Amsterdam penis size study

Narz

Loved Member
Joined
May 12, 2013
Posts
556
Media
0
Likes
730
Points
188
Location
Vienna (Austria)
I didn't knew where to post this and figured you guys might be the best to ask.

So I've found this penis size study from Amsterdam:

https://johnkutensky.wordpress.com/2015/11/17/penis-size-histogram/

and decided to look further into it.

I downloaded the data and looked into it. The data can be found here: http://docslide.us/documents/wps-results-table-amsterdam-2013.html

I ctrl+f'ed and it seems that all the big guys are either over 6'6" or black/latino.

Like there are four guys with 22cm penises. One is 2.01 meters and latino, the others are 2.03-2.11 meters and white. Roughly the same with 21 and 20cm dicks.

Is there any way I can better look into that data? Like a tool that uses that .pdf and stores it into some kind of table where I can sort by size or search.

I want to make graphs based on height, race and such
 
  • Like
Reactions: peachbumbttm

John Kutensky

Just Browsing
Joined
Aug 24, 2016
Posts
1
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
11
Gender
Male
Hey, this is John Kutensky, of the post. What sort of graphs would you be interested in seeing? I can do another post on the data. For any kind of analysis, though, you're going to want it as a csv or an Excel file, depending on what you use to analyze.
 

LilJock

Superior Member
Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
Jan 24, 2009
Posts
1,521
Media
0
Likes
5,299
Points
668
Location
USA
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
A few things stood out to me.

1) The average seemed to cluster around 6 inches. That seems a little high. Most recent studies have shown an average somewhere between 5" and 5.75". Only Kinsey showed an average that high (6.25"), and that was later discredited because it was based upon self-measurements.

2) It did deem a bit more like a "steeple" curve than a bell curve, but I've noticed that in a lot of graphs on penis size. Maybe cock size isn't a true random distribution. Maybe evolution has squeezed penis size into a tighter spectrum and away from the extremes, i.e., women prefer average over extremely big or small.

3) There seems a slightly larger number on the large side of the curve than on the smaller side. This may be somehow tied into a phenomenon noted by Masters and Johnson that was originally suppressed in their groundbreaking studies Human Sexual Response (1966, 1981) and Human Sexual Inadequacy (1970). They noted that blacks were on average slightly bigger and tended to have a greater number of "phallic giants". That could explain a slightly skewed bell curve.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: moonlightnbg

coorsguy64

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2016
Posts
150
Media
0
Likes
122
Points
53
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
Highly skeptical that this is self-reported and hence, useless. Have any proof that the measurements were conducted by staff? I can't find anything on the web about this study's method of measurement and how results were obtained. The race/height thing is also a major red flag here, as almost all studies that exist conducted by researchers find no evidence of racial differences and absolute minimal (if any at all) relation b/t height and size.

There's also a 10"+ reported. A massive red flag, seeing as how in porn, on the entire web, and on this site dedicated to well-endowed men, there isn't a single documented, w/o a doubt authentic 10"er measured completely accurately. You're going to tell me a study of a mere ~1,700 men in Amsterdam somehow produced what all of these other mediums can't? Unlikely.

The average seemed to cluster around 6 inches. That seems a little high. Most recent studies have shown an average somewhere between 5" and 5.75". Only Kinsey showed an average that high (6.25"), and that was later discredited because it was based upon self-measurements.

This. And I suspect we're looking at the same deal as Kinsey here.

Human Sexual Response (1966, 1981) and Human Sexual Inadequacy (1970). They noted that blacks were on average slightly bigger and tended to have a greater number of "phallic giants". That could explain a slightly skewed bell curve.

Studies ranging from 35-50 years ago? Not the most reliable stuff if you ask me. Admittedly, I don't know much about the studies you referenced, but any of that real old stuff tends to have significant inaccuracies (ie. Kinsey) Any more "modern" stuff verifiably conducted by researchers typically dispels any of that racial difference crap.
 

