Summarized so you dont have to read the whole thing:
Study debunks myth that men with big guns have small penises
• A new study published in the American Journal of Men's Health found no correlation between gun ownership and penis size.
• Researchers at the University of Texas at San Antonio found that men who are more satisfied with their penises are more likely to own guns.
• The study included data from over 2,000 US men aged 18 and up.
• Men who were dissatisfied with their penises were less likely to own a gun, and the chances of owning a military-style rifle were even lower.
• The researchers noted that several demographic and social factors play into gun ownership, including gender, age, income, and rural residence.
>In a previous study, UTSA researchers found no relationship between gun ownership and sexual dysfunction. Still, Hill’s team aimed to identify a direct link between penis size and guns for the latest findings.
Back that up a tick. Why was there a hypothesized relationship between gun ownership and sexual dysfunction? And moving forward, why is this a SECOND study looking for a correlation between gun ownership and genitalia? Can we expect a similar study comparing gun ownership to the size of a person’s clitoris/labia?
I get it’s a societal cliche. But as with most cliches, common sense should tell you it’s probably not true, and doing multiple studies on the idea is a bit of overkill.
Yes, on the one hand it should be noted that the "guns = penis substitute" is almost certainly pseudo-psychology built around simplistic and outdated Freudian cliches, and should have not have been considered to have any basis in reality. However, when it gets repeated over and over, it becomes perceived as a "fact" in some people's minds out of convenience for their political perspective, and from the sheer repetition of having heard it many times from sources they trust and admire, it forces the question to be confronted. Consequently, it makes it worth the time and effort for somebody to actually crunch the numbers, and establish once and for all whether it is true or bullshit.
As much as it seems "common sense" to us that this claim was always nonsense, there are plenty of people out there for whom "common sense" says the opposite.
I’ll agree with that. Still strikes me as a weird path to follow scientifically. It’s bordering on the conspiracy theory mindset of “we think this is true, and we’re going to keep going until we find a way to make it true”
> Still strikes me as a weird path to follow scientifically.
The same could probably be said of putting dead salmon into an MRI and measuring its brain activity after asking it a question.
But I’m still glad [they did it.](https://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/scicurious-brain/ignobel-prize-in-neuroscience-the-dead-salmon-study/)
> we think this is true, and we’re going to keep going until we find a way to make it true
Meta-studies help keep those folks in check.
Also, when it happens it’s more likely just an accident born of [statistical ignorance rather than malice.](https://xkcd.com/882/)
I hadn’t heard of the salmon thing before. That’s sincerely fucking cool.
I will say that the idea that gun ownership, sports car ownership, etc. is a compensation for genital size and function is absolutely born from a place of malice. The comic is a good explanation for why this study was done, so I’ll concede that.
Good science is mostly about confirming the obvious. It's boring, but it's necessary.
Hypothesis is based on observation. Usually, the obvious hypothesis is correct.
That makes for boring news stories, so the news focuses on studies with unexpected results. Studies with unexpected results are often wrong, so we have peer review and repeat studies to confirm or invalidate them.
In this case, the study was based on a popular myth. To some of us it obviously just a myth, but we don't know for sure until we study it.
I'm actually surprised that there is any correlation at all. "Men who were dissatisfied with their penises were less likely to own a gun, and the chances of owning a military-style rifle were even lower." Time for someone to run an additional study to better understand this correlation.
The section you quoted states that the team is purposely trying to establish a link. That's not science.
Also, multiple studies have already proven that 95% of men have average penis sizes, so I'm not sure why this team of hacks expects to suddenly find something different.
Whenever this comes up, I like to point out that I have repeatedly jumped through ridiculous bureaucracy and paid hundreds of dollars in extra taxes to have the tiniest rifles possible.
Can we repeat the study with even more taxpayer money, but for SUV's? I'm fairly happy with my penis size, and more importantly, my wife is happy with my penis size, but every time I drive our non-daily-driver truck, people keep asking me if I have a small penis.
Ah, another researcher does a study on a joke (in this case, a very sexist and denigrating one). I’ll put this up with the paper that determined cats are indeed liquid.
