Help keep this site alive with your VIP membership and unlock exciting site features available only to our supporting members!
UPGRADE to get lifetime access to dig420's video section, the Meet Up! forums, AD FREE surfing and much, much more!
It's the law!! size matters
- Thread starterduke9555
- Start date
Being substantially endowed myself, I can say from experience that it is not so much that women prefer a larger cock. What happens is - they physically respond to a cock big enough to trigger the stretch receptors in their vagina, and to stimulate the fornix and cervix. This stimulation has to be hard enough to be painful. When they get it it, it flips some switch deep inside their sexual being. They become much sluttier, more submissive and eager to please, they crave it harder and deeper, and they get deep, wrenching cervical orgasms from it. Depending on the woman this can be just one, but I've given women several dozen in a row (roughly speaking, I couldn't count them if I tried, but a solid hour of continuous screaming orgasm has to amount to thirty at least)
However - and this is key - before you can expect this response, she has to be in the proper sexually receptive state, and this requires the right approach and attitude on your part.
To understand this, you have to understand the uses of sex to the female subconcious. The first is simple genetic drive - to get herself pregnant by the biggest, most powerful alpha male she can find. The second is a little subtler. Since big, powerful alpha males are by definition rare, she can also use sex to get support and resources from a lesser man. If you are an alpha male, you have the alpha male approach, you know how to handle women, and they respond to that by becoming sexually excited. When you get inside them they are primed for that deep, hard fucking and their subconcious interprets the accompanying discomfort as part of the whole process of submitting themselves to an alpha male to get pregnant. You can tie them up, spank them, assfuck them, anything you want and they will eagerly, orgasmically take it all, since it only reinforces that subconcious paradigm. However nothing works better than a big, solid cock hitting in that special spot deep, deep inside.
However - if you are NOT an alpha male, if you do NOT have that approach, then women will not respond like that. In this case pain is just pain, it's annoying and they want it to stop. This is why a non-alpha male can't make up for his small cock with a large dildo. Even a well hung beta male won't get the right response. Her motivation for sex will not be pregnancy-with-an-alpha it will be getting-stuff-from-a-beta. She will accept, possibly endure sex, but she will not be losing control.
Understand that this happens entirely subconciously for the woman - she isn't THINKING about this, she's RESPONDING, sexually and emotionally. Thus the confusion over the importance of cock size, and in fact most aspects of female sexuality. Their emotions play a double game, with them and with the men in their lives, driving them to get support from any man they can, but sperm only from the best. Thus the real cock-size equation is this...
If you're an alpha male, having a large cock is a huge bonus as it triggers a womans ultimate sexual surrender and release.
If you're not an alpha male, cock size doesn't matter, since you're never getting her there anyway.
However - and this is key - before you can expect this response, she has to be in the proper sexually receptive state, and this requires the right approach and attitude on your part.
To understand this, you have to understand the uses of sex to the female subconcious. The first is simple genetic drive - to get herself pregnant by the biggest, most powerful alpha male she can find. The second is a little subtler. Since big, powerful alpha males are by definition rare, she can also use sex to get support and resources from a lesser man. If you are an alpha male, you have the alpha male approach, you know how to handle women, and they respond to that by becoming sexually excited. When you get inside them they are primed for that deep, hard fucking and their subconcious interprets the accompanying discomfort as part of the whole process of submitting themselves to an alpha male to get pregnant. You can tie them up, spank them, assfuck them, anything you want and they will eagerly, orgasmically take it all, since it only reinforces that subconcious paradigm. However nothing works better than a big, solid cock hitting in that special spot deep, deep inside.
However - if you are NOT an alpha male, if you do NOT have that approach, then women will not respond like that. In this case pain is just pain, it's annoying and they want it to stop. This is why a non-alpha male can't make up for his small cock with a large dildo. Even a well hung beta male won't get the right response. Her motivation for sex will not be pregnancy-with-an-alpha it will be getting-stuff-from-a-beta. She will accept, possibly endure sex, but she will not be losing control.
Understand that this happens entirely subconciously for the woman - she isn't THINKING about this, she's RESPONDING, sexually and emotionally. Thus the confusion over the importance of cock size, and in fact most aspects of female sexuality. Their emotions play a double game, with them and with the men in their lives, driving them to get support from any man they can, but sperm only from the best. Thus the real cock-size equation is this...
