User: Twilight Sky

I too have my doubts about current surveys that report roughly 5ins. as the supposed average $%!@ size. I would put the number much lower if we're talking flaccid length (if erect then 5ins. is a normal average). I base this lower estimated flaccid average on my own size (3ins.), the sizes of guys I've seen naked in locker rooms and showering, and on history - not on porn images or some inflated survey where everyone in today's culture wants to be bigger than they actually are.

In fact, I bring up history specifically because one look at examples from Ancient Greece (a society unashamed of public nudity in sports or nudity portrayed in artwork) evidences that men have much smaller $%!@es than current surveys would have us believe.

Here are some links so you know what I'm talking about: https://classconnection.s3.amazonaws.com/696/flashcards/1866696/jpg/janson_chapter_5-311352836243506.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/06/Marcellus_Hermes_Ludovisi_type_Louvre_Ma1207.jpg/284px-Marcellus_Hermes_Ludovisi_type_Louvre_Ma1207.jpg

https://id14withmamquevedo.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/a2.png

http://artnaz.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/father-of-the-comedy.jpg

http://www.westcler.org/GH/curlessmatt/arthistory/4/PolykleitosDoryphoros.jpg

Here are some close-ups: http://fscomps.fotosearch.com/compc/CSP/CSP994/k15922293.jpg

https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3936/15257966549_29f388c3dc.jpg

http://www.circumstitions.com/Images/Art/gauls.jpg

As you can see, all of these $%!@es are small - VERY SMALL! Or at least that's what our society would have us believe. Look at them in relation to the figures' bodies; they look almost prepubescent. However, every statue shown depicts an adult male. Look closer. No $%!@ depicted hangs lower than the testicles. Most are an inch or two short. None are nearly as wide as the testicle sack either; in fact, many are as wide as they are long. Hence, the average $%!@ of an adult male in ancient Greece, we must assume, was 1-2in. long and 1in. wide.

How than are we to believe that men today have so much larger $%!@es? Well we must consider cultural impacts. In ancient Greece artwork was meant to be realistic. However, a small, thin $%!@ that we today often associate with an immature male was considered the ideal; it was a sign of nobility, cultural superiority, and intelligence. Conversely, long, thick $%!@es were considered grotesque, comic, or both and were usually found on fertility gods, half-animal critters such as satyrs, ugly old men, and barbarians. Comedies often involved a male actor that was meant to be laughed at or looked upon with disgust who would prance around on stage with his large hanging or swinging $%!@ exposed. Therefore, it is possible that ancient sculptors chose male models with what they saw as ideal $%!@es for their works of art. Perhaps not every man had a 1-2in. $%!@, but most probably did. Our modern culture chooses just the opposite - exaggerating $%!@ size in movies, tv, and surveys. I would say that most guys today still have fairly small $%!@es, but of course, those with large $%!@s measure up better to the current ideal and get the press so to speak.

Just to show that the ancient statues weren't so far off actual $%!@ sizes today: http://www.coccozella.com/nude-in-public-nudity/polar-bear-run/4-completely-naked-male-students.jpg

http://41.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m0okohb35b1r10n15o1_500.jpg

It's a tough question. Usually I would simply answer, well... you let the person who posted the naked picture of you take it when you were in such an exposed state, so you can live with the results.

Going a step further, I'd say that the moment they take it (with or without your permission) it's their picture, not yours. You really have no say who they show it to, and if that means the whole internet, then that's what it means. Think about it. The paparazzi take pictures of celebrities naked on nude beaches all the time. Then they sell them and/or post them on the internet for all to see. Never is the nude celeb consulted or given a heads up, and only extremely rarely do defamation style lawsuits in these matters succeed in accomplishing anything. The truth is, if you're naked in a public place you have no right to not be photographed or have your image subsequently protected from being posted.

With that said, I would've hoped that the friend or relative who posted the naked picture of you on the beach as a kid would have asked if you minded before doing so. That's why they are your friends/relatives. Also, I would hope that they would take into consideration just how unwise it is to post such a picture with all the perverts out there.

You could make it a requirement to complete a physical exam... i.e. you won't pass your school/sports/work physical unless you are measured both flacid and erect. It could be done. Guys might complain about how embarrassing it is at first, but physical exams are already embarrassing. Also, they'd get used to it eventually - just like prostate or testicular exams now. Anyway, if it's the law that you have to be measured before you can go to school, play a sport, or work at a specific job what guy is actually going to refuse?

From that point you could have doctor's offices keep your size information as part of your medical records. It could be a requirement that these records be put into a national or international database that could be publicly accessed to get averages for different ages, races, heights, weights, etc...

This actually could allow doctors (including your own) to measure (literally, lol) healthy $%!@ development and diagnose/identify issues or behaviors that might interfere with it.

Honestly, this type of thing doesn't sound like that bad of an idea. I mean, what's the big deal if people know I'm 3ins flaccid and 5ins erect. Guys get too obsessed with unrealistic sizes and thinking they NEED to have a huge circus $%!@. If it was for the benefit of mine and/or other guys' healthy development I'd sign up.

