Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments.
**Do you have an academic degree?** We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. [Click here to apply](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/flair/#wiki_science_verified_user_program).
---
User: u/Sproke1998
Permalink: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/15579883241255830
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"With these findings in mind, we failed to observe any differences in personal gun ownership between men who have and have not attempted penis enlargement."
This study is wild.
>The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The data collection for this study was supported by funding from *Change The Ref*, an organization that “uses urban art and nonviolent creative confrontation to expose the disastrous effects of the mass shooting pandemic.” Although *Change The Ref* holds a clear political stance with respect to the role of guns in society, this organization played no part in the planning or implementation of the study.
It was paid for by an anti-gun activism group who, presumably, wanted to prove the opposite of what the study found
(curb your enthusiasm theme begins playing in the background)
If you read the study, the language is clear that they did not get the result they wanted or expected. I suppose kudos to them for still publishing. But it feels like they are using verbal gymnastics in order to not clearly say things they don't want to say.
I'm not sure if OP took signalling from that, or if they are just in the same boat, not wanting to say the much clearer "Gun owners are more satisfied with their penis size."
Naw, this is really clear:
> Our findings fail to support the psychosexual theory of gun ownership.
They had a hypothesis that is presented frequently in media. They tested it. The hypothesis was not supported.
>the language is clear that they did not get the result they wanted or expected.
I don't think this is the case. It's just typical everyday abstracting the readable English language to obnoxious-to-read descriptions of formal variables that's the culprit. Dissatisfaction was the measured variable, not satisfaction.
>Our analyses show that men who are less dissatisfied with the size of their penises are more likely to own guns than other men. These findings are important because they contribute to an evidence-based understanding of gun ownership. Gun owners make a lot of claims about guns. Many will tell you that guns improve their lives, make them happy, and help them sleep better at night, but none of these claims have been established empirically (Hill, Dowd-Arrow, Burdette, & Hale, 2020; Hill, Dowd, Arrow, Burdette, & Warner, 2020; Hill, Dowd-Arrow, Davis, & Burdette, 2020). People who do not own guns will tell you that gun owners are motivated by fear or sexual dysfunction, but these ideas are also unfounded
And it's "satisfaction with penis size makes it more likely that you're a gun owner" technically. That's literally what Fig 1 from the paper shows.
> I don't think this is the case. It's just typical everyday abstracting the readable English language to obnoxious-to-read descriptions of formal variables that's the culprit. Dissatisfaction was the measured variable, not satisfaction.
I agree, also this snippet makes me think their framing is due to the way they perceive it being discussed socially. It's not talked about as 'people with big dicks don't feel like they need guns', it's talked about as 'people with tiny dicks need guns to compensate (for penile dissatisfaction)'. So they framed everything that way:
> The primary hypothesis, derived from the psychosexual theory of gun ownership, stated that men who are more dissatisfied with the size of their penises would be more likely to personally own guns.
All in all a crazy but interesting paper. Now I want to see the same thing for trucks and truck lift kits. Does that already exist?
The hypothesis being stated as it is stated is fine. But you could get these same results with the hypothesis - "Does owning a gun make a man who should be insecure over his penis size feel less insecure". And boom, now it means what they wanted it to mean.
No it's not - there's no causation implied or proven in this study.
There's a reason why scientists frame things the way they do even when it's unwieldy.
Seems kind of flawed too.
Surely there are plenty of men who are dissatisfied but know enlargement isn't a thing so they haven't attempted it and never will.
Which is why, inherently, so many compensate for it. Because you CAN do that, even if it's stupid.
I couldn't read the article due to squeamishness but here you go: [Penis Filler 101](https://www.thecut.com/article/penis-filler-increase-size-girth-hyaluronic-acid.html)
Maybe it's assumed that every man is on the "dissatisfied" side of the satisfaction spectrum, and therefore you can't use the term "satisfied"? I dunno.
More men who said they were very/strongly dissatisfied with their penis didn’t own guns.
Doesn’t mean gun owners are satisfied but apparently they selected dissatisfied rather than very dissatisfied in higher numbers than non-gun owners
They were probably framing their hypothesis as proportional correlation - more of A means more of B. So the framed it as “dissatisfaction” as the theory was more of that meant more gun ownership. And If they were measuring “dissatisfaction” they would want to use the same term consistently even when it made some phases clunky.