If you're an alpha male, having a large cock is a huge bonus as it triggers a womans ultimate sexual surrender and release.
If you're not an alpha male, cock size doesn't matter, since you're never getting her there anyway.
It's also important to understand the underlying evolutionary purpose of orgasm. For males, orgasm is both the mechanism that transfers sperm into a female and the psychophysiological reward for managing to do so. Male sexual arousal begins with the sight of a nubile female, and it proceeds directly from there to orgasm. The human male urge to thrust comes because the human penis shaped to pump sperm out of the vagina, in order to clear out the sperm any competing male before the thruster rejects his own. For this reason, most males have single orgasms. There's no reproductive benefit to pumping out all the sperm you just ejaculated. Not only that, but because sperm is a limited resource in the short-term, there is evidence that men finely adjust the volume of their ejaculate to the circumstances of their relationship with the woman they are inseminating. In an ongoing relationship sperm is metered carefully, but in a new encounter, or after a period of separation, the amount of sperm and ejaculate goes up steeply. In evolutionary terms, this is because in these encounters there is a higher likelihood that the woman has been inseminated by another man. Of course, nobody does this consciously, but every man knows the excitement of a new conquest, and the passionate sex of lovers reunited after an absence. This leads both to harder thrusting and stronger orgasms, which minimizes the presence of a potential rival's sperm, and maximizes the presence of his own. If the sperm of two different men come into contact the battle continues inside the woman's body, with specialized hunter-killer and blocker sperm seeking to take out the rival's swimmers before they can reach the egg.
For a woman, orgasm is different, and everyone knows that while the typical man enjoys a straight line track from arousal to ejaculation, a woman's sexual response can vary from no orgasm at all to dozens of orgasms in rapid succession. Again, the key is in the evolutionary purpose of orgasm. On the most basic level, at the moment of orgasm, the uterus contracts repeatedly, and the cervix pulses up and down at the top of the vagina. In effect, it acts like a turkey baster, sucking up the sperm to help it on its way to the egg. This is straightforward in most mammalian species, and all the average mammalian female has to do is select the most genetically superior male to get her pregnant. However, humans are more complex. Because human children need so much care for so long, it is nearly impossible for a woman to raise one alone in a primitive setting (which is where all these instincts evolved). She needs help, and this can only come from those who share a genetic interest in her child – her parents, siblings, and family, but most of all the child's father. This is unique to humans. Paternal child-care is unheard-of anywhere else in the mammalian world. In every other species, the males compete to be the alpha, and the winners then proceed to find – fuck – forget all the females they can lay hands on. And this unique feature of our species is where it gets interesting.
Ideally, a woman wants to be impregnated by an alpha male and have him help raise her children, but by definition there are far more women than there are alpha males. Not only that, but because alpha males are in such demand, they have options. Sperm may be a limited resource in the short-term, but in the long term a man can get dozens, hundreds, even thousands of women pregnant. If a man can pull this off, it is a very successful genetic strategy. He's got no reason to tie himself down to any one particular woman. Because of this, most women will then have to settle for a beta male to father her children – unless she cheats.
A woman cheats by forming a pair bond with a beta male, and then going off to fuck alpha males behind his back. This way she gets the best of both worlds, the best possible genes for her children, but the ongoing help she needs to raise them successfully. To make this work she has to convince the beta male that he's at least a chance of being a father – which is to say she has to have sex with him. That means she has to enjoy it at least somewhat, at least long enough to get him committed. It is a rare woman who does not have tender feelings for her beta male. However her strongest sexual response is reserved for her encounters with an alpha male. In fact, it has been shown that a woman's sex drive varies with her menstrual cycle. She prefers gentle, tender (beta) lovemaking when she is not fertile, and is attracted to physically beta types during this time, but when she is ovulating she is attracted to larger, stronger, more masculine men, and she wants rough, dominating sex from them (which verifies to her subconscious that he is indeed an alpha). And more than anything she wants those hard, pounding, deep thrusts that pump her beta lover's ejaculate out of her, and prime her for the soul wrenching, cervical orgasms that will suck all the alpha male's sperm directly up to her egg.
