This is our truth, tell us yours
One of our founding principles, as the authors of this blog, is that we don’t do sidewalk diagnosis.Both Jem and myself read widely and have experience of listening to and working with people who want to understand their lives, using avariety of tools and systems. We try hard not to make assumptions,but listen and question, and listen again, not least because that’s how we prosper as friends.
This edited and directed article about one man’s experiences of having a small cock is utterly useless in terms of diagnosis. We don’t even know if the things that have been edited out or in reflect the subject’s definitions of significance.
If I read an article about a man, his small cock and his life, I want to hear about his life not his cock. Not doing biological essentialism isn’t just about sex. A good game you can play with men is to ask who, if they had a choice, they would be, from a range of famous people. Then give them a list of names that mainly features women. I don’t struggle. I’d happily be Ellen Wilkinson, or Nicole Cook,or Beryl Burton, Non Evans, Pat Moss or Louise Aitken-Walker.
Actually, let me rephrase that. What sports lover wouldn’t wish they could be Nicole Cook, who bestrode her sport with an integrity, honesty and style that would embellish anyone’s palmares ? Who wouldn’t want to be as honoured as Nicole Cook, or Jo Rowsell, or Sarah Storey? Who wouldn’t want to be Non Evans, a physical phenomenon who could participate in numerous, entirely different sports, a phenomenon nor seen in rugby union since the incomparable Ken Jones?
Now, you might think that this is an odd way of addressing the issue of men who have small cocks. It’s not. It’s starting from the idea of what defines good,and moving away from the idea that accidents of biology define people,not their behaviour and achievements.
I read about a man who’s had sex with six women, and turned down more, and recognise that he must be an attractive and desirable man. I note the fact that he doesn’t count the men he’s slept with as significant, and interesting, but I don’t know what it means, and I have no need to make assumptions about it, other than that it’s probably significant.
I don’t want this blog to be about me, but to help you understand why I think the way I do, there may be some facts that will help. I have sucked off a man with a cock smaller than two inches in length. He had, as I remember, at some chronological distance, a thoroughly good time, and didn’t seem troubled by the fact that he could have used a bank cashier’s rubber thimble as a ribbed condom. He was, as I remember, (it was a long time ago in a public toilet far far away) rather butch, a little macho, and took a thorough buggering with a delight that suggested that sex was no more complicated than a huge bundle of sensations that he enjoyed.
Of course the experiences related in that article of the horrible bullying that happens in boys schools, the terror inducing moments in the showers, is something that scars many boys. Some were scarred by their small cocks, some by the fear that their desires or their acne or their punyness would be mocked. In my experience they got on with their lives, and learned to cope.
Jem and I have a regular, riffing conversation about the difference between signal and noise. When I was a child, and radio was analogue, the experience of trying to work out if that distant crackle was just atmospheric noise or the precursor of John Peel’s Festive Forty was a vital lesson in the difference between signal and noise. I’ve read this interview about the man with the micropenis, and I still don’t know if the size of his penis is signal or noise. A good interviewer would ask that question, and I can’t find it, or the answer, in this interview.