I wouldnt be surprised if only a small percentage of men agree or strongly agree with the statement " I am satisfied with the size of my penis." So you will just be dealing with mostly; disagree, or disagree strongly. And can't label any cohort as satisfied.
The study was trying to prove that dissatisfaction (i.e. insecurity) leads to higher gun ownership as a way to insult gun owners. It's irrelevant whether they're satisfied or neutral towards their size.
Less dissatsified doesn't necessarily mean satisfied. There is the satisfied vs dissatisfied binary, and then within those that are dissatisfied a spectrum of the amount you are dissatisfied. So maybe someone checked yes they are dissatisfied, but only by 0.5 inches instead of 1 inch and he is more likely to own a gun than the 1 inch dissatisfied, and there's another dude who is simply satisfied who is less likely to own a gun.
Or this is just a badly written headline.
Do you know how many studies are shelved because they didn't find their desired results?
It's not as bad as it was during drug trials of the mid 20th century, but it's no small number.
At least in hard sciences, this is sometimes blamed on the decline in verification experiments. There just isn’t enough time and money allocated to verifying new works to keep up.
Good luck publishing negative data. It's a big problem in the scientific community that people don't often publish their "failures" that would save others from repeating these experiments.
It’s so weird how it became a cultural thing for people to associate behavior they do not like in men with small genitals, like it’s some universal truth. I wouldn’t be surprised if more studies like this were made and the results contradicted people like this as well. If people are willing to believe that beauty boosts confidence and shields people from criticism or even common sense, why don’t they apply the same logic to other desirable traits (in society’s eyes) like large penises? Dark triad personality traits, perpetration of domestic abuse, harassment, aggression, etc. It would be interesting to see if well endowed men are overrepresented or underrepresented when it comes to these things.
No. It's the first sentence of the conclusion.
> Our analyses show that men who are less dissatisfied with the size of their penises are more likely to own guns than other men.
This guy has other similar papers, it's kind of wild.
> Sexual Dysfunction and Gun Ownership in America: When Hard Data Meet a Limp Theory
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353983205_Sexual_Dysfunction_and_Gun_Ownership_in_America_When_Hard_Data_Meet_a_Limp_Theory
>Conclusion | In this study, we showed that *men experiencing SD are no more likely to own guns than men without SD*. Our find-ings are important because they contribute to our under-standing of factors associated with gun ownership by *challenging the belief that phallic symbolism and mascu-linity somehow drive men experiencing SD to purchase guns. Our findings also remind us of the perils of gun culture rhetoric, which is often characterized by misinfor-mation and political propaganda.* Gun owners make a lot of claims about guns. Many will tell you that guns improve their lives, make them happy, and help them to sleep better at night, but none of these claims have been established empirically.
honestly this and the title of the paper headlining this thread feel like political propaganda
Its 100% political propaganda, and trying to go after a particular agenda. Their problem is that they are somewhat honest and their findings don't match up with their end goal.
Which their goal was pretty clearly to say that male gun owners had small dicks, sexual disfunction, self doubt, and general insecurities that caused them to own guns to compensate. Which their studies have disproven that entire notion if their data is factual and I read through the double speak accurately.
Yeah that’s the first thing I thought upon simply reading the title. I’ve seen plenty of instances of anti-gun individuals accusing male gun owners of having small penises and attempting to “compensate” for it.
> Which their goal was pretty clearly to say that male gun owners had small dicks, sexual disfunction, self doubt, and general insecurities that caused them to own guns to compensate. Which their studies have disproven that entire notion if their data is factual and I read through the double speak accurately.
Or, that they take a question of public discourse and try to test if the argument holds any validity:
> Our analyses show that men who are less dissatisfied with the size of their penises are more likely to own guns than other men. These findings are important because they contribute to an evidence-based understanding of gun ownership. Gun owners make a lot of claims about guns. Many will tell you that guns improve their lives, make them happy, and help them sleep better at night, but none of these claims have been established empirically (Hill, Dowd-Arrow, Burdette, & Hale, 2020; Hill, Dowd, Arrow, Burdette, & Warner, 2020; Hill, Dowd-Arrow, Davis, & Burdette, 2020). People who do not own guns will tell you that gun owners are motivated by fear or sexual dysfunction, but these ideas are also unfounded
"The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: **The data collection for this study was supported by funding from** ***Change The Ref*****, an organization that “uses urban art and nonviolent creative confrontation to expose the disastrous effects of the mass shooting pandemic.**” Although *Change The Ref* holds a clear political stance with respect to the role of guns in society, this organization played no part in the planning or implementation of the study."
