# % of running into a larger dick than your own.

Discussion in 'Sex With a Large Penis' started by NewAgeDesire, Feb 3, 2007.

1. ### NewAgeDesire New Member

Joined:
Jan 16, 2006
Messages:
62
Albums:
1
0
Gender:
Male
Location:
Art Student at CcS in Detroit
Ok, I have a limited understanding of probability but if I'm calculating this correctly (please inform me if this is wrong) to find out what your chances of meeting a guy with a larger or equal size member than you in both girth and length. You would have use the following equation: (based on Kinsey type percentages)

% of people with =< length x % of people with =< girth = % of people with =< penis

So being 8"x7" I'd be looking at an equation something like this:

1% x .1% = .001% or as a fraction 1/100 x 1/1000 = 1/100,000

So out of every 100,000 random people I meet there would only statistically be 1 person with a penis both larger in length and girth than my own.

If these calculations hold true than try it and see what your percentage might be. And if somebody has a different source to find the percentages, perhaps with a greater sample, please post it because the Kinsey report drops off after 6.5 in girth and 8 in length.

2. ### Draconis71 Gold Member

Joined:
Oct 19, 2006
Messages:
1,309
Albums:
2
248
Gender:
Male
Location:
Ottawa (ON, CA)
I would guess that if you're on the larger size of things (extremes) the formula wouldn't work.

Assumption being longer usually would be thicker, and vice versa
(probably not too many 6" X 7" penii, would be a lot more 9"x7" penii)

3. ### D_Partheza Analwart <img border="0" src="/images/badges/member.gif" wi

Joined:
Jan 28, 2007
Messages:
21
0
I would probably have the hardest time running in to an actual big dick. A lot of my friends are east indian, asian. They don't talk about it and chances are they're pretty small...

4. ### buddy629 Member

Joined:
Dec 23, 2006
Messages:
515
Albums:
1
72
Gender:
Male
Location:
Chicago
Here is the Kinsey report for you. It makes it easier to calculate the percentages....just add them up. I guess I, being 7.5 x 5.25, would have a 30% chance of meeting someone with my girth or greater, and less than 10% chance of meeting a man with a longer dick than mine. let's not factor in that 10% of the population is gay, and half them are lesbians. It will be like looking for a needle in a hay stack....or looking for a piece of hay in a stack of needles. geeze..

File size:
20.7 KB
Views:
514
File size:
20.5 KB
Views:
528
5. ### Lampwick New Member

Joined:
Nov 26, 2005
Messages:
383
3
Gender:
Male
It's been a while since I opened a statistics textbook, but I think your formula errs somewhat.

Here's how I would present the problem in words:

You are 8x7, and you calculate that one percent of men are as large or larger, and one-tenth of one percent of men are as thick or thicker.

What you are looking to determine is the number of men who are members (no pun intended) of both these groups. However, these two variables are not independent of each other. I have seen at least one source (Definitive Penis Size Survey Results ; see Figure 10) that affirms that if you're longer, you're more likely to be thicker.

So, let's take your 100,000 sample size. One percent are as large or larger, so we've reduced the group to 1,000. In the general male population, one-tenth of one percent are as thick or thicker, but in our group of 1,000 who are eight inches or more, MORE THAN one-tenth of one percent are going to be as thick or thicker. As I said, it's been a long time since I took statistics, but I'm guessing that of that group of 100,000, more than one will be at least 8x7.

6. ### viking1 Gold Member

Joined:
Dec 2, 2006
Messages:
4,704
8
I will not go into statistics. I would say that for me it is very likely to run into a guy who is bigger. Probably very near to 100%.

#6
7. ### NewAgeDesire New Member

Joined:
Jan 16, 2006
Messages:
62
Albums:
1
0
Gender:
Male
Location:
Art Student at CcS in Detroit
I suppose that it is understandable to think that if one is longer he is going to be thicker. You could also assume that if someone is thicker that they would be more likely to be long. Both assumptions may or may not be true. That being said, I figured I'd try and simplify the math to the simplest form. Much like rolling a dice twice and looking for a six both times. Your chances will be 1/6 on the first roll and 1/6 on the second giving a 1/36 chance that you'll roll a six twice. Being that we are all humans it is not as cut and dry and I figure there probably is a considerable margin of error in this method, but for the sake of fun it's an interesting calculation.

