(CQ) Cock Quotient

basque9

LPSG Legend
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jun 1, 2006
Posts
6,059
Media
9,220
Likes
280,736
Points
618
Location
Maryland, United States of America
Verification
View
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
It occurs to me that there should be a numeric measurement of cock length which similar to IQ (intelligence quotient) should facilitate quick comparison between and among individuals! Irrespective of whether measured in the English or metric system, cocks of the same length would have the same ratio to designate size.
I propose that the CQ (cock quotient) be established. It is proposed as the ratio obtained by dividing your cock length in inches or centimeters by the average length of cocks expressed in inches or centimeters and multiplying that ratio by 100.
I use myself as an example: 9.30 inches length./. 5.80 inches average=
1.60 x 100 = 160 CQ.
A European with an identical length cock would do the following calculation: 23.62 c length./. 14.73 c avg= 1.60 X 100 = 160 CQ

Do you like this idea?
Would you adopt this cock quotient if it became accepted practice?
What is your CQ?
 

avg_joe

Sexy Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2006
Posts
3,055
Media
0
Likes
94
Points
268
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
It sounds like error proof test calculations from my physics and chemistry labs. LMAO !!!
 

Biggie77

Experimental Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2006
Posts
202
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
163
Sexuality
No Response
164 here

Shouldn't there be a valuation including girth. I'm girthy so I want it included dammit! :mad::tongue:
 

basque9

LPSG Legend
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jun 1, 2006
Posts
6,059
Media
9,220
Likes
280,736
Points
618
Location
Maryland, United States of America
Verification
View
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
164 here

Shouldn't there be a valuation including girth. I'm girthy so I want it

included dammit! :mad::tongue:

Now that you mention it, Biggie, there is no reason why there could not be an accompanying girth quotient..just as in blood pressure measurements, two values are given ! You , for example, might have a CQ of 164 over 175, where the 175 might represent your girth quotient . Definitely adds information to the model as originally proposed! Yes, I like it guy!:smile: :smile:
 

meatpackingbubba

Worshipped Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 24, 2006
Posts
4,506
Media
104
Likes
23,958
Points
618
Location
United States
Verification
View
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
A cock quotient may make some sense but only if it is comparing total mass. This can be approximated for a penis by using the calculation use to obtain the volume of a cylinder.

For those of you that care, the formula is as follows:

pi (3.1415) times the radius squared, times the length.

With regard to the penis, one first needs to determine the AVERAGE radius of the penis. Measure girth in three places....the head, mid shaft, and base. Add these three measurements together and divide by three to get the AVERAGE girth. Then divide that result by pi (3.1415) to obtain the average diameter, then divide the diameter by two to get the average radius. For instance, if your dick is 5" at the head, 5.5" mid shaft, and 6" at the base, you have an average girth of 5.5", an average diameter of 1.75", and an average radius of .875".

The radius is then squared (in our example, .875 times .875 equals .765) and then multiplied by pi to obtain the surface area of a circle. The surface area of a circle multiplied by height (length) gives a result representing the volume of a cylinder.

A small penis (5" long and 4" around) is only 6 cubic inches. An average penis (6" long and 5" around) is twice that size at about 12 cubic inches. A medium penis (7 long and 5.5" around) is about 17 cubic inches. A large penis (8" long and 6" around) is twice as big as average and four times larger than small at about 23 cubic inches. A horse-hung penis (10" long and 7" around) is about 39 cubic inches.

So now we have some real means to gauge true relative size. Horse hung is only twice as long as small penis, but over SIX TIMES LARGER by volume. Length is important, as are aestheticly pleasing proportions, but it is girth that packs the volume on.

Now....go ye forth and calculate. Report your numbers here.

By the way...Bubba Jr weighs in at about 27 cubic inches.
 

basque9

LPSG Legend
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jun 1, 2006
Posts
6,059
Media
9,220
Likes
280,736
Points
618
Location
Maryland, United States of America
Verification
View
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
A cock quotient may make some sense but only if it is comparing total mass. This can be approximated for a penis by using the calculation use to obtain the volume of a cylinder.

For those of you that care, the formula is as follows:

pi (3.1415) times the radius squared, times the length.

With regard to the penis, one first needs to determine the AVERAGE radius of the penis. Measure girth in three places....the head, mid shaft, and base. Add these three measurements together and divide by three to get the AVERAGE girth. Then divide that result by pi (3.1415) to obtain the average diameter, then divide the diameter by two to get the average radius. For instance, if your dick is 5" at the head, 5.5" mid shaft, and 6" at the base, you have an average girth of 5.5", an average diameter of 1.75", and an average radius of .875".