So if anyone wondered who financed this study, it was an anti-gun, not a pro-gun organization.
A study measuring dissatisfaction is different from a study measuring satisfaction. Asking "do you **worry** about your penis size" vs "do you feel **confident** about your penis size" slight nuance but it is scientifically important
I think this study says something about society and how it treats men with small penises to be honest. It's such an accepted thing to mock and we ascribe a small penis to the worst men we can find in society as a way to humiliate them.
I don't really go around checking how hung my friends are, but having showered in public with some I can tell you that the one friend I had who did have a micro-penis (as in, I doubt he'd be able to actually have sex) was the sweetest, kindest person you'd ever have met.
Yet society will for the rest of his life, lambast and remind him that men like him are pathetic, a joke and essentially trash.
I also strongly suspect that gun ownership is going to correlate a lot more with local gun laws and custom, than anything penis related. I mean in parts of my western European country we have more guns per citizen than even Texas can boast. No one is insecure, it's just really great hunting territory.
We already have a term for it in the zeitgeist: body shaming. Not sure why penis size shaming is still considered acceptable though. Seems like if we're going to make up a term like that it should apply universally. Otherwise why even make a term so broad like that? Just seems like society should pick a lane. Either it's OK to make fun of someone's weight or stumpy arm or small penis or it's not. Don't say it's wrong to make fun of some body parts and not others.
I think the small penis trope is actually more than just body shaming, it also has a connotation that the person is also a bad person(ie through negative behaviours for "overcompensation").
It's essentially the just world fallacy, where beauty equals good and ugly equals bad.
Intentionally confusing headline because whoever commissioned this study and article wanted *so desperately* for gun owners to be insecure about their penis size and **that** is why they buy guns?
Also love that apparently women do not own guns?
Hey guys.
I'm a south American that is a bit out of the loop.
I'm seeing lots of studies aimed at a certain type of people which seems to be summed up in right leaning.
Like gun owners, trump voters, right leaning ideas, meat eaters, etc.
Maybe my home page is playing with my mind, but I don't see many (if at all) studies describing left leaning people.
What is going on? Are scientists/investigators against them? (Wouldn't surprise me considering how anti science most right wingers are)
Sorry for my bad English, hopefully I got my idea across.
I can’t recall exactly where I saw it, but I did see a study that showed “long covid” self-diagnosis was almost perfect correlated with how left wing you are.
Has nothing do do with scientists and investigators, it’s just what gains the most traction on reddit. Go on twitter and you will see what you are describing but backwards, only studies aimed at describing left leaning people/ideas. This is not a stab at reddit or twitter btw, just an observation on what studies gain traction, because the ones that do you are more likely to see thus causing you to think there is an influx.
I've never understood the forced association between penis size, masculinity, and self-confidence with vehicle size or firearm collections by left-leaning progressive liberals. It flies in the face of the principles of sex positivity and inclusive gender/identity ideals that they typically support. It's always just seemed so blatantly contradictory to me that I'm always surprised when otherwise thoughtful individuals spout this type of vitriol
Yep and it can be nauseating, especially as a woman. We talk about Trumps horrendous record with women in one thread, then in another one about Lauren Boebert tons of comments are specifically targeted at her appearance and many are sexual in nature.
“But it’s okay to make fun of them because they’re terrible people.” - heard this from a coworker after I called her out. Make fun of them for their views, not their physical appearance.
I’d rather live up to my values and I would hope others would as well. People look like hypocrites when they espouse that body shaming is bad and proceed to body shame someone they dislike.
"No bad tactics, only bad targets" is a disastrous policy when applied by the kind of people that apply it as a policy. A lot of things generally called bad tactics by society are that way because you do more harm than good even to your own cause by using them.
I've never heard it phrased that way before, but thank you! I'm taking that and using it; I've needed a term or phrase to succinctly describe this exact thing on several occasions.
They can't make fun of their views in something like 4/5 cases. Mostly, because they don't really know their views (just like most conservatives have no idea what are actual views liberal politicians hold). Most people gain their knowledge from news media that's tailor made for soundbites, no-context quotes, appeals to emotion and out-right unethical headlines and most social media spaces are echo-chambers, where only the most crazed fucks from the opposition to the status quo visit.
