[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/hm/ - Handsome Men


Name
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
File
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • There are 140 posters in this thread.

05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
06/20/16New 4chan Banner Contest with a chance to win a 4chan Pass! See the contest page for details.
[Hide] [Show All]


All work safe boards are now on the 4channel.org domain. Make sure to update your script blockers and whitelist the new domain.

There's now a setting option under Navigation to display the full list of boards on 4channel.org

The 4chan Vtuber Competition is over. Click here to see the winning entry!




File: majhs (9).jpg (696 KB, 3570x3024)
696 KB
696 KB JPG
SMALL penis thread

Post small, below average
>>
File: Frt5.jpg (2.39 MB, 3264x2448)
2.39 MB
2.39 MB JPG
>>
File: majhs (2).jpg (706 KB, 3264x2448)
706 KB
706 KB JPG
>>
File: smp01.jpg (1.43 MB, 2448x3264)
1.43 MB
1.43 MB JPG
>>
File: SFSDG.jpg (1.03 MB, 2330x2534)
1.03 MB
1.03 MB JPG
>>
File: Frggh.jpg (274 KB, 1280x960)
274 KB
274 KB JPG
>>
File: 1488650323106.jpg (788 KB, 2717x3395)
788 KB
788 KB JPG
>>
>>
But there is already a small thread
>>
File: 20181105_042954.jpg (633 KB, 700x1440)
633 KB
633 KB JPG
>>
>>
>>1807829
>>
File: 83463CF.jpg (4.56 MB, 3840x5120)
4.56 MB
4.56 MB JPG
more --> /24FC913
>>
File: 04012.jpg (149 KB, 1280x720)
149 KB
149 KB JPG
>>
>>1807830
amazing
>>
>>1806316
That's not small. He's just a grower.
>>
i have a small penis (11cm). i've never had sex but if i could i would like to be vers

is there any possibility that someone would let me fuck them with my benis? just wondering
>>
File: 20181208_111412.jpg (1.65 MB, 2592x1944)
1.65 MB
1.65 MB JPG
>>
File: 20181208_111439.jpg (3.61 MB, 5312x2988)
3.61 MB
3.61 MB JPG
>>
File: IMG_8425.jpg (1.09 MB, 2448x3264)
1.09 MB
1.09 MB JPG
>>
File: IMG_8433.jpg (1.48 MB, 2448x3264)
1.48 MB
1.48 MB JPG
>>
>>1808188
Me, I have an average 18 cm dick
>>
>>1806321
hot
>>
>>1808522
3 inches flaccid is probably pretty normal erect
>>
File: 1544391596755.jpg (1.96 MB, 4032x2268)
1.96 MB
1.96 MB JPG
>>
File: 20180702_145532.jpg (4.1 MB, 4160x3120)
4.1 MB
4.1 MB JPG
>>
File: 1207181736-1.jpg (405 KB, 1417x1926)
405 KB
405 KB JPG
>>
File: Fghhf1.jpg (1.82 MB, 2405x1739)
1.82 MB
1.82 MB JPG
>>
>>1806316
An absolute beautiful body, I would LOVE to see more
>>
i know this guy who's asian-small limp, but 8.5" hard. Measured myself, it seemed like bullshit even though I was looking at it...
>>
File: 1544399913665.jpg (689 KB, 1920x1080)
689 KB
689 KB JPG
>>
>>1808543
That's the spirit!
>>
>>1809743
I'd blow you
>>
>>1808543
I want to taste it.
>>
>>1809947
I'd love that
>>
File: IMG_20181213_200024.jpg (3.59 MB, 3120x4160)
3.59 MB
3.59 MB JPG
>>1809743
Here's another photo
>>
>>1806324
Wow bro I'm pretty impressed . I just want to suck your cock for eternity ....
And just force yourself into my ass
>>
>>1808841
Tell me it's a photoship
>>
>>
>>1806316
>>1806317
>>1806318
>>1806319
>>1806320
Where can I get more of this man?
>>
File: v84.jpg (127 KB, 1200x800)
127 KB
127 KB JPG
combo of two bellow average :3
>>
File: p6OsQuS.jpg (581 KB, 1536x2048)
581 KB
581 KB JPG
>>
File: anML9kK.jpg (59 KB, 640x426)
59 KB
59 KB JPG
>>
File: bUQIYAG.jpg (60 KB, 640x426)
60 KB
60 KB JPG
>>
File: MOXRZpP.jpg (63 KB, 640x426)
63 KB
63 KB JPG
>>
File: SpESMJm.jpg (53 KB, 640x426)
53 KB
53 KB JPG
>>
>>
Look at all these perfectly ordinary dicks
>>
>>1810235

Name another common household items.
>>
File: IMG_20181205_212206.jpg (2.61 MB, 3024x4032)
2.61 MB
2.61 MB JPG
How do I make my big dick look tiny in photos? God I dream of having some of these dicks :(
>>
>>1810889
See >>1808841

Trick photography.
>>
File: 1216181815.jpg (4.25 MB, 4160x3120)
4.25 MB
4.25 MB JPG
>>
>>1810699
giggled
>>
>>1810889
Pretty good start looking small. Detection for comparison?
>>
File: Ftgg0.jpg (1.58 MB, 2592x1944)
1.58 MB
1.58 MB JPG
>>1809024
>>1810380
Thanks

All of these:
>>1806316
>>1806317
>>1806318
>>1806319
>>1806320
>>1806321
>>1806322
>>1808942


Thanks too all for the amazing contributions
>>
File: awseg.jpg (1.14 MB, 2900x1901)
1.14 MB
1.14 MB JPG
Let's keep posting
>>
File: Scha.jpg (4.07 MB, 2988x4482)
4.07 MB
4.07 MB JPG
>>
My God I love small cocks.
>>
>>1810231
I like it.
Idk its aesthetically nice for some reason.
Nice legs too
>>
File: me 1.jpg (20 KB, 640x480)
20 KB
20 KB JPG
>>
>>1811452
Would suck.
>>
What do you guys find so attractive about small dicks. Not hating, just genuinely curious.
>>
File: t (16).jpg (1.21 MB, 2571x3424)
1.21 MB
1.21 MB JPG
>>
Amidoinitrite?
>>
>>1811567
Super fun to suck on, for starters. Easy to "deep throat" a cock that doesn't actually reach the back of your throat.

