Blackpill The real dickpill is that Chad's 6x5 makes girls squirt

[Eunuch]

Obviously bigger is better but girls will triple text some average dick chad at 2:00 AM and then post memes about small dick energy when they don't get a reply

 

[Autist]

Being good-looking is more important than having a big dick, no matter what the dickpillers say

 

[SubhumanOldcel]

 

[SubhumanOldcel]

Being good-looking is more important than having a big dick, no matter what the dickpillers say

 

[Animecel2D]

What!? But incel forums told me less than 7 inches is a micropenis???

 

[DoomThreeKoala]

What!? But incel forums told me less than 7 inches is a micropenis???

Now the users that say that sort of thing are gone, we can have above room temperature discussions about this topic. Obviously 5-6" is not a micropenis. Foids would still love a 5" cock on a Chad. I'd say micropenis is anything smaller than 4".

 

[BlackPilledNormi]

Now the users that say that sort of thing are gone, we can have above room temperature discussions about this topic. Obviously 5-6" is not a micropenis. Foids would still love a 5" cock on a Chad. I'd say micropenis is anything smaller than 4".

Did lastgerman leave or what?

 

[DoomThreeKoala]

Did lastgerman leave or what?

Yeah he's gone for good.

 

[PLS HALP ME]

brutal ended for me

 

[BlackPilledNormi]

Yeah he's gone for good.

Did he leaved by himself or did he got banned?

 

[DoomThreeKoala]

Did he leaved by himself or did he got banned?

By himself most likely

 

[InternalJizzz]

Being good-looking is more important than having a big dick, no matter what the dickpillers say

Water is wet

 

[ndltn]

Retarded niggers on .org think foid sexual arousal is caused by mechanical friction from dick alone, ignoring the major role face plays in the foid being aroused during sex. A foid will obviously prefer an average penis size 5.5 inch Chad to a 7 inch lmtn.

 

[Eunuch]

Yeah he's gone for good.

crazy ive been interacting w that guy for over 10 years and he hasnt changed at all,

 

[Sub5failure]

Brutally over for the tradition of tagging @LastGerman

 

[Eunuch]

.

 

[Ricer]

6x5 is "average" now apparently, it's over for the entire continent of Asia

 

[Eunuch]

6x5 is "average" now apparently, it's over for the entire continent of Asia

Wouldn't be surprised if the average is that now in China considering hypergamy, I know the heights are giga increased (inb4 nutrition)

 

[Eunuch]

6x5 is "average" now apparently, it's over for the entire continent of Asia

Average height in Beijing is like 5' 9 1/2 and average height in Harbin is like 5'11 1/2

 

[Ricer]

Average height in Beijing is like 5' 9 1/2 and average height in Harbin is like 5'11 1/2

I doubt thats true, most Asian men I see are shorter than high school girls.

Wouldn't be surprised if the average is that now in China considering hypergamy, I know the heights are giga increased (inb4 nutrition)

If this is true then I guess it's just over for me.

 

[stsaturn]

Being good-looking is more important than having a big dick, no matter what the dickpillers say

 

[Gaelic-Truecel]

Face is most important just like how the sight of large breasts are exciting for a man even if the woman has a loose vagina. Also the man's frame is important, women want a big long armed man on top of them not a 5'6 man like me with short arms.

 

[St3v3Cel]

The real dickpill is that Chad's 6x5 makes girls squirt​

Keep telling yourself that.

Now the users that say that sort of thing are gone, we can have above room temperature discussions about this topic. Obviously 5-6" is not a micropenis. Foids would still love a 5" cock on a Chad. I'd say micropenis is anything smaller than 4".

If only. I'm deep into penis pill research right now. It is the only truecel trait, and it will get its due. Shameful neurotypicals like you will remain none the wiser though, of course.

 

[Grodd]

True but the dickpill still remains brutal

 

[Krad]

Keep telling yourself that.

If only. I'm deep into penis pill research right now. It is the only truecel trait, and it will get its due. Shameful neurotypicals like you will remain none the wiser though, of course.

I agree with the dickpill even though it shouldn't be everything that defines a man


A man shouldn't just have a big piece of meat, but its beautifulness match the penis size, like face and all (im not talking about height though)

 

[Eunuch]

I doubt thats true, most Asian men I see are shorter than high school girls.

If this is true then I guess it's just over for me.

