[MEGATHREAD] SNAPPY QUOTES MEGATHREAD SUGGEST NEW SNAPPY QUOTES HERE

OK.

You have heard my introduction... My name is John Lucas & I'm here to discuss the Small Peepee Self-Image Crisis

You have heard my history... My history of studying Self-Image Issues & how I stumbled upon the Small Peepee Complex

And you have heard my original self-image rehabilitation workshop called The Five Steps... DISCOVERY: The Five Step Journey To Solve The Self-Image Complex

But now I want to bring to you another set of insights I discovered early on studying this Small Peepee Crisis. The Problem with the word "Average" & Defining the Peepee Sizes

---

When I first studied this Small Peepee Self-Image Crisis at Measurection.com at the beginning of this century, I kept noticing a familiar word pop up in the discussion.

AVERAGE.

In all the confusion trying to make sense of this social/sexual/psychological madness caused by the Small Peepee Stigma, the men would pour over every scientific study put out there to find the "Average" Peepee Size.

5 inches. 5.5 inches. 6 inches. 5.25 inches. 4.75 inches. 5.75 jnches. 5.33 inches. 5.66 inches. 5.375 inches. 5.875 inches.

And with whatever number the study published, the men would measure themselves against that standard. And either they would feel better about themselves, worse about themselves, or cautiously anxious about themselves depending on wherever their size lined up with the stated figure.

It was like guys looking up the latest Sports Scores! It might as well have been RBI vs. ERA or TD vs. PAT vs. FG or 3FG% vs. FT% or OutOfBox vs. SixYardBox. It was like Fantasy Football except turned inwardly on the men's bodies. Another analogy would be The Stock Market & checking Futures. NASDAQ meet PENASDAQ. Buy! Sell! Short! Long!

---

​

I said to myself there's something maddening about all of this. The guys are rating themselves against a moving target. Averages are merely computations that are dependent on the numbers input into the equation. Dependent on the sample & you don't know WHO is being sampled to come up with that average. Besides this nebulous "Average" can NEVER tell you how to MAKE USE of your size in the s*x act. The best it can tell you in its own roundabout way is that there are more built like you than there are not. That's all.

If 5.5 inches is stated as "The Average" but the Women of the World look down on 5.5 inches, this didn't solve anything. You "made the cut" on some half-baked scientific study but the Stigma against your kind still exists in the world. Your 2 most prominent problems would still exist: [1] You would not know any better how to MAKE OPTIMUM USE of your peepee size in Sexual Penetration (PIV) to be Sexually Competitive. [2] You would not remove the Cultural Stigma that denigrates small-peepeeed men which damages Social Belonging & Available/Reliable Sexual Partners (for short-term flings OR long-term relationships that could turn into families).

---

​

The key problem with using the word "AVERAGE" to quantify peepee size is that the term is inherently SUBJECTIVE. It's a moving computation depending on the data input. That's why you have to keep checking updates from newly-produced scientific studies. It's never static & solid. It's always based on a POV or a newly-minted professional consensus. Averages are SUBJECTIVE because no one HAS EVER or WILL EVER compute the peepee sizes of EVERY SINGLE MAN and FUTURE MAN on Planet Earth to reach a DEFINITIVE conclusion.

So what word can quantify Peepee Size & do it in a rock-solid unmistakable OBJECTIVE way?

MEDIUM.

The word "MEDIUM" is inherently OBJECTIVE. It is not dependent on outside study or POV. It is fixed & self-defining. By definition, MEDIUM means MIDDLE. The CENTER Point between Two Opposite Points. Both MEDIUM & its plural MEDIA literally means BETWEEN when you trace the roots of Latin's MEDIUS. From the air two people speak across to the wires & wireless frequencies that telephone/television/internetworks are built upon, all of it GOES BETWEEN Speaker & Receiver. The Go-Betweens in the MIDDLE, in the CENTER of Two Points, Two People, Two Sets of Peoples. The MEDIA, The MEDIUM that Goes Between transmits the MESSAGE.

And the MESSAGE I want you to receive from using the word "MEDIUM" is not just the fact that "if there's a SMALL & a LARGE, there must be a MEDIUM" (like in T-Shirts, Pizzas, & Slushees from the convenience store)... ...but also I want you to understand the inherent properties of the sizes so that you view your size as a SEXUAL TOOL. A mechanic or handyman never sees his 3/16 wrench as inferior to his 7/16 wrench. He knows that each tool serves its own purpose & role. There are times when he needs his Phillips & times he needs his Flathead. All of his tools are important & none are disposable. That's why he carries his tool belt & drags along his tool box.