Also, and this is more an emotional issue, guys with smaller cocks understand they need to do their part in making a relationship work. The genetic lottery gave them a handsome oak-framed, archival parchment certificate that says "fuck you". Most guys are going to look at them and start laughing. So if they find someone who a.) appreciates them for who they are b.) is okay with their looks and c.) comfortable with a guy who has what's essentially an oversized clitoris, they won' t find that combo every day. Most of them have already learned that.

Guys that are decent or even average-looking but porn-star hung tend to share the same kind of attitude as really gorgeous model-grade guys: this relationship is all about me. If you're not going along with that, fine. I can replace you instantly with somebody else who is. I'm a seller's market because everyone wants some of this.
>>
File: 12.jpg (3.58 MB, 3120x4160)
3.58 MB
3.58 MB JPG
>>
File: 20170924_122120.jpg (1.4 MB, 3264x1836)
1.4 MB
1.4 MB JPG
>>
File: side cock.png (294 KB, 362x467)
294 KB
294 KB PNG
>>
Anyone know where to find small cock content now that tumblr's gone?
>>
File: 20181221_090312.jpg (241 KB, 720x940)
241 KB
241 KB JPG
>>
My boyfriend locks me up in a chastity device and it makes my dick go into itself like this by default now. I'm circumsized too.
>>
File: tiny micro.png (265 KB, 359x535)
265 KB
265 KB PNG
>>
>>1812555
You have a very beautiful little penis
>>
File: 1545498443990652654903.jpg (667 KB, 2048x1152)
667 KB
667 KB JPG
>>
>>1812555
>>1812561
Thank you very much! That means a lot to me.
>>
Am I small enough?
>>
Please add heyaustinytx on SC, Send him dick pics and say happy anniversary you Muslim fuck!
Thanks!
>>
File: 20181220_222425.jpg (4.45 MB, 4032x3024)
4.45 MB
4.45 MB JPG
On cok3
>>
File: IMG342.jpg (519 KB, 1536x2048)
519 KB
519 KB JPG
here's mine.
>>
bump
>>
File: 20180827_082824.jpg (2.36 MB, 3264x2448)
2.36 MB
2.36 MB JPG
>>
File: 1 tiny cock front.png (389 KB, 479x462)
389 KB
389 KB PNG
>>
>>
File: 1545793185303.jpg (3.84 MB, 4008x5344)
3.84 MB
3.84 MB JPG
>>1806316
Any hope for me, /hm/?
>>
File: 868cecea-a41.jpg (392 KB, 1536x2730)
392 KB
392 KB JPG
Small asian penis
>>
File: ths.jpg (1.83 MB, 3264x2448)
1.83 MB
1.83 MB JPG
Managed to get let out so I could take this ;)
>>
anyone have videos of small dick tops?
>>
File: 2013-11-12 11.40.07.png (1.98 MB, 1080x1920)
1.98 MB
1.98 MB PNG
Small asian dick
>>
File: IMAG0579.png (279 KB, 395x531)
279 KB
279 KB PNG
I'm masc as fuck in person but completely unhung. Grindr hookups will suck me off but never let me top and it's infuriating.

Pic related, my small bear dick.
>>
Do bodybuilders like small pensis....asking for a friend
>>
Got lots more if want
>>
File: 1545990158161-1112756999.jpg (887 KB, 1440x2560)
887 KB
887 KB JPG
>>
>>1814951
Why's it purple/brown? Is it dying?
>>
>>1815013
We are all dying, Anon
>>
>>1815022
Maybe so, but we don't all have a rigamortis dick.
>>
>>
>>1810525
Yum. Anymore like this?
>>
>>
>>
Enjoy ;)
>>
Why so many small threads
>>
File: 6b.jpg (135 KB, 714x952)
135 KB
135 KB JPG
gonna be teaching him a lesson in small dicks needing to prove their worth with some JOI
any suggestions/tips?
>>
>>1815390
Same reason there are so many "gamer/ nerd/ geek" threads.

Some people fantasize about the best of the best. The most attractive guys, the biggest cocks. But other people don't. . They've already been rejected enough times by truly hot, hung guys.

Images of those guys aren't a fantasy, they're a painful reminder of their own place near the bottom of the dating pool.

