# USING STATISTICS TO DESCRIBE PENIS SIZE

## By using statistics we can describe the variation of sizes in the general population of penises. First, we must determine what really is "average". Studies have determined the average penis length is somewhere between 5

is part of a discussion in the New Member Introductions forum that includes topics on Introduce yourself, everyone here was once new to the LPSG!.

 LPSG > Main USING STATISTICS TO DESCRIBE PENIS SIZE
 Register Photos Videos Blogs FAQ Members Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Chat

 09-09-2005 #1 (permalink) By using statistics we can describe the variation of sizes in the general population of penises. First, we must determine what really is "average". Studies have determined the average penis length is somewhere between 5 and 6 inches. We will settle for labeling "average" as 5.5 inches. Average circumference is between 4 and 5 inches, so we will settle for laberal average circumference as 4.5 inches. The standard deviation (SD) of penis length is reported to be between 0.5 and 0.8 inch(es). Once again, we will take the middle, and settle for using .65 as the SD for penis length. For circumference there isn't as much data, but what is available shows the SD to be about 0.4 inches. Using these numbers we can say that 68% of the population is between 4.85 and 6.15 inches. 95% are between 4.2 and 6.8 inches. 98% are between 3.55 and 7.45 inches. 1% are smaller than 3.55 inches, and 1% are larger than 7.45 inches. The "one in a million" mark is at 8.6 inches - that is, only 1 in 1,000,000 men will be larger than 8.6 inches, or smaller than 2.4 inches (about 5 SD's from the mean). As for circumference, 68% are between 4.1 and 4.9 inches. 95% are between 3.7 and 5.3 inches; and 98% are between 3.3 and 5.7 inches. 1% are smaller than 3.3 inches, and 1% are larger than 5.7 inches. The "one in a million" mark is at 6.4 inches for the larger, and 2.6 inches for the smaller. The most extreme ends of the spectrum (read LARGEST PENIS IN THE WORLD here) will be about 10 SD's from the mean; about 12 inches in length and about 8.5 inches in circumference. I have a keen interest in penis size, as I, myself, was blessed (cursed?) with a penis approximately 9 inches in length and 5.5 inches in circumference. Every woman I meet (meat?) in the "real world" is VERY VERY VERY impressed with my size, some are even scared, or quit after some amount of sex (or simply BEG me to cum, so they can get my large penis out of them...). Only in chatrooms do I find "women" that claim to have been with guys that were "at least 12 inches" - never in the "casual relationships" I have with women. Also, I look at a lot of porn (hey, I have a lot of time on my hands, OK?), and NEVER have I seen a man larger than 11 inches; Lex Steele and Mandingo come to mind automatically - but I sometimes think they look so much larger due to tricky photography, camera angles, lenses, etc. Sometimes they don't seem much larger than 10 inches... Anyway, this was my first post...!
 09-09-2005 #2 (permalink) Banned Good first post, Camino. I've never seen an 11 inch penis either, so I am truly a doubting Thomas about anyone here -- or anywhere -- who claims to have one. The guys in the Monsters of Cock website Mr. Mark posted here have 9 inch dicks and they are absolutely ginormous! An eight inch penis is huge and uncommon. 11 to 12 inches? Sorry, I gotta get my own personal ruler out to believe it. Fire away, boys, but I'm still gonna say your pants are on fire unless I see the goods for myself.
 09-09-2005 #3 (permalink) Wait a minute... Just hold on - Are you trying to tell me that people online, actually... actually lie?! Good God! Call the President! [/SARCASM] Anyway, welcome to the board, and I quite agree, many people arent what they say they are... Isn't it awfully nice to have a penis?Isn't it frightfully good to have a dong?It's swell to have a stiffy!It's divine to own a dick!From the tiniest little tadger,To the world's biggest prick!...
Banned

Quote:
 Originally posted by Hung Muscle@Sep 9 2005, 02:23 PM 11 to 12 inches? Sorry, I gotta get my own personal ruler out to believe it. Fire away, boys, but I'm still gonna say your pants are on fire unless I see the goods for myself.
They exist. I don't have one myself, but I've seen a few. Of course, I used to be in a position to see unusually large cocks. Though there are some phallic monsters out there, sightings are rarer than reports of Bigfoot.