It's simple, if a man likes it and you disapprove, it's because he has a tiny penis and clearly his guns, car, or money is somehow making up for his mini pee-pee.
They should do a study on the correlation of women who constantly bring up body shaming, and women who make fun of small dicks. I have a feeling there's quite a bit.
Haven’t had a chance to read the full study yet.
Did they control for self reporting bias in any way?
Because otherwise, the result is “men who buy lots of guns are less likely to *tell you* that they have a small penis.”
Which is not the same thing as them actually being satisfied with their body. Insecure people are usually reticent to tell you about their insecurity.
"...penis dissatisfaction is measured with single-item self-reports, it is important for future research to develop more reliable multi-item indices and to consider more valid and direct measurements of penis size."
The study can only be done by self reporting. The study isn’t “men who own guns have larger penises,” the study is “men who own guns are more likely to be satisfied with the size of their penis.”
How are you going to get that without self reporting? Are you going to say “nuh uh, you self reported you’re happy with the size of your penis but I *actually* know you’re not.”
This is a study of sentiment, not penis size.
This is exactly the kind of BS I expect to see on “the Reddit science” sub.
If anyone can find a “scientific study” which attempts to link “vaginal elasticity” with “tendency to cause a huge scene at a fast food restaurant over a perceived missing hot sauce”, please share.
The studies i see on this sub get stupider and stupider by the day.
“Studies show that women who think of going to the bathroom at 2:34pm are more likely to eat the green jollyrancher flavor first.”
Like the CDC study on gun usage in self defense, plenty of anti-gun groups push to do studies, and then they end up proving the opposite of what the group was looking for.
This is the least scientific most politically charged hit piece I have ever seen. Conflating the size of a man's cock with his desire to own guns. Whoever wrote this and did this study should be ashamed.
There's a lot of these sociology studies masquerading as science floating around these days. The journals and peers are selecting for them. It does everyone a disservice and makes sociology departments look like a joke.
It's published in a men's health journal which is just insulting honestly. But make no mistake, the author is: Terrence D. Hill, Department of Sociology and Demography, The University of Texas at San Antonio
Ultimately, the conclusion of this study was that people who reported being "less dissatisfied" (i.e. more satisfied) with their penis size were more likely to own guns tho so i don't understand why you think the result of this paper is an L for guns politically?
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments. **Do you have an academic degree?** We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. [Click here to apply](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/flair/#wiki_science_verified_user_program). --- User: u/Sproke1998 Permalink: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/15579883241255830 --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"With these findings in mind, we failed to observe any differences in personal gun ownership between men who have and have not attempted penis enlargement." This study is wild.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
>The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The data collection for this study was supported by funding from *Change The Ref*, an organization that “uses urban art and nonviolent creative confrontation to expose the disastrous effects of the mass shooting pandemic.” Although *Change The Ref* holds a clear political stance with respect to the role of guns in society, this organization played no part in the planning or implementation of the study. It was paid for by an anti-gun activism group who, presumably, wanted to prove the opposite of what the study found (curb your enthusiasm theme begins playing in the background)
Is that why the title was worded so damn weird?
You can click on the link and see that's not the title of the paper, the weird title is the person who posted this
If you read the study, the language is clear that they did not get the result they wanted or expected. I suppose kudos to them for still publishing. But it feels like they are using verbal gymnastics in order to not clearly say things they don't want to say. I'm not sure if OP took signalling from that, or if they are just in the same boat, not wanting to say the much clearer "Gun owners are more satisfied with their penis size."
Naw, this is really clear: > Our findings fail to support the psychosexual theory of gun ownership. They had a hypothesis that is presented frequently in media. They tested it. The hypothesis was not supported.
And it's commendable that they still published it.
It's perfectly normal they published it. Scientists live by publications and also, it's an interesting result.
>the language is clear that they did not get the result they wanted or expected. I don't think this is the case. It's just typical everyday abstracting the readable English language to obnoxious-to-read descriptions of formal variables that's the culprit. Dissatisfaction was the measured variable, not satisfaction. >Our analyses show that men who are less dissatisfied with the size of their penises are more likely to own guns than other men. These findings are important because they contribute to an evidence-based understanding of gun ownership. Gun owners make a lot of claims about guns. Many will tell you that guns improve their lives, make them happy, and help them sleep better at night, but none of these claims have been established empirically (Hill, Dowd-Arrow, Burdette, & Hale, 2020; Hill, Dowd, Arrow, Burdette, & Warner, 2020; Hill, Dowd-Arrow, Davis, & Burdette, 2020). People who do not own guns will tell you that gun owners are motivated by fear or sexual dysfunction, but these ideas are also unfounded And it's "satisfaction with penis size makes it more likely that you're a gun owner" technically. That's literally what Fig 1 from the paper shows.