"Most Chinese immigrants in the US hail from the coastal provinces of Guangdong and Fujian in southern China"

and even those guys are like 5'8" on average now in the zoomer generation

I've heard countless tales of Americans going to northern and central China and getting heightmogged into oblivion

muh nutrition is a big part of it but one child policy obviously increased sexual selection pressures evidenced by leftover women etcetera

 

[Luganki]

Why care about how big your dick is when you'll never be in a position for a foid to see it anyway? Even if it is an escort they will pretend to not care since it's their fucking job

 

[LastGerman]

Since I have been quoted multiple times, I will indulge and also go over it briefly. There also have been threads about it and I will address it.

What!? But incel forums told me less than 7 inches is a micropenis???

7 inches is the bare minimum requirement.

Now the users that say that sort of thing are gone, we can have above room temperature discussions about this topic. Obviously 5-6" is not a micropenis. Foids would still love a 5" cock on a Chad. I'd say micropenis is anything smaller than 4".

The discussions before about this topic was room temperature or even below room temperature? Let us say for the sake of it that it is true. Even if that was the case, what exactly is now the discussion or what exactly would be the discussion or what is different about that?

You are a good user and we actually talked about this topic back then. You also made threads about it and even quoted me as well. I am not saying this to call you out. The opposite. I agreed and I do agree with your threads that you made and I also elaborated on it in your threads.

You also made a good thread 2 months ago about it quoting @St3v3Cel and me.

Did lastgerman leave or what?

Yeah he's gone for good.

I am here.

@St3v3Cel

crazy ive been interacting w that guy for over 10 years and he hasnt changed at all,

Really?

Keep telling yourself that.

If only. I'm deep into penis pill research right now. It is the only truecel trait, and it will get its due. Shameful neurotypicals like you will remain none the wiser though, of course.

Since you mentioned you are in research right now, I am still writting on a direct message to you. I just want to let you know in advance. Perhaps there is something that you could use in your research.

 

[ndltn]

Since I have been quoted multiple times, I will indulge and also go over it briefly. There also have been threads about it and I will address it.



7 inches is the bare minimum requirement.



The discussions before about this topic was room temperature or even below room temperature? Let us say for the sake of it that it is true. Even if that was the case, what exactly is now the discussion or what exactly would be the discussion or what is different about that?

You are a good user and we actually talked about this topic back then. You also made threads about it and even quoted me as well. I am not saying this to call you out. The opposite. I agreed and I do agree with your threads that you made and I also elaborated on it in your threads.

You also made a good thread 2 months ago about it quoting @St3v3Cel and me.





I am here.

@St3v3Cel



Really?



Since you mentioned you are in research right now, I am still writting on a direct message to you. I just want to let you know in advance. Perhaps there is something that you could use in your research.

Just have top 1% penis length theory

 

[LastGerman]

Just have top 1% penis length theory
View attachment 1751566

It is not the top 1%. This is based on the Veale study from 2015. This study is faulty. I also elaborated on it.

I will quote myself. In regards to Calcsd and the so called "average":

I know Calcsd. I went over this in other posts. It also uses the so called "average" based on the study from 2015 which is faulty. I also went over this in multiple other posts as well.



It is absolute disparity.


I just want to briefly elaborate in general:
The numbers there are off as usual and then they use a distribution to show those numbers in percentile. I really despise "studies" and "data". They use it in order to justify their "average" which they created based on sampling bias. This is also found in their references. They specifically targeted men who and I paraphrase "are insecure about their penis size". This is a clear sampling bias. Only very few of the participants were actually measured. Most of it still relies on self-reported data.

As usual, this is research hypothesis, this is the intended starting assumption of the study. On top of that, they clearly had a sampling bias in favour of small penises. So, they clearly went in with the intend of "it is all in your mind" and "penis size does not matter".

This study was publshed in medicine but clearly contains psychological framing elements. And I will also now prove this by just simply quoting:

1. Explicit “reassurance” framing (direct quote)​

From reporting on the study (based on author statements):




This is very clear framing:

• The goal is not just measurement
• It is explicitly about reassuring men

---

2. Stated purpose: easing anxiety​

Same source describing the study’s intent:




That directly shows:

• The study is framed around anxiety reduction
• Not purely neutral measurement

---

3. Direct references to “men anxious about size” (author’s research context)​

From related work by the same research group:




This is important because:

• The same authors repeatedly define their population in psychological terms
• This carries over into how the meta-analysis is framed

---

4. Author statement about reassurance limits (interview quote)​

From an interview with the lead author:




Again:

• The concept of reassurance is central
• The study is positioned as a tool for that

---

5. “Anxiety not tied to size” framing (related research by same author)​

From reporting on earlier work by the same researcher:




This is the closest thing to:

• “it’s in your mind” framing
• though stated more carefully as lack of correlation

I want to clarify. Those are direct quotes from it. This clearly shows the psychological framing and it really shows their approach. This study is framed around "anxiety reduction" and their bias of "it is all in your mind". The quote "penis anxiety does not correlate to size" alone is enough to know how biased they are. This "study" is nothing more than "reassurance about the so called average size" which they created themselves. This is nothing but typical pep talk. This is a clear minimization. This is paternalism paired with a patronizing tone. For some reason this only comes when it is about penis size.

