RE: Why are prophylactics almost always not sized correctly?

RE: Why are prophylactics almost always not sized correctly? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion

Message

GoddessManko -> RE: Why are prophylactics almost always not sized correctly? (3/4/2015 9:51:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crumpets quote: ORIGINAL: shiftyw I didn't see cm and I saw inches and I was like WHO HAVE I BEEN BANGING?! but then I caught that cm and felt better. 13.24 inches, for average length, would be quite something, wouldn't it? One oddity I noticed in the charts above was that "stretched flaccid" is pretty much the same as erect! So, in essence, you Dommes can get just as much outta' a sub simply by stretching him, and not waiting for him to get hard! (jk) At first I thought "anus" and then I reread that. [:D]

crumpets -> RE: Why are prophylactics almost always not sized correctly? (3/4/2015 11:21:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GoddessManko At first I thought "anus" and then I reread that. [:D] Yikes! If an XL condom needs to be placed on a butt plug .... oh my .... oh my ... no ... I don't wanna think about it.... you Dommes are perverted. You all scare me.

MariaB -> RE: Why are prophylactics almost always not sized correctly? (3/5/2015 3:34:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sexyred1 Why do you keep saying few care what size a man's cock is? Every woman I know cares. Its not the most important thing, but it's up there. I agree; there's too big and there's definitely too small. Shape and girth is important to me too [:)] Whilst men love being told, "oh your so big", women like being told "darn your so tight"!

dreamlady -> RE: Why are prophylactics almost always not sized correctly? (3/5/2015 7:40:39 AM)
crumpets: Regarding diaphragms, they come in about a half dozen numbered sizes (like 1-?, with 1 being the smallest). I don't remember how many cms they range, but it's based on how tightly cervical cap coverage needs to be. Maria B: I can't tell you how happy I was when my gyno informed me I still took the smallest size there is! sexyred1: Agreed, there is no question that size matters to many of us, both length and girth. IMO, neither one can compensate for lack in the other. Small and thick won't hack it for me, and neither will long and thin or too long. I haven't run across a man who was too thick, however. [;)] RockaRolla: Good point about some well-endowed men's attitudes about just showing up is supposed to do the job, or wow us. [8\|] Back to crumpets: While that after-sex feeling is nice, it's the being-filled-up during sex feeling that counts. Maybe your lady friends were referring to while they are still having post-orgasmic contractions, which a lot of men don't take into account that we're not finished yet.

GotSteel -> RE: Why are prophylactics almost always not sized correctly? (3/5/2015 9:28:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crumpets Looking at the chart, and bearing in mind the average penis is (roughly) 5-1/4 inches long, it looks like ALL the prophylactics were longer in length than the average penis (with about 7 inches being the shortest and a bit over 9 inches for the longest condom). On the other hand, the circumference of all the male condoms was smaller than the average penis circumference of 4-1/2 inches. Too long and too narrow is good. If there's extra length, just stop unrolling and there's no problem. Too little length on the other hand and fluids can travel around. As for width you want it too narrow so that it stays put. Too loose and the thing can come right off. And it's not as though these things can really be too too narrow after all they stretch to fit over peoples heads. Ergo with the average condom size you have a product that will fit 99% of men hence the real lack of need for a sizing guide on condoms.

crumpets -> RE: Why are prophylactics almost always not sized correctly? (3/5/2015 11:27:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dreamlady crumpets: Regarding diaphragms, they come in about a half dozen numbered sizes (like 1-?, with 1 being the smallest). Women's numbered sizes have always surprised me. I don't know of anything we men buy by a sequential numeric system other than socks & shoes, e.g., shirts are sized by what sticks out of a suit, e.g., collar and sleeve length; jackets are by chest size; pants by inseam and waist, hat/gloves by S/M/L, etc. I guess, with women, they have differently shaped clothes, e.g., a dress is different than a skirt which is different than a camisole, than slacks, etc. Is that why women's clothes are often sized numerically? quote: ORIGINAL: dreamlady I haven't run across a man who was too thick, however. Given the size of a baby's head, I think you're safe in that arena (unless one of those condom heads tries to get back to whence he came). quote: ORIGINAL: dreamlady While that after-sex feeling is nice, it's the being-filled-up during sex feeling that counts. Tell us more. We never get to know how the ladies feel, and they're the most important ones (since we're always satisfied). (Perhaps that topic deserves a thread of its own...)

