🐱 Can “Small Penis Humiliation” Help Men Struggling With Size Insecurity?

CatParty



In case you haven’t noticed, we’re living in a phallocentric society that inordinately privileges, prioritizes and values the penis — specifically penises of a certain size. This, unsurprisingly, has created a culture of body-shaming that tends to leave many penis-havers feeling insecure about how their own phallic appendages measure up to the unrealistic size standards widely upheld as the penile ideal.
In everyday life, penis-shaming is a toxic, gross practice that remains all too common and normalized. But for some penis-havers, being humiliated for having a small penis is actually a kinky and pleasurable source of sexual satisfaction.
“Small penis humiliation is a consensual roleplay in which one person (usually playing the role of dominant or sadist) verbally humiliates another person (usually playing the role of submissive or masochist) with the subject matter of the humiliation being small penis size,” says Dr. Dulcinea Pitagora, an NYC-based psychotherapist and sex therapist.
While this form of erotic humiliation is “mostly centered around verbal exchanges,” adds Miss Couple, an intimacy and relationship coach, “small penis humiliation can also include sexual and/or masochistic acts, such as physically torturing someone for their small penis size.”
You don’t even need to actually have a small penis to engage with small penis humiliation (SPH). “Not everyone who enjoys being on the receiving end of this type of verbal humiliation actually has a small penis, it just means that the language around and idea of being ridiculed for having a small penis is sexually arousing,” says Dr. Pitagora.
“People of all penis sizes can be interested in SPH,” echoes Miss Couple. “The kink stems more from the stripping of power associated with masculinity — the penis is just a symbol of that.”
That said, SPH can certainly be enjoyed by those who do consider themselves to be on the smaller side, and it seems some small-penis-havers struggling with size insecurity might even turn to this kind of erotic play as a coping mechanism. That’s what one advice-seeker who recently wrote into Slate’s “How to Do It” advice column seemed to suggest, anyway.
The self-described 40-something married man with a small penis — “Not on the line, ‘maybe,’ just small” — wrote that he has struggled with insecurity about his penis size for most of his life, but has finally found “the answer” to his problems in the form of SPH play, something he’d learned about from his psychiatrist. “She did not directly point me in the direction of ‘small penis humiliation,’ but said it helped other people embracing the issue,” the advice-seeker wrote. “After exploring it, I found I am very fond of it,” he added, despite “normally loath[ing] attention and humiliation.”
Dr. Pitagora confirms that a mental health professional probably wouldn’t directly recommend that a client try small penis humiliation, but agrees that for clients already interested in kink, this kind of play may be worth exploring.
“If a client told me that they struggled with size insecurity, and had been fantasizing about SPH, then I would talk it through with them, support their exploring it with a trusted partner or prodomme, have more conversations after the experience to talk through any positive or negative reactions, and process the experience as needed,” says Dr. Pitagora. However, they add, “I would not recommend that people who are not kinky or BDSM-oriented engage in a role-play like this. If someone who is not kinky and/or not into verbal humiliation around penis size were to engage in this roleplay, it could backfire and end up being traumatizing.”
However, for those who are kink-oriented, says Miss Couple, erotic humiliation can be “a powerful psychological tool,” which may indeed help individuals struggling with size insecurity explore and process those feelings of shame in a safe, consensual environment.
“Humiliation scenes can involve something called a ‘corrective emotional experience,’ where the person experiences something that was previously painful or traumatic in their life (such as being teased for their small penis size), and through consensual interaction with a partner recreates the scenario,” explains Miss Couple. “This time, instead of being the victim, through consensual power exchange and negotiation, they will be ‘in charge’ of what happens to them, and choose the outcome of the experience.”
For example, a submissive partner in a SPH scene may be told their penis is “useless” and be instructed to perform oral sex instead. “The humiliation is involved, but the scenario still circles around to closeness and intimacy with their partner in a way that might have positive associations and be satisfying for them,” Miss Couple explains.
But what separates small penis humiliation from plain old body-shaming?
“The tricky thing is that because SPH is emotional masochism, the key ingredient you’re playing with is shame — that’s what makes it exciting,” says Miss Couple. “What separates SPH from harmful body shaming is consent.”
When you’re playing with kink, especially potentially “treacherous territory” like humiliation play, consent requires much more than a simple verbal agreement between partners.
“It is not enough to simply get permission from your partner to engage in SPH. In order to engage safely, you need to discuss exactly what terms and phrases are acceptable and which are off limits,” says Miss Couple. “One word might make someone wildly turned on, while another might cause painful psychological damage.”
In order to establish a safe, fully consensual environment in which to explore SPH play, Miss Couple encourages partners to completely negotiate a scene beforehand, and recommends being clear about what each partner is seeking from the experience. “Someone looking for a corrective emotional experience will have to be treated differently than someone who is looking for pure degradation.”
Like all forms of BDSM, humiliation play can provide a psychologically intense experience, which, practiced safely and correctly, can be emotionally and mentally rewarding for all parties involved. For someone struggling with insecurity surrounding penis size, engaging in SPH can potentially be a powerful coping mechanism, though both Dr. Pitagora and Miss Couple warn against jumping into a new kink as a “cure” for your physical insecurities — especially if you lack experience.
“That is not to say that people shouldn’t explore this kink if they are feeling drawn to it — even if they aren’t sure or don’t have experience with it,” says Dr. Pitagora. However, “It’s important for anyone struggling with size insecurity to feel supported and validated first and foremost, to receive psychoeducation around phallocentrism, and to deconstruct stigma and body shame.”
 
