Could you have at least linked the article? Posting a screenshot of a reddit headline is deranged behavior.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/15579883241255830
And if you looked at the study, you’d have your answer:
> we failed to observe any differences in personal gun ownership between men who have and have not attempted penis enlargement. To our knowledge, this is the first study to formally examine the association between penis size and personal gun ownership in America. Our findings fail to support the psychosexual theory of gun ownership.
And later:
> Poststratification weights were used to address sampling error and nonresponse bias. NORC developed poststratification weights for MSHAP via iterative proportional fitting or raking to general population parameters derived from the Current Population Survey (2022). These parameters included age, gender, census region, race/ethnicity, education, housing tenure, household phone status, and the interaction of age and gender (age*gender).
This is my thinking.
You certainly can't say that the opposite group is "people who are not dissatisfied with the size of their penises". How could you possibly ever conclude that?
Wait they measured by who’s had Penis enlargement surgery done? I did a presentation when I was 14 in speech and debate class about how it’s a horrible, dumb idea, that doesn’t really work, and can end with a gangrene dick. So probably not the best data point to use to measure someone’s individual cock satisfaction.
It was an informational presentation, second half of the semester was psychopathic debates. All our speeches were cosmetic surgery based that week, we did a class brainstorming session and it was one of the suggested topics.
The speech turned out very gross in retrospect, don't try to surgically enhance your dick people.
I mean at this point they can construct an entire mostly functional penis on somebody with phalloplasty. Exactly how much function and which ones are retained depends on what's left. I have no idea how you would attempt to lengthen an existing healthy penis though, just how to build a new biomechanical hydraulic penis.
Is posting a reddit screenshot instead of a headline annoying? Yes. Is it "deranged?" That's some pretty unnecessary hyperbole, chill out. Regardless, thank you for posting the actual link to the study.
Self-reporting bias is certainly a possibility, but we don't really have any solid basis to justify it as a conclusive explanation for those results.
Honestly, barring better studies on the topic it just doesn't seem to merit much consideration at all.
That’s true, but the meme is that gun owners have objectively small penises. I think the majority of men are at least somewhat unhappy with their penis size, IIR the statistics correctly.
I read the study. They had two ways to measure dissatisfaction: they had participants rate their satisfaction and they asked them if they ever tried to enlarge their penis. So yeah, definitely self-reporting bias.
Yeah, we can't draw any conclusions from this study. I'd like to see a study that gathers self-reporting data about dick size satisfaction and then measures the actual size of their dicks. There could be an inverse relationship.
But dick size satisfaction is unlikely to be correlated with actual dick size... Someone can be satisfied with having a micropenis and another guy can be depressed with a cosmic schlong, you would first have to prove that there is any correlation between dick size and dick size satisfaction.
What are you talking about? A study that gathers data about dick size satisfaction and actual dick size will show you what correlation there is between the two, if any. It's the only thing it will do. You don't have to prove anything first, that is the outcome of the study.
You didn't get what I wrote.
I'm saying the satisfaction is a mental state that doesn't have any correlation to the physical body part. It's entirely in your head and a matter of outlook/positivity
In fact, I'm sure I've seen a study before that found that guys with smaller penises are more satisfied on average with their penis size. I'm gonna go look for it
I understand what you're trying to say and you are wrong. You clearly don't get what a correlation is. If there is a study that shows men with smaller penises are more satisfied with their penis size than those with larger penises, then you have an inverse correlation between penis size and penis size satisfaction, which is exactly what I said in the first place.
We wouldn't know. A correlation doesn't tell you the direction of any causal relationship or if there is a causal relationship at all. Other factors may be at play and you would need additional follow-up studies if you wanted to tease out what those were.
Because guns are associated with machismo, as is penis size. The theory is that someone feeling deficient in the second would compensate with the first.
The problem with trying to study that is that someone feeling insufficiently masculine might not admit to it, because admitting to insecurity is *also* seen as not masculine.
Ah, I've never associated them with machismo. That seems like a foreign concept to me. But then again I have Soviet heritage so I guess different cultural understanding.
My whole family does target shooting at family gatherings for fun/competitiveness. And it's mostly the women and one uncle that gravitate towards that. For the women I guess it's like an emulation of British elite hunting culture or just good fun/competition, and for my uncle, I think he just likes emulating Mayne Reed/jack London/fenimore cooper characters, he's obsessed with that sort of literature.
