+2.81–3.19 SD
Erect length
99.75th–99.93rd percentile; 35.5–40.4% longer than the study mean.
An operational postmortem
Mjolnir was ready.
The marriage was not.
This was supposed to be the short link for an extremely well-planned OnlyFans—one that would fund autocross, cars, and sim racing. Instead, it became a museum of what happens when enterprise-grade preparation meets spouse-grade detection.
Read the incident reportThe executive summary
This was not a whim.
It had infrastructure.
The asset was called Mjolnir. The strategy was to introduce it to gay men on Reddit, build an enthusiastic following, and eventually convert that goodwill into paying subscribers.
The mission was simple: subsidize an expensive collection of autocross, car, and sim-racing hobbies. Tires cost money. Car parts cost money. Sim rigs somehow cost almost as much as actual cars. Apparently the shortest route to a motorsport budget ran through an audience of supportive men on the internet.
There were separate bank accounts, a dedicated domain, and a conversion funnel. Project Mjolnir may have received more operational planning than several venture-backed startups.
Only one part of the launch plan remained underdeveloped: telling my wife.
Brand provenance
Management did not name the talent.
An ex-girlfriend did.
Long before Mjolnir had a domain, a bank account, and a conversion funnel, the persona already had a name—and management had nothing to do with choosing it.
Years earlier, an old girlfriend was on the couch watching college football. A name came across the broadcast—some player, Dusty Magnum. She giggled, looked over, and said, “that’s you, hehe.”
She was not commenting on his forty-yard dash. It was, in hindsight, the earliest recorded instance of unprompted brand-market fit: a focus group of one, delivered from a couch, at no cost, with a conversion rate of a single delighted giggle.
The name essentially filed itself. Dustin became Dusty. Magnum was less a surname than a product spec. When it finally came time to name the asset, the trade name had been sitting in the archive for years—already tested, already approved, already his.
Technical due diligence
The confidence was not entirely theoretical.
Every serious fundraising proposal needs a defensible underlying asset. Project Mjolnir appeared to have unusually strong fundamentals. The realization arrived in a sauna.
The field observation
How management discovered a market anomaly.
I was in the gym sauna with two older guys who kept looking at my junk. Judging by their reactions, they seemed impressed. Then one of them started sucking the other off, and I got out of there.
Once the adrenaline of being sexually harassed wore off, one detail stayed with me: both of their hard cocks had looked small.
They were not small. They were pretty normal. Mine was just big.
I had always known which side of the bell curve I was on. I mean—you show your dong to enough women, and their reactions become a size barometer. Just an imperfect one. The sauna was the first time I understood how far out on the curve I might be. That realization raised a deeply unserious question, which I proceeded to answer with unreasonable seriousness: could a statistical outlier pay for tires?
Analytical competency
Management knew what a standard deviation was.
This was not statistical cosplay. I have a graduate degree in applied statistics and work professionally as a data scientist. I understood exactly where 7.25 by 5.75 sat on the food chain—and that a tail event is not automatically a business. The measurements established scarcity. The market research still had to establish willingness to pay.
- Bone-pressed erect length
- 7–7.25inches
- Measured girth
- ~5.75inches around
- Structural profile
- Straight, substantial, and visibly engineered beyond the requirements of the average consumer.
- Surface detail
- Prominent head. Visible veins. Enough texture to make the product photography department optimistic.
Visual market comparison
From clinical threshold to porn-star folklore.
Four very different data points appear on one honest vertical scale. Mjolnir uses the upper BPEL measurement; the far-right figure is presented as a claim, not clinical evidence.
01Not apples to apples. The clinical micropenis cutoff uses stretched penile length; the average uses clinician-measured erect length; Mjolnir uses self-measured BPEL; and the porn figure is pure claim.
02Width is informative. The average and Mjolnir widths reflect their stated circumferences. The reference and folklore silhouettes are illustrative because no comparable girth data is available.
+2.68 SD
Erect circumference
99.63rd percentile; 25.3% greater circumference than the study mean.