So they go the other way. They fantasize about guys who are "accessible". The ones who are physically or socially unattractive, including guys who are under-equipped.
>>
File: IMG_20181229_060443566.jpg (3.52 MB, 3120x4160)
3.52 MB
3.52 MB JPG
>>
>>1815398
That's actually a great response. Thanks. Makes sense.
>>
File: 1d1e3ac9-e26.jpg (24 KB, 333x500)
24 KB
24 KB JPG
Just wow
>>
>>1815523
Glad to see the brown asian boy for the 50,000th time today. /s

No we don't know who he is.
>>
>>1815454
>>1815398
Or, you know, some people like different things. In my opinion, small cocks are legitimately superior to big cocks. A big cock on a guy actively disappoints me.
>>
>>1815600
Yeah, thats obvious. The other guy explained WHY "some people like different things".
>>
>>1815647
I don't appreciate the implication that my preferences are due to me settling, as if there's something objectively worse about small penises or unconventionally attractive men.
>>1815398 seems to fancy himself some kind of armchair anthropologist, reducing people to self-serving impulses. I find that despicable.
>>
>>1815651
Rejects "self-serving impulses" but hangs out on a gay pornography sharing board. Fag.
>>
>>1811490
it is normalsize
>>
File: KwOfaKz.jpg (265 KB, 1207x1483)
265 KB
265 KB JPG
What about thin pencil dicks?
>>
File: p8g91xq193621.jpg (398 KB, 2448x3264)
398 KB
398 KB JPG
>>1815672
Another pencil dick
>>
File: I4Q5cPu.jpg (555 KB, 1536x2048)
555 KB
555 KB JPG
>>1815675
3rd pencil dick
>>
File: OOUrRR6.jpg (800 KB, 3024x3436)
800 KB
800 KB JPG
>>
File: 2BCDw9Y.jpg (784 KB, 3024x4032)
784 KB
784 KB JPG
>>
>>1815651
Protip: you should have accused me of fancying myself as some kind of armchair psychologist, not an anthropologist. If you're going to start using technical terminology at least do everyone the favor of learning what it means. Whether or not you appreciate the implication, my hypothesis fits all the phenomena perfectly and the threads on /hm/ tend to empirically support it as well.

If you want to get technical about it, yeah. Regardless of sexual orientation, a smaller sub-standard penis provides less penetration/ friction/ sensation for both partners and also limits the number sexual positions the couple can try. So from a purely mechanical perspective a smaller penis IS objectively worse.

Biologically, the primary reproductive function of the penis is to deposit sperm into the female vagina, optimally as close to the cervix as possible. This increases the quantity of sperm that will ultimately reach ovum within the uterus.

A smaller penis won't reach that far, reducing the number of sperm that will successfully "swim" the length of the vagina AND through the uterus AND eventually reach the ovum. In cases of a micro penis, it may not be able to adequately deliver enough semen deeply into the vagina at all.

So from a biological perspective as well, yes, a smaller penis IS objectively worse regardless of whether you like it or not.

Now go be ignorant somewhere else.
>>
>>1815683
2 testicles and 0 penis.
>>
>>1815688
I called you an armchair anthropologist because it's far more applicable. You were diagnosing the human species, not a specific person. If only you were anywhere near as smart as you think you are.
Mechanically, big or sometimes even average penises hurt a lot of people. You can't call something objectively better when it has a chance of causing harm, when the alternative only has a chance of not providing as much pleasure.
And talking about evolutionary biology in regards to reproduction on a gay porn board is so utterly idiotic I can't even fathom why you thought it was a good idea.
Next time you want to seem intelligent, maybe take five fucking seconds to think your statements through.
>>
File: 28megg.jpg (857 KB, 2172x2496)
857 KB
857 KB JPG
>>
File: tiny cock canada.png (906 KB, 595x846)
906 KB
906 KB PNG
>>
>>1815847
Partner pleasure isn't really necessary from a reproductive point of view. A man can hurt the hell out of a woman who is miserable, but if he busts in her, he can still be reproductively successful.
>>
>>1815847
>You were diagnosing the human species, not a specific person.

I'm not "diagnosing the human species", you idiot. I'm not identifying an illness or a problem, i.e diagnosing. Likewise, I didn't say anything about humanity as a "species"... such as why human muscles aren't as strong as chimps'.


Your second mistake is assuming psychology must apply only to a single person. Psychology as a science works precisely becuase because certain behaviors/ responses/ and emotions are generally consistent under given conditions.

I'm discussing why people like what they like, their mental and emotional motivations, not how they interact with each other within society (i.e athropology).

>If only you were anywhere near as smart as you think you are.

That's rich since you literally don't know what you're talking about.

Seriously, you need to look up all those "big words", not simply go by what you -think- you know because your understanding of them is flat-out wrong.
>>
>>1815847
>Mechanically, big or sometimes even average penises hurt a lot of people.

So can a thumb if it's misused. The misuse of an item (or a body part) does not invalidate its superiority for a given task when used correctly.

>You can't call something objectively better when it has a chance of causing harm.

If one thing performs a task better than another thing, then it is -objectively- better at that task. Your problem is you don't know what "objectively" means, any more than you do with "diagnosis" or "species" or the difference between anthropology and psychology.

Yes, something might have the potential to cause harm if misused, but if it is superior at a given task when used correctly, it is "objectively" better..

Example. Treating illness: medication vs. prayer. Both treatments have been used for millenia.

Prayer will do no direct physical harm and medication does have the potential to cause harm if misused, misprescribed or because of an unknown allergic reaction. Do I really need to spell out for you why medication is still the OBJECTIVELY better treatment?

>And talking about evolutionary biology in regards to reproduction on a gay porn board is so utterly idiotic I can't even fathom why you thought it was a good idea.

No surprises there. Your ability to follow a discussion is on par with your education. I was describing objective superiority of a normal sized penis, which includes its function as a reproductive organ. Objective superiority doesn't cease to exist because gay people won't necessarily make use of it.

Please DO try to keep up.

