August 20, 2005

Dr. Ruth I Ain't

I'm going to regret posting this. It's about sex. That's not a topic I, ha ha, do normally.

But tell me something: Why do people always judge a fellow's equipment by its appearance when it's not, uh, on active duty?

I'm asking because Meryl helpfully provided a link to a picture of Jude Law's . . . you know (geez, why'd I get mad at Hubris when I thought he was calling me a prude? I am a prude! But also I do not want to be a search result for "so-and-so's wiener."). Of course, as the link is from The Superficial, one could summarize the post in which it appeared (you search it up, pervy) as "Ha, ha, Jude's willy sure is awful small."

Maybe it's just my experience--and we're certainly not getting into the extent of that today--but what a dude looks like when he's at ease does not matter. I've seen some amazing . . . personal growth from some guys, guys you wouldn't expect it from if you only looked at the "before" shot and not the "after." Like, if the starting measurement was some number between 1 and 10 and the final measurement was also some number between 1 and 10, the start would be in the subset 1-3 and the end would be in the subset 7-. . . 9. I've never actually seen 10 except in, ah, cinema. If you've seen 10 in the flesh, for Pete's sake please keep that to yourself. Don't make the rest of us feel bad. That isn't nice.

Also, little story: There was this guy I knew who--well, everyone knew what his package looked like, because he was fond of exposing it at any available opportunity. (Somehow I managed never to see it myself, but it wasn't for lack of trying.) Anyway, the guy really was an exhibitionist, so when people would start talking about his dick (which happened more often than you might think, actually) you could tell they knew what they were talking about because it would match all the other stories you'd heard about it. You know, it's like how if one witness says "The robber was about 6'2" with dirty-blond hair and glasses," that might be accurate--but if four other witnesses come forward and say the same thing, you've probably got a good description of the criminal.

I don't really know how I just wound up comparing some guy's thang to a criminal. Sorry. Where were we?

Oh, right. Well, reports from witnesses at the various scenes were that the guy was endowed . . . generously.

Eventually this one girl ended up bedding this fellow, and then it went kinda bad later, and as women will do when things turn sour sometimes, she immediately went around providing everyone else with an erection report, which I'll just give you the abstract of here:

"I mean, it grows maybe another inch is all--if that. I've had guys who start smaller who outsize him in bed. Seriously."

Naturally this girl was very beloved after that by all the guys who'd ever had to pee at a urinal next to this guy, or had otherwise been exposed to his unit (I mentioned he was fond of exposing it, right?). I imagine the reaction went something like, what a relief! So it ultimately made no difference that this guy was so hung after all! Fantastic!

So we've got my experience and some secondhand reporting from the field, so to speak. Any other ladies want to back me up on this?

Hey, what are ya, a prude or somethin'? We're all adults here. We should totally be able to talk about a man's . . . you know . . . without embarrassment.

ONE NERVE LEFT: AN UPDATE: What is wrong with people?

I never said Jude was that small, yet every joker on the internet apparently thinks this is the place to discuss whether he is or he isn't and/or post links to pictures of it.

So let me clarify: I'm not talking about Mr. Law. One might think that would be obvious from reading this post, but apparently there's an epidemic of dumb going around lately, and I'm not real super-pleased to notice some of you have come down with it. See a doctor or something! That shit can kill you!

Now then. If you want to discuss that one famous guy's schlong, there're these websites devoted to that sort of thing. THIS IS NOT ONE OF THOSE WEBSITES.

Posted by Ilyka at August 20, 2005 09:14 PM in i don't know you tell me | TrackBack

Pish posh. It's not the size of the wand but the magic in it.

Or lemme see: oh yeah! It's not the size of the weapon but if he can shock and awe with his mouth and hands.

Okay. I've exhausted my cliches about penii.

Let me just say that you're definitely on the right track. Looks, size, circumference -- these are all bonus points. . . but it's how a man uses his gifts that makes the difference.

Plus -- have you EVER heard someone say, "My! What a lovely scrotum?"

Exactly. Me neither.

What was my point again? Ahhh feck it.

Posted by: Margi at August 20, 2005 10:06 PM

A guy I dated said much the same thing. As in, "No matter what size a guy is when he's flaccid, when he gets hard it all evens out."

I've never seen any evidence to think he's wrong. When I do physical exams on men they don't look all THAT different. (and they never get hard. It must be the rubber gloves.)

Dear God, I can't believe I said that.