And here we have the complete picture of the promiscuous female, her helpless cuckold and the bull who owns her pussy. Initially she has sex with the cuckold, to cement the pair bond. Once that is accomplished, she grows restless, reduces sex with him and begins to actively hunt for the alpha bull her ovaries are demanding. She finds him, and the sex is explosive. The reason it's so good is because it is perfectly meeting both of their needs – his to enjoy limitless pussy with no strings attached, and hers to be alpha-fucked while keeping her beta-provider on a short string. And what of the poor cuckold? He's making the best of his genetic situation too. He's a beta male, so he can't easily replace his woman. He can't even hope to keep his woman from straying, though perhaps most men are in denial over this. All he can do, if he gets past the denial, is accept what she allows him, in hopes of keeping her around and possibly fathering one of her children by accident. And here, too, his instincts are guiding him. His most intense sexual response comes after she gets home, her pussy full of the alpha's sperm. Its separation sex to the nth degree, and so he fucks her as well as he can, orgasms as hard as possible. Of course he likely has a smaller cock and less sperm in his ejaculate, and he certainly can't trigger the deep orgasmic response that the alpha gives her, so he's fighting an uphill battle.
Of course this is painted in broad brush strokes. Sociopsychosexual behavior is complicated. There are endless variations on the theme, and many questions that research has yet to answer.
For a woman, orgasm is different, and everyone knows that while the typical man enjoys a straight line track from arousal to ejaculation, a woman's sexual response can vary from no orgasm at all to dozens of orgasms in rapid succession. Again, the key is in the evolutionary purpose of orgasm. On the most basic level, at the moment of orgasm, the uterus contracts repeatedly, and the cervix pulses up and down at the top of the vagina. In effect, it acts like a turkey baster, sucking up the sperm to help it on its way to the egg. This is straightforward in most mammalian species, and all the average mammalian female has to do is select the most genetically superior male to get her pregnant. However, humans are more complex. Because human children need so much care for so long, it is nearly impossible for a woman to raise one alone in a primitive setting (which is where all these instincts evolved). She needs help, and this can only come from those who share a genetic interest in her child – her parents, siblings, and family, but most of all the child's father. This is unique to humans. Paternal child-care is unheard-of anywhere else in the mammalian world. In every other species, the males compete to be the alpha, and the winners then proceed to find – fuck – forget all the females they can lay hands on. And this unique feature of our species is where it gets interesting.
Ideally, a woman wants to be impregnated by an alpha male and have him help raise her children, but by definition there are far more women than there are alpha males. Not only that, but because alpha males are in such demand, they have options. Sperm may be a limited resource in the short-term, but in the long term a man can get dozens, hundreds, even thousands of women pregnant. If a man can pull this off, it is a very successful genetic strategy. He's got no reason to tie himself down to any one particular woman. Because of this, most women will then have to settle for a beta male to father her children – unless she cheats.
A woman cheats by forming a pair bond with a beta male, and then going off to fuck alpha males behind his back. This way she gets the best of both worlds, the best possible genes for her children, but the ongoing help she needs to raise them successfully. To make this work she has to convince the beta male that he's at least a chance of being a father – which is to say she has to have sex with him. That means she has to enjoy it at least somewhat, at least long enough to get him committed. It is a rare woman who does not have tender feelings for her beta male. However her strongest sexual response is reserved for her encounters with an alpha male. In fact, it has been shown that a woman's sex drive varies with her menstrual cycle. She prefers gentle, tender (beta) lovemaking when she is not fertile, and is attracted to physically beta types during this time, but when she is ovulating she is attracted to larger, stronger, more masculine men, and she wants rough, dominating sex from them (which verifies to her subconscious that he is indeed an alpha). And more than anything she wants those hard, pounding, deep thrusts that pump her beta lover's ejaculate out of her, and prime her for the soul wrenching, cervical orgasms that will suck all the alpha male's sperm directly up to her egg.
