empirical average size

[drabman]

Again, from my experience being in locker rooms, in lurking websites like Adam4Adam, talking to friends, and my own personal experience with men; I do think "average" is somewhere between 6-8 inches. I think there are lots of guys with 7 inch dicks. I think most are between 6.5 and 7.5. My guess is that...

5% are over 8
70% are over 6 and a little less than 8 or "around 7 inches" (which in my opinion is a nice big dick!)
20% are between 5 - 6 inches
and 5% are very unlucky at less than 5

I've posted a link to a youtube video by two sexologists who say that most men they've slept with were under 5 NBP a couple of times on here.

I guess rough visual estimate, anecdotal evidence and hearsay, are the new empirical evidence. Better consign all post-enlightment science to the dustbin then and go with what we "believe".

Give me strength.

 

[fournineteenfiftynine]

I've posted a link to a youtube video by two sexologists who say that most men they've slept with were under 5 NBP a couple of times on here.

I guess rough visual estimate, anecdotal evidence and hearsay, are the new empirical evidence. Better consign all post-enlightment science to the dustbin then and go with what we "believe".

Give me strength.

From Merriam Webster:
Definition of EMPIRICAL

1
: originating in or based on observation or experience <empirical data>
2
: relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory <an empirical basis for the theory>

 

[fournineteenfiftynine]

I've posted a link to a youtube video by two sexologists who say that most men they've slept with were under 5 NBP a couple of times on here.

I guess rough visual estimate, anecdotal evidence and hearsay, are the new empirical evidence. Better consign all post-enlightment science to the dustbin then and go with what we "believe".

Give me strength.

Drabmen,

I don't want to pick a fight with you and I'm sure you are a nice guy...but the word empirical means to base on experience not hard data....perhaps OP should have just said "anecdotal" rather than empirical although it means essentially the same thing so as not to get your undies bunched up... LOL

 

[drabman]

From Merriam Webster:
Definition of EMPIRICAL

1
: originating in or based on observation or experience <empirical data>
2
: relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory <an empirical basis for the theory>

There is a difference between the phiosophical usage of the term and the scientific one. The latter case is the only one we are concerned with here.

In this case the terms "observation" and "experience" refer to the collecting of experimental data used to test a hypothesis. "Observation" does not merely refer to seeing something and arriving at rough estimates as to observed values, but on measuring the observed phenomena as accurately as possible and analysing the data obtained. You have done none of this. Moreover you have included hearsay in your so-called data, which is not empirical in any sense of the word.

Whenever proper scientific method is applied to this topic, different surveys, in different countries, carried out by different organisations, with different sample populations, all arrive at figures that are remarkably consistent and which bear no relation whatsoever to the claims you make. That is they routinely produce a median figure of around 5.5" bonepressed erect length.

 

[drabman]

Drabmen,

I don't want to pick a fight with you and I'm sure you are a nice guy...but the word empirical means to base on experience not hard data....perhaps OP should have just said "anecdotal" rather than empirical although it means essentially the same thing so as not to get your undies bunched up... LOL

Anecdotal and empirical evidence are in no way the same thing - certainly not in the scientific usage of the term, unless during my four years studying Chemistry at University I was constantly lied to by my tutors.

 

[fournineteenfiftynine]

There is a difference between the phiosophical usage of the term and the scientific one. The latter case is the only one we are concerned with here.

In this case the terms "observation" and "experience" refer to the collecting of experimental data used to test a hypothesis. "Observation" does not merely refer to seeing something and arriving at rough estimates as to observed values, but on measuring the observed phenomena as accurately as possible and analysing the data obtained. You have done none of this. Moreover you have included hearsay in your so-called data, which is not empirical in any sense of the word.

Whenever proper scientific method is applied to this topic, different surveys, in different countries, carried out by different organisations, with different sample populations, all arrive at figures that are remarkably consistent and which bear no relation whatsoever to the claims you make. That is they routinely produce a median figure of around 5.5" bonepressed erect length.

Not to belabor the point but I think you keep going back to science....the whole point of this thread by the OP is that he is asking for exactly the kind of experience based anecdotal response like I made....he responded thanking me specifically because I responded in the way he wanted....this whole thread is about anecdotal experience not scientific studies....why is that so hard to understand or accept that me and the OP get that we want to have that discussion....if you don't want to participate... there are plenty of other threads!

 

[fournineteenfiftynine]

Dear OP,

Can you please go back to your original post and rename the thread to be "experience based average size" ? Thanks!

 

[travis1985]

I know, but you'll never convince some people, who believe that carefully conducted studies are as nothing compared to their personal experience, subject as it is to all the problems of sample bias, confirmation bias and inaccurate estimates. Do you believe that even a fraction of those who list the supposed sizes of their partners on here and elsewhere have actually measured all of them properly, using a ruler or tape measure? I don't.

The fact is that numerous surveys, conducted at different times in different countries by different organisations (medical organisations, condom manufacturers, various national miltaries) have ALL arrived at a figure somewhere around 5.5" bone pressed, give or take 1/2" or so. The chance that they could all have arrived at a figure that is as much as 60% inaccurate (if the bizarre claim of 7" being average is non bone-pressed, which is the impression given here) is ludicrous in my view.

Unfortunately those with a sexual fetish for big penises will never allow reality to take their fantasies away from them.

I don't think we'll ever be able to really trust a study. Results will always tend to the large side, since guys confident with their size are more likely to participate in getting measured and there will always be inflated reports from self-measuring.

