|
Fortunately, this is not my problem, but I've discussed the issue with both men and women and the consensus is unanimous. I've never met or heard of a woman (or a gay man) who prefers men with diminutive phalli. Some are more tolerant of that than others, depending on a man's general abilities as a lover and additional qualities as a person. But miniaturization of male genitalia doesn't make anyone's list of desiderata.
On the other hand, when it comes to women, there's someone with a taste for every possible physical variation. Whatever your attitude toward porn as a genre, just browsing the catalogue of any company offering triple-X videos and DVDs should reassure women everywhere that even if there's not a woman for every man (not a single tape featuring guys hung like mice), there's definitely a man for every woman: hairy or shaved, fat or pudgy or thin, barely of age or grandmotherly, buffed or out of shape, they have separate programs (2 hours! 4! 7!) for every preference.
The selection gets quite generous when it comes to breast options: humongous/big/medium/small/negligible. You can even find nipple-specific selections: large, small, inverted, puffy . . . for those who think that men respond to a single abstract stereotype of female desirability, these brochures should serve as eye-openers.
I'm a fan of small- to medium-sized breasts myself. Not flat-chested girls per se (though they're okay too), but lovely warm handfuls. The truly buxom have never appealed to me. On this I'm closer to Louis XVI, who, according to legend, had the champagne glass called the coupe modeled on the breast of his wife, Marie Antoinette. The legend apparently is false -- the coupe made its appearance well before their liaison -- and the coupe, while fine for sorbet, is lousy for champagne; the flute works much better (though not as a breast shape, at least in my opinion).
However, Louis Seize is reliably reported to have said, on the same subject (breasts, not champagne), "Anything more than a mouthful is a waste." Probably the source of the coupe story. In any case, my absolute favorite is something about the size, heft, and firmness of a large, ripe, peach -- definitely more than a mouthful, but not much more than a warm handful. Blessedly, Darling's precisely fit the bill. (I also prefer puffy areolae and substantial, elongated nipples, enough to get your lips around and tug between your teeth, or to hold a small loop or clamp or shield, and extremely sensitive to touch, if you want further specifics. Nipples exactly like Darling's, as it happens.)
But they do come in all shapes and sizes, and all, quite properly, have their devotees. Those of the women I've known carnally have run the gamut, and while any connoisseur ends up having preferences I've enjoyed and paid due attention to them all. On the whole, I agree with the U.S. poet Charles Simic, who wrote as follows, in his poem "Breasts":
I insist that a girl
Stripped to the waist
Is the first and last miracle. . . .
O my sweet, my wistful bagpipes.
Look, everyone is asleep on the earth.
Now, in the absolute immobility
Of time, drawing the waist
Of the one I love to mine,
I will tip each breast
Like a dark heavy grape
Into the hive
Of my drowsy mouth.
Simic likes them big, he says, but otherwise I share his sentiments exactly, and couldn't have said it better.
To be continued . . .
|