Friendly suggestion: Wait until your education can match your arrogance before you start sneering at your betters.
>>
>>1816101
>not how they interact with each other within society
Except your whole original point was that a preference for small penises is some kind of self-preservative reflex for people at the bottom of the social totem pole to stop fantasizing about hung/attractive men and get with someone on their own level. That is inherently anthropological. Psychology is a general term for any scientific study of behavior, so of course it will also apply. I used a more specific term because it was more applicable.
>>1816109
>The misuse of an item (or a body part) does not invalidate its superiority for a given task when used correctly
A penis expanding to its maximum size is not misuse. It is the intended use of a penis, and the size alone can be enough to cause pain.
>Do I really need to spell out for you why medication is still the OBJECTIVELY better treatment?
Much like some penises are too big and will cause pain to smaller people, some medications will never do a good job against certain illnesses, regardless of their effectiveness in other situations. Prayer is objectively better at curing your headache than chemotherapy.
You seem to have a cognitive issue with separating individual cases from larger overall patterns, which feeds into your ridiculous notion of objectivity.
>Objective superiority doesn't cease to exist because gay people won't necessarily make use of it
It actually does. A taller, muscular man ceases to be superior to other men when put at a desk job. If a supposedly valuable trait will never be put to use, then its theoretical value is irrelevant.
Everything you posit is obviously and immediately fallacious. You'd realize this if you truly put some thought into your arguments.
>>
Let's just porn. Lol.
>>
>>1816126
>Except your whole original point was that a preference for small penises is some kind of self-preservative reflex...

Technically it's an emotional coping mechanism and when you to look it up, that's a (wait for it...) psychological reaction to internal or external stress. In this case, an internalized one rising from low self-esteem.

>That is inherently anthropological.
It doesn't affect how either gay culture or gay society functions as a whole... only those individuals who feel they're at the bottom. This is psychology, not anthropology.

We're talking about how some people at the bottom react as individuals and why they like what they like. The hypothesis I presented explains an INDIVIDUAL reaction shared by -some- people who feel they're at the bottom. Not everyone in that situation necessarily adopts this response. Again, this is a mental/ emotional response, which affects their behavior. That's solid psycology.

So, no anthropological isn't "more applicable", you just don't know what you're talking about. Either that, or you're one of those autistic types with an individualized (and typically wrong) set of definitions for words the rest of us use.

Looking at the rest of your reply, I'm beginning to suspect that's the case.
>>
>>1816126
>A penis expanding to its maximum size is not misuse.

No shit. How a partner uses a fully expanded penis may, however, become misuse. Or it might be pleasurable. Again, that's the user's responsibility.

>It is the intended use of a penis, and the size alone can be enough to cause pain.
...only through inconsiderate negligence or intent on the part of its owner. The "size alone" isn't enough to cause anything.

>Much like some penises are too big and will cause pain to smaller people
Incorrect (as usual). Penises are almost never, ever "too big" and let's not cherry-pick the monster cocks, either. Most are average to large. Also worth remembering the human body is capable of an astounding degree of flexibility. Incredibly skinny and petite people routinely take human forearms up to the elbow in their ass. Others deep throat salami-sized dildos.

Pain comes from negligence or intent on the part of the top or overconfidence/ appeasement/ masochism on the part of the bottom. Again, since you missed it, the object isn't at fault here only the people making use of it.

But given the proper preparation, a normal to large penis can and will provide vastly more stimulation/ pleasure than a small one. From a sexual perspective it's objectively better. Sex industry supports this. Most penis-shaped toys are average to large sized.




>>
>>1816126
>Prayer is objectively better at curing your headache than chemotherapy.

This is a perfect example of how you misuse terminology. Chemotherapy is the use of any drug to treat disease or illness. Taking an aspirin or any similar pain medication to eliminate a headache is "chemotherapy".

Prayer is a mystical communion with a divine being. If you seriously believe the latter is objectively better at curing a headache, you're in a very small minority inhabited almost exclusively by the delusionally religious.

>You seem to have a cognitive issue with separating individual cases from larger overall patterns, which feeds into your ridiculous notion of objectivity.

(no examples given) Protip: the "larger overall patterns" you vaguely refer to are the ones YOU should be presenting with reams of factual support. Particularly when every "individual case" I bring up supports a contradictory view.

Using your scenario of the headache, Bayer and Tylenol are multi-billion dollar businesses because you don't know what you're talking about.
>>
>>1816126
>It actually does. A taller, muscular man ceases to be superior to other men when put at a desk job.

Wrong. As in, objectively wrong.
https://www.businessinsider.com/tall-people-are-richer-and-successful-2015-9

You can't even produce a hypothetical example without fucking it up. Like I said , go be ignorant somewhere else.

>Everything you posit is obviously and immediately fallacious.

You have enough problems already with even basic scientific and academic terms. Crafting factually-based counter-examples has been a disaster for you so please...

Stay away from debating terminology. Out of charity, I've avoided tearing into your silly nonsense as a debater would. That's just TOO easy.
>>
File: aaacock.png (99 KB, 166x294)
99 KB
99 KB PNG
I have always felt like I have had a small penis.
>>
>>1816180
You are really up your own ass, even for a faggot.
I disagree that homosexuality is bound by reproduction and more so closer to fetishism. IMO, a smaller penis isn't necessarily inferior but more submissive. A smaller penis is able to be better sucked and handled. I imagine most bottoms/women don't like this due to themselves being submissive but for a man like me it is an opportunity to dominate/humiliate.
>>1816184
You have a really nice penis, it looks above average. Do you have measurements? Either way it looks fun to suck.
>>
>>1816185
7 long, 5 around. and thanks, I appreciate that. It's a pick me up. Like if it was small I would come to terms with it, but I am really conflicted between a negative body image and well.. sometimes it seems okay.
>>
>>1816187
You are not small at all then. You might be "avg" to someone else, but I think you are def on the bigger side.
[spoiler]N O R T H W E S T U S[/spoiler]
>>
>>1816185
>I disagree that homosexuality is bound by reproduction and more so closer to fetishism.