Measurements independently recorded by management. Percentiles are estimates, not a substitute for third-party verification or an actual revenue forecast.
Market validation
Women cared a little.
Gay men had a category for it.
The original hypothesis was cruder: women mostly do not care, while gay dudes love big dicks. The research supported a narrower—and far more useful—version of the pitch.
The broad market
For women, bigger was a preference—not a business model.
In a survey of 52,031 heterosexual adults, 85% of women were satisfied with their partner’s penis size. Men worried much more: only 55% were satisfied with their own.
A later experiment let women choose among 33 three-dimensional models. Their average long-term preference was 6.3 inches long and 4.8 inches around. For a one-time partner, it rose only slightly: 6.4 by 5.0.
+0.85″
Mjolnir beyond the preferred one-time length—and +0.75″ beyond the preferred circumference.
Sources: Lever, Frederick & Peplau (2006); Prause et al. (2015).
The high-intent niche
Among gay men, size could become identity, role, and search criterion.
Three small qualitative studies of openly gay men found that most participants described size as important to masculinity and repeated some version of “bigger is better.” The authors also found real disagreement. This was a cultural signal, not a law of homosexuality.
A larger survey of 1,065 gay and bisexual men found that perceived size predicted sexual positioning and psychosocial adjustment: men reporting above-average penises were more likely to identify as tops; those reporting below-average penises were more likely to identify as bottoms.
Then came the commercial evidence. An analysis of more than 6,900 performer profiles across 10 popular gay-porn sites found that larger reported sizes were associated with topping and deliberately marketed as extraordinary. The researchers called out the narratives used to build porn brands and “profitable fantasies.” In other words, the category already had merchandising language.
The audience was also familiar with amateur sexual self-presentation. In a 2024 survey of 596 gay, bisexual, and queer men, 71.3% had produced sexual self-images or video and 15.1% had shared them publicly. The sharing was noncommercial, but the behavior was not alien.
6,900+
Commercial gay-porn profiles showing that size was already a product attribute, role signal, and marketing hook.
Sources: Grov, Parsons & Bimbi (2010); Drummond & Filiault (2007); Brennan (2018); Byron et al. (2024).
Persona-market fit
Good-looking. Straight. Dad. “Gay curious.”
Management would like the phrase huge market entered into the record. Research counsel objects to “huge,” but concedes that the package is unusually legible: it stacks several established gay-male attraction and porn-fantasy cues into one extremely searchable suburban father.
No published study tests this exact persona or measures its paid conversion rate. What the literature can do is examine the component parts—and identify where the pitch stops being evidence and starts being excellent copy.
01
Good-looking / masculine
The strongest part of the case.
A 2010 experiment with 311 gay men found a stronger preference for masculinized male faces than in any other group studied. A larger direct replication—623 gay men and 3,163 straight men—reported the same pattern. Separate research on 2,729 gay personal ads found masculine self-descriptions and requests for masculine partners were disproportionately common.
Limit: Masculine is not the same as universally handsome, and a preference signal is not a subscription.
Sources: Glassenberg et al. (2010); Jones & Jaeger (2020); Sánchez et al. (2009).
02
Straight
Less orientation. More fantasy architecture.
A 2025 analysis examined heterosexual characters across six commercial gay-porn sites. It found recurring devices that make straight men sexually available to male viewers and described the result as a fantasy built around the suspension—not the disappearance—of heterosexuality. “Straight” functions as scarcity, taboo, and plot.
Limit: The paper analyzes representation, not audience size, and a marketing label cannot authenticate anyone’s private identity.
Source: Mosenzon (2025).
03
Dad
An actual category, not merely a custody arrangement.
Scholarship has documented the rise of “Daddy porn” and the eroticization of older, mature male bodies. The dad cue adds adulthood, authority, domestic normalcy, and a ready-made role to the product story. Being an actual father makes the label biographically efficient; it does not prove that fatherhood itself causes demand.
Counterevidence: In a study of 719 gay and bisexual men, only 13.7% of recorded sexual events involved a much-older or much-younger partner. The age niche is real, but it is a niche.
