Hey Trickydick,
Yes, I agree that conformity is a particular
problem that is augmented via capitalism, as John Kenneth Galbraith
describes the Dependence Effect, "Production only fills a void that
it has itself created."
Granted, this problem does not have
its origins in capitalism. Tribalism depends on hierarchy and
conformity. If we look at it on a microscopic level then our bodies
attack foreign cells etc.
If anything, the illusion
that it's virtuous to be unique is propagated through capitalism - it
creates a fantasy where we can be rich and powerful enough to no
longer be slaves to the system, to be 'ourselves' through having our
desires fulfilled. However, the Dependence Effect suggests that they
can't be fulfilled because wants are not independently determined
(and this notion is itself an echo of much older precepts, like those
found in Buddhism).
Similarly, the idea of 'originality' has
a dark underside in that it only really arises when it became easy to
replicate something else (e.g. the printing press and the development
of 'authorship'). It's something used to lock people out, to hold
them back etc whereas I think we need to disrupt uniqueness and
conformity by assaulting the logic that makes things same/different.
So, I don't believe that we're born either unique or perfect because
those ideas carry unseemly antitheses. I understand if that notion
isn't helpful for some people but it's useful for me because it
redirects my thinking into other streams that I deem more productive.
I should offer a caveat that I am neither an
economist, a biologist, or a Buddhist, so advance apologies if anyone
feels that I've bastardised their discipline.
To move
onto the more concrete matter of your hard on. Hey, there's nothing
shameful about having a six inch wang (and I'd suggest that it's best
to avoid feeling shame about any physical characteristics. Save your
shame and pride for the things you 'do', not the things you 'are'!).
My length is the same and most guys would fall well into that
standard deviation. Similarly, correct me if I'm wrong wang lovers,
but most people wouldn't really know what to do with a twelve inch
rod. I've managed to hit people in the cervix with my humble member
and so I shudder to think of the trouble you could get into with
something twice as long.
Of course, some people are 'size
queens' but if they truly are one then they're unlikely to be
satisfied with even the largest cock. Isn't a fist going to be a
little more satisfying? Sure, there are different psychological and
rhythmic aspects involved but someone who really likes to get
stretched isn't going to be satisfied by a human cock, no matter the
endowment (and I'll refrain from listing what I think are the best
large toys unless someone's looking for some recommendations there).
As you've seemingly realised through your own happy and
satisfying marriage, pleasure isn't centred around the
presence/absence of particular attributes but arises through
interaction.
Accordingly, I neither accept nor reject
myself, and don't mind whether others accept or reject me. Like the
end of your message (with your willingness to debate) suggests, what
really counts is interaction, not consensus or dissent.
previous