The short answer is there's not a positive correlation, in fact there's an inverse correlation. And I've never been fond of body shaming so I'd love to see all of the "small dick" put downs stop.
The short answer is there's not a positive correlation, in fact there's an inverse correlation.
And I've never been fond of body shaming so I'd love to see all of the "small dick" put downs stop.
It's kind of depressing to see so many people defending "small dick" with the same enthusiasm I saw people defend calling things "gay" or "retarded" back in the day. If someone says they're hurt...
It's kind of depressing to see so many people defending "small dick" with the same enthusiasm I saw people defend calling things "gay" or "retarded" back in the day.
If someone says they're hurt by words, why is it so hard to stop and listen? Why defend the language? Is it so inconvenient to find other words to convey the same message?
Honestly I think there's almost always some gut "I don't mean it like that so you shouldn't judge me/be mad at me" response that is masking the internal "I'm not a bad person so the thing I'm...
Honestly I think there's almost always some gut "I don't mean it like that so you shouldn't judge me/be mad at me" response that is masking the internal "I'm not a bad person so the thing I'm doing can't be bad, right?"
It's fixating on the idea that doing a harmful thing makes you a bad person rather than a person that did a bad thing. It's one of the biggest things I try to step on when I'm given feedback but the impulse is there.
I tend to see accusations of "small dick" syndrome more in terms of "fragile male ego" rather than the actual size of a person's dick. Beyond outlier lengths (think micropenis vs. Long Dong...
I tend to see accusations of "small dick" syndrome more in terms of "fragile male ego" rather than the actual size of a person's dick.
Beyond outlier lengths (think micropenis vs. Long Dong Silver), the size of man's dick doesn't really matter much to women. But no matter what your actual dick size is, it is an obsession that is only held by deeply insecure men; the type of guys who think owning a Lamborghini is instant pussy, just add water.
This previous comment seems to provide an apt response to your observation: https://tildes.net/~science/1gv4/size_matters_size_dissatisfaction_and_gun_ownership_in_america#comment-cxvt.
and then it becomes easy to associate small dick men with fragile ego. It's not a one way street like you're implying that it is. edit: all good. You already considered what is wrong with it all.
and then it becomes easy to associate small dick men with fragile ego. It's not a one way street like you're implying that it is.
edit: all good. You already considered what is wrong with it all.
It is considered okay to humiliate heterosexual men. It sounds like humanity can't really function without open agression towards specific groups. Indiscriminate compassion is intolerable, so,...
It is considered okay to humiliate heterosexual men. It sounds like humanity can't really function without open agression towards specific groups. Indiscriminate compassion is intolerable, so, instead of evolving morally, we just switch targets in a never ending cycle of resentment.
I'm one of the people you're probably talking about, and all I can say is that you're right, there's no good reason to defend it. I guess yesterday my reaction was because I was thinking of a much...
I'm one of the people you're probably talking about, and all I can say is that you're right, there's no good reason to defend it. I guess yesterday my reaction was because I was thinking of a much narrower definition of body shaming and situation where I've seen the phrase used. I try very hard to foster a safe and inclusive environment everywhere I go, but I fucked up.
I don't use the term and would actually discourage it now that I've thought it over.
And statistically their partners are more sexually satisfied. But it wouldn't matter if everyone with any particular physical trait was shitty. Body shaming is shittier.
And statistically their partners are more sexually satisfied.
But it wouldn't matter if everyone with any particular physical trait was shitty. Body shaming is shittier.
If you can, the searches I have are pretty much all the same as this - https://academic.oup.com/jsm/article/20/Supplement_4/qdad062.188/7220234 - "inconclusive" and have been having a similar...
Alas, it was quite a while ago (like decades) and I can't find it, I believe it was specifically about the sexual satisfaction of women whose male partners had a "micropenis" They reported...