You're probably right. Even so, fetishists tend to take things to extremes, don't they? Tom of Finland is a classic example.

>IMO, a smaller penis isn't necessarily inferior but more submissive.

From the perspective of gay history, there's a ton of support for that (regardless of era or culture). It's reinforces why people with low self-esteem would favor partners who are submissive to them.

>I imagine most bottoms/women don't like this due to themselves being submissive but for a man like me it is an opportunity to dominate/humiliate.

You'd be surprised. A lot of "women" (regardless of their physical gender) do seem to enjoy it.
>>
>>1816191
>It reinforces why people with low self-esteem would favour [submissive partners].
Is that necessarily the case? I imagine doms are more likely to be cocky then not. I can see what you mean when you have a partner who is "lesser" to you are also an ego boost.

[spoiler] I will be honest with you in that I do have low-esteem. Not having a mega-dick and rippling muscles sucks dick in , sadly, only a figurative sense. [/spoiler]
>>
>>1816197
>Is that necessarily the case?
It would seem so. As you said, "I can see what you mean when you have a partner who is "lesser" to you are also an ego boost." That's probably a bonus for someone with low-self esteem. Average guys who are noticeably under-hung tend to have incredibly low opinions of themselves. So much of masculinity, the concept of "being a man" is tied up in cock-size.

So it works out, in a sad kind of way. An average hung guy with low self-esteem finds some hamster-hung unfortunate with an even LOWER sense of self who boosts his ego. In turn, the under-hung guy recieves a boost of his own. Neither of them are "foreveralone." they have each other, companionship, "love", etc.

>Not having a mega-dick and rippling muscles sucks dick in , sadly, only a figurative sense.

Truth told, if you're just 'average' in the cock size, you can do a lot better than you think you can. I know everyone says it around here, but it's true: Go to the gym. Don't allow yourself to be discouraged by all the hard-bodies. Don't try to do too much too fast or you'll burn yourself out. It takes awhile to build up to a full exercise program and just as long to get strong enough to do it every week, three-four times a week.

(cont.)
>>
I'll even go further because I -AM- up my own ass. I get that way when I'm right and I know it.

Even if you have, say, some mild disfigurement, you aren't a write-off. You just need to make it work for you. I knew one guy back in high school with fairly bad acne scarring who was considered an untouchable loser by pretty much everyone. Ran into him about a fifteen years later. Somewhere along the line he wised up and figured out how to make "bad-ass" work. His cheeks still looked like you could grate cheese with them, but he was very, very impressive. Intimidating as hell.

Very lean, almost gaunt, high definition muscles. Off-work, he went for a blue collar, trucker kind of style without going into the obviously corny urban-biker fashions. This wasn't any of that hipster bullshit. He looked like an ex-con, the kind of guy you just do NOT fuck with.

Now here's the catch. He was waist-deep in candy-ass twinks who were infatuated with him. He was the nightmare step-dad/ older-brother/ "man" they were always dreaming about. So there you go. Hope it works out for you, man.
>>
>>1816224
>>1816231
Thanks man. I don't think I'm cut out for sex/relationships in general. Like you said it is painful to look at attractive men and know you can't have them. I think there is hope for everyone, but what good is looking at the sky praying for rain? Thanks for your help, man.
>>
>>1814129
nice
>>
>>1815398
>>1815688

You're that same guy who wouldn't shut up in the geek thread and I'm pretty sure I've seen your self aggrandizing garbage in a black thread too

You just lump all the things that don't fit your definition of what is attractive together and say everyone who likes them is a reject who is too pathetic to be attracted to the things and traits you define as attractive. Then you make endless convoluted arguments with anyone who disagrees with you until you've killed the entire thread with your blog entries(inb4 HA this is also a blog entry) or people stop replying

>>1816180
That doesn't even refute that guys point. It list 4 studies. None of their conclusions confirm that tall people are objectively better at anything. Two of the conclusions are based in malnutrition and poor neonatal. The other two conclude that people think and treat tall people as if they were superior.

But that doesn't mean, and absolutely none of those studies conclude, that simply being tall makes you objectively superior at anything.

Your understanding of the issue (why people like the things they like) is completely based on your own bias and believing you're right is a fundamental part of your personality. Your thoughts become facts simply because you thought of them and you can't be wrong. You're like an evangelist. Your God is you. Your terrible theory is your gospel. There is no point in anyone using logic, reasoning, or facts with you because inevitably you will conclude that any argument made against your gospel must be false because it disagrees with your gospel and your gospel came from your God and your God can't be wrong.
>>
>>1816294
THANK YOU. God, I thought I was going crazy or something. Thank goodness there are other rational, non-narcissists out there.
>>
>>1816179
>Chemotherapy is the use of any drug to treat disease or illness.
Literally what the fuck are you talking about. Chemotherapy is specifically cancer treatment. A simple cursory google can tell you that much.
>>
>>1816294
>You're that same guy who wouldn't shut up in the geek thread...

Takes two to make an argument. Or haven't you noticed that yet?

>You just lump all the things that don't fit your definition of what is attractive together and say everyone who likes them is a reject who is too pathetic ...(etc.)

You're introducing moral judgements and criticisms that aren't included in the original hypothesis. Go take your "strawman" complaint, stuff them up your ass, and ram a lit road-flare in after it.

>Then you make endless convoluted arguments with anyone who disagrees with you...

Funny how anything less than "endless" always gets a reply to the effect of, "U didn't address my eighteenth sub-point over here!" and "convoluted" appears only when someone is losing. Or, in your case, sympathizes with the loser.

