Here are a bunch of thoughts I've had swimming around my head. They are not neccessarily coherent. Feel free to comment, but do keep this in mind.

It's not easy to get a single straight answer. Perhaps that's because there isn't one. Maybe the "doesn't count" answer is easy to be skeptical of because there are such obvious interests in giving such an answer falsely, the "good girl" image, sensitivity for the male's feelings. But should there be similar scrutiny of "counts" answers? Particularly answers of the "Oh, you KNOW it counts, girlfriend! WOO!" type. If size has macho connotations for the male, does it have similar connotations for the female accepting it? A bragging right like that afforded to the female dating the 6-pack or 45cm biceps?

It's not like breast size. Breast size is obvious, within slight margins of error, from first front or side glance. A man finding a breast size range unappealing will quite possibly never give a woman any sign at all that he finds her unappealing for this reason because if it means so much to him he might never approach. A woman usually must deem a man to be suitable for sex at least once before having an opportunity to judge his penis and rejection at this point, or after sex, with penis size one of few possible factors, relative to the number of factors for rejection at first glance.

Breast size, too, has fair representation accross a large size spectrum in erotic fantasy. Penis size, where mentioned, and it usually is when any vivid description of it is given, is overwhelmingly (in terms of frequency) large. "She gave a great gasp upon seeing his mediocre member" just doesn't work. Yet, small breasts are routinely given their due as sexually appealing, albeit this is generally confined to perky ones, though smaller ones tend to fit this bill. Perhaps breasts are praised on account of shape rather than size with standards remaining difficult to attain....in any case, they are different.

Vaginal size though does rate a mention in this context. We frequently hear of tight pussies, never of loose, stretched and worn-out ones. But then, tightness refers to fit rather than size. A large woman taking a very large man is still "tight". On the subject, women who claim to require a large penis rarely seem to publicly ponder their size. Perhaps they would be more satisfied after a regime of Kegels than trying to find Mother Nature's most gifted? You know who's hung like a horse? My cousin's horse. You'd think that maybe judging 95% of men inadequate (I don't remember much from first-year stats nor much in detail from size surveys but I seem to remember men between about 4.5" and 7" falling within two standard deviations of the mean) would prompt some introspection about one's own size....I personally won't hold my breath waiting for the TV drama featuring men sharing disappointment at finding women with wonderful personalities but sporting pussies like clowns' pockets.

Would there be downsides to being large? I personally would hate to think that I could not penetrate a woman I loved because I was too large, or that I would be inclined to stay with a woman whose company I did not enjoy because she was capable of taking my enormity.

Perhaps it is unfortunate in some ways that a man's ego is wrapped up so tightly in pleasing women sexually. Perhaps the same impulses that drive a man to be an eager student of cunnilingus also drive him to existential angst when contemplating his non-huge member. Men with small penes have spoken of letting go of the desire to please women with penetration, for why should they care about the woman's orgasm? I for one do not care if a man should see my package, I do care if a woman does and explodes into fits of laughter, or asks me have I entered her yet, or claims she felt nothing, or gossips as much to her girlfriends.

More to come if I think of any.

__________________
I want to know everything
I want to be everywhere
I want to fuck everyone in the world
I want to do something that matters