Alas, it was quite a while ago (like decades) and I can't find it, I believe it was specifically about the sexual satisfaction of women whose male partners had a "micropenis"
They reported increased sexual satisfaction that iirc was tied to the fact that the men did not rely on PIV sex to please their partner. (Which in general would lead to much greater satisfaction for most women)
It's possible the data couldn't be replicated, it's possible I just can't figure out the keywords.
I've never thought about small dick energy as body shaming, it's more a put down on the terms of traditional masculinity where big cars etc all belong to. No one really should care what you have...
I've never thought about small dick energy as body shaming, it's more a put down on the terms of traditional masculinity where big cars etc all belong to.
No one really should care what you have between your pants. You can get the job done either way.
I see it as a shorthand way of saying "this is the type of person who would overcompensate for perceived anatomical shortcomings". I don't see it as a judgement of an anatomical shortcoming, but...
I see it as a shorthand way of saying "this is the type of person who would overcompensate for perceived anatomical shortcomings". I don't see it as a judgement of an anatomical shortcoming, but rather a judgement of the person thinking there is a shortcoming in the first place.
I assert that people who use the term "small dick energy" do not believe that having a small dick gives you a certain type of energy. I assert that they believe that the people who are concerned with their dick size have such a type of energy.
Analagous to "small jaw energy", as people often see jaw size as correlated with masculinity as well.
You don't think you're falling into a similar trap by saying "someone who has a small dick but is otherwise a normal good person"? As if, notwithstanding other features, having a small dick is not...
You don't think you're falling into a similar trap by saying "someone who has a small dick but is otherwise a normal good person"? As if, notwithstanding other features, having a small dick is not a characteristic of a good and normal person?
Maybe a better way to phrase it would be How do you think someone who actually has a small dick but lacks such insecurities feels when they see that phrase? .... to which I'd answer ... "not insecure?".
Pretty hard to be secure about a small dick when people frequently associate it with negative things. Just because it's shorthand to you doesn't mean it is to everyone and just because it's...
Pretty hard to be secure about a small dick when people frequently associate it with negative things.
Just because it's shorthand to you doesn't mean it is to everyone and just because it's convenient doesn't make it right.
I thought it was pretty clear that by "otherwise a good person" I meant that they don't display the behaviour commonly associated with "small dick energy" and the like.
I thought it was pretty clear that by "otherwise a good person" I meant that they don't display the behaviour commonly associated with "small dick energy" and the like.
This is some real "when I call things I don't like 'gay' I mean it's bad not that it's actually gay" energy. If the short catchy phrase is harmful, it shouldn't be used
This is some real "when I call things I don't like 'gay' I mean it's bad not that it's actually gay" energy.
If the short catchy phrase is harmful, it shouldn't be used
Yet both of those terms fail to insult their targets in the desired way. It's like people who call others a pinecone or egg in a childish attempt to create an insult free from bigotry.
Yet both of those terms fail to insult their targets in the desired way. It's like people who call others a pinecone or egg in a childish attempt to create an insult free from bigotry.
It's not body shaming, though. The whole point of the term is that it's a send-up of that person's assumed viewpoint, which is that size matters and that they are deficient. Which is nonsense.
It's not body shaming, though. The whole point of the term is that it's a send-up of that person's assumed viewpoint, which is that size matters and that they are deficient. Which is nonsense.
"You think small dicks are bad, so I'm going to say you have one to make you feel bad" isn't body shaming? Is not different than calling someone a "fat ass" and then claiming you don't think being...
"You think small dicks are bad, so I'm going to say you have one to make you feel bad" isn't body shaming?
Is not different than calling someone a "fat ass" and then claiming you don't think being fat is bad, they do, and you're just saying the thing to be hurtful. It's not only hurtful to the person you're saying it to, it's everyone else. It's like Trump not being hurt by all the fat jokes but your fat acquaintances are.
I don't think that it's ok to say the thing just because it makes someone you dont like feel bad. That doesn't fly with racial insults, or sexist insults or whatever. Or maybe it does for you, idk.