>...until you've killed the entire thread with your blog entries

The people who want to post photos go right on doing so. This thread is still going on so is the other one. I can see why you sypathize with that other guy. Both of you have a habit of being factually wrong.
>>
>>1816294
>That doesn't even refute that guys point. It list 4 studies. None of their conclusions confirm that tall people are objectively better at anything.

That wasn't the point he was even making, dummy. You're confusing it with the example he gave. The point he was trying to make was this (his words)

>If a supposedly valuable trait will never be put to use, then its theoretical value is irrelevant.

...supported by:

>A taller, muscular man ceases to be superior to other men when put at a desk job.

Which is wrong. The article shows that taller men are more financially successful, smarter, more likely to be seen as leaders. That's about as demonstrably "superior" in the workplace (i.e. "desk job") as you can damn well get. A person might not actively USE the physical traits of being taller and more muscular at a "desk job", but they still do have a real, documented advantage.

Okay, you don't like my "long" replies. Great. So what's your excuse for not being able to understand HIS bullshit, to the point where I have to explain it to you?

...I mean aside from being just THAT fucking stupid?
>>
>>1816294
>Your understanding of the issue (why people like the things they like) is completely based on your own bias and believing you're right is a fundamental part of your personality.

I came up with an explanation which fits the phenomena, nothing more. I've never discounted that other explanations might be also fit. You missed that. Don't know how to explain this to you, but most people advance things they believe to be right, yourself include. Whether or not they ARE right is another matter.

>Your thoughts become facts simply because you thought of them and you can't be wrong.

No. My "thoughts" (you meant "opinions" I think) are supported with facts, which makes them educated opinions. Unlike his which are demonstrably wrong or yours which have been mostly just some ass-pained whining since you don't like my writing. Too fucking bad.

>There is no point in anyone using logic, reasoning, or facts...
You mean like this? (direct quote from him)
>Prayer is objectively better at curing your headache than chemotherapy.

That's a shining example of the kind of "reasoning or facts" he's been advancing. Tell me something, champ. Which works better? Bayer or Buddha?

>inevitably you will conclude that any argument made against your gospel must be false because it disagrees with your gospel...

That's a logical fallacy of Circular Reasoning and, no, inevitably I -won't- conclude that. I'll conclude THIS is what happens when you people start using "logic" without having the slightest understanding how it works.
>>
File: Chemo.png (94 KB, 825x464)
94 KB
94 KB PNG
>>1816318
>Chemotherapy is specifically cancer treatment. A simple cursory google can tell you that much.

Let's try a simple cursory google and find out, shall we?... pic related.

Now compare Google's featured result with what I originally said.

>Chemotherapy is the use of any drug to treat disease or illness.

Gee... it looks like I might have done a simple cursory google ahead of time. Funny thing about that.
>>
>>1816369
You're a pedantic loser
>>
>>1816369
chemotherapy literally means chemical treatment from greek.
>>
>>1816364

But he's not wrong. There is nothing about being taller or more muscular that objectively makes that person better at a desk job.

You keep using that article but you clearly haven't read it. So i'll explain it again.

4 studies.

None of their conclusions are smarter people are objectively superior.

One study says taller 3 year olds are smarter and that this is probably due to better neonatal and post natal care.

One study says taller children were probably better fed which means they were probably better taken care of.

One study says people THINK that taller people are better at jobs so they're more likely to promote them and give them positions of leadership. Thinking someone is better is subjective. That is not objective.

One study says taller people have better social skills because again people THINK they're better so they're more likely to interact with them in high school, improving their social skills.


None of those studies say taller people are objectively better at anything. If you can find that as the conclusion as any of those studies people quote it and post it here.

>The article shows that taller men are more financially successful, smarter, more likely to be seen as leaders.
No it shows that people like you think they are taller and smarter and should be seen as leaders so you make them more successful by giving them promotions and leadership positions. That doesn't make them worthy of those positions. It doesn't make them objectively better at those positions. It is literally the opposite of objective and demonstrable superiority.

Everything else you said was the same convoluted mess. If you reply with direct conclusions from the studies the article list being that taller people are objectively better you'll get a response from me.

If not there's no point continuing to argue with a guy who thinks he's infallible even when his own evidence argues against him.
>>
File: 20150729_190520.jpg (895 KB, 1836x3264)
895 KB
895 KB JPG
>>
File: 20150729_190515.jpg (904 KB, 1836x3264)
904 KB
904 KB JPG
>>
File: 20150729_191047.jpg (1.75 MB, 3264x1836)
1.75 MB
1.75 MB JPG
>>
>>1816486
>But he's not wrong. There is nothing about being taller or more muscular that objectively makes that person better at a desk job.

I guess the "smarter"/ taller correlation just breezed right on over your head, yeah?

>You keep using that article but you clearly haven't read it.

Actually I have. What's clear is you're missing the point. Maybe a different article will help.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200901/why-are-taller-people-more-intelligent-shorter-people

>None of their conclusions are smarter people are objectively superior.

That's because the article was written for business people who don't need that explicitly spelled out for them the way you do.
>>
>>1816486
>One study says people THINK that taller people are better at jobs so they're more likely to promote them and give them positions of leadership. Thinking someone is better is subjective. That is not objective.

No shit. What's objective is they're more successful and THAT, dear child, is how "better" is measured in business, particularly at "desk jobs". Once you get your silly ass out of that dorm room and into the working world of grown-ups, you'll find out how true that really is.

>Everything else you said was the same convoluted mess.

I see "convoluted" is your way of saying "can't refute it". Good to know.

>If you reply with direct conclusions from the studies the article list being that taller people are objectively better you'll get a response from me.