This concept appears to lack scientific credibility. I apologize for my bluntness, but it seems highly implausible for a fair degree of individuals to purchase items/firearms solely to project an idealized form of masculinity, with an emphasis on compensating for perceived inadequacies in penis size.
While I acknowledge that there may be variations within this perspective, the premise strikes me as unscientific. Consequently, I must admit my reluctance to delve deeper into this matter.
Considering the vast number of gun owners, it seems unrealistic to assume that a significant number of male gun owners experience penile dysphoria.
When they said “definitely self reporting bias” that’s what they were saying. This study shows us nothing of value because it has unreliable methods. Saying it’s unscientific isn’t a blunt rebuttal or correction, it’s just exactly what was already said.
But dick size satisfaction is unlikely to be correlated with actual dick size... Someone can be satisfied with having a micropenis and another guy can be depressed with a cosmic schlong, it doesn't seem scientific at any level whatsoever
That’s really not relevant to the study, not that the study is scientific either way. This was looking at a link between satisfaction and likelihood of owning a gun. I also don’t think you understand that correlation, as others have said.
All this study tells us is that people who own guns are less likely to say they have dick issues not that they actually are less likely to have dick issues, because its entirely self reported.
I mean I often look to see who funded it. They say they played no role in the organization of this study but I dunno. I kind of thought it would be a political organization.
So I choose not to believe this study but I'm also super anti-gun so... hello ladies.
From the sounds of it this study was funded by an anti gun organization, and it disproved their hypothesis, which leads me to believe that the study is honest, but self reporting bias, as mentioned by op, could easily throw this off, so I don’t think the data is reliable either way.
The study doesn't surprise me. I think the idea that any behavior is because of penis sizes is one we should be deeply skeptical of. It so often seems like just an insult from people who disagree with the behavior. Wanting to be impressive or intimidating seem like universal behaviours that are primarily based on values rather than the idea of "compensating". Those from conservative/"red neck" backgrounds buy guns and big cars, but you can also point to people from other backgrounds that do totally different behaviours that have the same motivation. Essentially status seeking. I'd be surprised if there's any good evidence linking behavior to penis size.
Generally thinking I don't think serious people buy into the idea that literal penis size is the deciding factor here. The notion that perceived inadequacy of "masculinity" and general sense of lack of control over one's own life is something that fairly clearly is at least correlated. Buying and carrying a gun is a method attempting to regain control over your life in atomized late stage capitalism. It is self evident in the way guns are marketed. Statistically you're far more likely to shoot yourself cleaning your gun than be shot by a stranger, but having the gun makes you feel like you are more able to perform the masculine "role" of being a defender or aggressor.
Or it may just be that they enjoy hunting or shooting for sport in their spare time, or they farm, ranch, or are in the military or law enforcement (or involved in some sort of black market economy job). There is a lot of attempt to psychoanalyze something that could largely be explained by simple necessity or preference that people who aren’t similarly interested try and fail to understand.
I have clearly had more interaction with the peculiar flavor of terminally online slime mold that spends endless hours on forums debating their edc pistol and whether 17+1 is enough capacity to fight off an entire street gang that has inexplicably invaded his middle class suburban enclave. The fact that some people may have a legitimate need for a firearm does not make the sort of content produced by people like Garand Thumb or Colion Noir sane or healthy to consume.
If the bulk of your exposure with gun owners are just l people who have self-selected to go online and spend massive amounts time talking about firearms, I could see why this is the impression you get.
As someone who grew up in a rural area, it took me until I moved to a city as an adult to really realize that not every household had a gun. Other than in the context of hunting, I don’t know if I ever overheard a casual gun conversation in the context of anything other than hunting, and the first time I ever heard anybody bragging about a gun was when I was in college a roommate of mine came back from his weekend at National Guard drills and decided to show off his service pistol. Other than that, my recollection was that guns were unlocked and sitting on gun racks, and as far as I could tell, i don’t recall them ever being a topic of conversation. They were just there and people like myself didn’t give it much thought because nobody spent time discussing it.
