The French release a study on average penis size

[dirkjesje]

The average girth seems to me rather low. I 've a study a of urologists of Leuven (University Belgium), sponsored by Durex, randomly choosen men thru a lottery of Durex :
( average, +/-1std big/small / +3/-3 very )

Midshaft Girth
Very Thin-100mm)(-3"95) : approx 1 on 769
Thin -118mm)(-4"65) : approx 1 on 6
Average 118mm<->135mm)(4"65<->5"30) : 2 on 3
Thick +135mm)(+5"30) : approx 1 on 6
VeryThicK+153mm)(+6"00) : approx 1 on 769

 

[Mongo]

The strange thing about this new study is that there's no mention of methodology, sample size etc. Especially in the English article it almost comes across as just a (very) educated guess without showing to any basis for it. That might simply be a problem with the article, though.

 

[bobg4400]

The strange thing about this new study is that there's no mention of methodology, sample size etc. Especially in the English article it almost comes across as just a (very) educated guess without showing to any basis for it. That might simply be a problem with the article, though.

It probably is a problem with the article if you assume whoever wrote it doesn't speak french either at all or fluently enough to extract information from the paper other than the numbers.

 

[ShannonH]

i really have to call bs on all of these studies
also the concept of an 'average' penis size is completely brainfucked by outliers
im glad they at least have a range of normality (which i have to assume is the IQR)

Huh? How is a medically supervised, verified study of an accurate cross-section of the population BS?

Most of the outliers tend to be on the extremely short side, since there are a surprisingly high number of men out there with a birth defect or other disorder that prevents their penis from growing during puberty. It's especially ironic that you think the "'average' penis size is completely brainfucked by outliers" when the stated goal of this study was to identify the outliers so that they could be candidates for surgery. The surgeries have a ridiculously low satisfaction rate and a ridiculously high rate of post-op impotence, so information like this is valuable so men don't develop psychological problems, where 5" guys get their penises butchered since they think most guys are 12" or something. Really only men with unuseably-small dicks ought to even consider these procedures.

I can't find the original research paper -- does anyone have the link? The one at the top is in French and lists multiple studies, and I can't identify which of them is this study. I'd be most interested in just seeing the distribution. One of the really nice things with the old Lifestyle's study was that it showed a percentage distribution, so you could see clearly that no, there isn't just a sudden spike of 12" dicks -- I think the biggest in the entire study of 100s of people was mid-8s.

 

[Thirdlegproduction]

is it me or do they become smaller and smaller each year?

 

[minimag]

All penises were created equal, but some more equal than others.

 

[ShannonH]

Totally agree with this. To my knowledge, there's only been one good study in terms of the sample set -- the Italian conscript study (Ponchietti et al.) In parts of the world still backwards enough to have conscription (I know.. save it for the politics page ) everyone at 18 will go in and have their military physical. This is a little past the age when development will have finished for nearly everyone, so it's probably the best age to take the study at since you'll be measuring young, healthy dicks and not ones damaged by decades of smoking and obesity. They're also way more fit than Americans, and again being young helps with that, so this really lessens the impact of bone-pressed vs non-bone-pressed since there's not much of a fat pad there to begin with. They measured complete stretched length (not a 'gentle' stretch, but stretching to the maximal distance after 3 warm-up stretches), which the Wessels study proved is an extremely accurate predictor of erect length (generally only around 0.4cm shorter stretched.) This means there's no question of whether the guys were just sporting partial chubbies or had a curvature that wasn't measured or anything like that.
They did 3300 people (for statistical measurements of a population, that is a hell of a lot.) The mean stretched length? 12.5cm! That's just over 4.9" long. If you add some length back on there to predict an erect length based on stretched numbers, that's still only around 5.1", which is what the Wessels study got years ago and most medically supervised, measured studies that didn't just go around asking people if they wanted their dick measured got.
There are two big factors that often bump the mean number up: self-selection, and self-measurement. Grouping them by these factors I've noticed it's about:
no self-selection or measurement: 5.1"
self-selection only: ~5.6"
self-measurement only: ~6"
self-selection and self-measurement: ~6.5"
anonymous internet survey: the size of a 2L bottle of coke.

The standard deviation on the Italian study is only 2.5cm, so the difference between the general population, and wishful-thinking exhibitionists, is about 1.6 SDs. I know it's not quite a normal distribution, but that puts the high "average" at about the top ~8% of the population. This also means there's enough overlap that between two guys with exactly the same 5.8" dick, one might believe that he's a significantly bigger than most guys, while the other would think he's smaller.

