indian men are small?

[BuddyBoy]

Um, not to be anal here, but a sample size of 1200 is not insignificant. It is a valid statistical universe, especially when determining a generalized bell curve.

If may not be PC to get into this discussion, but to dismiss the study out of hand is, IMO, wrong.

 

[B_johnschlong]

On peciesly WHAT basis is this study "credible"? Please, do explain this to me.

It's a scientific study applying the most basic statistical rules used in ordinary epidemiological studies. I agree that the sample is small, but it's still representative. At least that's what the scientists of the Indian Council of Medical Research say. Now they're no amateurs, mind you.

But I don't want to turn this into a loser thread. I didn't know the issue was so sensitive. I just thought: for once we have a scientific study about penis size, which is very rare, so I'll mention it on a forum where penis size is a topic of discussion.

 

[jeff black]

Um, not to be anal here, but a sample size of 1200 is not insignificant. It is a valid statistical universe, especially when determining a generalized bell curve.

If may not be PC to get into this discussion, but to dismiss the study out of hand is, IMO, wrong.

Buddy, I am sure you know a bit about Statistics. Being as you are an intelligent guy, you also know that... The BIGGER the same, the more viable the results.:smile:

1200 is rather pitiful when the population is so much larger. Studies that attempt to "generalize" a population need to have a larger sample size that that.

 

[AlteredEgo]

Hey thanks for warning me. I normally don't engage in size-fascism, only when it can be backed up by credible studies. This is one such study.

And *if it is so*, then why should we be so politically correct as to shut up about it?

You have not shown us a credible study. They sampled less than 1% of the population in question. Are you always so easy to sway? I have a bridge to sell you. You can put a toll plaza on it and make millions. I have some figures to show you...

 

[jeff black]

I just thought: for once we have a scientific study about penis size, which is very rare, so I'll mention it on a forum where penis size is a topic of discussion.

It's got nothing to do with that. Your sarcasm=weak.

My response, as well as some of the others will show your stance. Get a REAL Study with a few more people.

 

[B_johnschlong]

You have not shown us a credible study. They sampled less than 1% of the population in question. Are you always so easy to sway? I have a bridge to sell you. You can put a toll plaza on it and make millions. I have some figures to show you...

Ok, let's start by getting a clue. Do you think the Indian Council of Medical Research would spend two entire years on a bogus study? Read the article please. It's a scientific study published in a scientific peer-reviewed journal, using the most basic statistical techniques used in many epidemiological studies.

 

[B_johnschlong]

And now back to the topic at hand. What surprised me in this thorough scientific study, is the considerable difference observed between Indian men and the global standard. 60% of all Indian men being 3 to 5 centimeters shorter than the universal condom-average is really a lot, don't you think?

 

[jeff black]

And now back to the topic at hand. What surprised me in this thorough scientific study, is the considerable difference observed between Indian men and the global standard. 60% of all Indian men being 3 to 5 centimeters shorter than the universal condom-average is really a lot, don't you think?

OK, let's look at this "study".

There are 1200 people in this study. Would you be happy if 1200 guys who were perfectly healthy (minus cancer) tested a pill that cured cancer? Each one found that they were cured. Then, 10,000 other people buy the pill and start dying or getting sicker due to the fact that they have a cold while they take the pill.

The point of a test/survey/study, is to get enough information to make a statement beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[joyboytoy79]

Um, not to be anal here, but a sample size of 1200 is not insignificant. It is a valid statistical universe, especially when determining a generalized bell curve.

If may not be PC to get into this discussion, but to dismiss the study out of hand is, IMO, wrong.

Buddy,

You're right, a study of 1,200 people in a double-blind, random sample is not insignificant. That said:

It's a scientific study applying the most basic statistical rules used in ordinary epidemiological studies. I agree that the sample is small, but it's still representative. At least that's what the scientists of the Indian Council of Medical Research say. Now they're no amateurs, mind you.

But I don't want to turn this into a loser thread. I didn't know the issue was so sensitive. I just thought: for once we have a scientific study about penis size, which is very rare, so I'll mention it on a forum where penis size is a topic of discussion.

Basic statistical rules state that "volunteer" based samples are BAD BAD BAD... it's what's called a "convenience sample" and it is invariably INACCURATE!

Let's couple that with an infinitesimally small sample size compared to the actual population, and what edo we get?!?! ERRONEOUS RESULTS!

It is in no way scientifically valid. Period. End of story. And if you look at it without the bias that is applied with piss-poor statistical methods, this "research" doesn't say anything about the average size of the indian penis.