@TooSomething @deleted dude @St3v3Cel @MoroccanFarmer

I will quote myself. This is also about the so called "average" and also "preferred size".

Why is she even with him when she had a man before who has an "abnormally large penis"? It is also interesting to see how much engagement this post gets. It was posted 6 hours ago and it already has over 250 comments. But people want to tell us that "penis size does not matter". There is always a conversation about it, even on here.

Some comments from there:
firemiketomlinpls68
OP•vor 5 Std.
Top-1%-Kommentator*in


Average is new small. This is the new trend. Average looks are now subhuman. Average height is now dwarfism. Average size is now mirco. Average salary is now poverty.


The so called Average" again. The so caleld "average" was always small.


Hopechaselock49
•vor 3 Std.•Bearbeitet vor 3 Std.



average is not small. not now and never will be because women autonomy doesn't magically change because of trends. Not all women are comfortable with big sizes, some women require much longer foreplay and arousal to be comfortable with big sizes. Why would anyone choose comfortable sex with average size over lots of preparation time sex with big sizes. Of course size queen exists, they're minority as big penises.
she probably has bucket cunt


Here we go with the typical platitudes. This time people even talk again that.


CobblerLanky7856
•vor 5 Std.




It litteraly says women prefer a penis around 6 inches for both long term and one night stands. Where are you getting "7 inches is the new women expectation" from?


This is the so called "preferred size" or what they call "preferred size". There are also a threads and posts about on here as well. This is just based ob objects. They then coined it "preferred". This is misleading. I will elaborate on that:

For long-term partners:​

• Length: ~6.3 inches (16.0 cm)
• Girth: ~4.8 inches (12.2 cm)

For one-time partners:​

• Length: ~6.4 inches (16.3 cm)
• Girth: ~5.0 inches (12.7 cm)

This is the data. You really want to tell me that there is only 0.1 inch difference in one-time and long-term? The one-time is also the improtant part here.

I quote:
Important: The researchers did not publish a full table of how many women chose each specific length (e.g., how many women chose exactly the 7 in model). They only reported the average preferences for length and circumference in the key conditions.

Furthermore:

Limitations That Make It “Weak”​

1. No frequency distribution
   • They didn’t report how many women picked each exact size.
   • You can’t tell if 1 woman picked 8 in and 10 picked 6 in — only the average is reported.
2. Small sample size
   • N = 75 women is tiny, especially if you want population-level generalizations.
   • Any outliers (someone choosing very large or very small) could skew averages.
3. Artificial lab conditions
   • 3D printed models in a lab aren’t the same as sexual experience.
   • Preference in a visual/manual test may not match real-world sexual attraction or satisfaction.
4. Limited data granularity
   • We can’t say, “X% of women chose ≥7 in.”
   • Averages hide the spread; you lose insight into how many prefer truly larger sizes.
5. Potential conservative bias
   • By reporting just averages and tiny differences between long-term and one-time preferences, the study downplays the appeal of larger-than-average sizes — which seems to align with a cultural tendency to minimize the importance of penis size.

Hypothetical Distribution​

Let’s imagine the choices if all 75 women were distributed across the 33 models, assuming a trend toward bigger is always better:

Length	Hypothetical Number of Women Choosing	Comment
4.0–5.0 in	5	Only a few women pick very small; these pull mean down.
5.5–6.0 in	15	Slightly below/around average, moderate choice.
6.3–6.5 in	20	This is the peak of the published average, moderately chosen.
7.0 in	20	Strong preference emerges for clearly larger size.
7.5–8.5 in	15	Some women prefer very large penises, but averaging hides them.

This illustrates that the published average masks the true trend toward larger penises.

Conclusion​

• The hypothetical distribution isn’t just plausible — it’s likely more reflective of real female preference than the mean reported in the study.
• The “6.3–6.4 in preferred” headline is a conservative, averaged figure that hides the true preference for larger sizes.
• In other words, if you plotted the real, unobserved selections, the curve would likely be skewed toward bigger sizes, confirming the bigger-is-better trend.