crumpets -> RE: Why are prophylactics almost always not sized correctly? (3/5/2015 11:29:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel the average condom size you have a product that will fit 99% of men hence the real lack of need for a sizing guide on condoms. Clearly that can't be correct, because the difference between the regular size and the larger ones is huge. I guess what you're saying is that, with discomfort, they all can be made to fit (which is the point of the condom heads); and, well, um, you're probably correct in that assumption - but that's not the point. I have to disagree with you because there is absolutely no way that the regular size COMFORTABLY & PROPERLY fits 99% of all men. Not even close.

littleladybug -> RE: Why are prophylactics almost always not sized correctly? (3/5/2015 12:35:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crumpets Women's numbered sizes have always surprised me. I don't know of anything we men buy by a sequential numeric system other than socks & shoes, e.g., shirts are sized by what sticks out of a suit, e.g., collar and sleeve length; jackets are by chest size; pants by inseam and waist, hat/gloves by S/M/L, etc. I guess, with women, they have differently shaped clothes, e.g., a dress is different than a skirt which is different than a camisole, than slacks, etc. Is that why women's clothes are often sized numerically? I was thinking about this last night as I was hanging up some of my man's pants. I took a look at the tag and just sighed. Yup, waist size and inseam length. Easy peasy. Or, at least easier than "finding a number", which may or may not be the same, depending on the manufacturer, designer, etc. I'm sure there's some interesting history regarding "women's sizes" (not being facetious with that statement). What I have seen, practically, though, is that (generally) the better the clothing, the better the fit. And, within that are also particular designers or brands that tend to "fit me better". There are some brands that don't believe in sizing for women that have a chest that is more than a B cup. And if you have hips? Forget about a lot of brands. With that being said though, I've encountered many men in my life that live and die by the "waist/inseam" thing, and don't really look at how different designers might work better for them. Yes, I understand that some people don't like to shop...but jeez. A little effort wouldn't hurt you... --- As to penis size, count me as one of the ladies who does care. The worst experience I had was with a man who had a penis that I couldn't wrap my fingers around. The Powers that Be must have been laughing at me that day, when my prayers for a "man with girth" were answered. "Average" works for me quite nicely, thank you.

LookieNoNookie -> RE: Why are prophylactics almost always not sized correctly? (3/5/2015 7:19:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crumpets I was trying to figure out why prophylactics are seemingly never sized correctly, when I ran into this recent new study on average penis size around the world, which, the authors state, is the first systematic study ever done on the topic. The results of the study, published today, was based on medical records of 15,000 men around the world, where they found the erect penis average size is 5.16 inches (13.12 centimeters) long, while the average circumference is 4.59 inches (11.66 centimeters). According to that comprehensive study (which says it used consistent techniques), the average length of the flaccid penis is 3.61 inches (9.16 centimeters) and the average circumference is 3.66 inches (9.31 centimeters). Given 5.16 is 143% of 3.61, it grows about half its flaccid length but rounds out at only 125% of flaccid when erect. Said another way, you can measure the average flaccid penis, and add half the length and a quarter of the circumference, and you'll derive the average erect length. Here's how the study was done... quote: Dr. David Veale, of King's College London and South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, and his colleague from King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, set out to create such a nomogram of male penis size measurements across all ages and races. A search of the medical literature revealed 17 studies with up to 15,521 males who underwent penis size measurements by health professionals using a standard procedure. The nomograms revealed that the average length of a flaccid penis was 9.16 cm, the average length of a flaccid stretched penis was 13.24 cm, and the average length of an erect penis was 13.12 cm. The average flaccid circumference was 9.31 cm, and the average erect circumference was 11.66 cm. There was a small correlation between erect length and height. This summary from the "Medical Xpress" said quote: The team found no evidence for penis size differences linked to race, though most of the study participants were of European and Middle Eastern descent and they found no evidence of correlation to foot size, and only slight correlation with height. So, maybe this explains why prophylactics are sized the way they are. REFERENCE: "Am I normal? A systematic review and construction of nomograms for flaccid and erect penis length and circumference in up to 15,521 men." David Veale, Sarah Miles, Sally Bramley, Gordon Muir, and John Hodsoll. BJU International; Published Online: March 3, 2015 . DOI: 10.1111/bju.13010 I have a rather unique, special contract with Hefty Bags.....but that's just me.

