i wonder if they showed short in shape guys with large flaccids to the women b/c the figured they showed had small chubby guys with small cocks and tall in shape guys with larger cocks...that is a bit bias
I'm reminded of a case study and I can already tell this is going to be one of those things where there are so many factors to cover that my post is going to be all over the place.
The tv show 20/20 aired an attractiveness study one time in like 1997, penis sized wasn't involved but males of various heights were shown to different groups of females, in at least two different tests ..
The first test was to simply display the males of the various heights, .. short to tall and variously in between, .. and ask the females which, visually, they preferred/were attracted to ...
The second test was to give the females fake 'background' information on the test candidates to see if the made-up information could exceed the very obvious height bias.
For any of the tallest males it was simply said that they were a (blue collar working class) 'construction worker' or 'fireman' or etc.
For the shortest (but none freakishly so) males it was said that they were self-made millionaires, and recreational airplane pilots, who wrote childrens books, own their own mansions which they built with their bare hands, and love their mothers..
In most instances the taller joe-sixpack guys won anyway.
A general concern for the females regarding the shortest males was the outcome (height and the ultimate success potential) of their theoretical children, should they pair with those shorter males and produce short offspring. This is a (no pun) big deal. That sort of thing (desiring the life-success of the potential offspring) is wired in at the genetic level.
One could simply stop there and say
Ouch, but there's way more dynamics to relationships than just the first glance.
Even tall guys can get screened out for stupidity once conversation begins. A female might prefer them for a one-night stand at the peak of their estrus cycle .. but having a stupid partner would also negatively affect the success potential of the theoretical low-intelligence offspring.
An even larger factor during interaction with the other person, once the intellectual and social calibrating process begins, is to be seen as a Dominant male. (Not necessarily the 'Alpha Male of the Group', most chicks would love to have the Amog but understand that they don't actually calibrate that highly themselves to pull it off.) Dominant traits are: self-starting, determination, selectiveness (choosiness/dissatisfaction), tending to ignore people (dont try to fake that one if you cant pull it off), planning instead of aimlessness, organizing, resurgence, delay of gratification (that will get you Laid like Slade btw), intellect, gregariousness and/or random moodiness, strength .. physically and/or of character, kindness/protectiveness to the female, not becoming violent when she pretty inevitably has a psycho-nutjob episode, etc.
There are a lot more considerations to attractiveness (within a range of 'normal') than any
single surface-level feature, beit height or build or penis size or even looks. Men like good looks in the female for genetic (not just aesthetic) reasons. Symmetry (beauty) is a sign of health and child-bearing talent. Females though like strong character (not just looks) in the male for genetic reasons. Strong character tends to equal protection and providement and therefore success of the pairbond and of the offspring.
Any male who
feels they have a dearth in any particular area (whether it's actually true or not) should always bear in mind that the attractiveness of the male is based upon
multiple factors .. and with psychology, gymnasiums, and [words=http://www.mattersofsize.com/join-now.html]MoS[/words] .. most of them can be positively altered through knowledge and dedication.
In some categories obviously 'more' is usually going to equal better, but the perceptible Gestalt (the state of exceeding the sum of the parts) is far more important. Ultimately for like 95% of males they can write their own destiny by just having what early 'dating sociologist' Eric Weber called "a 7% increase in guts" to self-actualize and go take it.
------------------------