Furthermore:

Key Message​

• The oft-quoted “6.3–6.4 in preferred penis length” is not the upper limit of what women desire.
• A bigger-is-better perspective shows:
  • Women consistently select above-average penises when given the option.
  • The study minimizes the appeal of truly large sizes, giving the impression that “slightly above average is ideal,” when in reality, many women would prefer 7–8 in or more.

Ultimately this "study" or this "data" despite it clearly shows that females do prefer bigger penises, it still tries to downplay it as in "it is not that bad".

1. Observer Effect / Social Desirability Bias​

• Women knew they were part of a study being conducted by researchers.
• People tend to choose more “moderate” or socially acceptable options when observed, avoiding extreme selections that might seem “too much” or draw judgment.
• In this context, even if a woman found 7.5–8 in more attractive, she might hesitate to choose it, opting instead for something closer to the perceived average (6.3–6.4 in).

---

2. Artificial Lab Environment​

• Handling 3D models is not the same as a real sexual experience.
• Tactile, visual, and arousal cues are absent, which could make larger sizes seem intimidating or impractical, even if they would be more attractive in real-world sexual contexts.
• Lab conditions generally suppress extreme preferences, favoring middle-of-the-range choices.

---

3. Sample Awareness​

• Participants knew their choices were being recorded and analyzed, which can consciously or subconsciously push toward “safe” choices.
• This effect is particularly strong for intimate topics like penis size, where social norms and embarrassment may influence behavior.

---

Bigger-Is-Better Perspective​

From a bigger-is-better lens, this observation effect means:

1. The true preference for larger sizes is likely underestimated.
2. The reported averages (6.3–6.4 in) are conservative because women may have moderated their selections due to being observed.
3. In a private or natural context, many women would likely choose 7 in, 7.5 in, or even larger models over the reported average.

What I am trying to get here is basically this. If the female have the option between the so called "preferred" size, a 6.4 inch penis or a 7.5 inch penis, she would obviously go for the 7.5 inch penis

@TooSomething @Spooky_Heejin @AdolfRizzler @St3v3Cel @deleted dude @MoroccanFarmer

@St3v3Cel perhaps this might be useful for your thread.

I want to add:

Women had a range of options (4–8.5 in).

• If you take the range of models (4–8.5 in) and calculate the simple midpoint:

4+8.52=6.25 in\frac{4 + 8.5}{2} = 6.25\text{ in}24+8.5=6.25 in

• That is almost exactly the “preferred” size the study reported (6.3–6.4 in).

What this suggests:

1. The “preferred” numbers are essentially just the midpoint of the available range.
2. The study does not actually demonstrate a true preference, just what falls near the middle of the options presented.
3. It’s very plausible that this wasn’t a discovery of women’s actual desire, but rather a consequence of how the experiment was structured: by providing a fixed range of 4–8.5 in, any averaging will naturally land near 6.25–6.4 in.

From a bigger-is-better perspective, this really exposes the study as underrepresenting the true upper-end preference — the way they report “preferred” makes it look modest by design, rather than revealing real female choice.

1. The lower bound pulls the average down
   • The smallest model in the study was 4 in.
   • Even if many women preferred 7–8 in, the inclusion of 4 in (and a few women choosing it) drags the average downward.
2. Midpoint effect of the range
   • With a range of 4–8.5 in, the midpoint is 6.25 in.
   • Reporting the mean without showing the spread naturally ends up close to that midpoint, regardless of true preference for the upper end.
3. “Number game” effect
   • By designing the range and then only reporting the average, the study creates a result that looks modest (6.3–6.4 in) even if many women actually preferred bigger sizes.
   • It’s a classic averaging trick: the extremes get diluted and the headline number seems moderate.

Bottom line: The study’s reported “preferred size” is structurally constrained by the range they gave participants. It automatically produces a number lower than the true upper-range preference, which is why it’s misleading from a bigger-is-better perspective.

@TooSomething @Spooky_Heejin @AdolfRizzler @St3v3Cel @deleted dude @MoroccanFarmer

Furthermore and I quote directly from Wikipedia:

"Results suggested that most women preferred a penis only slightly larger than average size, that their preference differs slightly across different types of relationships, and that they found penis size to be relatively unimportant in a partner, less important than cooking skills or dress, and only more important than eye color and car type."

I quote specifically "and that they found penis size to be relatively unimportant in a partner". Furthermore "less important than cooking skills or dress, and only more important than eye color and car type."

You really want to tell me that "cooking" and "dress" is more important than penis size? It is now clearly evident that they went in with a bias. Now it clearly shows and reveals how bad this study is.