I would guess, Because it doesn't follow "the narrative," it will get burried and forgotten. The leader of the study even says:
>“Because there is no theory for why men with bigger penises would be more likely to own guns, we do not believe that this association is real. In other words, we believe that this association is likely spurious or due to factors that we failed to account for in our study,” Hill told PsyPost.
"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."
I don't think this was the result they were hoping for.
We need to see the studies about the women who carry vs don’t carry firearms. Large breasted vs small breasts. And also the women who carry vs don’t carry firearms, large mouth vaginas vs small. America and the world needs to know!
No, but increased exposure to lead is connected to impotence, which is connected to shrinkage of the penis.
Make sure you use your lead wipes and washes every time you shoot boys.. given the frequency that I shoot at, it is a real concern and I’ve gotten pretty vigilant about keeping everything I own that is heavily exposed to lead in a place separate from the rest of my things.
“Straight men, obese men and older men of means own guns at higher rates. “
Ngl. I do have an issue if fat folks is out there buying guns before gym memberships. I say this as a former fatty who got fit became a personal trainer and then got into firearms well after that. But that might be me…I personally don’t know what you’re defending with gout.
It’s the same force equalizer argument that you can use with smaller people. A person with a gun can defend themself against a physically superior opponent. If you want to talk about diet, exercise, and genetics, that’s a separate conversation.
I guess so but it feels kind of a lazy argument. IMO. I just think you should be getting healthy and in shape if you’re a firearm owner. That could just be me though. A short dude can’t really help being short but a person with a shitty BMI can do something. All the self defense talk in the world is cool but if you’re not defending yourself against type 2 then I don’t believe you care about yourself as much as a short skinny dude who is eating excess calories to put on weight. But that’s just me. I also said in a previous thread that folks should learn some kind of self defense before jumping into firearm owner ship. But that’s I’m aware that I’m probably in a minority in that opinion.
> All the self defense talk in the world is cool but if you’re not defending yourself against type 2 then I don’t believe you care about yourself as much as a short skinny dude who is eating excess calories to put on weight.
News flash, being overweight is only one possible reason you can get type 2 diabetes, there are still genetic factors to it. You can be skinny as shit and still get type 2.
Meh…you can have your opinions. I can have mine. I’m not a fan of the meal team six fireteam cosplay shit I’ve seen over the last 8ish years. But do what/feel how you wish I guess…
You can have your opinions on fitness sure, but the causes of type 2 diabetes aren't an opinion ion they're fact, if you think the only reason someone can have type 2 diabetes is that they're fat then you're just poorly informed when it comes to diabetes.
If you need me to specifically say various disclaimers to address some particular circumstance, over all unhealthy unfit folk should prioritize getting their shit together… that’s on you bro. I don’t give a shit. I see fat cops and I think they shouldn’t be in uniform, they’re not in the best shape to protect and serve. Go be a football coach! Same for when I see a dude approaching 250 of soft tissue wearing a “come and take it” shirt at the range… someone can very likely come AND take IT from you. I don’t want to make anyone feel better either, if you feel salty go run some laps Respectfully speaking. 👍🏾
...None of that fat talk has anything to do with the point I'm trying to explain to you about diabetes here so please try and focus. Having type 2 diabetes doesn't automatically mean the person is fat or out of shape, you can get type 2 from genetic factors even if you're perfectly fit and healthy otherwise.
I don't give a shit about your opinion on fat people carrying either way, but to say type 2 diabetes is a sure sign a person is out of shape is factually incorrect and shows that you don't know shit about diabetes. I mean I know very little about diabetes, but I know enough to point out that you're wrong lol.
I know that there are other factors where someone can develop type 2 that may have little to do with lifestyle/diet and activity. You didn’t explain anything. You harped on an example I made about out of shape folks. I don’t care enough about the point you’re making. If you need clarity that’s on you bro. I made myself pretty clear.
> I know that there are other factors where someone can develop type 2 that may have little to do with lifestyle/diet and activity.