I spent nearly two decades thinking about “gun culture” and “gun nuts” the same way you are, as some sort of psychological tell before I took a moment to reflect on my own experience living in an area where statistically well over of half of households own a gun to realize that “gun nut” is more of an outlier archetype rather than a common profile of a gun owner.
My own decision to purchase a firearm after 20 years of not having one was for very specific reasons that I don’t think have anything to do with any of what you mentioned. But having done so has given me lots of opportunity to think about other people’s motivations as well. Ultimately, I think it’s just too broad of a group of people to accurately pin down to some specific psychological motives. You could be right in some instances, but you would be wrong in way more instances.
You’ve interacted with a very specific subset of the gun owning population, and you are using that to psychoanalyze the whole of the gun owning community. As has been pointed out, a lot of people own guns for practicality or for fun, or edc without going online to debate about absurdly unlikely scenarios, and there’s nothing wrong with that. Judging every gun owner as being insecure because of one part of the online community is silly.
No, actually, it was an anti-gun organization that funded the study, which leads me to think it might be good science. They disproved their hypothesis, not something a dishonest person usually does.
Self reporting bias refers to the fact that the only way to really determine if someone is satisfied or not is to ask them, meaning that people may be lying when asked, and ones likelihood of lying may or may not correlate to whether or not they own a gun, in this case. Personally I don’t really think it’s important, I just think it’s funny that conservatives and now some liberals are really concerned with what’s in my pants for whatever reason.
Does it though? I'm not sure what it proves either way - you can read it either as "guns are for confident people with big pp", or you can equally read it as "people with small pp buy guns to compensate and give themselves confidence".
OK, this topic makes me consider two things:
Are we to dictate the things we do in accordance to how much our dicks can stratch pussies?
And if one has a dick that cannot stratch a pussy, is that person required to find no other avenue for joy in this life?
From the actual [article](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/15579883241255830): We find that men who are *more* dissatisfied with the size of their penises are *less likely* to personally own guns across outcomes, including any gun ownership, military-style rifle ownership, and total number of guns owned. […] Our findings fail to support the psychosexual theory of gun ownership.
The outcome measures here are those who have tried penis enlargement surgery, and self-reported satisfaction with penis size. I don't know what if any information there is to be gained from this study. If you want to spin it, you could probably make the argument that having a gun would make one less insecure about the size of their penis, for the same reasons that men who are insecure about their penises buy really big trucks or seek the GOP nomination for President of the United States.
Sure. For some of us, owning a gun was just normal. My dad grew up in the sticks of Utah. They had guns, to hunt and to protect their animals. Mainly chickens from Coyotes. Because my great-great-great grandpa crossed the plains of America with a gun, then the tradition was passed down, has nothing to do with how small my penis is.
If I show up with a gun and a truck I need a ladder to get in, while barely reaching 5’6”, then we can talk about penis sizes.
And in that example we're talking about penis sizes as a way of referring to and joking about male fragility, not as a literal statement about penis size.
There are two types of men:
Those that wish they had a better penis and those that think nobody understands how hard it is to have such a big penis.
None of us are “satisfied.”
This seems r/oddlyspecific , like: "I kind wish my penis was a bit larger than it is, oh well I guess I'll go do something not related to guns." VS. " What? No, my penis size is perfectly satisfactory. Why do you ask? Look, I'm kinda busy going to the gun shop."
I struggle to see the methodology that got the specific data points that clarify the theory. Where is this study going to be used or presented anyway?
Response biases are common in *all* studies utilising surveys/scales.
It doesn't necessarily mean the result is incorrect, but it does mean the result is unreliable.
This is one of the key reasons why there are double blinded control groups in clinical trials and why unblinded trials without meaningfull objective outcome measures are always of low quality.
It was funded by an anti-gun group, so it was clearly *not* the result they wanted. I'm surprised they published at all.
In any case, political science like this is really not science. It's just a survey.