And here we have the complete picture of the promiscuous female, her helpless cuckold and the bull who owns her pussy. Initially she has sex with the cuckold, to cement the pair bond. Once that is accomplished, she grows restless, reduces sex with him and begins to actively hunt for the alpha bull her ovaries are demanding. She finds him, and the sex is explosive. The reason it's so good is because it is perfectly meeting both of their needs – his to enjoy limitless pussy with no strings attached, and hers to be alpha-fucked while keeping her beta-provider on a short string. And what of the poor cuckold? He's making the best of his genetic situation too. He's a beta male, so he can't easily replace his woman. He can't even hope to keep his woman from straying, though perhaps most men are in denial over this. All he can do, if he gets past the denial, is accept what she allows him, in hopes of keeping her around and possibly fathering one of her children by accident. And here, too, his instincts are guiding him. His most intense sexual response comes after she gets home, her pussy full of the alpha's sperm. Its separation sex to the nth degree, and so he fucks her as well as he can, orgasms as hard as possible. Of course he likely has a smaller cock and less sperm in his ejaculate, and he certainly can't trigger the deep orgasmic response that the alpha gives her, so he's fighting an uphill battle.
Of course this is painted in broad brush strokes. Sociopsychosexual behavior is complicated. There are endless variations on the theme, and many questions that research has yet to answer.
D
duke9555
Guest
Vestiges? Not at all. You watch this behaviour happen every day, you just have to know what to look for. It is driven subconciously, communicated subverbally, acted out in secret, but it is constantly there. My neighbours don't look at me and say "He's fucking someone else's wife," but their wives sense it, and sometimes they drop little hints - totally innocent, totally deniable, but there to be picked up. This is why rock stars date supermodels and bus drivers don't. This is why every girl swoons for a man in uniform, and why the chess club can't get a date. Power, wealth and authority on one side, youth, beauty and fertility on the other, each jostling to maximize their reproductive results. It's a dance, a battle, a universal paradigm, and it is most certainly the way of human life.
Stirling,
Thanks for your perceptive and well-articulated insights. Regarding:
an interesting article on this subject, summarizing a recent study of alpha vs. beta males among baboons, appeared recently in the New York Times online, here:
From: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/15/science/15baboon.html?hp
The headline and first several paragraphs read:
Baboon Study Shows Benefits for Nice Guys, Who Finish 2nd
By JAMES GORMAN
Published: July 14, 2011, New York Times
"At last, good news for the beta male. From the wild to Wall Street, as everyone knows, the alpha male runs the show, enjoying power over other males and, as a field biologist might put it, the best access to mating opportunities."
"The beta is No. 2 in the wolf pack or the baboon troop, not such a bad position. But conversationally, the term has become an almost derisive label for the nice guy, the good boy all grown up, the husband women look for after the fling with Russell Crowe."
"It may now be time to take a step back from alpha worship. Field biologists, the people who gave the culture the alpha/beta trope in the first place, have found there can be a big downside to being No. 1."
"Laurence R. Gesquiere, a research associate in the department of ecology and evolutionary biology at Princeton, and colleagues report in the journal Science that in five troops of wild baboons in Kenya studied over nine years, alpha males showed very high stress levels, as high as those of the lowest-ranking males."
.... etc.
It may be worth noting that, as stated in the second paragraph of this article, "beta males" are not all the males other than the "alpha male" in a given group. Rather, there is one. He is the second-ranking male after the alpha male in the group hierarchy. As determined by the study, there are actually some strong advantages to being in this position. The high stress levels associated with being the group alpha male are caused by having to fight frequently to maintain this position, which tends to be short-lived because, pretty soon, another baboon wins and becomes the new alpha. The position of beta male, by contrast, tends to be stable over a much longer time period. I mean, who wants to risk all in a desperate fight to become "number 2"? Consequently, although the beta male's access to woman baboons is not outstanding, it's pretty good and, because the position of beta tends to be long-lived, he may... in the end... impregnate more females than the group alpha he lost to when, as a result, he was consigned to his secondary status.
This is not an attempt to "shoot down" your first-rate observations, which I suspect are pretty much right. Rather, I mention this point... which may seem like carping... because there is obviously a broad tendency to view "alphas" as men at the top of their group hierarchies (no argument there), and "betas" as all the other men in their respective hierarchies. But, that is not the case.
—Custer
Thanks for your perceptive and well-articulated insights. Regarding:
Stirling said:
an interesting article on this subject, summarizing a recent study of alpha vs. beta males among baboons, appeared recently in the New York Times online, here:
From: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/15/science/15baboon.html?hp
The headline and first several paragraphs read:
Baboon Study Shows Benefits for Nice Guys, Who Finish 2nd
By JAMES GORMAN
Published: July 14, 2011, New York Times
"At last, good news for the beta male. From the wild to Wall Street, as everyone knows, the alpha male runs the show, enjoying power over other males and, as a field biologist might put it, the best access to mating opportunities."