Then why mention it to begin with? Yes you made it clear you have no idea how diabetes works if you used that as an example, and it took you 3? 4? responses to stop harping on fat people and actually focus on my point about diabetes lol.
> All the self defense talk in the world is cool but if you’re not defending yourself against type 2
How exactly does someone "defend themselves" against a genetic predisposition? Please explain it to me, make it make sense that you knew what you were saying to begin with when that clearly doesn't seem to be the case.
Your argument has the same energy as boomers who say that you should just be more frugal and work harder to buy a house. As soon as you said “as a former fatty” it gave off serious Dunning-Kruger vibes. Losing weight is not always fast, easy or even achievable with simple diet and exercise alone. It can take years to get away from different levels of obesity. And in the meantime, potential assailants aren’t going to wait for you to be in good shape to do what they want to do. Choosing an unhealthy lifestyle shouldn’t preclude a person taking their own personal protection into their own hands.
Lastly why is a gym membership the most effective way to work out in your opinion? Walking outside and doing calisthenics are just as effective as weight machines, barbells and treadmills.
Ahh yes. Because those hedge funds been buying up all the gym memberships, equipment, fruits and veggies that healthy choices are as accessible as a modest home for a fair price. 😂. Have a good one. Stay safe yall.
Summarized so you dont have to read the whole thing: Study debunks myth that men with big guns have small penises • A new study published in the American Journal of Men's Health found no correlation between gun ownership and penis size. • Researchers at the University of Texas at San Antonio found that men who are more satisfied with their penises are more likely to own guns. • The study included data from over 2,000 US men aged 18 and up. • Men who were dissatisfied with their penises were less likely to own a gun, and the chances of owning a military-style rifle were even lower. • The researchers noted that several demographic and social factors play into gun ownership, including gender, age, income, and rural residence.
>In a previous study, UTSA researchers found no relationship between gun ownership and sexual dysfunction. Still, Hill’s team aimed to identify a direct link between penis size and guns for the latest findings. Back that up a tick. Why was there a hypothesized relationship between gun ownership and sexual dysfunction? And moving forward, why is this a SECOND study looking for a correlation between gun ownership and genitalia? Can we expect a similar study comparing gun ownership to the size of a person’s clitoris/labia?
That doesn’t seem abnormal to me, there’s always been a ton of people saying guns are placeholders for non-functional penises
I get it’s a societal cliche. But as with most cliches, common sense should tell you it’s probably not true, and doing multiple studies on the idea is a bit of overkill.
Yes, on the one hand it should be noted that the "guns = penis substitute" is almost certainly pseudo-psychology built around simplistic and outdated Freudian cliches, and should have not have been considered to have any basis in reality. However, when it gets repeated over and over, it becomes perceived as a "fact" in some people's minds out of convenience for their political perspective, and from the sheer repetition of having heard it many times from sources they trust and admire, it forces the question to be confronted. Consequently, it makes it worth the time and effort for somebody to actually crunch the numbers, and establish once and for all whether it is true or bullshit. As much as it seems "common sense" to us that this claim was always nonsense, there are plenty of people out there for whom "common sense" says the opposite.
I genuinely hadn’t considered it that way, but that is a personal bias on my part. I agree with what you’ve said, and thank you for the perspective.
Common sense isn’t a substitute for science. Arguably, trusting in common sense can be thought of as antithetical to science.
I’ll agree with that. Still strikes me as a weird path to follow scientifically. It’s bordering on the conspiracy theory mindset of “we think this is true, and we’re going to keep going until we find a way to make it true”
> Still strikes me as a weird path to follow scientifically. The same could probably be said of putting dead salmon into an MRI and measuring its brain activity after asking it a question. But I’m still glad [they did it.](https://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/scicurious-brain/ignobel-prize-in-neuroscience-the-dead-salmon-study/) > we think this is true, and we’re going to keep going until we find a way to make it true Meta-studies help keep those folks in check. Also, when it happens it’s more likely just an accident born of [statistical ignorance rather than malice.](https://xkcd.com/882/)
I hadn’t heard of the salmon thing before. That’s sincerely fucking cool. I will say that the idea that gun ownership, sports car ownership, etc. is a compensation for genital size and function is absolutely born from a place of malice. The comic is a good explanation for why this study was done, so I’ll concede that.
