brucethoughtsblog

Sunday, July 17, 2011

Cocks. My Experience

Well, not really my experience; that would be too shocking in a family-rated blog; more accurately, the experiences of my clients. Shocking enough, I suppose. You can't be a therapist conversing with gay men and be perceived as open to hearing about their sexual exploits and fantasies without hearing a lot about cock. I imagine the same is true of a therapist working with heterosexual men with the same openness to hearing about boobs. In fact, you can't really spend much time even in casual conversation with straight men without hearing a lot about boobs. Some forget that most gay men are socialized first as men, when men of any sexual persuasion get together for a few beers, their proclivity for objectification is hard to miss, even for those on the periphery of their well-oiled exuberance. While women tended in the past to be more reticent, the widespread practice of sexting indicates that the precocious amongst them are not immune to the pleasures of objectification and are shamelessly exchanging pics of their boobs for pics of the cocks of potential boyfriends over their smart phones.

It's also evident that men of all sexual persuasions are concerned with the size of their cocks; the importance of mine being bigger than yours not being limited to its metaphorical applications. Most men are size queens; they feel proud about having big cocks and being well-endowed is, in fact, somewhat correlated with self-esteem. Talking with my women friends it would seem that many women share the preference for a large cock with men, though thickness seems to score more than length. There may be justification for that in the experience of sexual pleasure. Research seems to indicate, though, that women concerned about cock size form a sizable minority, but not a majority. In most surveys of women preferences about cock size are not high on the list of features seen to be important in a boyfriend.  A preference for big cocks seems to be more of a guy thing.



Gay men, being in the position of both competing with men and desiring them, are likely even more centered on cock size than straight men.  I've spoken with some gay men who seem to consider their cocks as their greatest asset; sometimes even featuring it as their primary photo on gay, internet dating sites. Usually, in conversation with me they're a bit more coy and use phrases such as, "I've never had any complaints." It's always been surprising to me, sometimes a bit shocking, that someone wanting to put their best foot forward, rather than mentioning that they're handsome, talented, athletic or even, god forbid, intelligent or kind, lead with their cocks. It's as if they imagine a large cock is one attribute that is irresistible and universally desirable, when, in fact, I've heard clients complain that a sexual partner's cock was too big: "I didn't know what to do with it".

It would be tempting to think the emphasis on size is simply a reflection of the American assumption that bigger is better; however, that seems far from being the case. In fact, at almost any time in recorded history and in almost every culture that has ever existed men have boasted about, depicted artistically, danced around and worshipped big cocks. I suppose the association between the male sexual organ, virility and strength is just too obvious to miss. The ancient Greeks were one of the few cultures that seemed to have felt differently; associating big cocks with barbarians and satyrs and modest sized cocks with beauty and culture. As their statuary shows, they knew the anatomy of the penis well, but associated large ones more with goats than men.

All of which presents a challenge for men with smaller than average cocks; sometimes enough so that cock size becomes an issue in therapy; there is even a syndrome referred to by SPS: Small Penis Syndrome, which includes, amongst other characteristics, having low self-esteem. To clinically qualify for SPS you have to have a cock below the length of about 2.5 inches. It is not at all easy to help someone who is concerned about having too small a cock, especially given the cultural realities. Of course, a reasonable place to start is with the facts: study after study has indicated that the average, erect penis size around the world is between 5.5 and 6.2 inches. The overwhelming majority of men suffering from feeling they have a small penis have, in fact, average size penises and would not even qualify for the SPS designation; just try to help them believe it; it seems so counter to their experience. A quick tour of a gay sauna, sex club or sexual web site makes what is normal seem small.

There are reasonable reasons for that: men with cocks they consider to be small, although they probably are in fact average, will tend to avoid places where cocks are on display and, should they visit such places, are likely to be skilled in minimizing penis display, while those with large cocks will tend to flaunt them; leaving many men with average sized cocks to mistakenly believe they are under endowed. Another factor at play in conversation and in sexual profiles is that men quite consistently exaggerate the size of their cock. If you judged by self-descriptions on an internet dating site alone, you would conclude that any cock less than seven inches long is freakishly small. The difference in size between flaccid and erect cocks is another consideration relating to men mistakenly believing they have small cocks. It is often remarked in gay chatter and just as often forgotten that there are "showers" and "growers". The size differential between non-erect cocks versus erect cocks is considerably greater. Large, flaccid cocks sported in saunas and locker rooms, often simply become hard when erect and not much longer, while smaller, non-erect cocks of growers tend to extend considerably when erect.