 

[Gisella]

It is in no way scientifically valid. Period. End of story. And if you look at it without the bias that is applied with piss-poor statistical methods, this "research" doesn't say anything about the average size of the indian penis.

Yeh..where are the numbers from averages penis there?

It say a difference between 2cm (0.78in) to 5cm (1.9 in) of what measures to begin with ???

 

[joyboytoy79]

Ok, let's start by getting a clue. Do you think the Indian Council of Medical Research would spend two entire years on a bogus study? Read the article please. It's a scientific study published in a scientific peer-reviewed journal, using the most basic statistical techniques used in many epidemiological studies.

Sire, would you please point me to where this "study" is represented on the ICMR website? I've searched for "Condom" "Condom Size" "Penis" "Penis Size" and "Chander Puri" and i can't find the original study ANYWHERE! Please, show me the original study so i may see what IT says, as opposed to what some reporter in Britain has interpereted from it.

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

I can't see why a sample size of 1200 couldn't be entirely adequate for this type of study.
That said, you could have that sample size and nonetheless fuck the study up in many ways. And the BBC report doesn't allow us to make a judgement on that.
I agree with Vinny that such threads usually aren't worth all the opprobrium and anger they spark ... something that Johnschlong may quickly learn, to his regret.

 

[Matthew]

Breaking News: Millions of men have smaller than average penises.

 

[D_Harry_Crax]

I teach social scientific research methodology to graduate students. A sample size of 1,200 randomly selected persons has a 2.8% sampling error with a 95% confidence level. This is generally accepted, but it is even more defensible with natural phenomena (such as cock size) than with social/cultural phenomena in which one usually does NOT have a "normal distribution curve" of data. The problem with the Indian men's cocks survey, as already pointed out, is that the 1,200 men were volunteers, and thus not randomly selected. With 1,200 volunteers, the sampling error is somewhere between 2.8% and close to 100%. (In other words, it is at least hypothetically possible that in a country with almost 1.2 billion big cocks and only 1,200 small ones, all the guys with small ones would be the only volunteers.)

 

[BuddyBoy]

Wow. People do get worked up over stuff, don't they? :biggrin1:

Ok, first of all, this news story is a preliminary report regarding a study which is currently in the analysis stage, and not slated to be released until early 2007. It's too early to draw concrete conclusions about the validity of the study. It's also more than a little premature to jump on the methodolgy without having reviewed the study yourself. Those of you dismissing it based only on what you've gleaned from the BBC story are no better than those who are lumping Indian men into the "small penis" camp from the same report.

Here is a slightly more comprehensive story from the Times of India:

MUMBAI: Scientists at the country’s premier medical research institute have just concluded an extensive two-year study of the penis sizes of Indian men. In the next few months, they will recommend condom sizes that are right for the Indian population so as to reduce the rate of failure.

The data is still being collated and analysed by the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), but preliminary findings indicate that condoms available in the market are oversized. “As per international standards, most condoms are 150 mm to 180 mm in length and 44 to 56 mm in width. But data collected in Mumbai till 2001 showed that 60% of the participants measured 126 to 156 mm in length and 30% between 100 and 125 mm,’’ said a city researcher, pointing out that there was a difference of at least 5 cm in length.

All the number-crunching is essentially expected to improve the sizing of condoms which have a notorious failure rate of upto 20% in India. "Studies have shown that failure rate of condoms was 2% in clinical trials, but as high as 18 to 20% when studied among the general population. While improper usage is one of the reasons, there is also condom slippage or tear which is associated with the size of the condom in relation to an erect penis," according to Dr Chander Puri, director of ICMR’s National Institute for Research in Reproductive Health in Parel.

Condoms, latex sheaths devised as a contraceptive tool, have in recent times also emerged as the best safeguard against sexually transmitted diseases, especially the deadly HIV. An ill-fitting condom that slips or ruptures defeats the purpose of wearing one.

This was the genesis of the ambitious research study—’Study on proper length and breadth specification for condoms based on anthropometric measurement’. Apart from size, the study has correlated penis size with socio-economic status, geographical location and overall dimensions of the male. The ICMR, which has been coordinating the study, is likely to publish its findings in early 2007.

