask if you don’t like white wine before you come to my winery, I make wine. Even if I had red you might not like it. You however are putting yourself out there. If someone tells you to sod off with yer wee willy, who has the problem? The bigger problem? Whoever has more to loose is the one responsible for protecting themelsves from loss. It’s why few models are prize fighters and presidents...

... usually don’t engage in BASE jumping or alligator wrestling. You are responsible for protecting yourself. The problem is a person getting g their feelings hurt. If you ride a motorcycle and you drop it, that sucks. That is a risk of riding motorcycles. If you were riding without a helmet, in a tank top and shorts and flip flops, cutting between lanes in high gear, boom. Your involved in a collision- it sucks and shouldn’t happen in your perfect world. But it was a possibility the moment you got on the road that a crash could happen. You decided to get on a bike as opposed to a rolling enclosed steel cage. You decided to wear no gear, ride like an asshole, and took no steps to protect yourself. It’s unlikely and unfortunate, but any cars involved, their fault or not, will be juuust fine. You are the fragile meat pop, so while you can rely on others to respect your fragility, it’s best to do something to protect yourself. Riding=risk, but you can enjoy riding and minimize the risk.

Sorry- I was typing while you posted your last two replies. I didn’t see them until now because I was running. Errands. Didn’t mean to “talk over you.” I think you’re prepared, and of not you’ll pick up in the moment, any challenge you take on. I agree. Usually things get a little heated and quickly jump off of a train of logic on to just pot shots and fallacies. I generally don’t consider too much to be adversarial in discussion- as you say, just different views. Each equally relevant and true to the speaker. Just gives us exposure to new ideas and possibly some ammo to upgrade our thinking- or at least understand others positions. Most things can be disagreed on so long as people can do as they like, there are those rare issues though where one tries to force their view upon another, spews hate, or its just a personal line. For me- wiener size is not a personal line. I figure between adults people can figure things out as suits them.

I feel like we were both agreeing or making the same point on your first two comments but you said this is where you have trouble following my logic, so I'm not 100% certain if I am misunderstanding something, or if this has to do with us posting more or less at the same time and things just getting lost in the shuffle haha. I'm not sure how to clarify other than saying I agree the person with the problem is the one that should be held accountable in most circumstances, and in this particular one I feel like the girl has the problem in only wanting to have sex with a very specific penis length (<- this feels like a very bizarre sentence to have typed for some reason). Admittedly, the guy could be considered as having the problem for being the one who might be over sensitive, but to me, using your example, that more falls into a scenario where the girl walks into his winery, strongly implies she wants to taste the wine there, and then, after he's already uncorked the bottle, saying

"Oh. I only like THIS particular wine that comes from this obscure village in France. Sorry. It's a pretty bottle, though."
Considering the value a lot of people place on wine, I wouldn't say the guy necessarily is out of order if he's a little upset by this. I mean, yes, you can say he has the problem for not sucking it up (not literally, unless the situation calls for it) and dealing with it, but the guy now has a potentially ruined bottle of wine he might not be able to resell, potentially a bad memory, and the whole mess could have been avoided if she'd just stated from the start that she only likes that one kind of wine. He'd have been able to say "I don't have that in stock," and they could move on, no harm, no foul. Most normal people I've encountered would be at least a little annoyed/put out by that situation, and that's without even involving their penises
Hopefully this wording makes a bit more sense

Haha no worries. It happens to the best of us. Especially those of us like you and me who literally fill two-three comment boxes per post. We should get whoever made that thread about people making long posts in here - we could blow their minds with the sheer length of this discussion, today alone.
I'm not going to pretend I'm not guilty of getting heated haha. It can be especially difficult online because people have no real context for your emotions. There's no tone or anything, and more than once I've realized a joke I made sounded genuinely like I was just being a bitch, and then you're off to the races all over again.
I do agree with you though, as long as people are willing to be a bit more lenient on deciding which hills they want to die on, most people can discuss most subjects amicably. It's when we get stupid about it and decide we have to fight to the death over things like whether cake is better on Tuesdays than Thursdays that we have problems

There are lines everyone has, and there's nothing really wrong with that when it's something truly important. But as you say, penis length, for me as well, is far from a deal breaker.. Within reason. I will admit if a guy had a 12" penis, or an abnormally skinny (like the size of a piece of spaghetti) I'd probably have some second thoughts. But the first scenario puts me in potential actual danger if he's not careful, and the second shouldn't be humanly possible (I would hope).

That’s the side most guys don’t think about. If you’re hung like a real live Clydesdale, very few women will be even willing to touch that. I mentioned women I know who have turned away small guys, but that’s the flip side of the coin. I do know women who have turned away guys for being too intimidatingly big, and most who have grappled true monsters have done so as a sort of self challenge, or a bucket list item so they could try it once- few women I know who have faced 12-14 inches head on would do it again. They say for them it crossed a line between “good hurt” and “bad hurt” and a couple were actually physically injured. Pretty much forget anal at a certain point, and oral.. unless she can unhinge her jaw like a snake is either going to be half or nothing, unpleasant, or down right off the menu. So either direction there is a size penalty and it’s relative to the woman in question. Too much or too little is a practical concern and may be best to call it off or do something else.

I do agree that there is a legitimate danger. No telling how a man would react, be that in public or in private, at a woman rejecting him, let alone for something like size. It’s probably best for all concerned to not be blatant about the reasons. As Ms. post says- it isn’t constructive criticism if there’s nothing to be done about it, so if it can’t be corrected it’s probably best to be tactful. Any man that would turn violent though would likely do so regardless of how or why he was rejected, it’s a matter of character. A “hook up” is usually of unknown character, which makes this a greater danger in those situations, but it could happen even with someone you knew well enough to trust. That is part of why to me it is so important to foster a culture where it is ingrained in the fabric of things that women have a universal right to a “no” without retribution, and the default is to assume there is no sex, implied or otherwise, until you’re having cosentual sex.

Because we do live in a culture where most of the unpleasant and dangerous aspects of sex are a woman’s problem. They have been for a long time and it’s considered the default. The expectation. We need to raise the new generations and acclimate the old to a world where women are a wonderful and perhaps integral part of sexuality, but aren’t by nature creatures of sexual convenience and gratification. We need to take in to account that women face certain risks from quite grave, to the personally serious but less dire fact that women’s sexual pleasure/health has not and still is not held at the same regard as men’s. Women alive today grew up in a mass social view that being actively engaged and interested in sexual pleasure was a sign of bad virtue. We need to give women the freedom to explore and to demand sexual gratification from acts they participate in. A healthy functioning man basically has a 100% chance of orgasm, some women will never have an orgasm or be in their 30’s.

We need to change that and make it a social priority that women’s sexual satisfaction is on equal footing (and yes, sex can be satisfying without an orgasm, but mediocre sex that may have been a been a waste of time can be made decent through a simple orgasm. As for the logic- what I meant was about who has what problem. The woman’s problem in our scenario is that she doesn’t enjoy sex with small weiners. Her solution is: if you find out it is small, don’t sex it. Her problem is solved. The man’s problem is: he wants sex, and being denied for a small wiener hurts his feelings. His feelings are his problem, not hers. So where is his responsibility? If she should be responsible for declaring preference for size before sex, shouldn’t the man be responsible for declaring that he wants sex and his feelings will be hurt if she tells him his penis is too small?