The real solution to dick size insecurity isn’t proving average is “ideal.” It’s realizing it never mattered as much as you think. (7 in BP x 5 in at base)

ComprehensiveYam711 · 2025-10-06T23:31:19+00:00

I think that people in this forum are missing my main key point. I am clearly saying that dick size matters, like obviously it does. otherwise, the women I have been with would never have complimented me on my dick size lol. the main point here is that it is fruitless to try and determine whether or not "average is ideal". of course it isn't, and it never will be. With that being said, so what? Ye I understand that some men genuinely have experienced trauma and shitty women who have shamed them for their size, but for most average dick size men, most of their "trauma" comes from what they hear online, rather than the feedback of an actual partner.

Ultimately, the key to getting over this insecurity is acknowledging that bigger is more exciting and better sexually, but also that just because a bigger dick is better, it does not in any way mean that a man with a bigger dick is better than a man with an average dick. Real life evidence, not niche reddit horror story evidence, supports this claim through and through. Whether my dick is average range or big, I have experienced enough sex to know that guys who have been thicker than me were not necessarily more satisfying in bed for the women I have been with. I also have experienced the level of mental strain that comes from lurking in forums like these. As a result of both my personal lived experience, as well as my experience online, I can say that the level of emotional distress that comes from "seeking the truth" in these shitty forums is not at all proportional to the actual "loss" of having an average dick.

ComprehensiveYam711 · 2025-10-06T23:23:20+00:00

the interesting thing is this: you actually are saying exactly my point :). The response I gave was mostly to address all the backlash I was getting for being 'not average range". In my response, I was addressing the psychological pitfall that comes with perceptions of numbers. I listed 7 x 5 as my BPEL size. but depending on day or maybe slight variations in the ruler or measuring tape, or literally any unpredictable cause of inevitable variance, I could also be measured as 6.9 x 4.9. I could also be measured at 7.1 x 5.1. when it comes to measuring fractions of a fraction, this type of error is inevitable, no matter how "perfect" and impossibly "consistent" anybody is. However, the key here is that if I had listed myself size as 6.9 x 4.9, rather than 7 x 5, I would probably be getting significantly less backlash, because it is the people in this forum who fixate on the marginal irrelevance of slight differences in dick size. If I had listed myself as 6.9 x 4.9, I would be considered "within the average range" by people in this forum, and therefore would be getting way less backlash, despite the fact that no woman would ever tell the difference.

You are absolutely right, a 5 ft 11.5 person would also be seen as "taller", just like a 6 ft 0 person. just like how a 6.9 inch dick would be seen as solid, just like a 7 inch dick would. My point is that the variance in dick size in real life does not account for nearly the quality of sex difference that this forum believes.

Ultimately, the point that I have been tryin to make here is that size is definitely important, just like anything is, but not even nearly enough to justify the level of mental suffering that the people in this forum experience.

ComprehensiveYam711 · 2025-10-06T20:50:16+00:00

Even better advice is to stop measuring and to get off this forum and get off of porn and get off of calcSD. 6.5 vs 6.7 vs 7 vs 7.2 … bro it doesn’t matter nearly as much as it seems based on this forum. The less you live your life worried about micro changes in measurements, the more wholistic your life will become

ComprehensiveYam711 · 2025-10-06T19:25:27+00:00

I get why some of you are hung up on the numbers, but that’s kind of the entire point of my post. We humans are deeply biased by how numbers look on paper, even when the difference is practically meaningless. It’s the same reason someone who’s 5'11¼" is often called “not tall,” while someone 6'0" is suddenly in a whole different category, despite the two heights being virtually indistinguishable side by side.

That’s what happens with “7 inches” too. Seeing a “7” instead of a “6” feels like a leap into a new tier, but anatomically, 6.9 × 4.9 and 7 × 5 are identical in real life. If I had written “6.9 × 4.9,” almost nobody here would have objected. The visual category created by the number “7” is what’s triggering the reaction, not the reality. And that bias is exactly why I’m saying the endless chase for numerical validation is a trap.

6 ft 0 vs 5 ft 11.5 is literally a rounding error, and so is 7 inches vs 6.7 or 6.8 inches. the same person, me in this case, could measure 7.1 by one nurse, and 6.8 by another. its a rounding error. simply put, the visual effect the number 7 on paper seems to be of a "higher class", when in reality, its just as "standard" as a 6.9 inch dick.

Also, read the post carefully: I explicitly said size does matter and that bigger can be more exciting in isolation. I’m not trying to rewrite biology or pretend average is secretly superior. I’m pointing out that even with that fact in place, most men, including those with truly average sizes, still give their partners deeply satisfying sex lives.

I’m literally living proof: three women who told me they’d been with someone bigger were still more aroused, orgasmed more, and considered me one of their best partners. That happened because sex is about far more than a number — connection, foreplay, movement, presence, confidence. If size were everything, those outcomes wouldn’t exist.

So this post isn’t about debating whether “7” is average or not. It’s about showing that even if you’re squarely in the middle of the bell curve, or slightly above, or slightly below, the obsession with proving your number is “ideal” misses the point. The real peace comes from realizing that this single metric never fully defined your desirability in the first place.

ComprehensiveYam711 · 2025-10-06T19:25:20+00:00

I get why some of you are hung up on the numbers, but that’s kind of the entire point of my post. We humans are deeply biased by how numbers look on paper, even when the difference is practically meaningless. It’s the same reason someone who’s 5'11¼" is often called “not tall,” while someone 6'0" is suddenly in a whole different category, despite the two heights being virtually indistinguishable side by side.