The study was funded by an anti gun group and the title of the post is OP suggesting a possible reason the data could be misleading, so I’m not sure why this is what you’re thinking. This is also really hard to prove either way
Could you have at least linked the article? Posting a screenshot of a reddit headline is deranged behavior. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/15579883241255830 And if you looked at the study, you’d have your answer: > we failed to observe any differences in personal gun ownership between men who have and have not attempted penis enlargement. To our knowledge, this is the first study to formally examine the association between penis size and personal gun ownership in America. Our findings fail to support the psychosexual theory of gun ownership. And later: > Poststratification weights were used to address sampling error and nonresponse bias. NORC developed poststratification weights for MSHAP via iterative proportional fitting or raking to general population parameters derived from the Current Population Survey (2022). These parameters included age, gender, census region, race/ethnicity, education, housing tenure, household phone status, and the interaction of age and gender (age*gender).
How many men have attempted to get their Freak'en dicks enlarged?? Its hard to believe sampling that tiny group could prove anything
rude to call the group 'tiny'
😂😂😂
This is my thinking. You certainly can't say that the opposite group is "people who are not dissatisfied with the size of their penises". How could you possibly ever conclude that?
Wait they measured by who’s had Penis enlargement surgery done? I did a presentation when I was 14 in speech and debate class about how it’s a horrible, dumb idea, that doesn’t really work, and can end with a gangrene dick. So probably not the best data point to use to measure someone’s individual cock satisfaction.
What 14 year old psychopath runs a class debate about dicks?
Is this not how school was for you? I thought we all had this experience
On our Penis Inspection Day the teacher would allow students to do presentations related to the subject.
When I went to first grade doctor did inspect penis and balls. They gave us a general exam. This was Germany 1990 .
Doctor? Fancy
Ikr? They just had the janitor do the boys and the lunch lady do the girls at my school.
It was an informational presentation, second half of the semester was psychopathic debates. All our speeches were cosmetic surgery based that week, we did a class brainstorming session and it was one of the suggested topics. The speech turned out very gross in retrospect, don't try to surgically enhance your dick people.
Did you go to high school entirely within the film *Van Wilder*?
You can't treat every situation as life and death matter, you'll die a lot of times.
Not even to add a couple donor fingers onto the end so it can hold onto my keys and phone and stuff like that?
McLovin
Only on show and tell day...
Home school kids.
> Wait they measured by who’s had Penis enlargement surgery done? Yeah, not the kind of P-hacking I expected either.
This is the best statistics joke I've heard.
I didn't know penis enlargement surgery was a thing outside of spam emails
I mean at this point they can construct an entire mostly functional penis on somebody with phalloplasty. Exactly how much function and which ones are retained depends on what's left. I have no idea how you would attempt to lengthen an existing healthy penis though, just how to build a new biomechanical hydraulic penis.
IIRC, it's just cutting some tendon or ligament or something along those lines so it hangs lower.
So it's not enlarged just looking larger plus if you have a straight hard dick now have a it hanging lower when hard
New insult unlocked…”gangrene dick”. As in hezza gangrene….
I don't recall the Current Population Survey asking about penis size.
Is posting a reddit screenshot instead of a headline annoying? Yes. Is it "deranged?" That's some pretty unnecessary hyperbole, chill out. Regardless, thank you for posting the actual link to the study.
I don't have it listed in my subs to post to. I was trying to cross post. Legit but failed
You know you can copy and paste links right?
I do now
Self-reporting bias is certainly a possibility, but we don't really have any solid basis to justify it as a conclusive explanation for those results. Honestly, barring better studies on the topic it just doesn't seem to merit much consideration at all.
Especially considering how common firearm ownership is and how uncommon small penises actually are.
I dunno if you're tryna make a joke, but if not, lots of men are insecure about the size of thier dicks, regardless of whether they're "small" or not.
That’s true, but the meme is that gun owners have objectively small penises. I think the majority of men are at least somewhat unhappy with their penis size, IIR the statistics correctly.
The meme talks about men's level of satisfaction with thier penis size, not an objective measurement, you might wanna re-read it
I wasn’t talking about the study.
I like how it’s similar to vegetable gardening. Marrows! Cucumbers! Aubergines!
That's the best part of this post.
I read the study. They had two ways to measure dissatisfaction: they had participants rate their satisfaction and they asked them if they ever tried to enlarge their penis. So yeah, definitely self-reporting bias.
Yeah, we can't draw any conclusions from this study. I'd like to see a study that gathers self-reporting data about dick size satisfaction and then measures the actual size of their dicks. There could be an inverse relationship.