Instead of banning pornography it would be good if there was a way to help noobs find porn that was realistic, so the penises were normal sized and the boobs were natural, and the participants weren’t acting like complete cartoons when they orgasmed, or getting off on humiliation.
 
Instead of banning pornography it would be good if there was a way to help noobs find porn that was realistic, so the penises were normal sized and the boobs were natural, and the participants weren’t acting like complete cartoons when they orgasmed, or getting off on humiliation.

You mean like amateur porn?
 
Why do "experts" always seem to try normalize Western heterosexual men being put in the submissive role? What kind of self-respecting man would want to be ordered around at all by a woman, let alone sexually? It's backwards and degenerate.

Men who obsess over their dick size are just as ridiculous and paranoid as women who obsess over their breast size: unless the person you're interested in has a clear preference for huge cocks/tits they probably won't give too much of a shit about the actual size (and isn't it usually way more about the shape than the size anyhow?) Stop watching porn if you're insecure, study some classical nude statues and see just how modest the size of "ideal" male genitalia has been for most of Western civilization.
 
'leaving people alone' clearly hasn't been working, fuck that.

And thus starts every dictatorship..... I know that's hyperbolic, but, there's a kernel of truth to it as well... freedom of speech/expression exists for a reason, and with it you have to accept people using it "wrong" in your eyes. Prohibition failed to stop people from drinking "for their own good" and made things in society worse at , well , worst, and wasted resources for years for no appreciable gain at best. Yes, drinking to excess causes immense harm in people, but, the attempt to prevent it through force did nothing but make everyone miserable.... how is banning porn, based on the human desire to bone, which is a LOT stronger than the desire to get intoxicated, going to fare any better?

Nobody is saying you shouldn't CARE about people, but you should choose solutions that are demonstrably going to WORK.

"Ban behavior "A" through full force of the state" rarely works, let alone works without side-effects just as corrosive to society as the bad behavior itself.
 
Última edición:
You mean like amateur porn?
Yes. Consensual of course, and involving attractive people, but not giant penises and women with plastic surgery bodies. I think if that was the kind of porn young people first saw, there’d be a lot less depression for them.
 
Prohibition failed to stop people from drinking for their own good and made things in society worse at , well , worst
People and their governments obviously have to be on the same page, and judges and cops need to actually be made to enforce the law, the reasoning for people's resorting to vices needs to be looked at and sentences shouldn't be excessive and lead to people being isolated. Prohibition failed because of logistics, there's nothing inherent to the concept that makes it impossible to implement, in fact the majority of people adhered to the law.

Take it easy there, antifa.
And this is why anarchists get communes and you guys get to grovel at the feet of politicians
 
Última edición:
'leaving people alone' clearly hasn't been working, fuck that.
What are you talking about? Leaving people alone isn't a means to an end, it IS an end in itself. Why do you hate freedom? People like you always imagine you'll be the ones making the rules, but you're just as likely to have rules imposed on you that you disagree with.
 
I don't believe this for a nanosecond. This sounds like the kind of neo-Black Legend bullshit cooked up by hedonists with a "Fuck You Dad" agenda.

You will be pressed to find a feminists that were raised by a hard working single father. The father either wasnt there or he was a wimp they and the mother had no respect for.
 
People and their governments obviously have to be on the same page, and judges and cops need to actually be made to enforce the law, the reasoning for people's resorting to vices needs to be looked at and sentences shouldn't be excessive and lead to people being isolated. Prohibition failed because of logistics, there's nothing inherent to the concept that makes it impossible to implement, in fact the majority of people adhered to the law.

While at the very start of prohibition, alcohol consumption was down to "only" about 30% of it's previous levels, by the end of prohibition, it had risen to about 70% of it's pre-prohibition levels. (Alcohol Consumption During Prohibition, Miron and Zweibel, 1991). There were numerous open wink-and-nod ways to get alcohol during prohibition marketed at the average person, openly, commercially. The famous "wine bricks" sold by vineyards, for example... Blocks of concentrated wine grapes, sold with the explicit instructions "For making grape juice only, DO NOT ADD YEAST AND LET SIT FOR 21 DAYS, OR ELSE IT WILL BECOME WINE." Bootleg alcohol was a shadow economy in and of itself, the government was openly killing people over it. It was also poisoning people to try to get them to stop drinking. And still drinking was at shockingly high levels.

Prohibition *didn't work*. Period.
 
What are you talking about? Leaving people alone isn't a means to an end, it IS an end in itself.
That makes literally no sense and is a completely pointless end to strive for. I want the society I live in to be good for me.