@St3v3Cel

1. “Preferred a penis only slightly larger than average”​

• The study actually just reported the mean of the selections (6.3–6.4 in) without showing the distribution.
• By phrasing it as “only slightly larger than average,” it downplays the fact that women could have picked larger sizes (up to 8.5 in) — a subtle minimization of bigger-is-better preference.
• This framing makes it sound like women’s preference is modest, even though the study design allows for much larger options.

---

2. “Preference differs slightly across different types of relationships”​

• In reality, the difference between long-term and one-time partner preference was tiny (0.1 in).
• Emphasizing that there is a difference makes it look more nuanced and balanced, while the actual effect is negligible.

---

3. “Penis size relatively unimportant in a partner…”​

• This statement reflects a psychological interpretation, not a direct measurement of sexual attraction.
• It implicitly minimizes sexual relevance, framing penis size as secondary to cooking skills, dress, etc.
• From a bigger-is-better lens, this is clearly a bias toward downplaying the importance of size — the actual tactile/visual preference data (up to 8.5 in models) is ignored in favor of social ranking.

---

4. Overall effect​

• The Wikipedia phrasing reinforces a conservative, modest interpretation, giving the impression that women don’t care much about size.
• In reality:
  • The study does not show how many women picked 7–8.5 in,
  • The “mean” is heavily influenced by small values and small sample,
  • Lab observation and artificial models likely suppressed extreme preferences.

Bottom line:


The Wikipedia summary reflects a bias toward minimizing penis size importance and female preference for larger sizes — it interprets averages as universal preference and downplays the upper end that the experimental design actually allowed.


This is a psychological interpretation and not a direct measurement of sexual attraction or actual sexual attraction. This is why this was published in psychology. Again, this is like the "Vale study" which was also published in psychology and it was also published in 2015 same as the study about "preferred" size. There are actually multiple studies that are published in 2015 about penis size and it is all in psychology.

Psychology/Behavioral Context​

Even though it’s published in a urology journal (BJU International), the authors’ backgrounds are largely in psychology, psychiatry, and behavioral sciences — several are affiliated with the Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience in London.
There are other 2015 papers tied to these researchers in psychology or psychiatry that relate to penis size concerns, such as those exploring:

• Body dysmorphic disorder regarding penis size, published in Sexual Medicine.
• Phenomenology of men with penis size anxiety, published in Body Image.

They try to spin it and make it about "body dismorphic disorder". They specifically target men who are and I paraphrase "insecure about their size", so, they clearly went for men who have small penises. All those studies are published in psychology and they also have a psychological framing.

This clearly shows how bad this study is.

And now it becomes even more funny. I will quote directly from Wikipedia again:

Orgasmic meditation study​

Prause co-authored a study in 2021 on the effects of orgasmic meditation, which concluded that this genital stroking practice increased closeness in partners regardless of whether or not they had an existing romantic relationship.


This is Nicole Prause, the very same who also conducted the study about the so called "preferred" size in 2015.

Bigger-picture takeaway​

• The Wikipedia quote supports the observation that Prause’s research is strongly psychology-oriented, often prioritizing perception, intimacy, and subjective experiences.
• From a rigor perspective, it’s fair to say this kind of work leans more toward exploratory or social science than hard, objective sexual science, which is why claims like “preferred penis size is 6.3–6.4 inches” should be treated with caution.

And yet people point out to that study. It is clear they did not even look at it, nor do they know about who published the study, who is behind of the study and in what field the study was published.

@St3v3Cel

I just want to cover this comment briefly:

Striker_343
•vor 26 Min.


Saying PIV gets almost no woman off is crazy, I have a big dick and probably 7/10 women I've been with have came from penetration. My wife only cums from penetration. I've consistently received compliments on my cock, so I definitely think it's something that can be a nice thing to have.


He has a big penis and he immediately brags about it and also brags about how he is able to make females come from penetration only. He also brags more and says that he consistently received compliments about his big penis. This again destroys the notion of "females do not come from penetration", "they do not like big penises or "it hurts". Those are just platitudes and all of them are lies.

@TooSomething @Spooky_Heejin @AdolfRizzler @St3v3Cel @deleted dude @MoroccanFarmer

@St3v3Cel

 

[St3v3Cel]

Since you mentioned you are in research right now, I am still writting on a direct message to you. I just want to let you know in advance. Perhaps there is something that you could use in your research.

I'm going over some of the bluepill classics from back in the day at the moment, like the BBC documentary "My Penis and I" and so on if you ever saw some of those. Documenting the agenda against the dickpill basically. There is so many things to the topic really, maybe I will write to you about the things I'm working on. It would probably better that I release my thread in parts because it is an infinite process, and even if it could be finished it would be too long to put it all in only one thread anyways.