LilJock

Superior Member
Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
Jan 24, 2009
Posts
1,521
Media
0
Likes
5,299
Points
668
Location
USA
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Studies ranging from 35-50 years ago? Not the most reliable stuff if you ask me. Admittedly, I don't know much about the studies you referenced, but any of that real old stuff tends to have significant inaccuracies (ie. Kinsey) Any more "modern" stuff verifiably conducted by researchers typically dispels any of that racial difference crap.
Masters and Johnson were reputable scientists and pathfinders in the field. Their study was extremely scientific. In fact, scarily so. To determine how people actually responded during sex, they hooked participants up with wires and electrodes and all kinds of stuff. I often wondered how anyone could perform wired up like that.* All participants were measured in every possible way. Men were measured by staff both flaccid and erect. It's rather interesting to note that they suppressed for twenty years their findings about blacks having slightly bigger cocks as being too controversial at the time.



As you say, the studies sited seem questionable in many respects. However, the presence of a 10"+ penis should not be considered disqualifying. I know it's apocryphal, but one of my best friends in high school had easily the biggest cock in school. It was monstrous, the subject of much interest and consternation in the showers. He told me it was 9.5" (his girlfriend claimed 10"). I never saw it hard, but I have no reason to disbelieve him. Our school had 2,000 students, so approximately 1,000 guys. It doesn't seem unreasonable to find one 10"+ in a group of 1,000 guys, let alone a study of 1,700, especially since my friend was a teenager then and could have grown some more in the coming years.

Plus, it's often a fallacy of logic to consider that something improbable is impossible. We've recently had too many examples of thousand-year storms occurring, or people who lost their shirts in 2008 when multiple 100-year events combined to bring down the stock market. By the very nature of it, things with heavy odds against them do occur, just infrequently. The odds against a cock over 10" may, lets say, be 1 in10,000. Or 100,000. That doesn't mean it can't show up in a study of 1,700. It's gonna show up somewhere.





* Of interest to LPSG members, one of their main conclusions was that size had little to do with the orgasmic response of women.
 

coorsguy64

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2016
Posts
150
Media
0
Likes
122
Points
53
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
Well to start off, as suspected, I could find this study referenced absolutely nowhere credible anywhere on the web. Say in any medical journals at all. Essentially, the he only places I found it referenced were on sites like wordpress or blogspot.

Masters and Johnson were reputable scientists and pathfinders in the field. Their study was extremely scientific. In fact, scarily so. To determine how people actually responded during sex, they hooked participants up with wires and electrodes and all kinds of stuff. I often wondered how anyone could perform wired up like that.* All participants were measured in every possible way. Men were measured by staff both flaccid and erect. It's rather interesting to note that they suppressed for twenty years their findings about blacks having slightly bigger cocks as being too controversial at the time.

Link to this study? From a medical/research/urological site or journal supporting this study and these notions? Sorry, just not putting a lot of weight into studies that are well over a quarter to a half a century old.

the presence of a 10"+ penis should not be considered disqualifying

While not technically "disqualifying", it should raise the skepticism concerning the legitimacy of the study immensely.

*On a side note: this study actually didn't report a 10"+. I glanced in the wrong column by mistake. Everything else I stated regarding this study stands however.*

but one of my best friends in high school had easily the biggest cock in school. It was monstrous, the subject of much interest and consternation in the showers. He told me it was 9.5" (his girlfriend claimed 10"). I never saw it hard, but I have no reason to disbelieve him

Yeah, everybody's got a story and nobody's got proof. Why even bring something so useless and anecdotal like this up in a serious discussion?

doesn't seem unreasonable to find one 10"+ in a group of 1,000 guys

It absolutely does. This could not be more insanely inaccurate. Given that porn, all the thousands of dick pics, and sites like this (especially this one) --- which all skew drastically towards glorifying large penises --- can't produce a single undoubtedly real, properly measured 10"+ penis, it would certainly be reasonable to conclude that if 10"+ even exists, it is astronomically more uncommon than 1/1000 or anything even close to that.

especially since my friend was a teenager then and could have grown some more in the coming years.

Like I said, why even bring this up? It couldn't be more useless and inaccurate. People get laughed at daily here for bringing up anecdotes similar to this.

fallacy of logic to consider that something improbable is impossible.

Never said impossible, just incredibly improbable.

things with heavy odds against them do occur, just infrequently

Yeah sure, of course they do, but why in the hell would I believe it without visual proof or the documentation from a medical professional?

The odds against a cock over 10" may, lets say, be 1 in10,000. Or 100,000

Completely fabricated and frivolous estimate. We have zero specimens to go by, not even one, so you'd be just as well off chugging 20 brews, having your buddy spin you around 50 times and trying to hit the bullseye on a dartboard. Complete shot in the dark my friend.