The radius is then squared (in our example, .875 times .875 equals .765) and then multiplied by pi to obtain the surface area of a circle. The surface area of a circle multiplied by height (length) gives a result representing the volume of a cylinder.

A small penis (5" long and 4" around) is only 6 cubic inches. An average penis (6" long and 5" around) is twice that size at about 12 cubic inches. A medium penis (7 long and 5.5" around) is about 17 cubic inches. A large penis (8" long and 6" around) is twice as big as average and four times larger than small at about 23 cubic inches. A horse-hung penis (10" long and 7" around) is about 39 cubic inches.

So now we have some real means to gauge true relative size. Horse hung is only twice as long as small penis, but over SIX TIMES LARGER by volume. Length is important, as are aestheticly pleasing proportions, but it is girth that packs the volume on.

Now....go ye forth and calculate. Report your numbers here.

By the way...Bubba Jr weighs in at about 27 cubic inches.[/quote


Your method is excellent, but does not permit comparisons between measurements made in different systems of measurement as the cock quotient does. I used your formula and my cock cums out to exactly 41 cubic inches...due in large measure to its extreme average 7.50 girth!:tongue:
 

Aplus

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2005
Posts
537
Media
0
Likes
7
Points
163
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
Gender
Male
While I find things like these interesting, I'm not sure what true purpose they serve. Is it to find out who is really bigger or biggest, or do they have some true real life or scientific meaning. Seems to really de-value those who are less hung or girthy. Can't just be about bragging rights can it, or is it about finding the true measure, which conventional measurements can miss?
 

meatpackingbubba

Worshipped Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 24, 2006
Posts
4,506
Media
104
Likes
23,958
Points
618
Location
United States
Verification
View
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
While I find things like these interesting, I'm not sure what true purpose they serve. Is it to find out who is really bigger or biggest, or do they have some true real life or scientific meaning. Seems to really de-value those who are less hung or girthy. Can't just be about bragging rights can it, or is it about finding the true measure, which conventional measurements can miss?

LOL....both.

In response to Donkey....I am not sure what you mean about comparing between different systems, all I know is that the volume method certainly is the best for taking all things size-wise into account. You are an example....this method gives you adequate credit for your horse-girth, making your dick easily equivilant in total volume to a 10 or even 12 incher of less girth.

So, we can gauge size by total mass. The remaining question then is proportions. A dick too long for its girth become a pencil dick even if it is 10 inches or longer, while a dick with very big girth but inadequate length is usually not particulary attractive and may not even be that fuctional.
 

basque9

LPSG Legend
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jun 1, 2006
Posts
6,059
Media
9,220
Likes
280,736
Points
618
Location
Maryland, United States of America
Verification
View
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
LOL....both.

In response to Donkey....I am not sure what you mean about comparing between different systems, all I know is that the volume method certainly is the best for taking all things size-wise into account. You are an example....this method gives you adequate credit for your horse-girth, making your dick easily equivilant in total volume to a 10 or even 12 incher of less girth.

So, we can gauge size by total mass. The remaining question then is proportions. A dick too long for its girth become a pencil dick even if it is 10 inches or longer, while a dick with very big girth but inadequate length is usually not particulary attractive and may not even be that fuctional.

If you read back over my proposal for CQ, you will see that a 100CQ ( the CQ of an average sized cock) is the same length in both the Metric and English systems of meaurement...I devised it that way! In my case a CQ of 160 is exactly the same length as a cock of 160CQ, for example in Paris. I thought since it gave immediate comparative results irrespective of system of measurement it could be used as a universal measure of cock length! It was later suggested that girth should have a quotient and that works equally easily to compare between English and Metric systems. However, it would require two CQ's to express both length and girth components.
Using volume as the comparative measure would work equally as well : the volume of an average sized cock would be designated as 100CQ, the formula I devised would be employed and in my case my CQ would become
approximalely 342 ( I did not actually calculate it but estimated from your original posting).In the same way your CQ would become 225 . The measure would not be about bragging rights...it would be the first measure I know which allows direct comparison between cocks evaluated in either measurement system(English or Metric)!:smile: :smile: :smile: :smile: :smile:
 

sykray

Cherished Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2005
Posts
763
Media
0
Likes
380
Points
283
Age
76
Location
Chonburi (Chon Buri, Thailand)
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
If you will excuse my pedantry. First, we have to determine an agreed mean erect penile length. I believe it to be less than 5.8 and more like 5.3 or 5.4

To make true relative comparisons, we also need to know the standard deviation of the length of penis - how much variation there is in the population around the mean.

68% of men would have erections between one standard deviation below the mean to one standard deviation above the mean. This would be seen as the average range. In IQ terms this is 85 to 115.