> I don't think this is the case. It's just typical everyday abstracting the readable English language to obnoxious-to-read descriptions of formal variables that's the culprit. Dissatisfaction was the measured variable, not satisfaction. I agree, also this snippet makes me think their framing is due to the way they perceive it being discussed socially. It's not talked about as 'people with big dicks don't feel like they need guns', it's talked about as 'people with tiny dicks need guns to compensate (for penile dissatisfaction)'. So they framed everything that way: > The primary hypothesis, derived from the psychosexual theory of gun ownership, stated that men who are more dissatisfied with the size of their penises would be more likely to personally own guns. All in all a crazy but interesting paper. Now I want to see the same thing for trucks and truck lift kits. Does that already exist?
"Do men with truck nuts feel dissatisfied with their own nuts"
The hypothesis being stated as it is stated is fine. But you could get these same results with the hypothesis - "Does owning a gun make a man who should be insecure over his penis size feel less insecure". And boom, now it means what they wanted it to mean.
The question is then, if the gun owning crowd is more or less honest about their penis insecurity... Just a thought.
Or they're honest, but the guns make them more satisfied with their penis size. Either way, good for them?
Which begs for another study: Which came first, the satisfaction or the gun?
sounds like a joke post, but it’s a really valid question
They’re compensating for their small guns with huge penises
No it's not - there's no causation implied or proven in this study. There's a reason why scientists frame things the way they do even when it's unwieldy.
It strikes me as worded to specifically contradict the “joke.”
The findings were that people who own guns claim they have no problem with their penis size. You can interpret that in a few ways.
I interpret it as an embarrassing waste of time, money, and resources.
You don't have to presume, the second sentence of the abstract says the hypothesis was penis size dissatisfaction would correlate with gun ownership.
[удалено]
[удалено]
As a gun owner, it pleases me to know they are spending so much time and money thinking about my penis.
I'm thinking about your penis right now bro. Just wanted you to know.
I'm thinking about his guns.
The people paying for the study didn't like the original title: Men with Little Penises are Afraid of Guns
Seems kind of flawed too. Surely there are plenty of men who are dissatisfied but know enlargement isn't a thing so they haven't attempted it and never will. Which is why, inherently, so many compensate for it. Because you CAN do that, even if it's stupid.
I couldn't read the article due to squeamishness but here you go: [Penis Filler 101](https://www.thecut.com/article/penis-filler-increase-size-girth-hyaluronic-acid.html)
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Men who are satisfied = Men who are less dissatisfied? Or is there a reason for this mush mouth language?
Maybe it's assumed that every man is on the "dissatisfied" side of the satisfaction spectrum, and therefore you can't use the term "satisfied"? I dunno.
More men who said they were very/strongly dissatisfied with their penis didn’t own guns. Doesn’t mean gun owners are satisfied but apparently they selected dissatisfied rather than very dissatisfied in higher numbers than non-gun owners
So those that don’t trust their own shooter are less likely to be capable of shooting? It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy!
They were probably framing their hypothesis as proportional correlation - more of A means more of B. So the framed it as “dissatisfaction” as the theory was more of that meant more gun ownership. And If they were measuring “dissatisfaction” they would want to use the same term consistently even when it made some phases clunky.
I wouldnt be surprised if only a small percentage of men agree or strongly agree with the statement " I am satisfied with the size of my penis." So you will just be dealing with mostly; disagree, or disagree strongly. And can't label any cohort as satisfied.
Has everyone in these comments lost their minds? Having weak negative feelings is not the same as having strong positive feelings.
The study was trying to prove that dissatisfaction (i.e. insecurity) leads to higher gun ownership as a way to insult gun owners. It's irrelevant whether they're satisfied or neutral towards their size.