As part of their two-year survey of penis sizes of Indians, researchers at the Indian Council of Medical Research have surveyed 1,400 men visiting family planning centres in seven hospitals including KEM in Parel, AIIMS in Delhi and PGI, Chandigarh; the length and width of each erect penis was measured twice and a digital photograph taken. In KEM Hospital, it was the departments of urology and preventive and social medicine which monitored participants. The group was an equal mix of urban and rural folk in the 18-50 age group.

The ICMR had requested Indian Institute of Technology in Delhi to devise ways to measure an erect penis. "We had devised an automated system in which an image of the penis would be taken and the computer would interpret different dimensions," said professor of biomedical engineering, IIT Kharagpur Sujoy Guha, who headed the project. However, this was later discarded for a simple paper-tape that was found to be more practical.

While ICMR scientists refused to comment on the findings "as the data is still being analysed", sources admitted that a smaller exploratory study had conclusively showed that the condoms presently available in the market were indeed oversized for Indian men.

The inter-city study drew much interest at the recently-concluded Asia-Pacific Conference of the Society of Sexual Medicine in Mumbai (even as the Germans are about to launch spray-on, fit-for-all-sizes condoms). An international delegate at the conference pointed out that if the study made geographical distinctions in sizes, it may cause discomfort among men in different regions.

The Indian condom industry too has concerns about the entire exercise, especially since it seeks to establish that a large percentage of condoms in the market are ill-fitting. Most of them insist that condom failure is mostly due to improper use.

"We already adhere to ISO specifications as far as sizes are concerned," says an official of Hindustan Latex Limited. But aren’t tears a common complaint? Tears are mostly related to inferior material, he says. And slippages? "Well, that could be related to size. But we already make condoms in standard and extra-long sizes."

The real concern is that "making condoms of different sizes may not be practical unless there is a large demand." And will there be takers for the smaller-sized condoms? Well, that could be a topic for another psycho-socio study.

 

[Sergeant_Torpedo]

Jeff, because of cultural and religious differences in the sub continent whores are found in brothels (red light district) and not in colleges and celebritydom as in North America and Western Europe. Because the populations of the former Indian empire are dispersive with many ethnic origins and a still extant, coercive, and exacting caste system the gene pool is not as heterosis as in the "west" so there is quite distinctive communal physionomies. Sorry, Sikhs are no more well endowed than other Punjabi males. It only matters to the manufacturers of condoms - an expanding and lucrative business in that part of Asia.

 

[B_dadboy]

indian guys, i have lived and worked in india off and on for over 30 yrs, i can speak hindi and have friends since childhood and yes the majority of them are 2.5inch to 4.5 in my exp hard. but also maximum size i found was 6 ish , and believe me the indian guys know their small and very aware of it.

 

[B_dadboy]

also most western guys are not much better off with an average of 5.3 inches. most cocks you see in pics are taken at what i call good angles to make them selves look bigger. drew

 

[vespertine212]

has anyone had the experience of indian women appreciated a more generously hung western guy?

by american standards, my cock size is respectable, not huge. but if the biggest they have over there is 6", i could really dominate some corner of the big cock market over there!

it's so satisfying when a white girl likes the size of my cock. if i could bed some indian chicks i might really get to shock them!

 

[AlteredEgo]

Ok, let's start by getting a clue. Do you think the Indian Council of Medical Research would spend two entire years on a bogus study? Read the article please. It's a scientific study published in a scientific peer-reviewed journal, using the most basic statistical techniques used in many epidemiological studies.

Yes, I do think it possible they might. It's a government agency. Unless you're one of those people who is never ever suspicious of the government...


Despite the cute BBC article I'm not one to just go along. The article made me ask questions it doesn't answer:

• Why does a condom fall off of a penis only 1-2 inches shorter than "standard"?
• Who did the study showing the 1:5 failure rate of condoms, and
• How was that study conducted?
• When?

That really is a very high rate of failure, and I agree research needs to be done, measures need to be taken. I have more problems. I'm not the sort who goes poking into every little thing. ordinarily, this topic wouldn't be interesting enough for me to dig deeper. However, I dug, and similarly to Joyboy, I could not find Chander Puri. But I didn't search the internet. I searched the ICMR scientist email database. Hmm... interesting.

I could not find this report on their website. You claim it was published in a peer reviewed journal. ICMR's website included a link to the Indian Journal of Medical Research. It has not been published in this journal (or if it has been, I couldn't find it). The article makes no mention of any such publication. It mentions the Indian version of Maxim, and that magazine's former editor's response.

Oh I already read the article, thank you. It's so short and fluffy it could hardly be called that. I like BBC news. But it's just BBC news. What do you want from it?