crumpets -> RE: Why are prophylactics almost always not sized correctly? (3/5/2015 7:30:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: littleladybug Yup, waist size and inseam length. Easy peasy. Yup. We're simple. Like dogs. Very easy to figure out. quote: ORIGINAL: littleladybug As to penis size, count me as one of the ladies who does care. But, by the time you care, haven't you already gotten to the stage where you're ALREADY intimate? quote: ORIGINAL: littleladybug The worst experience I had was with a man who had a penis that I couldn't wrap my fingers around. You don't mean two hands, do you? Surely you mean just one, right? [image]http://www.agefotostock.com/previewimage/bajaage/ddb95530ba188ddc7b4286d3e034f769/ibr-2161500.jpg[/image] I have seen women put "fists" one on top of the other, to count their personal fist length of a penis though ...

GoddessManko -> RE: Why are prophylactics almost always not sized correctly? (3/5/2015 7:56:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crumpets Yikes! If an XL condom needs to be placed on a butt plug .... oh my .... oh my ... no ... I don't wanna think about it.... you Dommes are perverted. You all scare me. Ha, dear bejeebus you boys get scared easily. No worries, I'm only a threat if I'm actually interested, I promise you, hehe. On a side note, I'm thinking about keeping a fellow close at hand only for his body and his penis. The less he talks the better.

eulero83 -> RE: Why are prophylactics almost always not sized correctly? (3/6/2015 1:14:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: crumpets Looking at the chart, and bearing in mind the average penis is (roughly) 5-1/4 inches long, it looks like ALL the prophylactics were longer in length than the average penis (with about 7 inches being the shortest and a bit over 9 inches for the longest condom). On the other hand, the circumference of all the male condoms was smaller than the average penis circumference of 4-1/2 inches. Too long and too narrow is good. If there's extra length, just stop unrolling and there's no problem. Too little length on the other hand and fluids can travel around. As for width you want it too narrow so that it stays put. Too loose and the thing can come right off. And it's not as though these things can really be too too narrow after all they stretch to fit over peoples heads. Ergo with the average condom size you have a product that will fit 99% of men hence the real lack of need for a sizing guide on condoms. Ok that's right... but... one would like to put it on with the right amount of effort, this not only because it can get really annoying "in those moments", but also because most (if not all) faliures depend on wearing it uncorrectly.

crumpets -> RE: Why are prophylactics almost always not sized correctly? (3/6/2015 5:36:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GoddessManko I'm thinking about keeping a fellow close at hand only for his body and his penis. The less he talks the better. I started to compose a joke that you could use one of the larger sized condoms to stuff a penis-slave's mouth, when I realized I had no idea which size a mouth would need to be stuffed shut with. So, being a data-driven curious sort, I measured the diameter of my primary orifice, which, is, at most, about and inch and a half, incisor to incisor (is that how I might presume this sort of thing is measured?). Running the obligatory arithmetic, my piehole circumference rounds out satisfyingly at just about average for a male, at 4.7 inches. As we said in the beginning, those non-sized condoms are useful to put on all sorts of "toys"... :) PS: Should I confess I had to look up the word "bejeebus"? [quote=urbandictionary] The Holy Bejeebus is a figure much heralded in a small corner of Nottingham. He is somewhat of a cult figure in Dunkirk, near Nottingham University Campus. The Holy Bejeebus is a religious figure with supreme power, which is undisclosed to the world. His coming forth into the limelight wont be for a few decades. His symbol is the 'W' which represents the three holies: Holy, Be, and Jeebus - from where the name originates: Holy Bejeebus. His followers are reffered to as Jeebites - currently there are only two: Jackie the Unclean and Pants the Pure.