My experience with the approximately 20 guys I've had sex with is that, fully hard, less than 5 would be smaller than average, most are 5-6, and more than 6 would be larger than average, with a miniscule percentage reaching or exceeding 8. 9 is the largest I've seen, and he had trouble keeping enough blood in it at once to get hard.

I have 5.5 inches myself, and most guys see it and estimate it as 7. That tells me that my experience is a reasonable sample and there's a popular misconception in judging size related to what people think it's supposed to be. Look at 7 inches on a ruler. That's a lot of cock, and there's no way the "average" guy is swinging it. I see porn where the stats say he has 8 or 9 inches, but it looks smaller than mine. There's no fucking way. I'd rather report my five real inches than claim to be seven and have five to show for it.

 

[fournineteenfiftynine]

really....7 inches is a lot of cock but that has been my experience that most are close to that size that I have been with....i am a true 5.5er too....

 

[Rocknrollover]

I'm ashamed to say I have been with about 18 guys in the last 7 months, I've turned into a real man whore, always play safe... But of those that claim to be 6 or 7 inches, their kidding themselves' most are about 5.5 or less & not that thick at all. At 50 years old I have gone wild in my late 40's. I've only seen 3 guys bigger than me...@ a real 7" X6".... One black dude at the gym that was giving me eyes had to be at least 8"semi, but that's hard to judge. Most need to get a ruler out and measure from you pubis ti the tip if your cock, circumference , easy tape around you'r widest, mine is at the base of the caronaand, then tapers slightly to the base, nuff said, I would not like to be so big you can't submerge the whole organ in the "hole"...lol

 

[travis1985]

I would draw from that that I've happened to only see smaller than average, but I hear "Nice, what is that, 7 inches" so frequently when I take mine out that I think I must not be the only one used to encountering that size. If people think 7 is average, and they think I'm 7, mine must be average, therefore 5.5 must be average.

 

[drabman]

... If people think 7 is average, and they think I'm 7, mine must be average, therefore 5.5 must be average.

You've lost me.

 

[pcghabsy]

You've lost me.

He's saying that people think he's 7 whereas he's actually 5.5. So if people think 7 is average the actual average must be 5.5 or less.

It's the good old concept of internet inches, also applicable in the real world.

 

[drabman]

... Results (of surveys concerning penis size) will always tend to the large side, since guys confident with their size are more likely to participate in getting measured and there will always be inflated reports from self-measuring...

Undoubtedly. However the fact that many different and completely independent surveys arrive at very similar results does mean that you can be fairly confident in dismissing anecdotal evidence that differs greatly from said surveys. Claims that 7, or even 6 inches NBP is average have little credibility in light of this.

 

[drabman]

Not to belabor the point but I think you keep going back to science....the whole point of this thread by the OP is that he is asking for exactly the kind of experience based anecdotal response like I made...

In which case he made a fundamental error in the title of his thread. It's not surprising he was challenged.

...this whole thread is about anecdotal experience not scientific studies...

Fine. In which case why didn't you just say that at the outset, instead of trying to google a clever response and then compounding the error by not admitting to the mistakes in your own posts?

....why is that so hard to understand or accept that me and the OP get that we want to have that discussion....if you don't want to participate... there are plenty of other threads!

It's not hard at all. However as you yourself admit, the thread title was confusing.

I would say that if posts discussing penis size make outlandish claims without proof, you shouldn't be surprised if someone challenges them in future.

 

[drabman]

He's saying that people think he's 7 whereas he's actually 5.5. So if people think 7 is average the actual average must be 5.5 or less.

It's the good old concept of internet inches, also applicable in the real world.

Thanks. Had a blonde moment there. (Is that racist?)

 

[MokeMan]

somebody said 7 is average and that it is still a big dick. big is determined by deviation from average, therefore, if 7 is average, 7 is average, not big.
don't fight over thread name. point of this thread is to determine whether real life experience reflects what studies says. and if not, to talk about the reasons why not.

 

[Silvertip]

Drabmen,

I don't want to pick a fight with you and I'm sure you are a nice guy...but the word empirical means to base on experience not hard data....

Empirical can very much mean based on hard data, as long as it is experienced and/or observed first hand.

....perhaps OP should have just said "anecdotal" rather than empirical although it means essentially the same thing ...

Not true at all. Anecdotal simply means obtained via personal accounts of others, such as word of mouth .... and the further that word strays from its original source the less reliable it becomes.

In other words the distinction between the two in this instance is that anecdotal is something that you've not personally experienced, observed or verified and empirical is something that you have personally experienced, observed or verified.

Ignore the statics ...

Well, if we really are to ignore the statics then we have no choice but to concentrate on the dynamics. I think that would better apply to a thread addressing the "show-er" versus "grower" aspect of penis size in the human population, not the static size of an erection.

... What is your guess about average penis size based on your expirience?

Well, I haven't expired yet .... so I'm guessing that I don't have any expirience. But based on my real-life experiences with hundreds of human penises I'd say that most of the size surveys and studies have it just about right. In other words "average" is somewhat less than 6 inches. "Large would be 7 inches and up, with "huge" starting around 8 inches in erect length. However that truly is a "guess" as I am not in the habit of whipping out tape measures, rulers and calipers when I'm being intimate with another man. I can assure you, however, that I do not suffer from Internet Inches Syndrome. And, having devoted a lifetime to the fields of science and engineering, I do know what an inch is.

 

[MokeMan]

expirience and statics... I must have been drunk...

 

[Silvertip]

That's OK, mwwa, I don't think anyone had any problem understanding what you meant. And, being the asshole that I am, I just couldn't resist picking nits. I'm glad to see that you took no offense.

ST