I saw that you have no responses yet, so I will share my experience.

Background: Let me begin by saying I am 29, male, and from the U.S. Until this past year I had not had a physical exam or even had a real doctor since high school, and the combination of government mandated health insurance and the fact that I'm nearing 30 convinced me to get one. Additionally, I'm trying to become more comfortable with my body, so when the only doctor accepting new patients at the clinic I chose happened to be female I said that was fine and my doctor's sex didn't matter to me. I did so fully knowing that I might be embarrassed by this fact - at least until I got used to it. But whatever, I was committed.

The exam: I was advised to take off work for the day of the exam because it would be "thorough" since some time had passed since my last checkup. Well the exam was indeed thorough, including genital and prostate checks and lasting over an hour. These were very embarrassing. However, I had expected them.

What I didn't expect was when Dr. Lindsey Mckinney - a voluptuous blond in her early-30s who must have been just out of medical school - said that I was about the "recommended age" to start having a "routine cystoscopy." I had never heard of a cystoscopy before, so I didn't really object as she talked me into agreeing to it. Then the young female nurse - a pretty brunette named Bex who had been present during the whole physical "for my benefit" of course - led me to the bathroom to urinate before taking me to the room in the clinic where the procedure was done. I had to remove all of my clothing and was given a small paper gown; it was different than the one I had been given during the physical in that it stopped short just above my waist. She then had me get up onto an exam table. I had to put my feet into two stirrups that she fastened my ankles to and proceeded to spread wide. She also had me arch my butt and lower back up a bit so she could slide a pillow under me. I felt totally exposed, and unsurprisingly got an erection. Nurse Bex then gave me a pain-pill (I'm not sure what it was - Valium maybe). Only at this point did Dr. Mckinney enter with a second nurse (another buxom blond about my age named Tabby) who was pushing a cart with medical equipment.

The procedure: Dr. Mckinney soon began (to my horror) to explain what exactly cystoscopy entailed. My hesitation and protests fell on death ears. She deflected my feeble objections as the two nurses began to prep me. They sterilzed my public area (I'm shaved) with a cloth. Then Nurse Bex held my $%!@ up while Nurse Tabby used a plastic syringe to inject an antiseptic and numbing gel (Lidocaine) into the hole at the tip of my $%!@! The feeling as she slid the syringe into the opening of the tube inside my $%!@ (my urethra) was very uncomfortable. And she had to inject it twice to get the full dose. Still this was nothing compared to what was to come. After a few minutes waiting for the gel to take effect it was Dr. Mckinney's turn. This time Nurse Tabby held my erect $%!@ at a 45 degree angle while the doctor used the thumb and forefinger of her left hand to hold the head of my $%!@ while she took what I later found out was the rigid cystoscope (a device that's almost two feet long and looks like a battery-powered hand drill) and began to insert the pencil-thick metal tube into my pee hole! They slowly lowered the angle of my $%!@ as the invading rod inched further down the middle of my $%!@. I think I flinched several times as the device penetrated me in a way that made me feel like I was being raped. Eventually it got to my bladder; Dr. Mckinney used the cystoscope to inject some sort of saline solution that she said would clean me out and make it easier for them to see using the small camera also inserted via the pencil-thick, rigid tube terrorizing my $%!@. This gave me the sensation of needing to pee, but they said that was normal as they poked around, manipulating my $%!@ and watching what the camera showed on the screen at the same time. After perhaps ten minutes Dr. Mckinney was satisfied, and they slowly pulled the cystoscope out - only to leave my urethra feeling like it was on fire! I was not aware that the localized anesthetic would wear off mere minutes after the procedure was finished.

Again, the nurses cleaned my public area, and the doctor said everything looked pretty good. She also said "See. A cystoscopy is a walk in the park." (What!!?) Despite not finding anything, she insisted that I need to have one every six months to check for bladder cancer and deal with any bladder stones that may appear.

I'll add that my $%!@ was sore for the next three days and my urethra burned whenever I went to the bathroom or ejaculated for a week, but the sensation eventually went away. When I called the next day to ask if this was normal, the nurse on the phone advised me that it was, though she said I could come in and have them insert a Foley catheter for a few days or even a week if I wanted! I passed. The experience was not only humiliating, it was painful. I'm not sure I want to have it happen again (and so soon!) - though I have read that it gets easier (more comfortable - or rather less uncomfortable) with each successive time you do it. I've also read that "flexible cystoscopes" are easier on your $%!@ than "rigid cystoscopes" like the one my doctor used.

Anyway, good luck to anyone getting this procedure for the first time. I hope your experience is better than mine.

A story and poll like this forces me ask why changing cubicles at all? Why not just a men's locker room/changing room and a women's locker room/changing room? And of course, this space would have no need for dividers of any kind. I get that many teens are uncomfortable in a situation where when you are changing you have to get completely naked (aka changing into or out of a swimsuit). I was myself at that age. However, I guarantee you will grow out of this by the time you reach your mid-twenties at the latest. Until then it's not like you can't change under a towel or something. Anyway, I had to bring that up, as changing cubicles in general seem like an unnecessary, complicating factor.