I've always been of the opinion that studies purporting to show "average" length and girth are bound to be skewed. My thinking is that size is such a hot topic that men willing to let themselves be measured by strangers are more likely to be a little bigger than men with smaller penises. There is so much emphasis (at least in America) on being big, and conversely that being average/small is a bad thing that I think the average/small guys would shy away from the studies. Not that I'm saying smaller guys should be embarrassed, but rather I think society and porn are so inundated with big cock that men average and below are more likely to stay away from the studies.

The vast majority of what I've read suggests that the average is either 6 inches long or "between 5 and 7" inches, which is another way of saying 6. I always take that into account when I consider it (which is obviously way too much). End result is that I think average length is probably closer to 5.25-5.75 inches. I haven't seen alot of information on girth, so I withhold my opinion there.

In any case, it's nice to see a study that is willing to give a firm number instead of a range and fits with my own theory that most of the studies are skewed larger.

 

[SR_vuj5riy]

Maybe because of black population the girth is low

 

[palkan]

is it me or do they become smaller and smaller each year?

Many things break down into estrogen in the environment. Some reptile species are having trouble reproducing because of a shrinking penis. This is a trend that is probably meaningless at the moment due to small sample size/problems but we will likely see in the future. Obviously human effects would be much smaller but the feminization of men is probably happening increasingly to males under 30.

 

[Ravager]

the girth is straight bullshit

 

[drabman]

the girth is straight bullshit

Don't tell me - you've slept with half the men in the world and most were "6 or more.

 

[drabman]

Totally agree with this. To my knowledge, there's only been one good study in terms of the sample set -- the Italian conscript study (Ponchietti et al.) In parts of the world still backwards enough to have conscription (I know.. save it for the politics page ) everyone at 18 will go in and have their military physical. This is a little past the age when development will have finished for nearly everyone, so it's probably the best age to take the study at since you'll be measuring young, healthy dicks and not ones damaged by decades of smoking and obesity. They're also way more fit than Americans, and again being young helps with that, so this really lessens the impact of bone-pressed vs non-bone-pressed since there's not much of a fat pad there to begin with. They measured complete stretched length (not a 'gentle' stretch, but stretching to the maximal distance after 3 warm-up stretches), which the Wessels study proved is an extremely accurate predictor of erect length (generally only around 0.4cm shorter stretched.) This means there's no question of whether the guys were just sporting partial chubbies or had a curvature that wasn't measured or anything like that.
They did 3300 people (for statistical measurements of a population, that is a hell of a lot.) The mean stretched length? 12.5cm! That's just over 4.9" long. If you add some length back on there to predict an erect length based on stretched numbers, that's still only around 5.1", which is what the Wessels study got years ago and most medically supervised, measured studies that didn't just go around asking people if they wanted their dick measured got.
There are two big factors that often bump the mean number up: self-selection, and self-measurement. Grouping them by these factors I've noticed it's about:
no self-selection or measurement: 5.1"
self-selection only: ~5.6"
self-measurement only: ~6"
self-selection and self-measurement: ~6.5"
anonymous internet survey: the size of a 2L bottle of coke.

The standard deviation on the Italian study is only 2.5cm, so the difference between the general population, and wishful-thinking exhibitionists, is about 1.6 SDs. I know it's not quite a normal distribution, but that puts the high "average" at about the top ~8% of the population. This also means there's enough overlap that between two guys with exactly the same 5.8" dick, one might believe that he's a significantly bigger than most guys, while the other would think he's smaller.

Employing facts, logic and reason in a discussion on penis size on LPSG? Wow. You really are a glutton for punishment.

 

[bobg4400]

ok maybe somebody could clear this up.
the measure flaccid stretched length because its close enough to erect length anyway right?
And yet the test subjects needed to get erections in order for the scientists to measure the erect girth so why not measure the erect length while they're at it?
especially since this would correlate with whether FSL is really the same as erect length. ( maybe my penis is particularly unstretchy but my FSL is about 1.5 inches shorter than my EL)

 

[Phil Ayesho]

Average is meaningless.

what percentage of penises fall within this stated range? For 40% to be within this range would make it the average, but would mean that 30% are below and 30% above that range... that's still almost as many larger dicks as average ones.


If 80% are within this range, that would mean that only 10% of penises are larger or smaller.

 

[Incocknito]

Average is meaningless.

what percentage of penises fall within this stated range? For 40% to be within this range would make it the average, but would mean that 30% are below and 30% above that range... that's still almost as many larger dicks as average ones.