Without knowledge of the SD we would not, in fact know whether a CQ of 140 is above average, well above average or bloody incredible.
 

basque9

LPSG Legend
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jun 1, 2006
Posts
6,059
Media
9,220
Likes
280,736
Points
618
Location
Maryland, United States of America
Verification
View
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
If you will excuse my pedantry. First, we have to determine an agreed mean erect penile length. I believe it to be less than 5.8 and more like 5.3 or 5.4

To make true relative comparisons, we also need to know the standard deviation of the length of penis - how much variation there is in the population around the mean.

68% of men would have erections between one standard deviation below the mean to one standard deviation above the mean. This would be seen as the average range. In IQ terms this is 85 to 115.

Without knowledge of the SD we would not, in fact know whether a CQ of 140 is above average, well above average or bloody incredible.[/quote}

I think you are making the calculation unnecessarily complicated by introducing standard deviation about the mean into the calculation. We are not attempting to make statistical statements about where a cock falls in the total distribution of cocks, but by definition of the quotient I have devised, we are merely making a comparison to the mean which like in IQ is designated as 100.( yes we need to agree upon a mean, I grant you that). Also, we are facilitating, most of all , a direct comparison of cocks using this measure, between systems (English and Metric).
Using standard deviation as you suggest would facilitate making very precise statistical comparisons and is valid from a mathematical/statistical standpoint, but I feel introduces a complexity which would make the whole concept bog down in statistical calculation! Knowing the standard deviation of course would be useful, albeit complicated!
 

meatpackingbubba

Worshipped Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 24, 2006
Posts
4,506
Media
104
Likes
23,958
Points
618
Location
United States
Verification
View
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
Donkeyboy:

The standard deviation for penis length is approximately .80" and for penis girth it is approximately .50".

As to your point about the universality of the CQ, that does not change, but instead of using length as the marker we use total mass (volume) instead. So, YOUR MASS divided by AVERAGE MASS would result in a Cock Mass Quotient rather than a Cock Length Quotient. The resulting quotient would be the same whether calculated in cubic centimeters or cubic inches because it is measuring a relationship between two number, your penis size versus average.

Incidentally, the average dick is about 11 cubic inches or 28 cubic centimeters.

Now, go ye forth and calculate.
 

basque9

LPSG Legend
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jun 1, 2006
Posts
6,059
Media
9,220
Likes
280,736
Points
618
Location
Maryland, United States of America
Verification
View
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
Donkeyboy:

The standard deviation for penis length is approximately .80" and for penis girth it is approximately .50".

As to your point about the universality of the CQ, that does not change, but instead of using length as the marker we use total mass (volume) instead. So, YOUR MASS divided by AVERAGE MASS would result in a Cock Mass Quotient rather than a Cock Length Quotient. The resulting quotient would be the same whether calculated in cubic centimeters or cubic inches because it is measuring a relationship between two number, your penis size versus average.

Incidentally, the average dick is about 11 cubic inches or 28 cubic centimeters. Now, go ye forth and calculate!


You and I are on precisely the same wavelength, meatpackingbubba, and so I address my comments directly to you: I like your proposal to use cock mass better than my original idea of using length and then the later idea of using girth as a second quotient! I agree that the aability to compare CQ between measuring systems still pertains, because of the way we have devised the quotient! As to your directive to go forth and calculate, I offer us as two of the first examples:
Meatpackingbubba is: 27 cu in ./. 11cu in avg=2.45x100=245CQ
Donkeyboy9 becomes: 41 cu in ./. 11 cu in avg=3.73x100=373CQ

It is not really essential to understand or even know the standard deviation of cock mass in order to get meaningful comparisons among cocks as the user immediately recognizes that a 100CQ is average and that a 245 CQ is 2.45 times as large as average and that a 373 CQ is 3.45 times as large as average! Makes perfect sense to me! As to bragging rights..sure why not Bubba has a 245 CQ cock..sounds damned impressive to me! LOL :smile: :smile: :smile: Donkey
 

basque9

LPSG Legend
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jun 1, 2006
Posts
6,059
Media
9,220
Likes
280,736
Points
618
Location
Maryland, United States of America
Verification
View
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
It is not really essential to understand or even know the standard deviation of cock mass in order to get meaningful comparisons among cocks as the user immediately recognizes that a 100CQ is average and that a 245 CQ is 2.45 times as large as average and that a 373 CQ is 3.45 times as large as average! Makes perfect sense to me! As to bragging rights..sure why not Bubba has a 245 CQ cock..sounds damned impressive to me! LOL :smile: :smile: :smile: Donkey[/quote]


I goofed slightly above when I said a 373 CQ is 3.45 times.....I meant to say is 3.73 times as large as average..was hurrying, I guess!