8. ### b.c. Gold Member

Joined:
Nov 7, 2005
Messages:
11,609
Albums:
1
3,826
Gender:
Male
Location:
at home
I guess that explains it.

#8

Joined:
Jun 2, 2004
Messages:
685
5
Gender:
Male
Location:
UK
I don't know about statistics - I get confused. I only know that most dicks I have seen (or got to know a bit more intimately) have been smaller than mine.

#9
10. ### avg_joe Gold Member

Joined:
Aug 15, 2006
Messages:
3,279
20
Gender:
Male
Between 0.5-0.1&#37; of the whole population.

11. ### D_Roland_D_Hay Account Disabled

Joined:
May 16, 2006
Messages:
3,920
12
Not sure I want to run into a larger dick...might hurt. I would prefer to walk (hah).

12. ### AustinPA Member

Joined:
Sep 22, 2007
Messages:
219
16
Gender:
Male
I don't know what is funnier. An art student trying to use statistics (there are lies, damn lies, and statistics), the crazy percentages being tossed around as fact, and the quoting of Kinsey as somehow authoritative.
Kinsey was ahead of his time. The scientific world was shocked, not by Kinseys "statistics" by that he even tried to do a study on Sex! His was the first, but not the best. The world of the late 40's/early 50's was morally a different place so the press on Kinsey of that time was a shocked world and not what his findings were.
Since then the medical community mostly ignores Kinsey because of so MANY FLAWS in his research. Small sample size, lots of people refused to be sampled in his geographic area, and he was limited to a relatively small geographic area. Might has well have tried to sample the customers, some will participate, some won't and ignore you, in a typical Wednesday shopping crowd at a Wal-Mart in the small town of Jasper, WY? Today his methodology is so widely held as flawed by science and medicine as to be laughable and medical professionals just ignore the statistics. The concepts that some are larger, some smaller, and people are all over on their tastes and proclivities for sex are not without some merit, but the idea of his statistics of size, even for women, is just so much rubbish.

Next, statistics are silly on the entire population of the planet. There are too many deviations to make it even possible. Anything like that is wild and a farce. Imagine the folly of asking for volunteers for a sex study here in Austin, getting 300 men to show up (our of probably 400,000 males in the area) and then because one man is over 11" saying that is the statististically relevant? No, no, no. What if 20 very proud men showed up? Sample still wrong and skewed. 20 men with micro peni? No, no, no. Still bad statistics. Volunteers only skewed it at the start and it gets worse. That is what Kinsey had and now he is ignored for the most part but honored for at least trying in a cultural age of repression.

And no, 10% of the population is NOT gay. 2-3% by the best guesses and that is adding a full percentage poiint to the numbers of the best censuses possible for political reasons. Now, maybe 10% are bi, but not gay. And I am fully bi at equal amounts. So don't go gay whiny on me because of the numbers. I am not bashing gays by correcting bad math and more bad guesses.

There is NO statistical way, too much diversity in the male population of the planet, to know accurately how the percentages work out in the size lottery. Because it is a genetic lottery! BINGO! But the lottery is different because EACH baby boy born has already played the genetic lottery!
The bottom line is Kinsey is honored as a brave researcher for trying to demystify sex, but his work is generally ignored now but not ridiculed to preserve the concept of his historic groundbreaking in a difficult time to do that work. Statistics on sex organs is a loooooooooooooser.
Kinsey never saw a woman with a bust above a DD in his survey. That alone proves he was so wrong on so many things but he was the first to try.
And gays suck...and suck...and suck...and bi guys like me only suck the long and hard now and then....lol.
Geeez.....laugh...you will give yourself an episode.

Draft saved Draft deleted