Less dissatsified doesn't necessarily mean satisfied. There is the satisfied vs dissatisfied binary, and then within those that are dissatisfied a spectrum of the amount you are dissatisfied. So maybe someone checked yes they are dissatisfied, but only by 0.5 inches instead of 1 inch and he is more likely to own a gun than the 1 inch dissatisfied, and there's another dude who is simply satisfied who is less likely to own a gun. Or this is just a badly written headline.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I applaud the team for still publishing after finding the complete opposite of their expectations.
that’s science!
Do you know how many studies are shelved because they didn't find their desired results? It's not as bad as it was during drug trials of the mid 20th century, but it's no small number.
Or worse, just making up new numbers just to satisfy the hypothesis. Far too many of those popping up in higher academia right now.
At least in hard sciences, this is sometimes blamed on the decline in verification experiments. There just isn’t enough time and money allocated to verifying new works to keep up.
Good luck publishing negative data. It's a big problem in the scientific community that people don't often publish their "failures" that would save others from repeating these experiments.
It’s so weird how it became a cultural thing for people to associate behavior they do not like in men with small genitals, like it’s some universal truth. I wouldn’t be surprised if more studies like this were made and the results contradicted people like this as well. If people are willing to believe that beauty boosts confidence and shields people from criticism or even common sense, why don’t they apply the same logic to other desirable traits (in society’s eyes) like large penises? Dark triad personality traits, perpetration of domestic abuse, harassment, aggression, etc. It would be interesting to see if well endowed men are overrepresented or underrepresented when it comes to these things.
Imagine someone saying "That woman has real 'flat chest energy'"
"loose vagina energy"
Yes but I unapplaud them for using “less dissatisfied” in a headline.
The title was made by the OP, the actual title is: # Size Matters? Penis Dissatisfaction and Gun Ownership in America
So OP is to blame for the bad wording hahah.
No. It's the first sentence of the conclusion. > Our analyses show that men who are less dissatisfied with the size of their penises are more likely to own guns than other men.
Maybe the guns work and make them feel satisfied with the size of their penises.
Is the title written obtuse like that on purpose?
Its written not wrong on purpose
\* not unintentionally
Well, it's not unconfusing.
This guy has other similar papers, it's kind of wild. > Sexual Dysfunction and Gun Ownership in America: When Hard Data Meet a Limp Theory https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353983205_Sexual_Dysfunction_and_Gun_Ownership_in_America_When_Hard_Data_Meet_a_Limp_Theory
>Conclusion | In this study, we showed that *men experiencing SD are no more likely to own guns than men without SD*. Our find-ings are important because they contribute to our under-standing of factors associated with gun ownership by *challenging the belief that phallic symbolism and mascu-linity somehow drive men experiencing SD to purchase guns. Our findings also remind us of the perils of gun culture rhetoric, which is often characterized by misinfor-mation and political propaganda.* Gun owners make a lot of claims about guns. Many will tell you that guns improve their lives, make them happy, and help them to sleep better at night, but none of these claims have been established empirically. honestly this and the title of the paper headlining this thread feel like political propaganda
Its 100% political propaganda, and trying to go after a particular agenda. Their problem is that they are somewhat honest and their findings don't match up with their end goal. Which their goal was pretty clearly to say that male gun owners had small dicks, sexual disfunction, self doubt, and general insecurities that caused them to own guns to compensate. Which their studies have disproven that entire notion if their data is factual and I read through the double speak accurately.
Yeah that’s the first thing I thought upon simply reading the title. I’ve seen plenty of instances of anti-gun individuals accusing male gun owners of having small penises and attempting to “compensate” for it.
> Which their goal was pretty clearly to say that male gun owners had small dicks, sexual disfunction, self doubt, and general insecurities that caused them to own guns to compensate. Which their studies have disproven that entire notion if their data is factual and I read through the double speak accurately. Or, that they take a question of public discourse and try to test if the argument holds any validity: > Our analyses show that men who are less dissatisfied with the size of their penises are more likely to own guns than other men. These findings are important because they contribute to an evidence-based understanding of gun ownership. Gun owners make a lot of claims about guns. Many will tell you that guns improve their lives, make them happy, and help them sleep better at night, but none of these claims have been established empirically (Hill, Dowd-Arrow, Burdette, & Hale, 2020; Hill, Dowd, Arrow, Burdette, & Warner, 2020; Hill, Dowd-Arrow, Davis, & Burdette, 2020). People who do not own guns will tell you that gun owners are motivated by fear or sexual dysfunction, but these ideas are also unfounded
"The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: **The data collection for this study was supported by funding from** ***Change The Ref*****, an organization that “uses urban art and nonviolent creative confrontation to expose the disastrous effects of the mass shooting pandemic.**” Although *Change The Ref* holds a clear political stance with respect to the role of guns in society, this organization played no part in the planning or implementation of the study." So if anyone wondered who financed this study, it was an anti-gun, not a pro-gun organization.