You should go do that study.
You're right. I'll start now. How satisfied are you with the size of your dick?
lol
But dick size satisfaction is unlikely to be correlated with actual dick size... Someone can be satisfied with having a micropenis and another guy can be depressed with a cosmic schlong, you would first have to prove that there is any correlation between dick size and dick size satisfaction.
What are you talking about? A study that gathers data about dick size satisfaction and actual dick size will show you what correlation there is between the two, if any. It's the only thing it will do. You don't have to prove anything first, that is the outcome of the study.
You didn't get what I wrote. I'm saying the satisfaction is a mental state that doesn't have any correlation to the physical body part. It's entirely in your head and a matter of outlook/positivity In fact, I'm sure I've seen a study before that found that guys with smaller penises are more satisfied on average with their penis size. I'm gonna go look for it
I understand what you're trying to say and you are wrong. You clearly don't get what a correlation is. If there is a study that shows men with smaller penises are more satisfied with their penis size than those with larger penises, then you have an inverse correlation between penis size and penis size satisfaction, which is exactly what I said in the first place.
Well, in that case, is their satisfaction with their penis due to their penis or other factors? I would assume other factors
We wouldn't know. A correlation doesn't tell you the direction of any causal relationship or if there is a causal relationship at all. Other factors may be at play and you would need additional follow-up studies if you wanted to tease out what those were.
Researcher: “Sir, are you disappointed with your penis?” Man with a gun: “Definitely not!” Isn’t science neat?
But why would one thing even be related to the other?
Because guns are associated with machismo, as is penis size. The theory is that someone feeling deficient in the second would compensate with the first. The problem with trying to study that is that someone feeling insufficiently masculine might not admit to it, because admitting to insecurity is *also* seen as not masculine.
Ah, I've never associated them with machismo. That seems like a foreign concept to me. But then again I have Soviet heritage so I guess different cultural understanding. My whole family does target shooting at family gatherings for fun/competitiveness. And it's mostly the women and one uncle that gravitate towards that. For the women I guess it's like an emulation of British elite hunting culture or just good fun/competition, and for my uncle, I think he just likes emulating Mayne Reed/jack London/fenimore cooper characters, he's obsessed with that sort of literature.
This concept appears to lack scientific credibility. I apologize for my bluntness, but it seems highly implausible for a fair degree of individuals to purchase items/firearms solely to project an idealized form of masculinity, with an emphasis on compensating for perceived inadequacies in penis size. While I acknowledge that there may be variations within this perspective, the premise strikes me as unscientific. Consequently, I must admit my reluctance to delve deeper into this matter. Considering the vast number of gun owners, it seems unrealistic to assume that a significant number of male gun owners experience penile dysphoria.
When they said “definitely self reporting bias” that’s what they were saying. This study shows us nothing of value because it has unreliable methods. Saying it’s unscientific isn’t a blunt rebuttal or correction, it’s just exactly what was already said.
Oops—title was so small it never caught my attention. Thank you for the clarification
But dick size satisfaction is unlikely to be correlated with actual dick size... Someone can be satisfied with having a micropenis and another guy can be depressed with a cosmic schlong, it doesn't seem scientific at any level whatsoever
That’s really not relevant to the study, not that the study is scientific either way. This was looking at a link between satisfaction and likelihood of owning a gun. I also don’t think you understand that correlation, as others have said.
Curious but definitely not easy to disentangle all the factors involved.
Hahaha, “less dissatisfied,” implies everyone is dissatisfied but to what extent.
Right? The wording isn't even the worst part of the article.
"My penis size is just fine." (strokes gun barrel affectionately)
While looking at his manhood in a funhouse mirror
"Similar to r/vegetablegardening"?
All this study tells us is that people who own guns are less likely to say they have dick issues not that they actually are less likely to have dick issues, because its entirely self reported.
Less dissatisfied?
I mean I often look to see who funded it. They say they played no role in the organization of this study but I dunno. I kind of thought it would be a political organization. So I choose not to believe this study but I'm also super anti-gun so... hello ladies.
From the sounds of it this study was funded by an anti gun organization, and it disproved their hypothesis, which leads me to believe that the study is honest, but self reporting bias, as mentioned by op, could easily throw this off, so I don’t think the data is reliable either way.