It's gonna show up somewhere

Hasn't so far. :rolleyes:


*On a semi-related note, I was perusing a thread a couple days back --- which I can't recall --- where a user by @Snakebyte had trudged up some studies from actual medicine journals that (although not perfect) were heavily in favor of racial differences being fabricated. Perhaps he'd be kind/helpful enough to weigh in here.*
 

LilJock

Superior Member
Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
Jan 24, 2009
Posts
1,521
Media
0
Likes
5,299
Points
668
Location
USA
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
First - and I'll try to choose my words carefully here. Masters and Johnson's work is probably the most respected in the field. It's methods and conclusions have never been questioned in the last thirty years. It's still bedrock.

Second, I shouldn't need to provide a link. It should be the common property of anyone claiming any knowledge of the field. It's like discussing evolution and not knowing who Charles Darwin is. A simple Google search could easily have filled that gap in knowledge. It seems unbelievable that someone would dismiss anything out of hand without first taking the time to learn something about it.

Thirdly, I offered my response in the sprit of simple discussion about a subject. I meant no offense or disrespect. I made a simple observation on one point. I did not by doing so mean to offer any insult to your intelligence. Nor did I expect a scathing, insulting and withering response. A simple "I respectfully disagree" would have sufficed. It's one of the sad aspects of the internet that some use it's anonymity to behave unpleasantly towards others. I don't behave that way with the people around me, and try not to here. I made a mistake in responding to you. I won't make that mistake again.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MarioBarto

coorsguy64

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2016
Posts
150
Media
0
Likes
122
Points
53
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
On another semi-related note; what is with the slew of 6'8"-6'9" and over guys? According to this site:

https://tall.life/height-percentile-calculator-age-country/

An 6'8" adult male in the Netherlands should only occur 1/693 and 1/2237 for 6'9", yet there seem to be a ridiculous abundance of guys at least that size and an a bunch even taller around 6'10"-7'0". :confused:

According to that same site as above; a 6'10" male should occur only 1/8065, yet there are nearly (or maybe even over) a dozen guys this size in a study of 1700?

Doesn't delegitimize technically, but makes you raise an eyebrow.
 

coorsguy64

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2016
Posts
150
Media
0
Likes
122
Points
53
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
First - and I'll try to choose my words carefully here. Masters and Johnson's work is probably the most respected in the field. It's methods and conclusions have never been questioned in the last thirty years. It's still bedrock.

Second, I shouldn't need to provide a link. It should be the common property of anyone claiming any knowledge of the field. It's like discussing evolution and not knowing who Charles Darwin is. A simple Google search could easily have filled that gap in knowledge. It seems unbelievable that someone would dismiss anything out of hand without first taking the time to learn something about it.

Thirdly, I offered my response in the sprit of simple discussion about a subject. I meant no offense or disrespect. I made a simple observation on one point. I did not by doing so mean to offer any insult to your intelligence. Nor did I expect a scathing, insulting and withering response. A simple "I respectfully disagree" would have sufficed. It's one of the sad aspects of the internet that some use it's anonymity to behave unpleasantly towards others. I don't behave that way with the people around me, and try not to here. I made a mistake in responding to you. I won't make that mistake again.

That's why I asked for a link. If it's so commonplace and respected, then surely you can provide one. Excuse me for not hearing about your referenced study. I've heard the name before in vague discussion, but never took the time to in depth search for it or read it; hence (again) why I asked for a link.

My tone wasn't harsh at all. I was just trying to debate as well. No need to get sensitive. You said some less than accurate things and I corrected you on them. What's wrong with that? But w/e I guess I won't expect a response back.
 

coorsguy64

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2016
Posts
150
Media
0
Likes
122
Points
53
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
Just FTR, cant find any info on the web about Masters and Johnson's being measured or self-reported, so all completely irrelevant anyway if it's self-reported.
 

