Supposing the penis to be a woman–what then? Is the suspicion not well founded that all penis scientists, with their focus on size, shape, and physical functioning, have had little understanding of women? That the gruesome seriousness, the clumsy obtrusiveness with which they have usually approached the penis have been inept and improper means for winning a woman? Certainly she–the penis–has not let herself be won, and today every kind of penis science stands sad and discouraged. If it remains erect at all! For there are scoffers who claim that it has fallen limp, that penis science has grown hopelessly soft, more, that penis science has blown its final load.
To speak seriously, there are good grounds for hoping that all size-dogmatizing in penis science, the utter enormity of my own cock notwithstanding, may nonetheless have been no more than a noble childishness and tyronism; and the time is perhaps very close at hand when it will be grasped in case after case what has been sufficient to furnish the foundation-stone for such sublime orgasms as, for example, I have had inside of countless women.
Whence the penis scientists’ obsession with size? Certainly it does not originate in women, from whom is ever to be heard only benign talk of boats and oceans. Nor does nature give it any stamp of nobility–to the contrary, a large, elaborate penis is precisely the mark of a species of rapists and cuckolds!
To we of clear vision and free penises, has there ever been a more damaging superstition than this “size matters”? Does not the obsession with size, for all its apparent glorification of our gargantuan penises and by extension the man who possesses it, simultaneously amount to a seductive denial of our worth as men, and indeed even our massive penises as penises? In this claim, “size matters,” is not the penis in fact made into the subordinate of the vagina, its object of pleasure, its slave? Just how many venomous snakes has this “size matters” smuggled in under its silken outer cloak? Enough! The twilight of this idol has come, and we of the free penis have come to preach nightfall. And then? Perhaps the dawn and the rising of a new penis, glistening and golden–one that kisses us as it bites. Yes! We preach the coming of the Überpenis.
The penis scientist of tomorrow will create new values for the penis, hence new interpretations, hence, a new measure of “size”–no! A measure beyond size. But it behooves the penis scientist to remember that he who fights large penises should look to it that he himself does not become a large penis. And when you gaze long at the penis sometimes it gets hard and looks like it is gazing back at you.
Dear reader, there is something you should know about me: I am a huge Dick fan, and I have been ever since my early twenties. Maybe my love of Dick has spilled over into my research, because I often find myself wondering, “What if…?” like in Dick’s classic alternate history novel “The Man in the High Castle”. But instead of asking, “What if the Nazi’s had won,” I ask, “What if our penises had evolved differently?”
Fortunately one doesn’t need to be a Dick to imagine the outcome such scenarios. We only have to examine the penises of our closest living evolutionary relatives, the primates, because in a sense each primate penis is an alternate history of the human penis, a window into What Could Have Been.
I’ve already touched on this idea a little in my post on the barbed penis, where I examined a study claiming proto-humans used to have magnificent barbed penises like many other primates. You might say the barbed penis is like a utopian alternative history, one where the Axis powers lose, but the States and the USSR nuke each other into oblivion, and Canada rises to supremacy, their scientists ruling the land like philosopher kings.
Then you might ask: Which penis corresponds to a dystopian alternate history, the one where the Axis powers win, the West falls to communism, and vampires take over Parliament? This would certainly have to be the gorilla penis.
You’re right Brody: I’m jealous. I’m jealous of how little you must care about your reputation as a scientist to be advocating something as dilettantish as your “bigger is better” absolutist theory, a hypothesis discarded by the scientific community decades ago. But yes, in one regard you’re right: the PBR is not an entirely valid comparative tool, however the fact of the matter is that every known theory of penile valuation is flawed.
Really, you have no inkling of how deep this goes, how since the very beginnings of penile science some of the greatest minds in the field have wasted the prime of their lives on the problem only to come away empty handed. I, myself, spent years, Brody–years–in the backwaters of the Paraná Delta and the malarial jungles of Columbia searching for the missing thread that will tie all the evidence together into one unified theory of penis valuation. But there’s always something missing; none of the models match the data. There is some factor or variable I’m not taking account of, something obvious I’m overlooking. But I know I am close. In fact, I have already been there.
That night in Córdoba will forever haunt me. It came to me in a bolt, mid-coitus: the complete theory in absolute stunning clarity, as elegant and harmonious as I always imagined it to be, like some celestial music box belonging to the gods. But then just as suddenly it was taken from me, as if a capricious deity had changed his mind; that I, Richard, was not to be the vessel for this truth. Or, maybe it was just the lowly distractions of flesh–the nameless Bolivian woman, her cheap perfume, the wine. But all the same: gone, like a dream lost upon waking. Now all I am left with is torment of knowing. Knowing that the truth exists and that I am forbidden to have it. And knowing that for those few fleeting moments I was the happiest I will ever be.
Dr. Richard Cox, PhD.
Erudite and scientific though his language may be, it does unfortunately appear that Dr. Cox’s analysis of the barnacle penis has, like so many other things in his life, come up short. So that the rest of this article can maintain an appropriate level of scientific objectivity, there is one matter I should clear up now: My brain has chewed your “food for thought” Richard, but it tasted too much like bitter jealousy to swallow.
I primarily take issue with Dr. Cox’s dogmatic assertion that the greatness of an animal’s penis, as far as size goes, ought to be measured by the PBR (this is the penis to body size ratio, for the non-specialists out there). For example, until a few years ago I was a world class body builder (“The Bodman”) and indeed my physique remains outstanding. It would be uncouth to reveal its length publicly, but however long my penis may be, could the fact that I have packed on so much muscle make it any less impressive?
Thus I believe we must drop any claim that penile greatness is simply a matter of having a high PBR. I am more inclined to think that it is absolute size alone by which penises should be judged, and in this case we must indeed cede penile superiority to whales, elephants, horses, and men with penises larger than ten inches.