Posted by: Dr Alice at August 20, 2005 11:52 PM

they never get hard

Wait, but didn't you have a post about some guy V. saw? Had a head cold turning him into Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer and a little something down below that seemed way too happy to be there? I seem to remember something like that.

Posted by: ilyka at August 21, 2005 12:07 AM

The dude's not that small. Check this enlarged (ahem) photo.

Posted by: Jake at August 21, 2005 07:09 AM

Yeah, Jude isn't that small. I'll have to take on faith that he's not as big as Tommy Lee, as one of the bimbos in the article said.

I remember reading some message board where some guy said his dick was 7 in. and asked if that was normal. Some gal (or at least claiming to be one) said, "No, that's tiny. 11 in. is average. I prefer 14 in., etc." Some guy responded, "Girl, you need to start buying smaller dildos."

Posted by: Mark at August 21, 2005 09:01 AM

Okay, I saw the pictures of Jude, and as a guy, I'll back up Mark. He's not that small.

Believe it or not, someone somewhere took the time to do the measurements on a wide enough sample, and it turns out that about 90% of all men fall within the 5" to 7" range at full "attention." It does vary by race, evidently, and it seems that there is some truth to the stereotypes. Why? I don't know. But there it is. Wish I could provide y'all with a link but I can't remember now where I found this information...just that it seemed to come from a reputable source.

Posted by: Sloan at August 21, 2005 05:05 PM

And I'd like to add that the majority of the nerve endings involved in a female's sexual sensations are located in the first two inches of her genital tract. That's why even relatively short guys can get the job done...providing, of course, that they do it right.

Dr. Alice can correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure I've got my facts straight.

Posted by: Sloan at August 21, 2005 05:10 PM

thanks for the comments on my blog, much appreciated (i try to check out other people's, but lately surgery rotation has sucked away most of my free time)...regarding this post, I guess i could add that, having had the pleasure of doing many a rectal exam already and seeing what's on the other side more than any heterosexual male would like, i'd have to agree that, in general, everyone's got about the same package. well, everyone but really old guys and dudes so morbidly obese you sometimes have to put on a glove and dig blindly to find what you're looking for. but that's probably more than anyone ever wanted to know, so i'll stop rambling now.

Posted by: Eli (the fake doctor) at August 21, 2005 10:12 PM

Of course you realize, as a SERIOUS blogger, I can't have these posts over on my site.

That's why I put the link in your comments, Ilyka. I knew you'd do it justice.

Yeah, I didn't manage to type either of those paragraphs with a straight face. I tried. Honest.

Posted by: Meryl Yourish at August 21, 2005 10:16 PM

LMFAO @ your update.

Reading is fundamental.

Hook'd on Fonix werk'd fer me!

Posted by: Margi at August 21, 2005 11:10 PM

After working ten years in nursing and viewing probably hundreds of, "you knows," I must concur, that there isn't a whole lot of variation in the, "packages."

As for whether there is a difference in how much they grow, that never, "came up," in nursing, however, I think uncircumcised one are gross, to use a very unprofessional term!

Posted by: JannyMae at August 22, 2005 12:32 AM

Ha! With you on that last point, JannyMae.

Posted by: ilyka at August 22, 2005 04:07 AM

Army joke, along the line of Margi's comments at the top: "I may not be the world's most gifted man, but I have a twelve inch tongue and can breathe through my ears."

In the Army, we used to say that there are "Growers" and "Showers". Those should rhyme, when you read them.

I had one guy explain to me with great emphasis that he is of the former group, not the latter. It sounded like he was practicing a speech for his date that night.

But yes, "At ease" is not the same as at "Attention". Differant people react differantly.

Also, don't forget to factor in the situation. If you were just swimming in cold water...ever seen a frightened turtle? Yeah, like that. Cold water will make John Holmes looks like Macauly Caulkin, if you'll excuse the comparison. Which you proably shouldn't. Lots of things can do that, though, which I won't go into further for fear of telling embrassing personal stories or making another Macauly Caulkin joke.

So, girls, don't look before you leap, I guess. There's a hell of a statement to be making on a conservative blog. Don't judge a book by it's cover, don't judge a penis by its...ah...flaccitude. Or something.

I regret this comment already.

Posted by: francis at August 22, 2005 07:58 AM

I don't believe any of this. Some of you ladies do a survey and get the facts out. Inquiring minds want to know.

Posted by: rammer at August 22, 2005 11:37 PM