Hi thanks. I agree that the 1st is probably more accurate, whether people want to believe it or not. The reason the 2nd shows a higher average size is that it averages 3 studies; 2 of them are actually similar size to the 1st study (especially when you consider that these studies might be bpel. It is the 3rd one, the Wessels study which shows an unrealistically high size different from all others. If you read up on it, the methodology is dodgy.)
As I said before though, if you are trying to compete with other young guys who "get around", the lifestyles study putting 7 around 95.5 might be more accurate.
What do you think of the girth results in the 2nd though? I think girth matters more anyway. Since the 2nd study (the average of 3) is a bit higher than accurate for length, you'd expect the girth to be a higher average too. But it shows a very high percentile for girths (meaning its average seems a bit low to me) But this should be accurate or if anything understate the rarity of girth. It says 6 inch girth is 99.2 percent (my girth). For reference, the lifestyles study showed 98.9. A 6.25 girth is 99.8. 6.5 is 99.97 and at 6.75 you are 99.99...bigger than 9998 men, with 1 man bigger than you in a crowd of 10,000. Does that sound right?