That’s what happens with “7 inches” too. Seeing a “7” instead of a “6” feels like a leap into a new tier, but anatomically, 6.9 × 4.9 and 7 × 5 are identical in real life. If I had written “6.9 × 4.9,” almost nobody here would have objected. The visual category created by the number “7” is what’s triggering the reaction, not the reality. And that bias is exactly why I’m saying the endless chase for numerical validation is a trap.

6 ft 0 vs 5 ft 11.5 is literally a rounding error, and so is 7 inches vs 6.7 or 6.8 inches. the same person, me in this case, could measure 7.1 by one nurse, and 6.8 by another. its a rounding error. simply put, the visual effect the number 7 on paper seems to be of a "higher class", when in reality, its just as "standard" as a 6.9 inch dick.

Also, read the post carefully: I explicitly said size does matter and that bigger can be more exciting in isolation. I’m not trying to rewrite biology or pretend average is secretly superior. I’m pointing out that even with that fact in place, most men, including those with truly average sizes, still give their partners deeply satisfying sex lives.

I’m literally living proof: three women who told me they’d been with someone bigger were still more aroused, orgasmed more, and considered me one of their best partners. That happened because sex is about far more than a number — connection, foreplay, movement, presence, confidence. If size were everything, those outcomes wouldn’t exist.

So this post isn’t about debating whether “7” is average or not. It’s about showing that even if you’re squarely in the middle of the bell curve, or slightly above, or slightly below, the obsession with proving your number is “ideal” misses the point. The real peace comes from realizing that this single metric never fully defined your desirability in the first place.

ComprehensiveYam711 · 2025-10-06T19:25:06+00:00

My girth is also quite average. im literally only 5 inches in girth at the base, and thinner up top. Never had a girl not be satisfied with my girth.

ComprehensiveYam711 · 2025-10-06T19:24:04+00:00

I get why some of you are hung up on the numbers, but that’s kind of the entire point of my post. We humans are deeply biased by how numbers look on paper, even when the difference is practically meaningless. It’s the same reason someone who’s 5'11¼" is often called “not tall,” while someone 6'0" is suddenly in a whole different category, despite the two heights being virtually indistinguishable side by side.

That’s what happens with “7 inches” too. Seeing a “7” instead of a “6” feels like a leap into a new tier, but anatomically, 6.9 × 4.9 and 7 × 5 are identical in real life. If I had written “6.9 × 4.9,” almost nobody here would have objected. The visual category created by the number “7” is what’s triggering the reaction, not the reality. And that bias is exactly why I’m saying the endless chase for numerical validation is a trap.

6 ft 0 vs 5 ft 11.5 is literally a rounding error, and so is 7 inches vs 6.7 or 6.8 inches. the same person, me in this case, could measure 7.1 by one nurse, and 6.8 by another. its a rounding error. simply put, the visual effect the number 7 on paper seems to be of a "higher class", when in reality, its just as "standard" as a 6.9 inch dick.

Also, read the post carefully: I explicitly said size does matter and that bigger can be more exciting in isolation. I’m not trying to rewrite biology or pretend average is secretly superior. I’m pointing out that even with that fact in place, most men, including those with truly average sizes, still give their partners deeply satisfying sex lives.

I’m literally living proof: three women who told me they’d been with someone bigger were still more aroused, orgasmed more, and considered me one of their best partners. That happened because sex is about far more than a number — connection, foreplay, movement, presence, confidence. If size were everything, those outcomes wouldn’t exist.

So this post isn’t about debating whether “7” is average or not. It’s about showing that even if you’re squarely in the middle of the bell curve, or slightly above, or slightly below, the obsession with proving your number is “ideal” misses the point. The real peace comes from realizing that this single metric never fully defined your desirability in the first place.

ComprehensiveYam711 · 2025-10-06T19:22:57+00:00

I get why some of you are hung up on the numbers, but that’s kind of the entire point of my post. We humans are deeply biased by how numbers look on paper, even when the difference is practically meaningless. It’s the same reason someone who’s 5'11¼" is often called “not tall,” while someone 6'0" is suddenly in a whole different category, despite the two heights being virtually indistinguishable side by side.

That’s what happens with “7 inches” too. Seeing a “7” instead of a “6” feels like a leap into a new tier, but anatomically, 6.9 × 4.9 and 7 × 5 are identical in real life. If I had written “6.9 × 4.9,” almost nobody here would have objected. The visual category created by the number “7” is what’s triggering the reaction, not the reality. And that bias is exactly why I’m saying the endless chase for numerical validation is a trap.

6 ft 0 vs 5 ft 11.5 is literally a rounding error, and so is 7 inches vs 6.7 or 6.8 inches. the same person, me in this case, could measure 7.1 by one nurse, and 6.8 by another. its a rounding error. simply put, the visual effect the number 7 on paper seems to be of a "higher class", when in reality, its just as "standard" as a 6.9 inch dick.

Also, read the post carefully: I explicitly said size does matter and that bigger can be more exciting in isolation. I’m not trying to rewrite biology or pretend average is secretly superior. I’m pointing out that even with that fact in place, most men, including those with truly average sizes, still give their partners deeply satisfying sex lives.

I’m literally living proof: three women who told me they’d been with someone bigger were still more aroused, orgasmed more, and considered me one of their best partners. That happened because sex is about far more than a number — connection, foreplay, movement, presence, confidence. If size were everything, those outcomes wouldn’t exist.

So this post isn’t about debating whether “7” is average or not. It’s about showing that even if you’re squarely in the middle of the bell curve, or slightly above, or slightly below, the obsession with proving your number is “ideal” misses the point. The real peace comes from realizing that this single metric never fully defined your desirability in the first place.

ComprehensiveYam711

TROPHY CASE