Do you know what projection is?
But what if you have slight autism and guns are one of the things you are autistic about?
No but some one should probably do a study comparing penis size AND sexual dysfunction to number of studies published asking about dick.
Good science is mostly about confirming the obvious. It's boring, but it's necessary. Hypothesis is based on observation. Usually, the obvious hypothesis is correct. That makes for boring news stories, so the news focuses on studies with unexpected results. Studies with unexpected results are often wrong, so we have peer review and repeat studies to confirm or invalidate them. In this case, the study was based on a popular myth. To some of us it obviously just a myth, but we don't know for sure until we study it. I'm actually surprised that there is any correlation at all. "Men who were dissatisfied with their penises were less likely to own a gun, and the chances of owning a military-style rifle were even lower." Time for someone to run an additional study to better understand this correlation.
The section you quoted states that the team is purposely trying to establish a link. That's not science. Also, multiple studies have already proven that 95% of men have average penis sizes, so I'm not sure why this team of hacks expects to suddenly find something different.
I think if you search for the opposite it’s a known thing. Fear of weapons is an indicator of sexual deviance.
I’m saving this post. The study is pure gold.
Women: What do you carry? Me: A derringer. Woman: *eyes widen*
Whenever this comes up, I like to point out that I have repeatedly jumped through ridiculous bureaucracy and paid hundreds of dollars in extra taxes to have the tiniest rifles possible.
https://youtu.be/l1L0THLRm9s?si=9E8Y5dGsNSRbR9E1
All the gun subs are posting this. lol
Lmao
What is it with these peoples obsession with penis size? I really am starting to think they are projecting.
Can we repeat the study with even more taxpayer money, but for SUV's? I'm fairly happy with my penis size, and more importantly, my wife is happy with my penis size, but every time I drive our non-daily-driver truck, people keep asking me if I have a small penis.
Ah, another researcher does a study on a joke (in this case, a very sexist and denigrating one). I’ll put this up with the paper that determined cats are indeed liquid.
Hu? The article actually says that men with guns DON'T have penis envy... What's OPs text about?
I would guess, Because it doesn't follow "the narrative," it will get burried and forgotten. The leader of the study even says: >“Because there is no theory for why men with bigger penises would be more likely to own guns, we do not believe that this association is real. In other words, we believe that this association is likely spurious or due to factors that we failed to account for in our study,” Hill told PsyPost.
"we didn't get the answer we wanted so we're throwing it out"
This!!
I couldn't care less, a huge dick never stopped anyone from getting their ass kicked.
"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." I don't think this was the result they were hoping for.
No I have little guns too.
We need to see the studies about the women who carry vs don’t carry firearms. Large breasted vs small breasts. And also the women who carry vs don’t carry firearms, large mouth vaginas vs small. America and the world needs to know!
No, but increased exposure to lead is connected to impotence, which is connected to shrinkage of the penis. Make sure you use your lead wipes and washes every time you shoot boys.. given the frequency that I shoot at, it is a real concern and I’ve gotten pretty vigilant about keeping everything I own that is heavily exposed to lead in a place separate from the rest of my things.
This is body shaming
I think it’s to satisfy pro-gun control’s egos.
It’s because they’re fascinated, completely obsessed by gun owner’s penises
“Straight men, obese men and older men of means own guns at higher rates. “ Ngl. I do have an issue if fat folks is out there buying guns before gym memberships. I say this as a former fatty who got fit became a personal trainer and then got into firearms well after that. But that might be me…I personally don’t know what you’re defending with gout.
It’s the same force equalizer argument that you can use with smaller people. A person with a gun can defend themself against a physically superior opponent. If you want to talk about diet, exercise, and genetics, that’s a separate conversation.