Ars longa, vita brevis: CARPE SCROTUM!

Quote:
 Originally posted by DoubleMeatWhopper+Sep 9 2005, 07:45 PM-->
QUOTE(DoubleMeatWhopper @ Sep 9 2005, 07:45 PM)
They exist. I don't have one myself, but I've seen a few. Of course, I used to be in a position to see unusually large cocks. Though there are some phallic monsters out there, sightings are rarer than reports of Bigfoot.
[/b][/quote]

What, er, "position" were you in to see these OUTRAGEOUSLY large dicks?

An 11" dick is as rare as a man about 7'8" tall!!!

In the NBA both Shawn Bradley and Yao Ming are listed at 7'6" tall, just for some comparison of just how RARE 11+" dicks really are...Sure, there are a handful (pun intended) out there, and there probably is a guy or two with 12"s, and there just MIGHT be some guy with 13"s, and if there's anyone bigger, or more than one 13"er out there, that's just a statistical abnormality the equivalent of winning the Powerball or Big Game lotteries twice a week for a year (or something else outrageous like that...).

 09-09-2005 #6 (permalink) In my own experience, I've encountered cocks from roughly the size of my thumb to my forearm, or about 2.5 to around 11 inches long. While ones at the extreme are rare, I have seen several. However, since I have not seen millions of cocks, I have seen far more large ones than your statistics would predict. For reference, I would estimate that cocks in the 8 to 9 inch range are found on perhaps 1% or so of the men I have played with, not one in a million. There are perhaps several reasons for this, but the most likely one has to do with improper use and poor understanding of statistical techniques, leading to invalid conclusions. You, and many of the researchers you quote, have assumed that the data has a Gaussian (normal) distribution when applying the concepts of mean and standard deviation (SD), and then using these number to extrapolate the expected frequency of finding any particular size. Unfortunately, this is often done on datasets which are not truly Gaussian. The mean and SD are valid concepts for data with any distribution. However, using these two values to predict the frequency in the way you did is only valid if the distribution is Gaussian. It is common for researchers to summarize data as the mean and SD, and leave it to readers to assume that the data set is Gaussian, when in fact the accuracy of fit to the Gaussian model was never verified. Just because the distribution curve seems "bell shaped," doesn't mean that it accurately follows the Gaussian model. Even if the data appears to be a reasonable fit to a Gaussian model, it is important to note that the further you get from the mean, the less accurate the extrapolation may become. This is because the tests used to determine the goodness of fit to the model aren't very sensitive to points out on the "tails" of the distribution, as there are comparatively few of these points in a dataset of roughly Gaussian shape. So, you have to beware of large extrapolations (many SD) in all cases, and even be skeptical closer to the mean if the goodness of fit to the model is suspect. To have a true Gaussian distribution, the data has to be truly random in nature. It is doubtful that penis size is truly random, as genetics, mate selection, physical limitations, and other somewhat determinisitic factors are involved. Therefore, it is not surprising that actual experience differs from the results extrapolated using the mean and SD assuming a Gaussian model. Even a subtle deterministic effect can casue large deviations from the model at the "tails" of the curve. In fact, even if penis length were truly random, the model using a mean length plus/minus so many standard deviations is obviously flawed. For example, you say the world's largest cock would be at +10 standard deviations, at 12 x 8.5 inches. But, as a Gaussian distribution is symetrical about the mean, this means that the smallest penis, at -10 standard deviations, would be negative 1 inch long by 0.5 in circumference (this is using your numbers; I didn't bother to verify your caluclations). Since a negative length is physically impossible, it is obvious that your model cannot be accurate at the large extrapolations you make. When measuring the size of things that vary widely (which cocks do, despite the feel-good BS to the contrary), statistics based on geometric distributions, rather than arithmetic ones, somteimes work out as better fits. For example, the arithmetic Gaussian distribution you assumed predicts that for every cock X inches longer than the arithmetic mean, there is one X inches shorter, given the symetrical distribution curve. However, in a geometric distribution, for every cock Y times the length of the geometric mean, you have one equal to the mean divided by Y. (Note that you can't get negative lengths this way; just nearly zero.) A simple way to analyze a data set in this way is to take the logarithms of the lengths, then apply the usual arithmetic Gaussian statistics to the logs. This is still assuming a Gaussian distribution (which may not really be true due to deterministics factors), but now applies it to the ratio of the length to the mean. I suspect that will produce results that agree better with observation.