Why do you hate freedom? People like you always imagine you'll be the ones making the rules, but you're just as likely to have rules imposed on you that you disagree with.
Yes that's why you need to push your ideas before other people get their ideas in. There will be rules, and if I push for freedom I only expose myself to harm from people who hate what is good and are more ruthless than I.
 
That makes literally no sense and is a completely pointless end to strive for. I want the society I live in to be good for me.


Yes that's why you need to push your ideas before other people get their ideas in. There will be rules, and if I push for freedom I only expose myself to harm from people who hate what is good and are more ruthless than I.
Are you Russian or PRNK or something?

You will be pressed to find a feminists that were raised by a hard working single father. The father either wasnt there or he was a wimp they and the mother had no respect for.
Well hello!!! *waves*
 
That makes literally no sense and is a completely pointless end to strive for. I want the society I live in to be good for me.
Agreed, and a society that's good for me is one where I can do what I want when I want without having some sanctimonious busybody breathing down my neck all in a tizzy because he doesn't feel the world reflects his own beliefs enough.
 
While at the very start of prohibition, alcohol consumption was down to "only" about 30% of it's previous levels, by the end of prohibition, it had risen to about 70% of it's pre-prohibition levels. (Alcohol Consumption During Prohibition, Miron and Zweibel, 1991).
More recent studies have found that this is untrue. It's entirely infeasible for that sort of demand to have been met by homebrew and illegal imports.
We forget too easily that Prohibition wiped out an industry. In 1916, there were 1300 breweries producing full-strength beer in the United States; 10 years later there were none. Over the same period, the number of distilleries was cut by 85%, and most of the survivors produced little but industrial alcohol. Legal production of near beer used less than one tenth the amount of malt, one twelfth the rice and hops, and one thirtieth the corn used to make full-strength beer before National Prohibition. The 318 wineries of 1914 became the 27 of 1925.27 The number of liquor wholesalers was cut by 96% and the number of legal retailers by 90%. From 1919 to 1929, federal tax revenues from distilled spirits dropped from $365 million to less than $13 million, and revenue from fermented liquors from $117 million to virtually nothing.28
Nevertheless, once Prohibition became the law of the land, many citizens decided to obey it. Referendum results in the immediate post-Volstead period showed widespread support, and the Supreme Court quickly fended off challenges to the new law. Death rates from cirrhosis and alcoholism, alcoholic psychosis hospital admissions, and drunkenness arrests all declined steeply during the latter years of the 1910s, when both the cultural and the legal climate were increasingly inhospitable to drink, and in the early years after National Prohibition went into effect. They rose after that, but generally did not reach the peaks recorded during the period 1900 to 1915. After Repeal, when tax data permit better-founded consumption estimates than we have for the Prohibition Era, per capita annual consumption stood at 1.2 US gallons (4.5 liters), less than half the level of the pre-Prohibition period.32
 
More recent studies have found that this is untrue. It's entirely infeasible for that sort of demand to have been met by homebrew and illegal imports.



Those things don't really say what you imply they say. I never said it wasn't devastating to the alcohol industry, obviously it was.

And I think you under-appreciate both how easy home brewing is and how widespread it was. Or how widespread the illegal alcohol trade was - and it was by no means all imports. It's been estimated there may have been as many as 100,000 speakeasies in New York City alone... Or for the population at the time, that's about 1 for every 50 people.
 
You have to remember that in those days science was much less developed back then compared to today and you have to take that into account. Enforcement of family values did by and large still work, and with proper sexual education alot of those issues that you mentioned could be mitigated.
What would you consider to be successful mitigation?

As pointed out elsewhere, even when prohibition was on access to alcohol was fairly widespread. As is access to weed today, I'm sure I read a study that said in the UK and US (in the areas where it is illegal) you can have it delivered to your house faster than you can get a Deliveroo or Uber.

Abortion was still accessible prior to Roe v Wade, if indeed more dangerous. Even though virtually every western state has banned racism, homophobia and discrimination against the disabled. Thanks to the internet there is no shortage of people calling each other gay autistic niggers..

Seriously, how would we even begin to police pornography in the era of OnlyFans and hook up apps?
 
Instead of banning pornography it would be good if there was a way to help noobs find porn that was realistic, so the penises were normal sized and the boobs were natural, and the participants weren’t acting like complete cartoons when they orgasmed, or getting off on humiliation.
I'm over here laughing at the thought of a "Approved by the FCC for consumption" watermark on amateur porn vids. :story:
You mean like amateur porn?
Yeah except, maybe it's just me, but when I search that it gives a bunch of obviously professionally produced vids or outright pornstars. Used to be able to get around that by searching homemade but the porn companies are trying to get in on that market now too.
 
In case you haven’t noticed, we’re living in a phallocentric society that inordinately privileges, prioritizes and values the penis — specifically penises of a certain size.
For the last decade, having a penis has been one of the worst things you could possibly do.

Especially if it's a white one that would enjoy entering a vagina.

You need to surgically invert your penis if you want any of those inordinate privileges nowadays.
 
Atrás
Top Abajo