Snakebyte

Superior Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2005
Posts
9,983
Media
0
Likes
6,760
Points
708
*On a semi-related note, I was perusing a thread a couple days back --- which I can't recall --- where a user by @Snakebyte had trudged up some studies from actual medicine journals that (although not perfect) were heavily in favor of racial differences being fabricated. Perhaps he'd be kind/helpful enough to weigh in here.*

I guess you're talking about the discussion wether the differences are based on genetics or other factors like nutrition. All I remember is that Asian Americans are about the same size as other Americans while Asians still living in Asia are smaller. That kinda contradicts the theory of racial differences. All I can give you at the moment are those studies which show a similar average for caucasian guys and dudes of arabian/turkish descent.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8709382?dopt=Abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11182344?dopt=Abstract
http//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12068220
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25904106

The data presented by the OP is quite funny. You have several guys reporting up to 9cm more than their BPEL measurement actually is. That's a difference of 3.5" :D
The data provides an average of 5.96" and a median of 6" which means that 50% are 6" or bigger. That's completely inconsistent with every single medical/scientifical study of the last decade. Unless the measurements are BPEL, in which case the difference only would be 0.2" . I wasn't able to find any reliable information about how this data was gathered or any real source of the study. Although I don't entirely trust the data here are the average and median for different races (only of those with a statistical significant number of subjects).

Arab:
median: 5.7"
average: 5.7"

Black:
median: 6.45"
average: 6.5"

Caucasian:
median: 6.1"
average: 6.05"

East Asian:
median: 4.8"
average: 4.7"

Latino:
median: 6.3"
average: 6.1"

Mediterranean:
median: 5.7"
average: 5.7"

Like I said before the data is kinda fishy since I wasn't able to find a real source and furthermore the data is inconsistent with lots of real scientific and medical studies of the past decade(s) regarding body height and penis size.
 

dirkjesje

Loved Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2009
Posts
1,407
Media
26
Likes
684
Points
258
Location
belgium
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
Plus, it's often a fallacy of logic to consider that something improbable is impossible. We've recently had too many examples of thousand-year storms occurring, or people who lost their shirts in 2008 when multiple 100-year events combined to bring down the stock market. By the very nature of it, things with heavy odds against them do occur, just infrequently. The odds against a cock over 10" may, lets say, be 1 in10,000. Or 100,000. That doesn't mean it can't show up in a study of 1,700. It's gonna show up somewhere.
It's far far less. Not even 1 in 1,000,000.
If we take for example the Lifestyle Condom study, we find at +5 standard deviations 24.8cm (9.78")
In probability +5sd converts to 1 on 3,486,914.

Remarks.
1. For 10" it is even less as for 9.78" ( by +/- a factor 20 )
2. The Lifestyle Condom study was done with volunteers, skewing the distribution to the right. A random penis study would certainly result in a lower average, so a lower number for the 10"-ers.
3. The study was done on healthy young students. Not really a sample of the male population.
4. Probability has its limits for skewed normal distributions. After +3sd the results aren't reliable, but an indication with a large error margin.

P.S.
The Amsterdam study is a self-reported.
 

LilJock

Superior Member
Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
Jan 24, 2009
Posts
1,521
Media
0
Likes
5,299
Points
668
Location
USA
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Plus, it's often a fallacy of logic to consider that something improbable is impossible. We've recently had too many examples of thousand-year storms occurring, or people who lost their shirts in 2008 when multiple 100-year events combined to bring down the stock market. By the very nature of it, things with heavy odds against them do occur, just infrequently. The odds against a cock over 10" may, lets say, be 1 in10,000. Or 100,000. That doesn't mean it can't show up in a study of 1,700. It's gonna show up somewhere.
It's far far less. Not even 1 in 1,000,000.

No dispute from me. The use of the phrase "let's say" acknowledged that those odds were to be used for discussion purposes, not that they should be taken as the actual odds. I could just as easily have said, "The odds against a cock over 10" may, lets say, be 1 in 10,000. Or 100,000. . . Or 1,000,000. Or 1,000,000,000." The point was that they were 1 in x, not 1 in 0.

Of course, that may be disputed. Since most studies have a limited number of participants, few studies - if any - include cocks over 10". There have been reports of cocks over 10" (Jonah Falcon claims to be 13.5"), but none that I know of have been authenticated. The problem is the shortage of scientific, verified studies along these lines. Apparently, only just recently has Guiness taken steps to find the world's biggest cock. However, given the wide range in other human factors, such as height, it doesn't seem out of the realm of possibility that Guiness may turn up one which would satisfy the skeptics. It would be interesting to see if Mr. Falcon bares himself for the tape.

