Size DOES matter! Study into sexual pleasure reveals that an extra inch can make all the difference
I am reasonably well endowed and I have had grateful reactions to that from women over the years so I am glad that reality is at last being acknowledged
Men are often told it's not how big their sexual organ is that's important, but where they put it.
But unfortunately for guys with a small penis, a new study suggests that size really does matter.
Researchers at King's College London recruited willing couples to find out more about how length affects sexual pleasure for the lady.
The experts artificially reduced the depth of penetration by providing different sized silicone rings to put around the base of each man's erect penis during intercourse.
According to the results, just an extra inch made all the difference in terms of sexual pleasure for the women.
This might be due to the greater ability of a longer penis to stimulate the entire length of the vagina and the cervix for the female.
Researchers wanted to explore whether artificially reducing the depth of penetration during intercourse matters to women.
They said men can worry or be ashamed about the length or girth of their penis, and that many also wish it was longer.
'We started with the premise that depth of penetration would not matter to most women,' the experts say in their paper, published in BJU International.
For each ring worn, there were either three, four or five episodes of intercourse.
Reducing the depth of penetration by an inch led to a statistically meaningful drop in the amount of pleasure experienced.
'The longer the erect penis, the less likely the rings had an impact on sexual pleasure,' they write.
Lead study author Professor David Veale has stressed the results 'should not be misinterpreted as meaning that increasing penile length in a normal man will increase sexual pleasure in women'.
'That would be a completely different study,' he said.
Rather, decreasing the length of the penis available for vaginal penetration during sex decreases sexual pleasure in women – a subtle difference.
To learn whether size does matter, they recruited 12 sexually active heterosexual couples with no problems in the bedroom.
There were four rings in total – 0.2-inch, one inch, 1.5-inch and two-inch – that the guy had to separately place at the base of his penis during sex to reduce the depth of penetration.
Couples were told to have sex either three, four or five times for each ring the guy was wearing on his penis.
Female partners, who didn't know which ring was being used throughout any of the sessions, had to rate, from one to 100, her levels of sexual pleasure and 'emotional connection to the male partner'.
On average, reducing the depth of penetration led to a 'statistically significant' 18 per reduction of overall sexual pleasure with each average 15 per cent reduction in length of the penis, the researchers found.
'There was a range of individual responses, however, with a minority of women reporting that reducing the depth of penetration was more pleasurable on some occasions, the study authors say in their paper.
According to the authors, the average (mean) penis length when erect is 5.1 inches (13.1cm), with an average girth of 4.59 inches (11.66 cm).
But for the sample size in this study, the average (median) self-reported erect penis length of the male partners was 6.6 inches (17cm).
'Participants did measure themselves – but we don’t know if they were but bigger than normal or actually over-egging it,' Professor Veale told MailOnline.
Experts concluded that further replication of the study to confirm its results will need a more diverse range of penile length.
'We did not ask about the effect on sexual pleasure in the men in reducing their depth of penetration and how this altered their self-confidence and behaviour, and this may be important in replication of the study,' they said.
**********************************
Scientists plan to change the common names of plant, insect and animal species like the gypsy moth and Scott's oriole due to their 'racist history'
Many common names for species of plants, animals and insects, including the gypsy moth and Scott's oriole, have been dubbed 'racist' by scientists who want a change.
In July the Entomological Society of America (ESA) removed the term 'gypsy' from the names of a moth and ant due to the fact it is seen as a slur for Romani people.
The association have since launched a public call for alternative common names for the moth Lymantria dispar and ant Aphenogaster araneoides.
Many species were named by early naturalists and explores for the things around them, people making a mark at the time and using terms acceptable to them.
'We can choose language that reflects our shared values,' Jessica Ware, president-elect of ESA told ScienceNews, speaking of the Better Common Names Project.
It already prohibits new names that 'perpetuate negative stereotypes' and is asking for public input on which existing names should be changed in the future.
So far over 80 'insensitive names' have been noted by the Better Common Names Project.
Ware says the goal is to have 'everybody included' in the new naming system and remove offensive names from the list.
In the case of the 'Gypsy moth', says it is encouraging people to refer to the insect by its Latin name, Lymantria dispar, until it can review the more than 100 proposals for a new moniker.
Species have a given scientific name, stylised in Latin, but from the early 20th Century scientists started giving plants, insects and animals a common name.
This was done to bridge the communications gap with people who don't study the species, to bring more attention to them.
However, according to ESA 'not all common names accepted over the past 120 years align with the goal of better communication,' due to racist connections.
Some of the names given to species have already been changed, like the jewfish, renamed to the Goliath grouper in 2001 after a petition citing its offensiveness.
ESA says their library includes names that contain derogative terms, names for invasive species with inappropriate geographic references and names that 'inappropriately disregard what the insect might be called by native communities.'
'These problematic names perpetuate harm against people of various ethnicities and races,' a spokesperson for the association said.
Adding that they 'create an entomological and cultural environment that is unwelcoming and non-inclusive, disrupt communication and outreach, and counteract the very purpose of common names.'