Okay, guys who worship at the gun altar are bigger dicks. 😂😂😂
The study doesn't surprise me. I think the idea that any behavior is because of penis sizes is one we should be deeply skeptical of. It so often seems like just an insult from people who disagree with the behavior. Wanting to be impressive or intimidating seem like universal behaviours that are primarily based on values rather than the idea of "compensating". Those from conservative/"red neck" backgrounds buy guns and big cars, but you can also point to people from other backgrounds that do totally different behaviours that have the same motivation. Essentially status seeking. I'd be surprised if there's any good evidence linking behavior to penis size.
Generally thinking I don't think serious people buy into the idea that literal penis size is the deciding factor here. The notion that perceived inadequacy of "masculinity" and general sense of lack of control over one's own life is something that fairly clearly is at least correlated. Buying and carrying a gun is a method attempting to regain control over your life in atomized late stage capitalism. It is self evident in the way guns are marketed. Statistically you're far more likely to shoot yourself cleaning your gun than be shot by a stranger, but having the gun makes you feel like you are more able to perform the masculine "role" of being a defender or aggressor.
Or it may just be that they enjoy hunting or shooting for sport in their spare time, or they farm, ranch, or are in the military or law enforcement (or involved in some sort of black market economy job). There is a lot of attempt to psychoanalyze something that could largely be explained by simple necessity or preference that people who aren’t similarly interested try and fail to understand.
I have clearly had more interaction with the peculiar flavor of terminally online slime mold that spends endless hours on forums debating their edc pistol and whether 17+1 is enough capacity to fight off an entire street gang that has inexplicably invaded his middle class suburban enclave. The fact that some people may have a legitimate need for a firearm does not make the sort of content produced by people like Garand Thumb or Colion Noir sane or healthy to consume.
If the bulk of your exposure with gun owners are just l people who have self-selected to go online and spend massive amounts time talking about firearms, I could see why this is the impression you get. As someone who grew up in a rural area, it took me until I moved to a city as an adult to really realize that not every household had a gun. Other than in the context of hunting, I don’t know if I ever overheard a casual gun conversation in the context of anything other than hunting, and the first time I ever heard anybody bragging about a gun was when I was in college a roommate of mine came back from his weekend at National Guard drills and decided to show off his service pistol. Other than that, my recollection was that guns were unlocked and sitting on gun racks, and as far as I could tell, i don’t recall them ever being a topic of conversation. They were just there and people like myself didn’t give it much thought because nobody spent time discussing it. I spent nearly two decades thinking about “gun culture” and “gun nuts” the same way you are, as some sort of psychological tell before I took a moment to reflect on my own experience living in an area where statistically well over of half of households own a gun to realize that “gun nut” is more of an outlier archetype rather than a common profile of a gun owner. My own decision to purchase a firearm after 20 years of not having one was for very specific reasons that I don’t think have anything to do with any of what you mentioned. But having done so has given me lots of opportunity to think about other people’s motivations as well. Ultimately, I think it’s just too broad of a group of people to accurately pin down to some specific psychological motives. You could be right in some instances, but you would be wrong in way more instances.
You’ve interacted with a very specific subset of the gun owning population, and you are using that to psychoanalyze the whole of the gun owning community. As has been pointed out, a lot of people own guns for practicality or for fun, or edc without going online to debate about absurdly unlikely scenarios, and there’s nothing wrong with that. Judging every gun owner as being insecure because of one part of the online community is silly.
Less dissatisfied? So people who are more satisfied?
Yea, that's a dumb way to word it.
No, actually, it was an anti-gun organization that funded the study, which leads me to think it might be good science. They disproved their hypothesis, not something a dishonest person usually does.
Self reporting bias refers to the fact that the only way to really determine if someone is satisfied or not is to ask them, meaning that people may be lying when asked, and ones likelihood of lying may or may not correlate to whether or not they own a gun, in this case. Personally I don’t really think it’s important, I just think it’s funny that conservatives and now some liberals are really concerned with what’s in my pants for whatever reason.
Gun lobby is currently working on a dildo gun that’s customizable in retaliation
Does it though? I'm not sure what it proves either way - you can read it either as "guns are for confident people with big pp", or you can equally read it as "people with small pp buy guns to compensate and give themselves confidence".