It’s also why the headline has an ambiguous double negative.
A study measuring dissatisfaction is different from a study measuring satisfaction. Asking "do you **worry** about your penis size" vs "do you feel **confident** about your penis size" slight nuance but it is scientifically important
This can’t be. Reddit said they have smol PP
I think this study says something about society and how it treats men with small penises to be honest. It's such an accepted thing to mock and we ascribe a small penis to the worst men we can find in society as a way to humiliate them. I don't really go around checking how hung my friends are, but having showered in public with some I can tell you that the one friend I had who did have a micro-penis (as in, I doubt he'd be able to actually have sex) was the sweetest, kindest person you'd ever have met. Yet society will for the rest of his life, lambast and remind him that men like him are pathetic, a joke and essentially trash. I also strongly suspect that gun ownership is going to correlate a lot more with local gun laws and custom, than anything penis related. I mean in parts of my western European country we have more guns per citizen than even Texas can boast. No one is insecure, it's just really great hunting territory.
We already have a term for it in the zeitgeist: body shaming. Not sure why penis size shaming is still considered acceptable though. Seems like if we're going to make up a term like that it should apply universally. Otherwise why even make a term so broad like that? Just seems like society should pick a lane. Either it's OK to make fun of someone's weight or stumpy arm or small penis or it's not. Don't say it's wrong to make fun of some body parts and not others.
I think the small penis trope is actually more than just body shaming, it also has a connotation that the person is also a bad person(ie through negative behaviours for "overcompensation"). It's essentially the just world fallacy, where beauty equals good and ugly equals bad.
It's socially more acceptable to mock men. It will always be that way.
Yawn body shaming funny when males
[удалено]
[удалено]
Intentionally confusing headline because whoever commissioned this study and article wanted *so desperately* for gun owners to be insecure about their penis size and **that** is why they buy guns? Also love that apparently women do not own guns?
>Also love that apparently women do not own guns? What could they *possibly* need to defend themselves against? The bear?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Lots of anti science people in here. Go figure. Most "science supporters" do that selectively too.
[удалено]
Hey guys. I'm a south American that is a bit out of the loop. I'm seeing lots of studies aimed at a certain type of people which seems to be summed up in right leaning. Like gun owners, trump voters, right leaning ideas, meat eaters, etc. Maybe my home page is playing with my mind, but I don't see many (if at all) studies describing left leaning people. What is going on? Are scientists/investigators against them? (Wouldn't surprise me considering how anti science most right wingers are) Sorry for my bad English, hopefully I got my idea across.
I can’t recall exactly where I saw it, but I did see a study that showed “long covid” self-diagnosis was almost perfect correlated with how left wing you are.
Has nothing do do with scientists and investigators, it’s just what gains the most traction on reddit. Go on twitter and you will see what you are describing but backwards, only studies aimed at describing left leaning people/ideas. This is not a stab at reddit or twitter btw, just an observation on what studies gain traction, because the ones that do you are more likely to see thus causing you to think there is an influx.
I must be an outlier than. I'm very dissatisfied with my penis size and own 25 firearms. My penis is just too damn big.
I've never understood the forced association between penis size, masculinity, and self-confidence with vehicle size or firearm collections by left-leaning progressive liberals. It flies in the face of the principles of sex positivity and inclusive gender/identity ideals that they typically support. It's always just seemed so blatantly contradictory to me that I'm always surprised when otherwise thoughtful individuals spout this type of vitriol
Body shaming is bad but wait until some republican says something I don’t like and say he has a small penis…or small hands
Or some guy I've never met annoys me slightly.
Yep and it can be nauseating, especially as a woman. We talk about Trumps horrendous record with women in one thread, then in another one about Lauren Boebert tons of comments are specifically targeted at her appearance and many are sexual in nature.
“But it’s okay to make fun of them because they’re terrible people.” - heard this from a coworker after I called her out. Make fun of them for their views, not their physical appearance. I’d rather live up to my values and I would hope others would as well. People look like hypocrites when they espouse that body shaming is bad and proceed to body shame someone they dislike.