For example, a number of scorpion, fish, birds and flowers have the label Hottentot, which is a term of abuse for the Khoikhoi people of southern Africa.
Other names venerate people who, by modern standards wouldn't be considered viable candidates to give their name to a common species.
Bachman's sparrow, endemic to the southeastern US, is named after Lutheran minister and naturalist John Bachman.
McCown's longspur - named for Confederate general John P McCown was changed to thick-billed longspur in 2021, named for its thick bill.
The jewfish - was renamed in 2001 to the Goliath grouper after a petition drew attention to its offensiveness.
Squawfish - was once the name given to four species that are now known as Pikeminnow, changed in 1998 as squaw is an offensive term given to Native American women.
However, despite ministering to slaves as a clergyman and declaring black and white people are the same species, he was a slave owner who defended the practice.
'Blacks and Native Americans would have always been opposed to these names,' Hampton told ScienceNews.
In fact, bird names in general seem to be among the most problematic with a specific campaign called 'Bird Names for Birds' launching in 2020 to switch to more descriptive common names.
'It's not a be-all-end-all solution,' Robert Driver from East Carolina University told ScienceNews, but said that beyond removing difficult names, would be a useful 'consideration for everyone who's out there with binoculars.'
The killing of George Floyd and subsequent protests, seems to have spurred change, with the American Ornithological Society now considering someone's role in 'reprehensible events' a valid reason to revise the name of a bird.
One example of this change already happening is in the form of the McCown's longspur, named for Confederate general John P McCown originally, and now simply known as the thick-billed longspur, after its thick bill.
Hampton says the Scott's oriole should be next, suggesting it should instead be known as the yucca oriole as they are the plants it is most associated with.
But the process of changing bird names is on hold while the ornithological society considers a new name-changing process.
Mike Webster, Cornell University ornithologist and president of the society said they were 'committed to changing these harmful and exclusionary names.'
Ware says it is important to get it right, adding it 'uncomfortable now,' but doing it correctly ensures it 'only happens once' and names are built to last.
Details about the Better Common Names project are available from the Entomological Society of America.
*******************************************
GOP Rep on Religious Minorities in Afghanistan: Christians Are Being ‘Hunted’ by the Taliban
On Tuesday, Georgia Rep. Jody Hice (R) appeared on EWTN News Nightly to discuss the treatment of religious minorities in Afghanistan, particularly Christians, now that the Taliban has recaptured the country and will implement Sharia law.
Speaking to host Tracy Sabol, Hice explained how the Biden administration has let down the American people and our allies, how Christians are being targeted by the Taliban, and how American leadership should not be negotiating with terrorist organizations – all as a result of President Biden’s hasty withdrawal from Afghanistan.
“This administration is letting down the American people, letting down our allies, letting down those who have helped America for the last 20 years. This could not, absolutely, could not be a worst-case scenario than what we are witnessing right now,” Hice said in the segment. “This is absolutely a numbskull kind of decision that has been made by this administration and now we’re watching the consequences of it.”
Since the Taliban takeover, a spokesman for the terrorist group stated that women and girls in Afghanistan will have rights “within the framework of Islam,” or Sharia, under their rule. Lawmakers in the United States voiced concern over this, as they predict women will lose the years of progress made when the United States had a presence in Afghanistan.
Another group at risk under Taliban rule is religious minorities, including Christians, Hindus, and Sikhs – all of which have a history of persecution under the Taliban. Sabol inquired what dangers Christians in Afghanistan are facing while waiting to be evacuated from the country.
“The environment, obviously, under Sharia law, creates an extremely dangerous situation for anyone who is of any other faith, probably, the top of which, is Christians. And of course, not only us but many offices have been in contact with many Christians who are being literally hunted by the Taliban right now. Every effort possible is underway to try to evacuate those individuals and I’m sure those efforts will continue with unceasing resolve until we get those people to safety,” Hice said to Sabol. “[T]heir lives are our biggest concern.”
Hice then slammed the Biden administration’s negotiations with the Taliban and believes the withdrawal would have unfolded differently under our previous presidential administration.
“It is Americans and American leadership – not terrorists – who ought to be setting the standards as to how we are going to evacuate our citizens and others from the country. It is not something that we should be taking orders from terrorists, they should be hearing from us what we’re going to do,” Hice argued. “And it is concerning that this administration continues to go to a terrorist organization for instructions as to what we can and cannot do. It certainly should be the other way around. And I’m very much confident that had we – at this point – had different leadership, such as what we had under President Trump, none of this would be taking place.”
Sabol wrapped up the interview by asking Hice how he predicts our withdrawal from Afghanistan is going to conclude.
“We’re in a very serious fight for the clock right now. The clock is ticking. We are being told the doors are going to be closing in a matter of days. There are threats emerging, it seems, by the hour as we go through this,” Hice said. “I don’t know how it’s going to end, but we’re not going to quit until it’s over.”