Frankly, I don't think it matters. Anything above 8" seems gigantic to me. Heck, anything above 6" for that matter!
 

coorsguy64

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2016
Posts
150
Media
0
Likes
122
Points
53
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
No dispute from me. The use of the phrase "let's say" acknowledged that those odds were to be used for discussion purposes, not that they should be taken as the actual odds. I could just as easily have said, "The odds against a cock over 10" may, lets say, be 1 in 10,000. Or 100,000. . . Or 1,000,000. Or 1,000,000,000." The point was that they were 1 in x, not 1 in 0.

Of course, that may be disputed. Since most studies have a limited number of participants, few studies - if any - include cocks over 10". There have been reports of cocks over 10" (Jonah Falcon claims to be 13.5"), but none that I know of have been authenticated. The problem is the shortage of scientific, verified studies along these lines. Apparently, only just recently has Guiness taken steps to find the world's biggest cock. However, given the wide range in other human factors, such as height, it doesn't seem out of the realm of possibility that Guiness may turn up one which would satisfy the skeptics. It would be interesting to see if Mr. Falcon bares himself for the tape.

Frankly, I don't think it matters. Anything above 8" seems gigantic to me. Heck, anything above 6" for that matter!

Well it's one thing to say it's 1 in 10,000,000. It's quite another to say 1 in 1000. That's the difference b/t (like you said) 1 guy in your high school having one vs. 1 guy in the entire state of Ohio having one. Or more than the entire city of New York. Sometimes I think people fail to understand the magnitude of odds because they just hear something generic like "1 in 10,000" and just think "Oh, that's really rare", without actually giving any thought to the actual real world application behind that value.

Guinness has never, and has no plans whatsoever to recognize the worlds largest penis. They have stated this multiple times. Jonah Falcon is a guy who appeared on a documentary once and used his 15 minutes of attention to essentially BS the world. His story is well-known around here and he absolutely, 100% without a shred of doubt does not have a 13.5" (or anything close) sized penis.

Also, TMK, no staff measured study has ever documented a 10"+ penis.
 

coorsguy64

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2016
Posts
150
Media
0
Likes
122
Points
53
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
I guess you're talking about the discussion wether the differences are based on genetics or other factors like nutrition. All I remember is that Asian Americans are about the same size as other Americans while Asians still living in Asia are smaller. That kinda contradicts the theory of racial differences. All I can give you at the moment are those studies which show a similar average for caucasian guys and dudes of arabian/turkish descent.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8709382?dopt=Abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11182344?dopt=Abstract
http//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12068220
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25904106

The data presented by the OP is quite funny. You have several guys reporting up to 9cm more than their BPEL measurement actually is. That's a difference of 3.5" :D
The data provides an average of 5.96" and a median of 6" which means that 50% are 6" or bigger. That's completely inconsistent with every single medical/scientifical study of the last decade. Unless the measurements are BPEL, in which case the difference only would be 0.2" . I wasn't able to find any reliable information about how this data was gathered or any real source of the study. Although I don't entirely trust the data here are the average and median for different races (only of those with a statistical significant number of subjects).

Arab:
median: 5.7"
average: 5.7"

Black:
median: 6.45"
average: 6.5"

Caucasian:
median: 6.1"
average: 6.05"

East Asian:
median: 4.8"
average: 4.7"

Latino:
median: 6.3"
average: 6.1"

Mediterranean:
median: 5.7"
average: 5.7"

Like I said before the data is kinda fishy since I wasn't able to find a real source and furthermore the data is inconsistent with lots of real scientific and medical studies of the past decade(s) regarding body height and penis size.

Thanks for weighing in. Just wanted to point out the fact that genetic differences are largely unproven and that the OP's study was a farce. Appreciate it.
 

Sherwood D. Likelym

Worshipped Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Posts
2,595
Media
207
Likes
23,382
Points
618
Age
74
Location
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, United States of America
Verification
View
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
Gender
Male
Nightmares!!! I had to repeat Statistical Analysis in college back in the days when calculators were forbidden in class.

Standard deviations, mean, average mean, median and sample irregularities whether "self-reported" or "scientifically measured" contains too much variability without multiple measurements of the subject with an adequate sample size that will significantly adjust the deviations. CIRCLE JERKING NIGHTMARE OF MANIPULATION:oops::oops::oops::oops::oops:!!!

We just need to have an adequate sample of 100 guys jerking at the same time in the same environment with 100 judges making subjective estimations of size at the same, so we can continue debating a subject that just doesn't matter.