Sources: Mercer (2012); Knight et al. (2016).
04
“Gay curious”
The quotation marks are doing honest work.
Nationally representative U.S. data show that identity, attraction, and behavior do not always align. Among men who said they were mostly attracted to the opposite sex, 26.8% reported some same-sex contact; 2.8% of straight-identified men did too. Curiosity is therefore plausible without silently relabeling a person’s orientation.
Limit: Those figures describe lifetime behavior among men aged 18–44 in 2011–2013. They say nothing about content demand or willingness to pay.
Hostile diligence
Verdict: a strong niche proposition, not a measured total addressable market.
Gallup’s 2025 polling found 9% of U.S. adults identify as LGBTQ+ and 23% of adults under 30 do, so the broader audience is plainly not microscopic. But that survey does not isolate men who buy male creator content, much less buyers seeking this exact combination. The defensible claim is that Mjolnir had four recognizable acquisition hooks and unusually sharp differentiation. “Huge” remains a management forecast.
Source: Gallup, 2025 survey of more than 13,000 U.S. adults.
Revenue sensitivity analysis
The gay angle was not just applause. It had unit economics.
OnlyFans processed roughly $7.2 billion in fan payments in fiscal 2024 across 377.5 million fan accounts and 4.63 million creator accounts. Creators keep 80% of payments. That is real money—and savage competition.
A crude equal-share quotient works out to roughly $1,250 per creator account for the year—useful as a warning, useless as an expected value. The bet was that a measured outlier aimed at a self-selecting niche could land in the profitable tail.
The platform has also told Ofcom that it has no traditional topic search: fans generally discover a creator elsewhere and arrive with the handle. That made gay Reddit more than an audience. It was the top of the acquisition funnel.
50 paying fans
$400/month$4,800 per year
Proof that the niche would pay. Also: most of a set of autocross tires.
200 paying fans
$1,600/month$19,200 per year
A viable side business if the Reddit audience became a durable subscriber base.
500 paying fans
$4,000/month$48,000 per year
Breakout-niche territory. Not the base case, but enough to materially alter the racing budget.
Model: $10 monthly subscription × paying fans × 80% creator share × 12 months. Before taxes, production costs, refunds, churn, and the considerable labor of feeding the internet. Tips and pay-per-view sales are excluded. These are scenarios, not a forecast.
Sources: Fenix International FY2024 accounts; Ofcom platform-fee report; OnlyFans response to Ofcom.
Management conclusion
Mjolnir was not universally desirable. It was algorithmically legible.
The plan did not require every gay man to be a size queen. It needed only the smaller group already sorting, searching, clicking, and upvoting by size. Women were a broad audience with a mild preference. Gay Reddit was a self-selecting niche with its own vocabulary, a distribution channel, and an upvote button. That is not a stereotype. That is segmentation.
01
Motorsport treasury
Separate banking, because tire money, car-part money, and fake-car-part money require a robust internal firewall.
100%
Organic reach
No paid ads. Just Reddit, Mjolnir, and an admirably specific target market—all in service of going faster.
0
Successful launches
The audience validation was promising. The domestic validation was less so.
Go-to-market timeline
A masterclass in getting caught.
-
01
Name the asset
“Mjolnir.” Understated, modest, and unlikely to attract questions.
-
02
Find product-market fit
Share it with gay men on Reddit. Build goodwill. Grow the audience one upvote at a time.
-
03
Fund the racing program
Open separate accounts. Register a dedicated short link. Earmark the revenue for autocross, cars, and sim racing. Consider every detail except the obvious one.
-
04
Wife discovers operation
The board convened without notice. Project Mjolnir was canceled during the opening remarks.
“The plan had separate bank accounts, but not separate consequences.”
Key finding, final incident review
Current status
The hammer has fallen.
The OnlyFans is gone. The Reddit growth engine never left the garage. The autocross, car, and sim-racing budgets must once again rely on conventional finance. Only the short link remains: a clean, tastefully branded monument to planning everything except what happens when your wife catches you marketing your dick on the internet.