Average Size Disbelief

[Snakebyte]

I will admit I am a skeptic. Im just over 7" bone pressed but just 6" NBP. Its only every once in a while do I think it looks respectable or what I perceive what an average dick should look like. Also among my group of friends when I was younger I couldn't help but notice I was the smallest. At least two were way bigger/ huge. Some of these studies (calcsd, etc) claim 7" BP is in the 90+ percentile. Kind of hard to fathom given my experiences.

Did you see all of them erect or only flaccid? Because flaccid size means nothing at all.

 

[ToryK]

Just stumbled onto this thread, and found it enlightening. Seeing that the average dick length is in the 5+ inches zone was a revelation to me. Mine is just shy of 7 inches, with proptionate girth, and I've always felt insecure. Thought I wasn't big enough. It's led to performance issues. Now, I'm seeing that I've allowed things like porn, photoshoped images and flat-out BS to mess with my mind. I'm guessing that I'm not alone in this.

 

[Donismon]

There are plenty of studies that measured erect penises and Veale didn't mix up the different measurements. They used nbpel though so they excluded all bpel data. Veale got data for the average flaccid, stretched flaccid, erect length, flaccid circumference and erect circumference. The difference in the average erect length and stretched flaccid length in the meta study was 12mm (or roughly 0.05"). Furthermore you mix up average and mean. Average does not mean that 50% of men are below that size unless we got a perfect bell curve. We know that this is not the case for penis size.

This is false. Only 692 men were measured erect, bone pressed. The other 14,160 men were measured flaccid stretched. That’s a HUGE discrepancy. Most studies measure flaccid stretched, so there is not nearly enough erect measurements to quantify and average. Veale et al says “Limitations: relatively few erect measurements were conducted in a clinical setting and the greatest variability between studies was seen with flaccid stretched length.”

Also, only about 300 men had their erect girth measured. That’s is not a large enough sample size!

“There were considerably more flaccid measurements than erect, with only four studies (n = 692) measuring erect length and only two studies (n = 231) measuring erect circumference.” (Veale 2015)

 

[VIIby5]

Did you see all of them erect or only flaccid? Because flaccid size means nothing at all.

Two had what I would consider Semis. The rest were flaccid. I know what your getting at but I think it would be unlikely that 5+" flaccids would end up only being 5.75"- 6" erect. Most dicks seem to gain at least 2". I know its possible but just not too probable.

 

[Snakebyte]

Two had what I would consider Semis. The rest were flaccid. I know what your getting at but I think it would be unlikely that 5+" flaccids would end up only being 5.75"- 6" erect. Most dicks seem to gain at least 2". I know its possible but just not too probable.

That's the thing. There are lots of guys who barely gain any length when they get erect.

 

[Snakebyte]

This is false. Only 692 men were measured erect, bone pressed. The other 14,160 men were measured flaccid stretched. That’s a HUGE discrepancy. Most studies measure flaccid stretched, so there is not nearly enough erect measurements to quantify and average. Veale et al says “Limitations: relatively few erect measurements were conducted in a clinical setting and the greatest variability between studies was seen with flaccid stretched length.”

Also, only about 300 men had their erect girth measured. That’s is not a large enough sample size!

“There were considerably more flaccid measurements than erect, with only four studies (n = 692) measuring erect length and only two studies (n = 231) measuring erect circumference.” (Veale 2015)

Dude, please read again. I never said that Veale considered plenty of studies with erect measurements. But guess what, there are way more studies out there than those Veale took for his study. He only considered studies with similar methodology. But there are plenty of others out there.
That there are big differences in studies with stretched length is no surprise at all because the amount of tension is importan. To be honest, you didn't even contradict anything that I wrote.
But it doesn't even matter that the amount of subjects was that small. Several studies came up with almost the same average.
Furthermore like 1-2 years ago we discussed Veale's meta study and all the flaws it has right on this board. So it's not like Veale is the holy grail.

 

[Frozen Heart]

Just compare your penis with the study you like most hehe

If you guys buy more custom made condoms, we may have more studies like this one:

New penis survey reveals the lengths men go to!

I always remember this when I am discussing penis size. It's old, but a good reminder of the true average size.

 

[Shepardson]

Just compare your penis with the study you like most hehe

Or you can do as people here often suggest, and "measure whichever way is best for you". I guess the end result is sort of the same.

 

[Frozen Heart]

Or you can do as people here often suggest, and "measure whichever way is best for you". I guess the end result is sort of the same.

Well, I really don't care anymore. There is zero consensus and it is not like there is a judge to verify if the person is telling the truth.

When I talk to men - women don't care - about penis size nowdays (almost never, btw), I ask how the dude measure his penis. If I say I a number without making this question there is a high chance we are not measuring the same way.

We should learn that nobody cares about our dick sizes. Really, nobody.

 

[Snakebyte]

We should learn that nobody cares about our dick sizes. Really, nobody.

Sorry, but from experience: that's totally wrong
And I am not talking about the fake "oh, you're so big" crap.