If 80% are within this range, that would mean that only 10% of penises are larger or smaller.

And if 90% of men are average, 5% are bigger and 5% are smaller. What is the point.

To be honest, an average which applies to 80-90% of people seems about right to me.

 

[FRE]

I just found this in the news and thought I would share here.

The French surgical Academy just released a study where it says an average penis measures between 9 and 9.5 cm (flacid) and 12,8 and 14, 5 (erect). Circumference would be 8,5/9 cm (flacid) to 10/10,5 cm when erect.

The study was carried out due to the apparent increase in men asking for penis enlargement surgery in recent years.

More info (in french) here: Pénis : La vérité sur la taille moyenne | France Soir

In English: The Local - It's official: French docs reveal 'normal' penis size

That means that my length is about 23% greater than average and my girth is about 33% greater than average.

 

[FRE]

The strange thing about this new study is that there's no mention of methodology, sample size etc. Especially in the English article it almost comes across as just a (very) educated guess without showing to any basis for it. That might simply be a problem with the article, though.

Quite true. We don't know how they got their subjects, whether the subjects were a true random sample, how they were sure that the subjects were completely flacid when the flacid measurements were taken, or as hard as possible when the erect measurements were taken. We don't even know how they got the subjects erect.

It would be interesting to speculate on exactly what the subjects experienced during the measurement process.

 

[FRE]

Totally agree with this. To my knowledge, there's only been one good study in terms of the sample set -- the Italian conscript study (Ponchietti et al.) In parts of the world still backwards enough to have conscription (I know.. save it for the politics page ) everyone at 18 will go in and have their military physical. This is a little past the age when development will have finished for nearly everyone, so it's probably the best age to take the study at since you'll be measuring young, healthy dicks and not ones damaged by decades of smoking and obesity. They're also way more fit than Americans, and again being young helps with that, so this really lessens the impact of bone-pressed vs non-bone-pressed since there's not much of a fat pad there to begin with. They measured complete stretched length (not a 'gentle' stretch, but stretching to the maximal distance after 3 warm-up stretches), which the Wessels study proved is an extremely accurate predictor of erect length (generally only around 0.4cm shorter stretched.) This means there's no question of whether the guys were just sporting partial chubbies or had a curvature that wasn't measured or anything like that.
They did 3300 people (for statistical measurements of a population, that is a hell of a lot.) The mean stretched length? 12.5cm! That's just over 4.9" long. If you add some length back on there to predict an erect length based on stretched numbers, that's still only around 5.1", which is what the Wessels study got years ago and most medically supervised, measured studies that didn't just go around asking people if they wanted their dick measured got.
There are two big factors that often bump the mean number up: self-selection, and self-measurement. Grouping them by these factors I've noticed it's about:
no self-selection or measurement: 5.1"
self-selection only: ~5.6"
self-measurement only: ~6"
self-selection and self-measurement: ~6.5"
anonymous internet survey: the size of a 2L bottle of coke.

The standard deviation on the Italian study is only 2.5cm, so the difference between the general population, and wishful-thinking exhibitionists, is about 1.6 SDs. I know it's not quite a normal distribution, but that puts the high "average" at about the top ~8% of the population. This also means there's enough overlap that between two guys with exactly the same 5.8" dick, one might believe that he's a significantly bigger than most guys, while the other would think he's smaller.

Stretched flacid length? How can they be sure that a penis is completely flacid when it is being stretched? One would think that the stretching process would be likely to cause a partial erection. Can you imagine yourself being the subject?

 

[ShannonH]

Stretched flacid length? How can they be sure that a penis is completely flacid when it is being stretched? One would think that the stretching process would be likely to cause a partial erection. Can you imagine yourself being the subject?

Another good thing about measuring stretched length is that it doesn't really matter how much of an erection you have. When you stretch it out, you're pulling it to the maximum length that the tissue will stretch, so it's already maxed out and couldn't get longer. It's easily the best measurement to use in a larger study since it takes out so many factors that contribute when measuring erect length, which is why newer studies use this technique more and more.

 

[FRE]

Another good thing about measuring stretched length is that it doesn't really matter how much of an erection you have. When you stretch it out, you're pulling it to the maximum length that the tissue will stretch, so it's already maxed out and couldn't get longer. It's easily the best measurement to use in a larger study since it takes out so many factors that contribute when measuring erect length, which is why newer studies use this technique more and more.

I wonder how non-gay men would feel about letting themselves be stretched out. Not that all men would react the same way, but how would you feel about being stretched out?