In my experience, some, but not most, men concerned about having small cocks are not swayed by the facts. It takes a lot more conversation, usually centered on their own self-narrative; considerations such as whether they would, themselves, reject someone with a cock size comparable to their own; most wouldn't and can be assisted to come to the point where they are as generous towards themselves as they are towards other men. There is, also, the consideration of whether they would likely be compatible in other ways with a man for whom cock size is the clincher in the choice of a boyfriend. There certainly are men with whom I have spoken who assert that they would automatically reject another man with a cock they consider smaller than their preferences dictate. Sometimes, such a person will talk about meeting a man they regard as nice, attractive, successful, a good candidate for a boyfriend, then will say they rejected him, solely because his cock wasn't large enough; a remark often followed by, "I know that sounds superficial".

Part of me wants to reply, "Yes it does."; that wouldn't be therapeutically correct, at least not to me. In fact, after reflection, an important part of what constitutes therapy, what is involved in the choice of a boyfriend but a package of preferences? The problem being that the more preferences you have and the more rigidly they are held, the more constricted you are in your choices. Accordingly, I'm more likely to explore the fact that their preference is experienced as a demand; a demand, which, in this case, may be ruling out someone with whom they could form a loving relationship. Insisting that the universe collaborate with our preferences being a sure way to cultivate unhappiness; the more a person thinks, talks and feels their preferences as demands, the more limited their universe becomes and the more likely they will never find a boyfriend.

If it emerges through conversation that their preference is not readily compromised, that it represents for them something essential in the choice of a boyfriend, then, however limiting, I fee it's better accepted. It is highly unlikely that a relationship would thrive if one partner is significantly put off by a characteristic of the other. So, it makes sense for some men to reject other men simply because of their cock size; it becomes more painful when a man who thinks his own penis is small would reject himself. While expressing the preference as a demand may seem petty or superficial to some, the same could probably be said of the preferences that are essential to us in the choice of a partner; which comes down to a phrase often repeated by my mother: "There's no accounting for taste, said Nelly, as she kissed the cow"; her folksy version of de gustibus non disputandum est.

It is very widely assumed that cock size is related to race: Black men supposedly having large cocks, Asian men small and so-called Caucasians being in the middle. Of course, the first problem with that myth is the concept of race in itself, which has no empirical basis. That caveat aside, it's fairly absurd to think that one can characterize the physiology's of the inhabitants of entire continents. Given those reserves, it's hardly surprising that there are very few allegedly scientific studies comparing cock size with race or nationality. The two or three that do exist show no correlation between race or nationality and cock size, which runs counter to the opinions and experiences reported by most people, but is an indication that there probably is not the correlation between cock size and skin color supposed in the popular imagination. There is also a claim that gay men have larger cocks than straight men, allegedly supported by observation and the physiological reality that gay men often have higher androgen levels than the average male, however that claim is, again, not proven.

It's important in discussing the aesthetic of the cock to mention a difference important to many gay men: circumcised vs uncircumcised; cut vs uncut. While it used to be that uncircumcised males were a distinct minority in North America, amongst baby boomers it became the more humane practice not to circumcise boys. Accordingly, there are more uncircumcised men around than was once the case. I've spoken with two men who were not, in their estimation, fortunate enough to be among the uncircumcised and were involved in the foreskin restoration movement: an attempt to return circumcised cocks to what was supposed to be their more natural and pleasurable state. In order to accomplish that restoration, you have to wear a band around the skin surrounding the head of the cock, which is attached somehow to the thigh in a manner that stretches the skin; eventually, so I'm told, producing a convincing foreskin. The process of converting from uncut to cut is less complex, though, evidently, involves more short term pain. It seems to have gained currency as a way to lessen the prospect of developing STDs, but is also undertaken for aesthetic purposes; a choice which I've had several clients make.

Neither of the men in the process of restoring their foreskins wanted to talk to me about anything to do with their cocks; they were pleased with the results of the long, arduous stretching. Their experience and the experience of men having their foreskins removed illustrates an approach sometimes possible in relation to preferences experienced as demands: sometimes a disliked characteristic in an otherwise perfect boyfriend can be changed; a hairy back can usually be made smooth with laser treatment; the unemployed can get a job; the uncultured can be exposed to culture; but there's little to do to lengthen a cock that is seen as too short or shorten one seen as too long; though you can waste much money on fraudulent and painful fixes. Were it me, I believe I could get over a non-preferred cock size in a potential boyfriend without resentment by focusing on his other qualities; qualities that I, personally, would consider more important; however, that is not an option available to everyone.

No comments:

Post a Comment