Come on. No need to introduce the idea that I might be okay with racist or sexist insults. You seem to be picturing someone telling someone else they have small dick energy. In my experience, it's...
Come on. No need to introduce the idea that I might be okay with racist or sexist insults.
You seem to be picturing someone telling someone else they have small dick energy. In my experience, it's more that people see images posted of guns or trucks (or someone driving a ridiculous truck) and say, without knowing the person and certainly not directed at them, "that's some small dick energy." It's not the same as making a sexist or racist joke. The joke isn't about the actual size of anyone's body part. It's a joke about their presumed worldview...a toxic one.
Maybe other people use the term differently. I don't know. What I can say is that from my perspective as a cishet male who has undergone a lot of shaming over the years, that term does not come off as body shaming. I have a much bigger internal reaction to "man boobs" or jokes about people who actually have divergent anatomy.
I suggested that your POV about being ok with insults if you don't mean it might be consistent. I realized while saying it didn't fly, that maybe it did. I don't know you, so I'm not assuming. I...
Come on. No need to introduce the idea that I might be okay with racist or sexist insults.
You seem to be picturing someone telling someone else they have small dick energy. In my experience, it's more that people see images posted of guns or trucks (or someone driving a ridiculous truck) and say, without knowing the person and certainly not directed at them, "that's some small dick energy." It's not the same as making a sexist or racist joke. The joke isn't about the actual size of anyone's body part. It's a joke about their presumed worldview...a toxic one.
Maybe other people use the term differently. I don't know. What I can say is that from my perspective as a cishet male who has undergone a lot of shaming over the years, that term does not come off as body shaming. I have a much bigger internal reaction to "man boobs" or jokes about people who actually have divergent anatomy.
I suggested that your POV about being ok with insults if you don't mean it might be consistent. I realized while saying it didn't fly, that maybe it did. I don't know you, so I'm not assuming. I was not really trying to imply it, so my apologies if I did. But I think they're comparable.
I don't see the difference between saying it and saying "that's so gay" but meaning stupid but not intending anything homophobic. That is still homophobic. I'm very familiar with the usage you describe. It's so easy to find other words to describe things that don't hurt other people. If "man boob" energy became a meme, I suspect you'd feel less comfortable about it.
It's explicitly using a physical characteristic as an insult.
I used to call glitter the "herpes of the craft world" because it never goes away. I had a student share how suicidal she was because a partner had given her herpes and she was harassed for it among her peers or when she tried to date. Herpes when managed and not in an outbreak is really safe but college students are not known for their education on that. She didn't hear me say it, but I realized the harm I could be doing, indirectly to someone who sees me write or hears me say the glitter joke. So I changed it and I've redirected my friends who have.
Because it's just kindness. I wasn't trying to insult people with herpes just laugh about the glitter. So I found a way to laugh about glitter instead of hurting anyone.
You don't have to change shit. I'm not the deity of everything. Say what you want. But you're not going to convince me it's different than "ugh GAY" or that it's not body shaming.
I thought about it, and you're right. I don't even use the term we were discussing, so I really shouldn't have bothered defending it, especially based on some myopic view of the intention. It's...
Exemplary
I thought about it, and you're right. I don't even use the term we were discussing, so I really shouldn't have bothered defending it, especially based on some myopic view of the intention. It's made me think about why I don't call that out. My mistake.
I also reacted poorly to what I took as an implication that I'm okay with equivalent statements. Sorry about that.
Hey I really appreciate you taking time and rethinking. I'm genuinely sorry for the implication along with it. It can be easy to get wrapped up in the moment and it's a lot harder to come back...
Hey I really appreciate you taking time and rethinking. I'm genuinely sorry for the implication along with it.
It can be easy to get wrapped up in the moment and it's a lot harder to come back later. So thanks! I see the work.
The obsession with this topic correlation vs inverse correlation is something I always found weird. It's all just culture war nonsense and I'd rather read a book.
The obsession with this topic correlation vs inverse correlation is something I always found weird. It's all just culture war nonsense and I'd rather read a book.
