Does anyone really believe these claims?

[13788]

john_jones9: It's correct that extreme claims don't demand anything, but belief in extreme claims requires proof. Does that sound better?

Not that anyone has to prove anything, they don't. And it's fine that people write in claiming huge sizes, I'm sure it provides a thrill. I'm just saying that I don't believe it. There are probably quite a few people who share my opinions on this. If you're free to say you're 18x9, I'm free to say your not and ask for proof. And you're free not to provide me with any.

[quote author=cebe link=board=meetgreet;num=1079591233;start=40#59 date=04/27/04 at 12:41:28]Over 13, maybe, why not?[/quote]

Maybe my post was too long. I said I did believe in penis lengths of over 10 - 11 inches and cited video evidence of Long Dong (not Dan) Silver, Texas Long Horn and Mr Mx. All of whom did porn in the 1970's and 1980's before the advent of digital image enhancing. However, I also said those sizes have to be exccedingly rare and did a calculation to provide and estimate of "a few sigma from the mean" which turned out to be about 9-10 inches. I'll add one more argument to that: there are only three men in the history of porn who are significantly over 10-11" and those are listed above. In an industry where size matters if the population of guys in the 12-16 inch range was as great as indicated by the claims on this board, we'd have seen many more than the men listed above.

John_jones9 made a statistic-like calculation to tell us 1.5 was a plausible range of variation in human. I?ve seen dicks as small as 2 inches (in erection), so, if I follow him, greater than 3 inches (2*1.5) is a maximum : False.

Perhaps I wasn't clear, the factor of 1.5 should multiply the mean value, e.g. about six inches is the mean, so 1.5x6 = 9 inches. I'm not sure what your point is here.

Regarding breast, some women have near nothing, as little as 100 grams maybe, my wife has around 3 kilos (each, and I like to fuck them) and the record ? medically attested - is 27.8 kg, yes for ONE breast. 1.5x ???

Again, I think you've misunderstood. I didn't consider the ratio of the minimum size to the maximum size, but the average or mean size to the maximum size. That's different from what you've done.

As for the single breast of 27.8kg in the medical record books, well that says there is one out of how many breasts that weighs that much. So what? I've heard it quoted a variety of places that the largest penis in the medical record books as 13" long. I've seen three porn stars at least that long. But that says what? It says there are three men out of how many that are that large.

I never said enormous sizes were impossible, just very, very, very improbable. The tallest man ever measured was 8' 11.1" tall. Does that mean I should believe every guy who says they're 8' tall? Not without some evidence.

The bra size I used give some indication of the width of the distrubution in breast size. If there were a significant population of women with 27.8kg breasts, then the market would sell bras to fit them. The market sells bras up to whatever size I list above because that's one or two sigma from the mean.

On another hand I have read more than once, regarding the biggest claims, there is not enough blood in a human body to fill it. But a penis is not an empty tube! The blood needed is only to make the difference between rest and erection, and that difference are often been shown with no relation, a smaller one at rest may be bigger at its best. I?ve made the following computation : take a strictly ?mean? penis ? flaccid : 3.55 around and 3.94 length ; in erection : 5.12 around and 6.30 length. The difference in volume between the two states is around 9.20 cubic inches. Take mine (if I can say, Lol) a rather big one as I?ve said sooner: flaccid: 5.9 by 9.45 l; erect: 6.6 by 11.04 length. Here the difference is 11.93 c.i. So, despite my relative big dick, only a factor of 1.3. That is. (If you prefer metrics, I can give you, but the ratio remains the same.)

Equations:
volume of a cylinder = 3.14 * radius^2 * length
circumference = 2 * 3.14 * radius
radius = circumference / (2 * 3.14)
volume of a cylinder = length * circumference^2 / (4 * 3.14)

Average:
flaccid volume = 3.94 * 3.55^2 / (4 * 3.14) = 3.95 cubic inches
erect volume = 6.30 * 5.12^2 / (4 * 3.14) = 13.14 cubic inches
difference in volume = 9.19 cubic inches

Large:
flaccid volume = 9.45 * 5.9^2 / (4 * 3.14) = 26.18 cubic inches
erect volume = 11.04 * 6.6^2 / (4 * 3.14) = 38.27 cubic inches
difference in volume = 12.09 cubic inches

Ratio of Large to Average:
flaccid volume = 663%
erect volume = 291%
difference in volume = 132%

This would suggest that you have 32% more (by volume) blood than the average man. I'm not sure on the fluctuations in blood volume are. Anybody know? Your flaccid volume is six times the average man and your erect volume is almost three times that of the average man, which is as impressive as it is hard to believe.

In any case, 11x6 may be on the very edge of credulity, beyond that is, well, incredible which, in this case, means without credibility.