***************************************
Ashli Babbitt’s Shooter ‘Defends’ Himself
Another impulsive black
The first impression one gets from listening to Capitol Police Lieutenant Michael Byrd, the man who shot and killed Ashli Babbitt in the Capitol building on January 6, is that he isn’t too bright. During his interview with NBC’s Lester Holt, Byrd comes across more like an unimpressive mall cop than the sort of professional we’d entrust to protect Nancy Pelosi and all those other important lawmakers.
On second thought, maybe we’re being unfair to mall cops. What kind of law enforcement professional, after all, shoots an unarmed woman in the chest? And what kind of officer says of himself, during a national TV interview, “I believe I showed the, uh, utmost courage on January 6th”?
Michael Byrd is a hero, he’ll have you know. And he has no doubt he did the right thing when he stepped toward that window, aimed for “center mass,” and boldly blew away 110-pound Ashli Babbitt. “I know that day I saved countless lives,” Byrd said. “I know members of Congress, as well as my fellow officers and staff, were in jeopardy and in serious danger. And that’s my job.”
His lawyer, Mark Schamel, is even more nauseatingly effusive. “The bravery shown by the lieutenant in organizing and coordinating the defense of the House and its members and staff was nothing short of heroic,” he said. “The lieutenant’s conduct saved lives and helped to end the violent insurrection.”
“There should be a training video on how he handled that situation,” added Schamel, as if he hadn’t already said enough. “What he did was unbelievable heroism.”
It should be noted that in February 2019, Byrd was investigated “for leaving his department-issued Glock-22 firearm unattended in a restroom on the House side of the Capitol, even though the potent weapon, which fires .40-caliber rounds, has no manual safety to prevent unintended firing. The abandoned gun was discovered by another officer during a routine security sweep.”
We wonder: Is there a training video for that deeply embarrassing incident?
Byrd said he shot Babbitt as “a last resort,” but if he and the people he was protecting were in such mortal danger, why didn’t one of the numerous armed law enforcement officers directly behind Ashli Babbitt simply grab her and stop her from going through that window? Perhaps they sized up the tiny, unarmed Babbitt and didn’t think she was the sort of threat that calls for deadly force.
Indeed, as one veteran Capitol officer put it, “I’m not sure how he was justified shooting her when there was a SWAT team right behind her,” referring to the three heavily armed USCP officers who’d positioned themselves between the doors and the mob. “They saw no immediate threat.”
As for the shot Byrd fired, the footage of which begins at around 2:20 of the video, we can see that he has his weapon trained toward the middle of the doors, then, in a single movement, he shifts his aim up and leftward and fires a single shot. It’s hard to believe that he even processed his target during that split-second between whirling and firing.
“She was posing a threat to the United States House of Representatives,” Byrd said. Uh-huh. This was reportedly the first time during his 29 years on the force that Byrd had ever fired his weapon, and so perhaps he simply choked. Perhaps he’s simply never sighted down a real threat before. And, to be fair to Byrd, he’s certainly never found himself in a surreal situation like that before.
Further, when interviewer Holt asked him whether he could tell if Babbitt was armed, and whether it would’ve made any difference in his decision to shoot her, Byrd said, “It did not.”
Perhaps Holt’s best moment came when he asked Byrd, “What should we make of the fact that there were other officers in other potentially life-threatening situations who didn’t use their service weapons that day?” Byrd’s answer was less than convincing.
As for Holt’s most disgraceful moment, that would be when he described Babbitt as “35 years old, an Air Force veteran, Trump supporter, and QAnon follower,” as if the 14-year veteran’s affinity for a fringe political group somehow makes Byrd’s actions more justifiable.
The Babbitt family’s attorney has described the incident as an “ambush,” claiming that Byrd gave no warning before he pulled the trigger. Here, the two sides utterly disagree. Byrd, in fact, told Holt “he felt pain in his throat for days afterward from yelling at the protesters to stop and step back as they pounded on the glass doors.”
As our Mark Alexander, himself a former cop, has pointed out: “What’s clear from the videos is that there were four uniformed officers within feet of Babbitt, at least four additional heavily armed riot police, and one or more plain-clothed officers — none of whom made an effort to prevent her attempt to climb through the broken window of the door where she was shot. There is no apparent justification for [Byrd’s] actions.”
Ashli Babbitt’s family clearly agrees, and they’ve signaled their intention to file a $10 million wrongful death civil suit against the Capitol Police. Their attorney, Terry Roberts, didn’t respond to NBC’s request for comment.
In the end, what we have here is the exoneration of a black male Capitol cop for the killing of an unarmed white female Trump supporter. Had these demographics been reversed, we can’t help but believe the outcome would’ve been different. As it stands, this seems like the embodiment of two-tiered justice.
https://patriotpost.us/articles/82301-ashli-babbitts-shooter-defends-himself-2021-08-27
****************************************My other blogs. Main ones below:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
*****************************************
/>
Kristina Pimenova, once said to be the most beautiful girl in the world. Note blue eyes and blonde hair
Bliss: What every woman wants: to feel safe and secure in the arms of her man. Robert Irwin and Rorie Buckey. See 
No comments:
Post a Comment