I don't disagree but I feel like there is some value in fact checking assumptions. A good way to shut down bigotry is to show that uninformed assumptions are lacking in factual reality. I don't...
I don't disagree but I feel like there is some value in fact checking assumptions. A good way to shut down bigotry is to show that uninformed assumptions are lacking in factual reality.
I don't know how many people actually thought gun owners had small penises, but starting from that assumption sure makes it hard to have meaningful conversations about gun control.
I would also be hesitant to draw any strong conclusions from this data. It relies upon self-reported online survey data: There is an interesting-to-think-about table midway through the Data...
I would also be hesitant to draw any strong conclusions from this data. It relies upon self-reported online survey data:
Sampled respondents were invited to complete an online survey in English between March 30, 2023 and April 12, 2023. The data collection process yielded a weighted cumulative response rate of 4.7%.
There is an interesting-to-think-about table midway through the Data section, but I still wouldn’t put much conclusive weight to it.
The discussion on Reddit says it was funded by an anti-gun group who had hoped it would prove the opposite finding of what it concluded. Is there an anti-pickup (put still pro car) lobby that’s as...
The discussion on Reddit says it was funded by an anti-gun group who had hoped it would prove the opposite finding of what it concluded. Is there an anti-pickup (put still pro car) lobby that’s as active as anti-firearm groups?
yeah, I just noticed that. Too funny. As a data nerd, I do wish some of the data was a little clearer. I get that skinnier, younger folks with college educations are less likely to be concerned...
yeah, I just noticed that.
Too funny.
As a data nerd, I do wish some of the data was a little clearer. I get that skinnier, younger folks with college educations are less likely to be concerned about penis size. I am frustrated that the study simply doesn't give a similar correlation measure for those with guns, similar to obesity, age and college education.
I definitely hear that one more, but I do feel like there's probably a high correlation between gun owners and truck owners, and their explanations for why people with presumably larger penises...
I definitely hear that one more, but I do feel like there's probably a high correlation between gun owners and truck owners, and their explanations for why people with presumably larger penises may own guns would likely also apply to trucks
Not to roll out the old trope of "why are we funding things like this!?!?" but it is so interesting to see what proposals get funded and which ones don't. The conclusion is hilarious because the...
Not to roll out the old trope of "why are we funding things like this!?!?" but it is so interesting to see what proposals get funded and which ones don't. The conclusion is hilarious because the takeaways are true regardless of the study findings.
This research would have been called racist if it was targeted at some minority group. It is okay because most of them are conservative white Americans.
This research would have been called racist if it was targeted at some minority group. It is okay because most of them are conservative white Americans.
Actually sitting through harrassment training at work as I type. "Inpact not intent" is stressed: the person glancing at my phone seeing things that make them feel uncomfortable is potentially...
Actually sitting through harrassment training at work as I type. "Inpact not intent" is stressed: the person glancing at my phone seeing things that make them feel uncomfortable is potentially enough.
I mean, yeah we kinda get it here right, and honestly I myself would brush it off if it's a one off. But if everytime I pass by someone's monitor they're reading about genatilia, even if it's purely scientific, it's kinda not so good, imo.
Edit: I'm working from home. The training material is on the work laptop and I'm typing this from my phone, so sexual advances to/from my spouse if he were reading my phone screen is not unwanted.
The context that actually matters is the office, though, and I'd argue with absolutely zero supporting evidence that a large majority of offices are not appropriate places to be perusing articles...
The context that actually matters is the office, though, and I'd argue with absolutely zero supporting evidence that a large majority of offices are not appropriate places to be perusing articles about penises and guns.
That being said, the nsfw label is supposed to be the filter itself, so why further censor the title?
The short answer is there's not a positive correlation, in fact there's an inverse correlation.
And I've never been fond of body shaming so I'd love to see all of the "small dick" put downs stop.
It's kind of depressing to see so many people defending "small dick" with the same enthusiasm I saw people defend calling things "gay" or "retarded" back in the day.