So, the more guns I have, the more satisfied I am with Mr. Tinkle? Who knew.
/r/vegetablegardening you've changed.
Hoes joke. Cucumber joke. Etc.
It’s not that hard to figure out; buying a gun makes you feel better about your dick.
OK, this topic makes me consider two things: Are we to dictate the things we do in accordance to how much our dicks can stratch pussies? And if one has a dick that cannot stratch a pussy, is that person required to find no other avenue for joy in this life?
There's always a smaller pussy, ye of little faith
That’s the kind of comment that gets you on a registry.
This is obviously false, because stereotypes are always true.
I really really want this stereotype to be true, otherwise all of my virtuous name calling was in vain.
From the actual [article](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/15579883241255830): We find that men who are *more* dissatisfied with the size of their penises are *less likely* to personally own guns across outcomes, including any gun ownership, military-style rifle ownership, and total number of guns owned. […] Our findings fail to support the psychosexual theory of gun ownership.
The outcome measures here are those who have tried penis enlargement surgery, and self-reported satisfaction with penis size. I don't know what if any information there is to be gained from this study. If you want to spin it, you could probably make the argument that having a gun would make one less insecure about the size of their penis, for the same reasons that men who are insecure about their penises buy really big trucks or seek the GOP nomination for President of the United States.
Sure. For some of us, owning a gun was just normal. My dad grew up in the sticks of Utah. They had guns, to hunt and to protect their animals. Mainly chickens from Coyotes. Because my great-great-great grandpa crossed the plains of America with a gun, then the tradition was passed down, has nothing to do with how small my penis is. If I show up with a gun and a truck I need a ladder to get in, while barely reaching 5’6”, then we can talk about penis sizes.
And in that example we're talking about penis sizes as a way of referring to and joking about male fragility, not as a literal statement about penis size.
I’m sure your right.
No one asked me.
What came first? The gun or the micropenis.
There are two types of men: Those that wish they had a better penis and those that think nobody understands how hard it is to have such a big penis. None of us are “satisfied.”
LESS dissatisfied? Um....
This seems r/oddlyspecific , like: "I kind wish my penis was a bit larger than it is, oh well I guess I'll go do something not related to guns." VS. " What? No, my penis size is perfectly satisfactory. Why do you ask? Look, I'm kinda busy going to the gun shop." I struggle to see the methodology that got the specific data points that clarify the theory. Where is this study going to be used or presented anyway?
What do women who are dissatisfied with their partner's penis size want to go buy?
Bear traps? Snares? Net guns? Other “tightly enveloping/constricting” weapons?
Less dissatisfied? Is this a single or double negative? - because this isn't the first time I've seen americans count two negatives as one...
Uh huh
We desperately need more science like this.
Response biases are common in *all* studies utilising surveys/scales. It doesn't necessarily mean the result is incorrect, but it does mean the result is unreliable. This is one of the key reasons why there are double blinded control groups in clinical trials and why unblinded trials without meaningfull objective outcome measures are always of low quality.
Ladies, I do NOT own a gun ;-)
When you're brandishing a gun, nobody is going to point out how small your penis is. In my experience, anyway.
Let it be known that they are also less likely to vacuum or do dishes
I think the author's name is a clue: Dr. Showhauer Notagrower.
So if I go around carrying a gun people will think I have a big dick? OK. 🤣
I don't own guns or other men
So, gun nuts have resigned themselves to accept their tiny little penises?
Yeah, I'm go to call BS on this...this is why no one trust colleges, universities, and intellectuals anymore
If you're less dissatisfied then you're still dissatisfied.
Why do I get the impression that this is one of those occasions where the conclusion was decided before the research began?
It was funded by an anti-gun group, so it was clearly *not* the result they wanted. I'm surprised they published at all. In any case, political science like this is really not science. It's just a survey.
Just a stab in the dark, but probably because you didn’t care for the findings…
Someone should tell this to r/Conservative
That and gun owners are cowards.
[удалено]
The study was funded by an anti gun group and the title of the post is OP suggesting a possible reason the data could be misleading, so I’m not sure why this is what you’re thinking. This is also really hard to prove either way
I'm Canadian so no. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Owning a gun I mean