"The beta is No. 2 in the wolf pack or the baboon troop, not such a bad position. But conversationally, the term has become an almost derisive label for the nice guy, the good boy all grown up, the husband women look for after the fling with Russell Crowe."
"It may now be time to take a step back from alpha worship. Field biologists, the people who gave the culture the alpha/beta trope in the first place, have found there can be a big downside to being No. 1."
"Laurence R. Gesquiere, a research associate in the department of ecology and evolutionary biology at Princeton, and colleagues report in the journal Science that in five troops of wild baboons in Kenya studied over nine years, alpha males showed very high stress levels, as high as those of the lowest-ranking males."
.... etc.
It may be worth noting that, as stated in the second paragraph of this article, "beta males" are not all the males other than the "alpha male" in a given group. Rather, there is one. He is the second-ranking male after the alpha male in the group hierarchy. As determined by the study, there are actually some strong advantages to being in this position. The high stress levels associated with being the group alpha male are caused by having to fight frequently to maintain this position, which tends to be short-lived because, pretty soon, another baboon wins and becomes the new alpha. The position of beta male, by contrast, tends to be stable over a much longer time period. I mean, who wants to risk all in a desperate fight to become "number 2"? Consequently, although the beta male's access to woman baboons is not outstanding, it's pretty good and, because the position of beta tends to be long-lived, he may... in the end... impregnate more females than the group alpha he lost to when, as a result, he was consigned to his secondary status.
This is not an attempt to "shoot down" your first-rate observations, which I suspect are pretty much right. Rather, I mention this point... which may seem like carping... because there is obviously a broad tendency to view "alphas" as men at the top of their group hierarchies (no argument there), and "betas" as all the other men in their respective hierarchies. But, that is not the case.
—Custer
You are of course correct in the context of baboons. However baboons have a single social ladder which is fixed until someone falls off it (or gets knocked off). Alpha and beta are absolute terms here.
Humans have many social ladders and the ladders are much more flexible. Alpha and beta are relative terms, so it makes sense to speak of alpha males and beta males in the plural in the context of human society. And the terms are commonly and frequently used so.
For clarity's sake and for my purposes here, I'll use the following definitions:
If you're fucking someone else's woman, you're an alpha male.
If someone else is fucking your woman, you're a beta male.
If you don't have a woman, you're a gamma male.
Which, by the way, explains why betas accept someone else fucking their woman. If they didn't, their woman would demote them to gamma status by leaving. It also explains why betas are so eager to show off their hot wives - having a hot wife validates them as not being a gamma any longer. Alphas don't show off their wives, because alphas have access to lots of hot women, so it's no big deal.
Humans have many social ladders and the ladders are much more flexible. Alpha and beta are relative terms, so it makes sense to speak of alpha males and beta males in the plural in the context of human society. And the terms are commonly and frequently used so.
For clarity's sake and for my purposes here, I'll use the following definitions:
If you're fucking someone else's woman, you're an alpha male.
If someone else is fucking your woman, you're a beta male.
If you don't have a woman, you're a gamma male.
Which, by the way, explains why betas accept someone else fucking their woman. If they didn't, their woman would demote them to gamma status by leaving. It also explains why betas are so eager to show off their hot wives - having a hot wife validates them as not being a gamma any longer. Alphas don't show off their wives, because alphas have access to lots of hot women, so it's no big deal.
Stirling said:
All good points.
Given the subject matter of the article, and for whatever it might be worth, I'll mention that during a trip to east-central Africa a few years ago, while waiting for a ferry to cross the Nile, a troop of baboons showed up obviously hoping for some food from us humans. (They had a good sense of time, and knew the ferry schedule exactly.) Then, by far the biggest baboon I'd ever seen showed up. He was huge. The others scattered — leaving whatever food might be available to him, presumably — as he walked up and inspected us at close range. He also had a very large cock. He was obviously the local alpha (who the beta might be was not obvious, at least not to me), but whether his huge cock played a role in his alpha status was unclear. Anyway, somewhere out there, no doubt, there was an even bigger alpha.
D