If someone says they're hurt by words, why is it so hard to stop and listen? Why defend the language? Is it so inconvenient to find other words to convey the same message?
Honestly I think there's almost always some gut "I don't mean it like that so you shouldn't judge me/be mad at me" response that is masking the internal "I'm not a bad person so the thing I'm doing can't be bad, right?"
It's fixating on the idea that doing a harmful thing makes you a bad person rather than a person that did a bad thing. It's one of the biggest things I try to step on when I'm given feedback but the impulse is there.
That's not really the case here at least? The (vocal?) majority seems to agree it's body shaming.
I tend to see accusations of "small dick" syndrome more in terms of "fragile male ego" rather than the actual size of a person's dick.
Beyond outlier lengths (think micropenis vs. Long Dong Silver), the size of man's dick doesn't really matter much to women. But no matter what your actual dick size is, it is an obsession that is only held by deeply insecure men; the type of guys who think owning a Lamborghini is instant pussy, just add water.
This has absolutely been addressed in the thread previously. It's still using body shaming language
This previous comment seems to provide an apt response to your observation: https://tildes.net/~science/1gv4/size_matters_size_dissatisfaction_and_gun_ownership_in_america#comment-cxvt.
Aside: the link doesn't seem to do anything if the linked comment is in a collapsed thread.
Unfortunately, links to comments don't work in every situation. But it will work if you go up there and expand all.
and then it becomes easy to associate small dick men with fragile ego. It's not a one way street like you're implying that it is.
edit: all good. You already considered what is wrong with it all.
It is considered okay to humiliate heterosexual men. It sounds like humanity can't really function without open agression towards specific groups. Indiscriminate compassion is intolerable, so, instead of evolving morally, we just switch targets in a never ending cycle of resentment.
I'm one of the people you're probably talking about, and all I can say is that you're right, there's no good reason to defend it. I guess yesterday my reaction was because I was thinking of a much narrower definition of body shaming and situation where I've seen the phrase used. I try very hard to foster a safe and inclusive environment everywhere I go, but I fucked up.
I don't use the term and would actually discourage it now that I've thought it over.
While it was depressing to see the defense, it's inspiring to hear about the self reflection and change of heart. Thank you 💜
Yeah, there are wonderful people with small dicks, doesn't reflect on them as people in the slightest. It's an old fashioned insult.
And statistically their partners are more sexually satisfied.
But it wouldn't matter if everyone with any particular physical trait was shitty. Body shaming is shittier.
Source?
A thing I read a long time ago and can google later if you don't find anything sooner.
Also my personal experience aligns.
If you can, the searches I have are pretty much all the same as this - https://academic.oup.com/jsm/article/20/Supplement_4/qdad062.188/7220234 - "inconclusive" and have been having a similar discussion in a friend group regarding this sort of body shaming being "okay" to some.
Alas, it was quite a while ago (like decades) and I can't find it, I believe it was specifically about the sexual satisfaction of women whose male partners had a "micropenis"
They reported increased sexual satisfaction that iirc was tied to the fact that the men did not rely on PIV sex to please their partner. (Which in general would lead to much greater satisfaction for most women)
It's possible the data couldn't be replicated, it's possible I just can't figure out the keywords.
No worries, thanks for looking though.
Yeah if I find it again I'll come back
I've never thought about small dick energy as body shaming, it's more a put down on the terms of traditional masculinity where big cars etc all belong to.
No one really should care what you have between your pants. You can get the job done either way.
But it's called small dick energy, not small masculinity energy...
I see it as a shorthand way of saying "this is the type of person who would overcompensate for perceived anatomical shortcomings". I don't see it as a judgement of an anatomical shortcoming, but rather a judgement of the person thinking there is a shortcoming in the first place.
I assert that people who use the term "small dick energy" do not believe that having a small dick gives you a certain type of energy. I assert that they believe that the people who are concerned with their dick size have such a type of energy.