 

[13788]

Ineligible: Hi john_jones9, you've missed a point in your deductions from your blood volume calculations: there's a lot of blood in the rest of the body. Your average guy needs to find 9.19 cubic inches from the rest of the body; your large guy needs to find 12.09 cubic inches. Neither are particularly difficult - the blood bank will take three times as much. Indeed, if the large-penised guy is a large guy generally, it might actually be easier for him than for the average guy.

Of course, you've taken a shower as your typical large guy. What your calculations show is that a large shower is much more feasible than a large grower.

 

[Pappy]

john_jones9 also forgets that the penis is not an empty cylinder but is made up of spongy tissue that fills with blood to make an erection. No matter how you figure it you still have to allow for the tissue that is already in the penis, which means his calculations are off by however much tissue is already present in the penis in question. Simply stated two objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time, meaning when blood enters the penis it will flow around the tissue that is already there, blood doesn't displace the tissue as JJ would suggest.

 

[13788]

Ineligible: I have to disagree, Gubernogin. By subtracting flaccid volume from erect, john_jones9 has allowed for those tissues. The only difference between the flaccid and the erect penis is more blood.

 

[13788]

john_jones9: Sure blood banks take more than 12 cubic inches of blood, but the give people plenty of fluids and tell them to take it easy until their blood supply has increased to normal. Some times people even faint after giving blood, hence all the passing out and erection jokes.

As I said, I'm not sure 9 cubic inches is all that different from 12 cubic inches, in fact the ratio is 1.5:1, just about what my height and breast size calculations show to be the ratio of large to average. However the flaccid size I used (and I used that size becuase it was given by the poster directly before me) was six times the mean flaccid size. That's a little difficult to believe.

I suppose I could look at shoe sizes and see what kind of large to mean ratio I get from that. Anyone know the mean male shoe size? I'd take Shaq O'Neil's size 26's as "large" for that calculation. Not that I'm implying a relation between shoe size and penis size, but just that it's another measure of fluctuations of human physical size.

[quote author=Gubernogin link=board=meetgreet;num=1079591233;start=60#62 date=04/28/04 at 20:39:28]john_jones9 also forgets that the penis is not an empty cylinder but is made up of spongy tissue that fills with blood to make an erection.[/quote]

I don't think I've missed that point at all. I, and the person posting directly before me, calculated the difference in volume of flaccid and erect. That difference MUST be made up by blood. What's in the penis (e.g. spongy tissue) is already there when flaccid and accounts (primarily) for the volume of the flaccid penis. The increase in volume then must come from blood pumped into the penis.

 

[13788]

Ineligible: john_jones9, I think the assumption that because most body part sizes have a similar proportionate variation, penis sizes must too, is questionable. Penis growth is regulated differently from nearly every other part (except perhaps the prostate), and that provides a means by which its proportionate variation can be different.

Breast size is also regulated differently, and though really huge breasts may be rare, small breasts, as has been pointed out, are much more common than people equivalently short in height. If small breasts can be more common than expected, why can't large penises be more common than expected?

 

[nudebelgian]

for the question of what the ration between blood and weight is
the answer is 7% of body weight is blood.

Of course that is only correct for people with a "normal" BMI

 

[Calboner]

for the question of what the ration between blood and weight is
the answer is 7% of body weight is blood.

Of course that is only correct for people with a "normal" BMI

Why did you post on a thread from FIVE FUCKING YEARS AGO as if the people who posted then would reply to you?

It is interesting, however, to see, by reading the first few posts ("My dick is ONLY ten inches long," "I have personally seen one that was 14 inches long," etc.), how high the bullshit was piled up here at that time.

 

[D_Pubert Stabbingpain]

Why did you post on a thread from FIVE FUCKING YEARS AGO as if the people who posted then would reply to you?

It is interesting, however, to see, by reading the first few posts ("My dick is ONLY ten inches long," "I have personally seen one that was 14 inches long," etc.), how high the bullshit was piled up here at that time.

Geeze, loosen up. It's the dude's 1st post! Nothing like chasing them away right off the bat, eh?

The :bsflag:then is no worse than the

:bsflag:now!

 

[Calboner]

Geeze, loosen up. It's the dude's 1st post! Nothing like chasing them away right off the bat, eh?

You got me there: he overlooked the date, I overlooked his post count.

The :bsflag:then is no worse than the

:bsflag:now!

Not so. There might be some fool who would start a thread talking about how is dick is or was (!) thirteen inches long, but he would be instantly met by cries of "Bullshit!" rather than by others making similar claims, as in this thread.

 

[parchissi]

No never!! You never want to believe what you read!!! Only believe what you see!!