it is a common impact of studies like this, they are not intending to inform on the fringes, but more so on the majority. “We” are all generally interested in the upper end of the spectrum. It isn’t uncommon to be honest, statistics is not meant for specifics, but rather for generalizations
Measured porn stars??
- Thread starter _avg_
- Start date
it is a common impact of studies like this, they are not intending to inform on the fringes, but more so on the majority. “We” are all generally interested in the upper end of the spectrum. It isn’t uncommon to be honest, statistics is not meant for specifics, but rather for generalizations
Yah I agree. I think its more overall size of hips and groin area including buttocks then literally just length.
Ok. Looking at data, the largest NBP was 7.48 inches. And the largest BPEL was 8.29 inches. So at most, the guy w/ 7.48 had a 0.79 inch fat pad.
But this flawed method still will affect the extremes on both sides. My guess, is the mean BPEL stays the same, but the smallest cocks are actually longer, and the longest are actually shorter.
But this flawed method still will affect the extremes on both sides. My guess, is the mean BPEL stays the same, but the smallest cocks are actually longer, and the longest are actually shorter.
Personally I think the biggest impact it would have would be not necessarily when they were born but when they went through puberty.
Like if you took two pairs of identical twins. One set female and one set male. If you had 1 male and 1 female on a very nutritional diet and environmentally friendly (western world generally) place to grow up and the other 1 male and 1 female were malnourished and living in an impoverished area (developing world let alone places where there is practically slave labor like in China) I would bet a fair penny that the nourished male and female would have stronger, larger bodies with the male having a larger penis and muscles and the female having larger breast and butts and muscles.
That is an interesting angle. I have heard about female mensuration occurring earlier and earlier now. It is kind of the other side of the same coin, so there might be something to it.
But again, the why is highly debated. Is it nutrition or hormones/steroids or just calories at will?
Agreed. There’s so many other dynamics at play too. Eg. The literature says on average, men with the smallest penis are less fertile. With fertility drugs and other technology, these men can reproduce and create more tiny cocks better than 100+ years ago.
I'd say all three, with may an emphasis on hormones and steroids considering that a lot of western (ESPECIALLY American) food as that shit practically injected into it.
The Wessells study found a 7.5" non bone pressed penis out of 80 guys yet the penis calculator site claims 7" is 99.3%-ile. That would mean 7/1000 guys have 7". It's all crap. 7" is more like 70/1000.
Not only that, according to Wessels graph, 5-6 guys out of 80 had 7.0 NBPEL or above. To confuse things further, they only have 67 data points on the graph (instead of 80). It’s possible they are using “functional” length...but then where is the 21 cm point?
Honestly, between the Veale study incorrectly using the Wessels NPEL (they were supposed to use BPEL for all), the significant differences in results between all studies, and the contradictory data within some studies...I don’t believe we have any idea what the average length/girth is other than to say, it’s between 5-7 inches for length...and 4.5-5.25 for girth. Both unsatisfactory conclusions!
And if anyone says “it could never be 7!”. The Cancun study revealed NBPEL of about 6 inches. If you add a 1 inch fat pad there’s your 7. Sure, the study was flawed, but they all are.
And if anyone says “it could never be 7!”. The Cancun study revealed NBPEL of about 6 inches. If you add a 1 inch fat pad there’s your 7. Sure, the study was flawed, but they all are.
Last edited:
- Clod,
Well, we’re typically discussing nbpel. This is always around 5.25 on average. Also, the Cancun study was on self-selected college kids. They were unlikely to have huge fat pads.
As for Wessels, I find it fishy in general they found a 3 incher & so many 7+ in just 80 people. I’m very skeptical of it in comparison to all the other studies I’ve seen. That being said, I see now it was on men seeking penis enlargement surgery. I’ve said it before, but I think both smaller and bigger guys care more about their cock sizes. Bigger guys focus on it more because they attach their egos to it. What do men with power want? More power. This site is proof of that.
I would take this study with a huge grain of salt for this reason.
- Clod,
Edit* I now see that Wessels wasn’t necessarily on men seeking the surgery, so who knows how they found so many outliers. In any case, 80 men is an extremely small sample size & it’s amazing they found such outliers on both ends of the spectrum. 3-4 is uniquely small and 7+ is uniquely large according to all other data. Also, the Cancun study found an average of 5.5 nbp. Even in their sampling of college men who were self-selected, they didn’t turn up anything close to 7.
They gave no graphs or the individual data for girth; Just the average and range (see pic)
Where did you see Cancun study found 5.5 NBP? I’m seeing 5.88. The calcSD site doesn’t even say whether it was NBP OR BP. I could of sworn it was NBP, but now I can’t confirm.
.
- Clod,
@Add9er
You’re right it’s 5.8. 5.8 nbp makes sense fir fit, self-selected college kids as an average. Over half were between somewhere in the range of 5.5-6.3 inches, so it’s probably not a great data set regardless. Still, if over half fell into a 0.8 inch range, 7+ as an average even here would be absurd.
You’re right it’s 5.8. 5.8 nbp makes sense fir fit, self-selected college kids as an average. Over half were between somewhere in the range of 5.5-6.3 inches, so it’s probably not a great data set regardless. Still, if over half fell into a 0.8 inch range, 7+ as an average even here would be absurd.
The 3 incher can be explained by a huge fat pad. I think 2.96 was biggest fat pad in group. The numerous 7+ I can’t understand.
fellas if you all want a big laugh please take a look at this debate in the chris strokes thread . i havnt logged in here in a while but have had a good laugh at this. this is the most insane user i have seen.
Dr_Feelgood_LV is claiming Chris Strokes might be as big as 11.5 inches.
He also says Mark Ashley is 10 inches and mandingo is 14. yes he believes this.
criss strokes real measurement!! 6.5 INCHES!!!
He called another user out to post his measurments but this user actually looks way bigger than strokes (a genuine 8" ?)
criss strokes real measurement!! 6.5 INCHES!!!
Now how do I put this kindly. Pleas some of you talk sense into Dr Feelgood he is actually attacking other editors viciously for saying Chris Strokes is 7.5 . crazy. I am tipping you off because theres some very rational people here. See you all next year.
Dr_Feelgood_LV is claiming Chris Strokes might be as big as 11.5 inches.
He also says Mark Ashley is 10 inches and mandingo is 14. yes he believes this.
criss strokes real measurement!! 6.5 INCHES!!!
He called another user out to post his measurments but this user actually looks way bigger than strokes (a genuine 8" ?)
criss strokes real measurement!! 6.5 INCHES!!!
Now how do I put this kindly. Pleas some of you talk sense into Dr Feelgood he is actually attacking other editors viciously for saying Chris Strokes is 7.5 . crazy. I am tipping you off because theres some very rational people here. See you all next year.