littleladybug -> RE: Why are prophylactics almost always not sized correctly? (3/6/2015 5:55:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crumpets But, by the time you care, haven't you already gotten to the stage where you're ALREADY intimate? Not quite sure what you mean by that. There have been certain circumstances where penis size has been a deal-breaker for me. It's not the highest priority on my list, but it certainly is there.

crumpets -> RE: Why are prophylactics almost always not sized correctly? (3/6/2015 6:05:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 most (if not all) faliures depend on wearing it uncorrectly. That's an interesting statement, which, while I don't disagree with (I have no data on how other people put on a condom), makes me wonder if SIZE isn't the problem most of the time when things are done "incorrectly". That is, size may very well be the major factor in what you mean by putting a condom on "incorrectly". Many times, for example, before I realized there were different sizes, I've broken a condom just trying to get it on. Or, it has torn in use (usually near the base of the condom so that only the latter half remains untorn during sex). Having described that I have had condom failures such as the above, I wonder if size wasn't the reason, as the actual act of putting it on is, by all accounts, pretty simple (i.e., (1) orient, (2) center, (3) unroll). Hmmmmm....mmm... I realize that the Darwin Award concept exists, for a reason ... but ... how can you put a condom on "incorrectly", in context of this thread, without "size" being a (the?) major factor?

GoddessManko -> RE: Why are prophylactics almost always not sized correctly? (3/6/2015 6:13:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crumpets I started to compose a joke that you could use one of the larger sized condoms to stuff a penis-slave's mouth Who said I'd be fucking my slave?

crumpets -> RE: Why are prophylactics almost always not sized correctly? (3/6/2015 6:16:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: littleladybug quote: ORIGINAL: crumpets But, by the time you care, haven't you already gotten to the stage where you're ALREADY intimate? Not quite sure what you mean by that. Ah, this is VERY IMPORTANT. Extremely important, when it comes to discussing and UNDERSTANDING why size issues for primary and secondary sexual organs are vastly different between the sexes. Basically, what I meant was that you will very likely not know a man's penis size until you literally see that penis, which, in most cases, isn't until going to happen until, oh, I don't know, perhaps the third, fourth, fifth, tenth? date, (70's style tight pants and banana hammocks at the beach notwithstanding). My point is that, by the 10th date (or whenever your particular mating process begins) you've ALREADY selected this particular specimen for practice breeding. Clearly cock size was never a major factor. quote: ORIGINAL: littleladybug There have been certain circumstances where penis size has been a deal-breaker for me. It's not the highest priority on my list, but it certainly is there. That's a perplexing statement for me to try to decipher the true meaning of. Unless you have those x-ray glasses they used to sell in the back of my grade-school days comic books, I suspect you're not going to know this precise information until the Xth date. Which already tells us that it's not the highest priority on your list. If size was a high priority, then men would know this, and they would have biologically responded already in kind, as a peacock displays his manhood, and men would have been wearing pants with V-shaped fronts, much as women habitually do with blouses today, to show off his size to his advantage, perhaps even padding the balls hidden below and pushing them upward and inward, to increase the illusion of size, as we all know happens on the other side of the sexes. So, again, size is nearly the LAST thing you women seem to care about, and we men have responded appropriately, by not wearing clothing that accentuates, shows, or intimates whatever God-given size we have. Given that penis size is clearly a tertiary (at best) issue to most women when it comes to mate selection, I'm surprised it could be a deal breaker. Methinks other determinants might have been in play ... so, at best, it's just one of more than a few negative cues that broke that particular deal.

