The realitionship between aggression, dominance, and penis size

I've been promoting the idea of interacting with others socially from an accepting, compassionate, empathetic standpoint for a couple of months now on

www.fastseduction.com

This has lead to a firestorm of controversy - especially from guys who advocate what's refer ed to as "Alpha Male" sexual selection theory.

This thoery states that "females only respond sexually to men who dominate social interactions with both other men (this is called "amogging" in the community - "Alpha Male, Other Guy") and with women.

They compare themselves to alpha male gorillas who fight off all the other males in a group, and build harems of female gorillas to breed with.

They have a point. We share around 96% of thier DNA structure as well as a common ancestor:

"Darwin wasn't just provocative in saying that we descend from the apes—he didn't go far enough," said Frans de Waal, a primate scientist at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia. "We are apes in every way, from our long arms and tailless bodies to our habits and temperament."

They also say that men can build harems just like apes through dominant/agressive social behavior. So what are we to make of the fact that male gorillas have extremely small penises?

From Miller's "The Mating Mind"

"If we were a species in which males dominated the sexual system, we would have 1" penises like dominant gorillas" (Pg.236)

I therefore posit that human males who display excessive agressive or dominant behavior towards other males and females are endowed with very small penises.

Baddogs Law: There is an inverse/proportional relationship between social dominance and agression and penis size in human males.

The vairables can be defined thusly:

Let P= The product of penis lenth * girth

Let D= Agressive / Dominant behavior on the part of the human male on a scale from 1 to 10, with 1 representing no agressive or dominant tendencies, and 10 being perfectly dominant and agressive.

Then we can state the relationship mathmatically as:

P=1/D

The resulting number is what I'll call the XXX Factor. The smaller the number, the shorter and skinnier the penis.

As an example, Martin Luther King would have a social agression and domninance value of 1

So according to Baddog's law, MLK had an XXX factor of 1, or an absolutely gargantuan penis due to his gentle spirit....he could probably have had sex with women in other zip codes...

Similarly, A guy like Charlie Manson (he was quite a player!) would have an XXX factor of .1 - ten times smaller than a guy like say, Ghandi. Now, just like dominant male gorillas, our friend Charlie got lots of girls:



Note that both Manson and MLK were ladies men...

This law seems to be borne out by pornography - John Holmes and Ron Jeremy, both males with freakishly large penises, are both reputed to be / have been very gentle, friendly, accepting males. Hundreds of women attended John Holmes funeral.

Note that women consistently report that "size matters". Not only that, they are always looking for physical behavioral cues that indicate a man's penis size. Everything from shoe size to middle finger length are posited in popular culture as indicative of this important metric.

More research needs to be done on this important topic.

For instance, is the relationship direct as I have posited, or is it exponential, fibbonachian, Fractal, or regulated by some other proportional progression?

Can males increase penis size by decreasing dominant / agressive behavior?

Are there similar inverse relationships between penis size and the size of a man's car, or the loudness of his exhaust system? His car stereo? The size of his muscles?

The cost of his pinky ring?

(Grabs popcorn....)