Once we leave behind the word AVERAGE & start looking at things in terms of SMALL MEDIUM LARGE, we can figure out how to make SMALL work more effectively in PIV to enhance your Sexual Competition & reduce the Cultural Stigma.

---

​

Wait a minute. There's a problem here.

We now know that it's not SMALL AVERAGE LARGE but instead SMALL MEDIUM LARGE but...but... WE DON'T REALLY KNOW WHAT THOSE TERMS EVEN MEAN!! What IS SMALL?! What IS MEDIUM?! What IS LARGE?! Putting the cart before the horse here. How in the heck did we overlook this basic crucial step?

​

See, that's the OTHER thing I figured out studying this. How in the heck are you gonna talk about Peepee Size when you haven't even defined Which Size Is Which FIRST?? I mean, NOBODY has done this! EVER! How do you miss THAT?! All of these scientists & statisticians plugging in data to these "AVERAGE" Peepee Size studies but nobody ever thought to define OBJECTIVE Peepee Sizes yet. Building a house with no foundation. No wonder it keeps toppling!

My belief about these AVERAGE Peepee Size studies is that they're not about helping men deal with Peepee Size Complexes but REALLY to deliver data to condom-making companies so they can figure out how to target & optimize sales. CAPITALISM fricking up everything else yet again. It's always about PROFIT & nothing else.

Well, screw these profiteers & their bullshit studies. Let's do it ourselves. Right here. Right now.

---

Defining The Sizes

If there's a MEDIUM, then there has to be a SMALL & a LARGE.

• SMALL

• MEDIUM

• LARGE

OK, that's a start. We got 3 basic categories to cover the range of sizes. But we need numbers to go along with these letters. We gotta think about what figures go into these categories. Since I'm American, I'm gonna use that old outdated English system with all of its Yards, Feet, & Inches. Yeah, I know. Even the English don't use the English system anymore. They use Metric. But just humor me, OK?

We know that Micropeepeees of 1 inch or even less exist so we will use that as the Pole for the SMALL end. We also know that Jonah Falcon exists & he's supposed to be 13 inches so we'll use that as the Pole for the LARGE end. And the honest truth is that actually that human growth can go into the Ripley's Believe It Or Not files so there's probably some undiscovered person in the world even beyond HIM. But we'll keep it reasonable by keeping out Blue Moon types & focusing on a more tangible Common to Rare range that covers virtually everybody.

So with effectively 0 inches as the end point for SMALL to 13 inches as the end point for LARGE, we have our size range. All we have to do now is place this range into the size categories evenly.

13 ÷ 3 = ??? Uhhh...ummm...hm.

• SMALL - 1 inch & less. 2 inches. 3 inches. 4 inches.

• MEDIUM - 5 inches. 6 inches. 7 inches. 8 inches.

• LARGE - 9 inches. 10 inches. 11 inches. 12 inches. 13 inches & more.

This is off. There are too many entries into the LARGE category for perfect even representation. And even if I capped off the LARGE range to 12 inches so it could be perfectly dividable by 3, somehow I don't think those sizes all belong in that type of grouping. There's a functional difference between 1 inch & 4 inches. There's a functional difference between 5 inches & 8 inches. There's a functional difference between 9 inches & 12 inches.

If I went the OTHER way & included a little of that Ripley's category to make the range 0 inches to 15 inches to be perfectly dividable by 3, the groupings would get EVEN MORE RIDICULOUS! SMALL would range from 0 to 5 inches. MEDIUM would range from 6 to 10 inches. LARGE would range 11 to 15 inches.

This is simply not gonna work with 3 Categories. And we need a Middle category to cover the MEDIUM. So let's try the next odd number up & use 5 as the divider.

---

• XTRA SMALL

• SMALL

• MEDIUM

• LARGE

• XTRA LARGE

OK, much better. The groupings should make more sense now with 5 Categories. And with the addition of the XTRA label, we corral off the rarer sizes into their own categories so that the more common sizes are more accurately grouped. The most EXTREME of Extremes so we jazz it up & call it X-tra. So now it doesn't matter so much about the Ripley's factor. We can divide the range of 15 by 5 easily.

15 ÷ 5 = 3

• XTRA SMALL - 1 inch or less. 2 inches. 3 inches.

• SMALL - 4 inches. 5 inches. 6 inches.

• MEDIUM - 7 inches. 8 inches. 9 inches.

• LARGE - 10 inches. 11 inches. 12 inches.

• XTRA LARGE - 13 inches. 14 inches. 15 inches.

OK, solid grouping & perfectly even representation. But......something ain't quite right about this layout. I mean, the rare EXTREMES of Micropeepeees & Jona