Analagous to "small jaw energy", as people often see jaw size as correlated with masculinity as well.
But then maybe I'm wrong.
How do you think someone who actually has a small dick but is otherwise a normal good person feels when they see that phrase?
You don't think you're falling into a similar trap by saying "someone who has a small dick but is otherwise a normal good person"? As if, notwithstanding other features, having a small dick is not a characteristic of a good and normal person?
Maybe a better way to phrase it would be How do you think someone who actually has a small dick but lacks such insecurities feels when they see that phrase? .... to which I'd answer ... "not insecure?".
Pretty hard to be secure about a small dick when people frequently associate it with negative things.
Just because it's shorthand to you doesn't mean it is to everyone and just because it's convenient doesn't make it right.
But maybe hurt.
I thought it was pretty clear that by "otherwise a good person" I meant that they don't display the behaviour commonly associated with "small dick energy" and the like.
Easier to parse phrases are common.
This is some real "when I call things I don't like 'gay' I mean it's bad not that it's actually gay" energy.
If the short catchy phrase is harmful, it shouldn't be used
Not arguing that and I don't disagree, just that the point being made is XYZ is easier to say than ABCDEFG.
Fragile masculinity is a thing. Toxic masculinity is a thing. "Small dick energy" is body shaming.
Yet both of those terms fail to insult their targets in the desired way. It's like people who call others a pinecone or egg in a childish attempt to create an insult free from bigotry.
Yeah, so if the intent is to insult someone based on their penis size, that's body shaming. It's not childish to avoid being bigoted.
So you can’t insult without being bigoted? You lack creativity, my evergreen seedling.
It's not body shaming, though. The whole point of the term is that it's a send-up of that person's assumed viewpoint, which is that size matters and that they are deficient. Which is nonsense.
"You think small dicks are bad, so I'm going to say you have one to make you feel bad" isn't body shaming?
Is not different than calling someone a "fat ass" and then claiming you don't think being fat is bad, they do, and you're just saying the thing to be hurtful. It's not only hurtful to the person you're saying it to, it's everyone else. It's like Trump not being hurt by all the fat jokes but your fat acquaintances are.
I don't think that it's ok to say the thing just because it makes someone you dont like feel bad. That doesn't fly with racial insults, or sexist insults or whatever. Or maybe it does for you, idk.
Come on. No need to introduce the idea that I might be okay with racist or sexist insults.
You seem to be picturing someone telling someone else they have small dick energy. In my experience, it's more that people see images posted of guns or trucks (or someone driving a ridiculous truck) and say, without knowing the person and certainly not directed at them, "that's some small dick energy." It's not the same as making a sexist or racist joke. The joke isn't about the actual size of anyone's body part. It's a joke about their presumed worldview...a toxic one.
Maybe other people use the term differently. I don't know. What I can say is that from my perspective as a cishet male who has undergone a lot of shaming over the years, that term does not come off as body shaming. I have a much bigger internal reaction to "man boobs" or jokes about people who actually have divergent anatomy.
I suggested that your POV about being ok with insults if you don't mean it might be consistent. I realized while saying it didn't fly, that maybe it did. I don't know you, so I'm not assuming. I was not really trying to imply it, so my apologies if I did. But I think they're comparable.
I don't see the difference between saying it and saying "that's so gay" but meaning stupid but not intending anything homophobic. That is still homophobic. I'm very familiar with the usage you describe. It's so easy to find other words to describe things that don't hurt other people. If "man boob" energy became a meme, I suspect you'd feel less comfortable about it.
It's explicitly using a physical characteristic as an insult.
I used to call glitter the "herpes of the craft world" because it never goes away. I had a student share how suicidal she was because a partner had given her herpes and she was harassed for it among her peers or when she tried to date. Herpes when managed and not in an outbreak is really safe but college students are not known for their education on that. She didn't hear me say it, but I realized the harm I could be doing, indirectly to someone who sees me write or hears me say the glitter joke. So I changed it and I've redirected my friends who have.
