The dilemma tsar is that the larger the size the more it hampers when chasing wild beasts and it also comes to the interested attention of rivals. The small one is good at chasing wild beasts and begets no rivals and there are advantages in that for a lady of education and erudition.
Very little of human evolution has occurred in the last thousand years.
If Lexington Steele were to try catching a reindeer, for example, he would throw himself off his feet sideways after a few strides. Centrifugal forces being what they are.
I don't suppose I need describe the advantages to a lady of small ones, or maybe I should say less big ones, because they are all too familiar to most of us. The large one has one advantage but it is rather short-lived and not worth swapping for the monopoly advantages of small ones which last for what might as well be eternity.
The dilemma is solved by having a small one under the cosh and talking about big ones with sly hints, innuendos, giggles and meaningful expressions, at coffee mornings and other delicate social occasions, or being flat out, in your face with it, which is, as one might expect, a rather pointed signifier of lower-class tastes and aesthetic susceptibilities.
On the evolutionary field of view it is obvious that woman-kind made the choice with a sort of "on the one hand, or then on the other hand" perspective and, taking everything into account, perfected the correct size on what is now the average size. Like with rhino tusks.
In view of the obvious fact that chai has invited us to do some talking about the matter in hand, do you think I would have provided her with a more exciting day if I had edited "large ones" and "small ones" to "big dicks" and "little willies"? Or even "stonkeroonies" and "dangly bits".
I would value your advice. As Karl Marx so wittily said "How a woman makes her living will influence her whole way of life". He said "man" actually but he was a misogynist.