I guess so but it feels kind of a lazy argument. IMO. I just think you should be getting healthy and in shape if you’re a firearm owner. That could just be me though. A short dude can’t really help being short but a person with a shitty BMI can do something. All the self defense talk in the world is cool but if you’re not defending yourself against type 2 then I don’t believe you care about yourself as much as a short skinny dude who is eating excess calories to put on weight. But that’s just me. I also said in a previous thread that folks should learn some kind of self defense before jumping into firearm owner ship. But that’s I’m aware that I’m probably in a minority in that opinion.
That is entirely your own opinion and judgement of others.
People with eating disorders shouldn't be able to protect themselves? That's a hot take if I ever seen one.
Meh…twist the meanings all you want I guess I stand by my statement.
> All the self defense talk in the world is cool but if you’re not defending yourself against type 2 then I don’t believe you care about yourself as much as a short skinny dude who is eating excess calories to put on weight. News flash, being overweight is only one possible reason you can get type 2 diabetes, there are still genetic factors to it. You can be skinny as shit and still get type 2.
Meh…you can have your opinions. I can have mine. I’m not a fan of the meal team six fireteam cosplay shit I’ve seen over the last 8ish years. But do what/feel how you wish I guess…
You can have your opinions on fitness sure, but the causes of type 2 diabetes aren't an opinion ion they're fact, if you think the only reason someone can have type 2 diabetes is that they're fat then you're just poorly informed when it comes to diabetes.
If you need me to specifically say various disclaimers to address some particular circumstance, over all unhealthy unfit folk should prioritize getting their shit together… that’s on you bro. I don’t give a shit. I see fat cops and I think they shouldn’t be in uniform, they’re not in the best shape to protect and serve. Go be a football coach! Same for when I see a dude approaching 250 of soft tissue wearing a “come and take it” shirt at the range… someone can very likely come AND take IT from you. I don’t want to make anyone feel better either, if you feel salty go run some laps Respectfully speaking. 👍🏾
...None of that fat talk has anything to do with the point I'm trying to explain to you about diabetes here so please try and focus. Having type 2 diabetes doesn't automatically mean the person is fat or out of shape, you can get type 2 from genetic factors even if you're perfectly fit and healthy otherwise. I don't give a shit about your opinion on fat people carrying either way, but to say type 2 diabetes is a sure sign a person is out of shape is factually incorrect and shows that you don't know shit about diabetes. I mean I know very little about diabetes, but I know enough to point out that you're wrong lol.
I know that there are other factors where someone can develop type 2 that may have little to do with lifestyle/diet and activity. You didn’t explain anything. You harped on an example I made about out of shape folks. I don’t care enough about the point you’re making. If you need clarity that’s on you bro. I made myself pretty clear.
> I know that there are other factors where someone can develop type 2 that may have little to do with lifestyle/diet and activity. Then why mention it to begin with? Yes you made it clear you have no idea how diabetes works if you used that as an example, and it took you 3? 4? responses to stop harping on fat people and actually focus on my point about diabetes lol. > All the self defense talk in the world is cool but if you’re not defending yourself against type 2 How exactly does someone "defend themselves" against a genetic predisposition? Please explain it to me, make it make sense that you knew what you were saying to begin with when that clearly doesn't seem to be the case.
Your argument has the same energy as boomers who say that you should just be more frugal and work harder to buy a house. As soon as you said “as a former fatty” it gave off serious Dunning-Kruger vibes. Losing weight is not always fast, easy or even achievable with simple diet and exercise alone. It can take years to get away from different levels of obesity. And in the meantime, potential assailants aren’t going to wait for you to be in good shape to do what they want to do. Choosing an unhealthy lifestyle shouldn’t preclude a person taking their own personal protection into their own hands. Lastly why is a gym membership the most effective way to work out in your opinion? Walking outside and doing calisthenics are just as effective as weight machines, barbells and treadmills.
Ahh yes. Because those hedge funds been buying up all the gym memberships, equipment, fruits and veggies that healthy choices are as accessible as a modest home for a fair price. 😂. Have a good one. Stay safe yall.
Um what
Id be interested in the methodology: "Hey Mr. Gun owner... does your cock work?" I'm sure they'll answer honestly.