My 8X5.5" cock probably will satisfy any average pussy the same as any European 20.32X13.97cm cock unless subject pussy romanticizes foreign affairs.
 

coorsguy64

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2016
Posts
150
Media
0
Likes
122
Points
53
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
It's far far less. Not even 1 in 1,000,000.
If we take for example the Lifestyle Condom study, we find at +5 standard deviations 24.8cm (9.78")
In probability +5sd converts to 1 on 3,486,914.

Remarks.
1. For 10" it is even less as for 9.78" ( by +/- a factor 20 )
2. The Lifestyle Condom study was done with volunteers, skewing the distribution to the right. A random penis study would certainly result in a lower average, so a lower number for the 10"-ers.
3. The study was done on healthy young students. Not really a sample of the male population.
4. Probability has its limits for skewed normal distributions. After +3sd the results aren't reliable, but an indication with a large error margin.

P.S.
The Amsterdam study is a self-reported.

I still have my doubts about this even ever have taken place TBH. Not because of the penis size results necessarily, but the sheer number of 6'10-7'0 participants in the study. I know I'll probably get hit with the "Dutch are the tallest people on Earth" argument from someone, but it still doesn't seem right. To have a random survey of less than 2000 men and have that many near 7-footers? Not to mention a pile of 6'6" and above guys? Something doesn't smell right don that front.

And as I stated before, I can't even find anything on the web that legitimizes this study in the slightest. There's no procedural medical journal document for it, or any reference to
It anywhere outside of blogs. If someone can link something, please do, but I'm beginning to think this is another pull-of-the-leg gag like that horrendous "penis size by country" map.
 

LilJock

Superior Member
Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
Jan 24, 2009
Posts
1,521
Media
0
Likes
5,299
Points
668
Location
USA
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Well it's one thing to say it's 1 in 10,000,000. It's quite another to say 1 in 1000. That's the difference b/t (like you said) 1 guy in your high school having one vs. 1 guy in the entire state of Ohio having one. Or more than the entire city of New York. Sometimes I think people fail to understand the magnitude of odds because they just hear something generic like "1 in 10,000" and just think "Oh, that's really rare", without actually giving any thought to the actual real world application behind that value
Hmmm. . . Perhaps a little explanation of statistics is needed here. When one says the odds of something happening is 1 in x - let's say 1 in 10,000 (oh, dear!) - it says nothing about what may actually occur in a group of 1,000, for instance. Or 100,000 for that matter. Through different methods, 1 in x is what's deemed an ideally expected occurrence.

For instance, the odds of getting a royal flush in Deuces Wild on a full pay video poker machine is something like 1 in 40,000 (playing correctly, which very few do). That doesn't mean it hits like clockwork on every 40,000th play. A little old lady from Milwaukee can sit down at a machine in Vegas and hit a royal after a half hour's play. It happens. Bob Dancer, one of the top video poker players in the world with an annual income between $250,000 and $1,000,000, once went well into October before he hit a royal. Then he hit a string of them, recouped his losses and went on to make his yearly goal. He stuck it out because he knew the odds when playing correctly and just sweated bullets until they came through for him. The occurrence of an extremely unusual event is highly unpredictable in the short run, but predictable in the long run.

Therefore, although the odds against a guy having a 10"+ cock may be high - let's say, oh, forget it! - that doesn't mean it can't occur in a school somewhere of 1,000 guys. There might only be one cock that big in the whole state of Ohio, but like a lottery winner, it has to show up someplace. It might just happen to be in that high school. Or Indiana.

Guinness has never, and has no plans whatsoever to recognize the worlds largest penis. They have stated this multiple times. Jonah Falcon is a guy who appeared on a documentary once and used his 15 minutes of attention to essentially BS the world. His story is well-known around here and he absolutely, 100% without a shred of doubt does not have a 13.5" (or anything close) sized penis.
You're probably right. I read awhile ago something about them finally taking up the cudgel (so to speak), but I didn't check out the provenance. It probably was a spurious report. But that makes it just that much more difficult to get any closure on the subject.

I also suspect you're right about Mr. Falcon. (The odds are much, much lower on this one.) That's why I noted it wasn't authenticated and took his claim with a grain of salt and and a dose of humor. Or at least thought I did. (My humor escapes some people.) To wit: "Jonah Falcon claims to be 13.5". . . It would be interesting to see if Mr. Falcon bares himself for the tape [of the Guiness investigator]."