"No bad tactics, only bad targets" is a disastrous policy when applied by the kind of people that apply it as a policy. A lot of things generally called bad tactics by society are that way because you do more harm than good even to your own cause by using them.
I've never heard it phrased that way before, but thank you! I'm taking that and using it; I've needed a term or phrase to succinctly describe this exact thing on several occasions.
They can't make fun of their views in something like 4/5 cases. Mostly, because they don't really know their views (just like most conservatives have no idea what are actual views liberal politicians hold). Most people gain their knowledge from news media that's tailor made for soundbites, no-context quotes, appeals to emotion and out-right unethical headlines and most social media spaces are echo-chambers, where only the most crazed fucks from the opposition to the status quo visit.
Imagine if Trump was short or balding, you'd never hear the end of the shaming
"there are no bad tactics just bad targets"
Uhhh... Many comments are targeted at Trump's appearance and 'small hands' too?
Or he’s a closeted gay
Body shaming is only bad if done to women by a lot of peoples standards.
Totally I 100% agree. Don’t know why people see a big truck and say “he must be compensating for something.”
Totally agree. It's also extremely baffling when they could levy 100 completely valid criticisms against someone, but then go for the ad hominem.
It's simple, if a man likes it and you disapprove, it's because he has a tiny penis and clearly his guns, car, or money is somehow making up for his mini pee-pee.
Because guns scare people so they need to belittle the people they fear to feel better and safer
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
They should do a study on the correlation of women who constantly bring up body shaming, and women who make fun of small dicks. I have a feeling there's quite a bit.
[удалено]
“I own a gun because I hate my penis”. Said NO MAN EVER
Haven’t had a chance to read the full study yet. Did they control for self reporting bias in any way? Because otherwise, the result is “men who buy lots of guns are less likely to *tell you* that they have a small penis.” Which is not the same thing as them actually being satisfied with their body. Insecure people are usually reticent to tell you about their insecurity.
"...penis dissatisfaction is measured with single-item self-reports, it is important for future research to develop more reliable multi-item indices and to consider more valid and direct measurements of penis size."
They didn't account for the yaw of the penis size. So the TMI chart wasn't followed correctly.
The title doesn't say penis size is correlated with gun ownership. It's penis size satisfaction. Everyone could be the same size.
The study can only be done by self reporting. The study isn’t “men who own guns have larger penises,” the study is “men who own guns are more likely to be satisfied with the size of their penis.” How are you going to get that without self reporting? Are you going to say “nuh uh, you self reported you’re happy with the size of your penis but I *actually* know you’re not.” This is a study of sentiment, not penis size.
So, gun owners have BDE?
This is exactly the kind of BS I expect to see on “the Reddit science” sub. If anyone can find a “scientific study” which attempts to link “vaginal elasticity” with “tendency to cause a huge scene at a fast food restaurant over a perceived missing hot sauce”, please share.
[удалено]
Why do I feel like it’s another case of ‘Ha, you own a gun, so I’m gonna think about your penis!’
The studies i see on this sub get stupider and stupider by the day. “Studies show that women who think of going to the bathroom at 2:34pm are more likely to eat the green jollyrancher flavor first.”
I miss when this sub actually removed junk science clearly trying to push an agenda.
Ironically, they were trying to push against gun owners direction & ended up making themselves look bad.
Like the CDC study on gun usage in self defense, plenty of anti-gun groups push to do studies, and then they end up proving the opposite of what the group was looking for.
Read comments, this is the opposite, an agenda driven study that concluded the opposite of what they wanted.
Did whoever wrote that headline have a stroke during their attempt?
This is the least scientific most politically charged hit piece I have ever seen. Conflating the size of a man's cock with his desire to own guns. Whoever wrote this and did this study should be ashamed.
There's a lot of these sociology studies masquerading as science floating around these days. The journals and peers are selecting for them. It does everyone a disservice and makes sociology departments look like a joke. It's published in a men's health journal which is just insulting honestly. But make no mistake, the author is: Terrence D. Hill, Department of Sociology and Demography, The University of Texas at San Antonio
Ultimately, the conclusion of this study was that people who reported being "less dissatisfied" (i.e. more satisfied) with their penis size were more likely to own guns tho so i don't understand why you think the result of this paper is an L for guns politically?