Quote:
 Originally posted by ericbear@Sep 9 2005, 09:47 PM In my own experience, I've encountered cocks from roughly the size of my thumb to my forearm, or about 2.5 to around 11 inches long. While ones at the extreme are rare, I have seen several. However, since I have not seen millions of cocks, I have seen far more large ones than your statistics would predict. For reference, I would estimate that cocks in the 8 to 9 inch range are found on perhaps 1% or so of the men I have played with, not one in a million. There are perhaps several reasons for this, but the most likely one has to do with improper use and poor understanding of statistical techniques, leading to invalid conclusions. You, and many of the researchers you quote, have assumed that the data has a Gaussian (normal) distribution when applying the concepts of mean and standard deviation (SD), and then using these number to extrapolate the expected frequency of finding any particular size. Unfortunately, this is often done on datasets which are not truly Gaussian. The mean and SD are valid concepts for data with any distribution. However, using these two values to predict the frequency in the way you did is only valid if the distribution is Gaussian. It is common for researchers to summarize data as the mean and SD, and leave it to readers to assume that the data set is Gaussian, when in fact the accuracy of fit to the Gaussian model was never verified. Just because the distribution curve seems "bell shaped," doesn't mean that it accurately follows the Gaussian model. Even if the data appears to be a reasonable fit to a Gaussian model, it is important to note that the further you get from the mean, the less accurate the extrapolation may become. This is because the tests used to determine the goodness of fit to the model aren't very sensitive to points out on the "tails" of the distribution, as there are comparatively few of these points in a dataset of roughly Gaussian shape. So, you have to beware of large extrapolations (many SD) in all cases, and even be skeptical closer to the mean if the goodness of fit to the model is suspect. To have a true Gaussian distribution, the data has to be truly random in nature. It is doubtful that penis size is truly random, as genetics, mate selection, physical limitations, and other somewhat determinisitic factors are involved. Therefore, it is not surprising that actual experience differs from the results extrapolated using the mean and SD assuming a Gaussian model. Even a subtle deterministic effect can casue large deviations from the model at the "tails" of the curve. In fact, even if penis length were truly random, the model using a mean length plus/minus so many standard deviations is obviously flawed. For example, you say the world's largest cock would be at +10 standard deviations, at 12 x 8.5 inches. But, as a Gaussian distribution is symetrical about the mean, this means that the smallest penis, at -10 standard deviations, would be negative 1 inch long by 0.5 in circumference (this is using your numbers; I didn't bother to verify your caluclations). Since a negative length is physically impossible, it is obvious that your model cannot be accurate at the large extrapolations you make. When measuring the size of things that vary widely (which cocks do, despite the feel-good BS to the contrary), statistics based on geometric distributions, rather than arithmetic ones, somteimes work out as better fits. For example, the arithmetic Gaussian distribution you assumed predicts that for every cock X inches longer than the arithmetic mean, there is one X inches shorter, given the symetrical distribution curve. However, in a geometric distribution, for every cock Y times the length of the geometric mean, you have one equal to the mean divided by Y. (Note that you can't get negative lengths this way; just nearly zero.) A simple way to analyze a data set in this way is to take the logarithms of the lengths, then apply the usual arithmetic Gaussian statistics to the logs. This is still assuming a Gaussian distribution (which may not really be true due to deterministics factors), but now applies it to the ratio of the length to the mean. I suspect that will produce results that agree better with observation. Quoted post

Ah, another statistician - and a well educated one at that!

Your forearm is 11 inches long?

How tall are you?

If your forearm is 11 inches long, you've gotta be well over 7 feet tall!

I'm of normal height, and my forearm is about 9-9.5 inches long (depending on from where you measure).

As for the smallest penises being negative - perhaps I've overstated the SD, and the largest penises out there aren't quite so large, since the smallest can't be quite so small.

Also, the world isn't perfect, that's true - there could (and ARE) some abnormalities about the curve. But nothing of the nature to produce 11 inch penises in the kind of abundance needed for the DOZENS of anecdotal stories of which I've heard.