Considering none of the studies set out to prove "taller people are objectively better", that's an impossibility, which you (clever you) already know. It's a conclusion derived from their findings, and only within the context of the article's focus.

So does that mean I WON'T get a response from you? Not likely. Oh yeah, you'll be back.

>If not there's no point continuing to argue with a guy who thinks he's infallible

Protip: there's a difference between believing I am right (which you and others obviously do as well) and believing I am -always- right. Unless you're proven psychic or you can quote me verbatim where I made such a claim, then it's just a red-herring on your part.

The fact I don't humour you and let you have "your say" uncontested has nothing to do with perceived infallibility. If that's the standard you're using then the other anon and yourself are every bit as guilty.
>>
>>1813329
looks about like mine
>>
>>1815397
moar
>>
>>1815044
Can't decide if nice or weird looking.
>>
>>1816769
Weird
>>
File: igaa6776.png (737 KB, 724x576)
737 KB
737 KB PNG
>>
File: 03FFC76.jpg (887 KB, 1824x1368)
887 KB
887 KB JPG
>>
File: 3193-6859166258.jpg (41 KB, 575x431)
41 KB
41 KB JPG
>>
>>1811983
All you did was to make me feel worse. If self-consciousness is the problem, the other being aware of it is something that I am also conscious of. So now I am stuck in a loop.

My case is worse cuz the realization only hit me recently cuz I started to feel something towards someone I am already really close with (for 6 years I haven't considered a relationship). So basically I'm into my twenties and for the first time I realized that I am not well endowed (12.5 cm, not even average). I've been ignoring all these posts and reading the texts cuz I've spent 2 hours thinking about this thing. It's so embarassing cuz I didn't fucking realize my thing was actually that bad. It's the first time I am focusing on myself and I have no mental mechanism of coping with this fact cuz of how new it is.

Dafuq do I do? I might end up pushing them him away out of inadequacy.
>>
>>1819145
You are crazy. There's nothing to feel bad about 12.5 cm. That's enough to hit the prostate, if you fancy to be top. Don't buy into the porn view of what's 'good' or 'normal'.
>>
>>1819148
Can any of you say something new that's not a buzzword? I'd rather have you tell me "yu smoll lawl deal with it xd" than forcing me to read the same shit I've read over and over. Hell I'll just paste what I always say to the "wraped your view" argument:

If porn had wraped anyone's standards, it wraped the standards of others. I'm closeted but I hanged around others and I heard what they wanted. Plus I know what the dude I'm eying's tastes are. He's sweet and might not even say anything or if asked he'd swear on denying that it isn't a big deal, but it don't matter cuz I know what being polite means. Even if everything were genuinely fine, it'll still gnaw at the back of my head.

If anything you could say that it isn't a matter of how fine it is for others, but of how fine it is for me.
>>
>>1816250
Idk what is this sense of inadequacy. I am a selfish man by nature in the sense that what I want, I take and I don't regret it. Idk why it doesn't work in this domain. I am paranoid and distrustful even in those who might actually like me.
>>
>>
>>1819151
you're going to push him away because you're a whiny needy insecure little bitch and that has nothing to do with your baby dick and you're not going to get professional grade psychiatric advice to solve your massive insecurity issues on fucking /hm/ you god damn retard
>>
>>1819167
Are you sure you're shouting at me or shouting at yourself, Anon-sama? And no, I am not trolling. Shit's been keeping me awake for 4:30 hours now. Asking it here cuz if I wanted to pay a professional to"lemme whisper to you sweet nothings" I would've done that. I am convinced that I am in the right place.
>>
>>1819173
>I am convinced that I am in the right place.

i wonder how long you'll be kept awake before you figure out you're not
>>
>>1819173
>I am convinced that I am in the right place.

Wrong there as well. Visit: http://www.4chan.org/rules

/adv/ - Advice
This is the destination for ALL questions regarding specific personal problems.

The "all" is in bold so it really DOES mean "all". So you're posting in the wrong place, runt.

>>1819151
>Can any of you say something new that's not a buzzword?