Also, TMK, no staff measured study has ever documented a 10"+ penis.
The problem in that regard has already been noted. There aren't that many authenticated studies to begin with,* and in the typical rather small sampling sizes it's unlikely they'll encounter one that big. And as we've noted, Guiness went all wobbly on this one. That doesn't mean they don't exist.

The tallest man on earth is Sultan Kosen (with ".." over the o) of Turkey. He's 8'2" tall. I could measure every guy on Santa Monica Beach tomorrow and doubt whether I'd encounter one even 7' tall. That doesn't mean they don't exist; just that their rarity makes it highly unlikely that I'd run into one. And like our discussion above, that rarity didn't make it impossible that Mr. Kosen's high school couldn't have had an 8'2" tall student, nor that Yao Ming's high school couldn't have had a 7'6" basketball player. These guys had to go to school somewhere.

There have been a few documented cocks that big, though. Kinsey authenticated one 10.5 inches. Yes, his average penis size was based on self-reported data, but Alfred was an industrious and insatiably curious soul and apparently encountered one whopper which he took the time to personally validate. Many have faulted his statistical methods but no one has ever questioned his scientific integrity or honesty.

Over at The Visualiser, Vicky has authenticated thousands of penises so far. Members send in a check and photos of their cocks, and she verifies both. She uses some high-falutin' gizmo to work it all out. There are two CockEye2 Verified" members over 10": BioSean,10.6" and Robben, 10.04". Now Vicky's no fool. When someone claimed something that out of the ordinary, I'm sure she worked that gizmo overtime. Probably short-circuited the damn thing.

Granted, these aren't exactly the Department of Weights and Measures, but most X-Files-type conspiracy theorists won't accept any proof from the government or media anyways, so it can never be proved to their satisfaction.

I myself don't think it's that unlikely that there are a few 10" or so guys out there. It's not like we're talking unicorns. I am extremely skeptical of guys claiming 12 inches, though. Not saying there can't be, but I'll have to see that pig fly myself first.







* And it's highly unlikely there ever will be a large, thoroughly random study of cock sizes. The Cancun study said it was random, but it actually wasn't. They recruited young college students off the beach. Assuredly not every male college student there got measured - there's always a few shy ones - thus skewing the results. The only way to get a truly representative large-size sample wold be to forcibly round up every guy in a certain area, and I doubt whether that will ever happen, at least in the United States - and that's what counts for us. We reject out of hand any studies from foreign countries.
 

Narz

Loved Member
Joined
May 12, 2013
Posts
556
Media
0
Likes
730
Points
188
Location
Vienna (Austria)
On another semi-related note; what is with the slew of 6'8"-6'9" and over guys? According to this site:

https://tall.life/height-percentile-calculator-age-country/

An 6'8" adult male in the Netherlands should only occur 1/693 and 1/2237 for 6'9", yet there seem to be a ridiculous abundance of guys at least that size and an a bunch even taller around 6'10"-7'0". :confused:

According to that same site as above; a 6'10" male should occur only 1/8065, yet there are nearly (or maybe even over) a dozen guys this size in a study of 1700?

Doesn't delegitimize technically, but makes you raise an eyebrow.

I don't think that the calculator is correct. It assumes that it is a standard distribution although height doesn't follow such a linear pattern.

The average height for males there is 6'1" and as you see here

http://www.usablestats.com/images/men_women_height_histogram.jpg

There are a few bumps at the taller heights. I couldn't find something like this graph on dutch people, but I'd guess that they have even more tall outliers due to all their tall people genes creating more of them.

Just like if you see a real 8+ inch penis it's most likely black even though there are way less black than white people, but their chance of having a huge outlier penis is bigger.
 

Narz

Loved Member
Joined
May 12, 2013
Posts
556
Media
0
Likes
730
Points
188
Location
Vienna (Austria)
Hey, this is John Kutensky, of the post. What sort of graphs would you be interested in seeing? I can do another post on the data. For any kind of analysis, though, you're going to want it as a csv or an Excel file, depending on what you use to analyze.

Hey that's pretty cool.

I would be interested in a graph that shows the length distribution per height category just to see if there is anything to the stereotype that small men are more likely to have a small penis and tall men are more likely to have a big one.

Like 5 categories. One for very small guys, small guys, average guys, above average guys and one for tall guys.

And another graph for average height per penis size.

If you could do that for me that would be amazing, otherwise I see what I can do. Thanks