I maintain the distribution of penis sizes IS Gaussian ("normal"), and have no reason to believe otherwise. Do you, or do you not agree that the distribution of height is Gaussian? What about hand length, etc.? If you agree those are Gaussian, why not penis size?

Quote:
 Originally posted by ElCamino55@Sep 10 2005, 02:07 AM If your forearm is 11 inches long, you've gotta be well over 7 feet tall!
huh? my forearms (I'm assuming we're talking wrist to elbow here) are over 12" long, and I'm only 6'2.

Quote:
 But nothing of the nature to produce 11 inch penises in the kind of abundance needed for the DOZENS of anecdotal stories of which I've heard.
I've personally encountered at least half a dozen guys as long or longer than me, which works out to about 2% of all the males with whom I've ever gotten messy. I dunno where you're getting your statistics from, but they're clearly not applicable to real life.

Quote:
 Originally posted by Dr Rock+Sep 9 2005, 10:20 PM-->
QUOTE(Dr Rock @ Sep 9 2005, 10:20 PM)
huh? my forearms (I'm assuming we're talking wrist to elbow here) are over 12" long, and I'm only 6'2.

[/b][/quote]

I just attempted to measure my forearm. I couldn't get an accurate outside reading (point of elbow to wrist) but from the inside of my elbow to my wrist is 10.5", and I'm 5'10" tall and I have proportionately short limbs for my height. (30" inseam)

 09-10-2005 #11 (permalink) Ericbear, I suddenly find you EXTREMELY attractive. Who knew you aresuch a brainiac!
 09-10-2005 #12 (permalink) Who'da known we'd all be measuring our forearms!! (11.25" here, FWIW...)

Quote:
 Originally posted by philberttrw@Sep 10 2005, 07:27 AM Ericbear, I suddenly find you EXTREMELY attractive. Who knew you aresuch a brainiac! Quoted post

Yeah, I'm right there with you, Philbert. *fans flushed face furiously*

find music at www.pandora.com

 09-10-2005 #14 (permalink) So, with all that being said above... It could be possible that there is some sort of "genetic mutation" that produces larger penises at a higher rate than the "normal curve" would predict. With that being said, what other attributes are associated with this genetic mutation, if any? If, indeed, there is a genetic mutation, I'm sure medical science would like to know about it! Anyway, where does one find pictures of all of these 11 inch dicks out on the internet? It seems to me, if there were indeed MORE of the 11 inch dicks out there, they would be more easily found in "big dick" porn, for which there seems to be a rather high demand. Once again, using an NBA analogy, the tallest men in the NBA are about 8 SD from the mean, which is the equivalent to about a 10 inch dick - which is what Lexington Steele seems to be (he MIGHT be 11 inches, but I don't really know...).

Quote:
 Originally posted by Dr Rock@Sep 10 2005, 03:20 AM I dunno where you're getting your statistics from, but they're clearly not applicable to real life. Quoted post
That's the thing about statistics; they rarely can be applied to real life.

 Tags penis, size, statistics

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:57 AM.

 Latest Threads Lasting longer? Sugges 44 Minutes Ago by drake_ Huge Cock movies with 1 Hour Ago by smghot AdrianCf 2 Hours Ago by Adrian Horny after gym 2 Hours Ago by fitgym 23 y/o jock tiny dicke 3 Hours Ago by pimpin

 Latest Posts hairy 1 Minute Ago by humdin Atheism = Farce! 1 Minute Ago by Pecker tattoos 1 Minute Ago by humdin If you're uncut put yo 2 Minutes Ago by willia Huge Cock movies with 3 Minutes Ago by MilkDa

 Latest Blogs Nasty dreams 05-25-2013 by julianriosfan How do you tell.... 05-24-2013 by Mysticalangels Biggest downfall of having a... 05-24-2013 by slimjimpencil Extremely Thick White Cocks 05-24-2013 by Storslaget Oovoo 05-23-2013 by iminvegas

 On Cam Now avgdave, bigdick_871, bigpussystretcher, camonline, geek0, imalearnya, MilkDaddy, nogoodonesleft, skysky1986, Thales, william_john10, youngaussieboy