crumpets -> RE: Why are prophylactics almost always not sized correctly? (3/6/2015 6:25:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GoddessManko Who said I'd be fucking my slave? Hehheh ... nobody even implied fucking in that instance. The purpose of the condom, in that lightly spirited comment, was merely to gag the slave. It was a joke, by the way; but it did bring up a related issue which I only belatedly realized might be an issue for women. My mouth isn't particularly small, and my dentist tells me I have an overdeveloped tongue, so, I might even assume my mouth is large (I'm Italian, so, I talk all the time, where my friends tell me they could gag me merely by tying my hands behind my back). So, let's assume I have a big mouth. Well, when I measured it just now, by the incisor-to-incisor method anyway, it rounded out to a satisfyingly common 4.7 inches (bearing in mind that the average cock is 4.5 inches according to that medical study referenced in the OP). Always being data driven, the scary thought instantly occurred to me that, if I have a mouth that can only fit an average sized cock, then, wow. That makes no sense? My first assumption would be that an average woman would, I would think, have a smaller mouth than I, right? So, that makes no sense when it comes to the fact that most women must have sucked cock in their lives, and, most cocks must be average (by mathematical reasoning) so, it seems inferable' that most women have smaller mouths than even the most mundane of cocks. Perhaps my mouthal' math is wrong? How large are women's mouths anyway?

GoddessManko -> RE: Why are prophylactics almost always not sized correctly? (3/6/2015 6:26:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crumpets quote: ORIGINAL: littleladybug quote: ORIGINAL: crumpets But, by the time you care, haven't you already gotten to the stage where you're ALREADY intimate? Not quite sure what you mean by that. Ah, this is VERY IMPORTANT. Extremely important, when it comes to discussing and UNDERSTANDING why size issues for primary and secondary sexual organs are vastly different between the sexes. Not really hard to tell. You look at the way their pants fit and if all else fails you grab for good measure. quote: quote: ORIGINAL: littleladybug There have been certain circumstances where penis size has been a deal-breaker for me. It's not the highest priority on my list, but it certainly is there. That's a perplexing statement for me to try to decipher the true meaning of. Unless you have those x-ray glasses they used to sell in the back of my grade-school days comic books, I suspect you're not going to know this precise information until the Xth date. Which already tells us that it's not the highest priority on your list. Not really that perplexing, I would only really want to be fucked by a certain body type. Most women have said type. You can get axed for not making the cut.

GoddessManko -> RE: Why are prophylactics almost always not sized correctly? (3/6/2015 6:30:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crumpets quote: ORIGINAL: GoddessManko Who said I'd be fucking my slave? Hehheh ... nobody even implied fucking in that instance. The purpose of the condom, in that lightly spirited comment, was merely to gag the slave. It was a joke, by the way; but it did bring up a related issue which I only belatedly realized might be an issue for women. My mouth isn't particularly small, and my dentist tells me I have an overdeveloped tongue, so, I might even assume my mouth is large (I'm Italian, so, I talk all the time, where my friends tell me they could gag me merely by tying my hands behind my back). So, let's assume I have a big mouth. Well, when I measured it just now, by the incisor-to-incisor method anyway, it rounded out to a satisfyingly common 4.7 inches (bearing in mind that the average cock is 4.5 inches according to that medical study referenced in the OP). Always being data driven, the scary thought instantly occurred to me that, if I have a mouth that can only fit an average sized cock, then, wow. That makes no sense? My first assumption would be that an average woman would, I would think, have a smaller mouth than I, right? So, that makes no sense when it comes to the fact that most women must have sucked cock in their lives, and, most cocks must be average (by mathematical reasoning) so, it seems inferable' that most women have smaller mouths than even the most mundane of cocks. Perhaps my mouthal' math is wrong? How large are women's mouths anyway? You're assuming, I do not know if other women suck cocks but I don't. And by the way your pandering is thinly veiled and thirsty, LMAO.

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

6.054688E-02