Looks like you finally got your wish. Now go take your peanut-dick problems to the board where they belong.
>>
File: 20180915_213606.jpg (3.11 MB, 4160x3120)
3.11 MB
3.11 MB JPG
My little cock
>>
>>1819234
how big is it
>>
File: image.jpg (1.31 MB, 4032x3024)
1.31 MB
1.31 MB JPG
What you think?
>>
File: image.jpg (1.75 MB, 4032x3024)
1.75 MB
1.75 MB JPG
What you think? #2
>>
File: 20190107_125126.jpg (874 KB, 2560x1440)
874 KB
874 KB JPG
Kik: Tiny_Tim964
>>
>>1808188
I would not only let you fuck me but would also suck it
>>
Just love small hairy cocks - am in Sydney if anyone wants to catch up
>>
>>1819482
Perfect!
>>
>>1815044
This is a perfectly shaped, perfectly sized penis.
>>
like ir?
>>
>>1819929
Sure. Just not that sofa.
>>
>>1806324
>>
>>1819984
>>
>>1819984
Certainly has some girth!
>>
>>
File: erect.jpg (77 KB, 497x593)
77 KB
77 KB JPG
>>
>>1820235
don't do roids, kids
>>
File: sexy-boy-small-cock.jpg (131 KB, 650x867)
131 KB
131 KB JPG
>>
File: hot-dude-hairy-penis.jpg (213 KB, 650x1153)
213 KB
213 KB JPG
>>
File: small-cock.jpg (228 KB, 650x834)
228 KB
228 KB JPG
>>
File: image.jpg (2.33 MB, 4032x3024)
2.33 MB
2.33 MB JPG
>>
>>1820240
Sauce?
>>
File: 3testicoli-03.jpg (56 KB, 711x800)
56 KB
56 KB JPG
>>1820318
Zakutok
>>
File: IMG_20190102_165925.jpg (1.46 MB, 2621x1966)
1.46 MB
1.46 MB JPG
Mine
>>
File: IMG_20190110_220943.jpg (7.6 MB, 4032x3024)
7.6 MB
7.6 MB JPG
Opinions?
>>
>>1821028
Seriously? That scary eyeball thing in the bag scared me to death when I enlarged the thumbnail!
>>
me
>>
File: 20190111_070052.jpg (3.62 MB, 2448x2448)
3.62 MB
3.62 MB JPG
>>
All th dicks in this thread are huge and I'm like
>>
4.7 inch dick. Is it too small?
>>
>>
Please tell me what do you think about this
>>
>>
>>1821234
is cute and nicely hairy. i like it, would suck
>>
Love your 4.7" dick. Nice & hairy, hot bush, great looking treasure trail too and it looks mega stiff. I'd suck it off and swallow
>>
>>1821056
cute
>>
File: IMG_20190112_112547.jpg (3.32 MB, 3024x4032)
3.32 MB
3.32 MB JPG
Uncut is always nice.
>>
>>1821304
I agree! Always nice.
>>
File: 15472781111681759674397.jpg (3.66 MB, 5312x2988)
3.66 MB
3.66 MB JPG
On speed
>>
File: 20190112_003713.jpg (2.31 MB, 3264x1836)
2.31 MB
2.31 MB JPG
Mine
>>
>>1821056
More?
>>
File: lkuvlfh68y921.jpg (635 KB, 2448x3264)
635 KB
635 KB JPG
>>
>>
File: 100_1124.jpg (1.46 MB, 3664x2748)
1.46 MB
1.46 MB JPG
mine
>>
File: 100_1122.jpg (1.32 MB, 3664x2748)
1.32 MB
1.32 MB JPG
>>1821536
>>
>>1821536
>>1821539
You're not small!
>>
You guys think a girl would fuck with that 4.7 inch Dick?
>>
>>1806316
so beautiful!
>>
>>1821028
I would so love to suck this!
>>
>>1821572
looks a lot bigger than 4.7
>>
>>1821301
Seriously do you like my Dick?
>>
>>1817460
would love to come across something like this when on a country walk.
>>
>>1815960
lovely cock but awful photo.
>>
>>1821301
Seriously do you like my Dick?
>>
>>1821572
Absolutely, but you're measuring wrong.
>>
>>1808942
this shows that you can have a great dick and a crap body or a crap dick and a great dick but to have a great body and a great dick is to be truly blessed.
>>
File: 1544337872683.jpg (117 KB, 500x731)
117 KB
117 KB JPG
>>
File: chubby-boy-small-dick.jpg (70 KB, 650x867)
70 KB
70 KB JPG
>>
File: hot-boy-soft-dick.jpg (188 KB, 650x973)
188 KB
188 KB JPG
>>
File: strong-guy-soft-dick.jpg (288 KB, 650x784)
288 KB
288 KB JPG
>>
File: sexy-guy-tiny-dick.jpg (124 KB, 650x867)
124 KB
124 KB JPG
>>
File: small-cock5 (1).jpg (108 KB, 650x866)
108 KB
108 KB JPG
>>
>>1821627
nah i am measuring it rigth. i really get depressed cuz the size of it... girls that i date want to make the next move(fuck) and i always back up
>>
>>
File: nice-guy-tiny-dick.jpg (96 KB, 650x867)
96 KB
96 KB JPG
>>
File: small-hairy-cock.jpg (232 KB, 650x867)
232 KB
232 KB JPG
>>
>>1821684
Whats the size?
>>
>>1821705
Looks like 4 fingers. IDK it's not me.
>>
File: Pntr2.jpg (371 KB, 934x1167)
371 KB
371 KB JPG
>>1821682
Mine is 4.7 too
Nothing to be afraid dude :)
>>
>>1821869
Fuck off biscum. Dont post het shit here you tiny dicked beta fag
>>
>>1821870
Keep crying :)
>>
>>1821870
Awkward
>>
File: IMG_20190113_230817.jpg (3.74 MB, 4030x3022)
3.74 MB
3.74 MB JPG
>>
>>1822200
Not small bro. But looks dry
>>
>>1821684
I would love a guy like this!
>>
File: IMG_20190111_084115649.jpg (2.84 MB, 3120x4160)
2.84 MB
2.84 MB JPG
Almost 15cm
>>
File: IMG_20190111_084138164.jpg (3.23 MB, 3120x4160)
3.23 MB
3.23 MB JPG
>>1822667
>>
File: u69XRwdb_o.jpg (242 KB, 2048x1152)
242 KB
242 KB JPG
>>1822668
She love it
>>
File: IMG_20190115_122232.jpg (2.57 MB, 4608x3456)
2.57 MB
2.57 MB JPG
>>
File: IMG_20190115_122843.jpg (2.24 MB, 4608x3456)
2.24 MB
2.24 MB JPG
>>
>>1822668

I think you're lost, man. This is the small dick thread.
>>
File: 1tinydick.jpg (73 KB, 700x933)
73 KB
73 KB JPG
Microsoft dick
>>
File: 20190116_165629.jpg (1.04 MB, 2560x1440)
1.04 MB
1.04 MB JPG
>>
>>1821028
Hot as fuck can you upload a pic showing your balls and with your foreskin retracted?
>>
>>1822743
Nice can you take a pic of your cum for me?





Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.