Because it's just kindness. I wasn't trying to insult people with herpes just laugh about the glitter. So I found a way to laugh about glitter instead of hurting anyone.
You don't have to change shit. I'm not the deity of everything. Say what you want. But you're not going to convince me it's different than "ugh GAY" or that it's not body shaming.
I thought about it, and you're right. I don't even use the term we were discussing, so I really shouldn't have bothered defending it, especially based on some myopic view of the intention. It's made me think about why I don't call that out. My mistake.
I also reacted poorly to what I took as an implication that I'm okay with equivalent statements. Sorry about that.
Hey I really appreciate you taking time and rethinking. I'm genuinely sorry for the implication along with it.
It can be easy to get wrapped up in the moment and it's a lot harder to come back later. So thanks! I see the work.
The obsession with this topic correlation vs inverse correlation is something I always found weird. It's all just culture war nonsense and I'd rather read a book.
I don't disagree but I feel like there is some value in fact checking assumptions. A good way to shut down bigotry is to show that uninformed assumptions are lacking in factual reality.
I don't know how many people actually thought gun owners had small penises, but starting from that assumption sure makes it hard to have meaningful conversations about gun control.
I would also be hesitant to draw any strong conclusions from this data. It relies upon self-reported online survey data:
There is an interesting-to-think-about table midway through the Data section, but I still wouldn’t put much conclusive weight to it.
True enough. Not exactly the most reliable format.
Is it weird to anyone else they focused on gun ownership trope and not truck v. car?
The discussion on Reddit says it was funded by an anti-gun group who had hoped it would prove the opposite finding of what it concluded. Is there an anti-pickup (put still pro car) lobby that’s as active as anti-firearm groups?
yeah, I just noticed that.
Too funny.
As a data nerd, I do wish some of the data was a little clearer. I get that skinnier, younger folks with college educations are less likely to be concerned about penis size. I am frustrated that the study simply doesn't give a similar correlation measure for those with guns, similar to obesity, age and college education.
/r/fuckcars?
They also hate sedans, but probably would be the Gröûp willing to do that.
I definitely hear that one more, but I do feel like there's probably a high correlation between gun owners and truck owners, and their explanations for why people with presumably larger penises may own guns would likely also apply to trucks
Ahhhh, I see now it was funded by a gun control non-profit.
I suspect they were hoping for a different outcome.
Not to roll out the old trope of "why are we funding things like this!?!?" but it is so interesting to see what proposals get funded and which ones don't. The conclusion is hilarious because the takeaways are true regardless of the study findings.
I mean, this was funded by a gun control non-profit. They just assumed the data would be more useful bc they hoped for the opposite finding.
I wonder how the funding was acquired tbh. If it was applied for and met criteria or if it was the idea of the non-profit or what
This research would have been called racist if it was targeted at some minority group. It is okay because most of them are conservative white Americans.
Can you give an example of what you're talking about?
Slightly edited the title to make it less NSFW.
For what it's worth, I don't think the word "penis" alone makes something NSFW, especially when used in the context of a scholarly article.
Actually sitting through harrassment training at work as I type. "Inpact not intent" is stressed: the person glancing at my phone seeing things that make them feel uncomfortable is potentially enough.
I mean, yeah we kinda get it here right, and honestly I myself would brush it off if it's a one off. But if everytime I pass by someone's monitor they're reading about genatilia, even if it's purely scientific, it's kinda not so good, imo.
Edit: I'm working from home. The training material is on the work laptop and I'm typing this from my phone, so sexual advances to/from my spouse if he were reading my phone screen is not unwanted.The context that actually matters is the office, though, and I'd argue with absolutely zero supporting evidence that a large majority of offices are not appropriate places to be perusing articles about penises and guns.
That being said, the nsfw label is supposed to be the filter itself, so why further censor the title?
In case people don't actually filter the tag?
Yes, but it does raise questions when people see the word on your screen at work.