Reality about penis sizes - a look

[pcghabsy]

hmm, these data are very interesting, however i would like to have some more information to further my understanding, it seems that the data fits in to the normal model quite well, however for this type of question it would be necessary to have access to individual data values, or at the least; the mean and standard deviation of a wide unbiased, normalized survey.

for the purpose of this thread, lets use the cancun study; those statistics concluded an average(mean) of 5.9inches with a standard deviation of 0.8 inches. lets assume that this is a representative sample of the adult male population(it is not):

0.1% of men have 2.7-3.5 inches
2% of men have 3.5-4.1 inches
14% of men have 4.3-5.1 inches
33% of men have 5.1-5.9 inches
33% of men have 5.9-6.7 inches
14% of men have 6.7-7.5 inches
2% of men have 7.5-8.3 inches
0.1% of men have 8.3-9.1 inches

meaning in a crowd of 1000 men, on average only 20 men will have a penis longer than 7.5inches, and possibly ONE man will have a penis longer than 8.3 inches.

Though you are normalizing, in the real world, I would think those figures you are guessing would be likely. And again, like I had explained before, the Cancun study is only likely to be biased on the higher side.

And yeah, such analysis could possibly be used for a more noble cause (bra fittings, for instance) but penis size is global problem with little insight, isn't it? While not exactly as serious as bubonic plague, you'd be surprised how many people's heads screw around with them regarding penis sizes.

Somewhat off topic, but thought I would mention. While modern society is obsessed with large penises, ancient civilizations such as Greek and Romans were always after compact, aesthetic penises. Large penises were assigned to the uncouth, illiterates and freaks. How times have changed. :tongue:

 

[Ramsey]

Somewhat off topic, but thought I would mention. While modern society is obsessed with large penises, ancient civilizations such as Greek and Romans were always after compact, aesthetic penises. Large penises were assigned to the uncouth, illiterates and freaks. How times have changed. :tongue:

Yeah well I betcha if the ladies still got a hold of one of these monsters, she'd make up myths about it and would never go back. At least, that's what this site has indoctrinated me with. :tongue:

 

[pcghabsy]

Yeah well I betcha if the ladies still got a hold of one of these monsters, she'd make up myths about it and would never go back. At least, that's what this site has indoctrinated me with. :tongue:

I am not really sure there was a Large Penis Forum in Roman times!

 

[Freddie53]

Found this abstracts on the Internet:

A study published in the September 1996 Journal of Urology concluded that average erect length was 12.9 cm (5.08 in) (measured by staff).[7] The purpose of the study was to “provide guidelines of penile length and circumference to assist in counseling patients considering penile augmentation.” Erection was pharmacologically induced in 80 physically normal American men (varying ethnicity, average age 54). It was concluded: “Neither patient age nor size of the flaccid penis accurately predicted erectile length.”


A study published in the December 2000 International Journal of Impotence Research found that average erect penis length was 13.6 cm (5.35 in) (measured by staff).[8] Quote: "The aim of this prospective study was to identify clinical and engineering parameters of the flaccid penis for prediction of penile size during erection." Erection was pharmacologically induced in 50 Jewish Caucasian patients who had been evaluated for Erectile dysfunction (average age 47±14y). Patients with penis abnormalities or whose ED could be attributed to more than one psychological origin were omitted from the study.

 

[_avg_]

That reminds me, a famous pornstar, I don't remember who exactly, I think it was Lex Steele. He measured at 9.5" measuring holding his penis to side i.e. to his thighs. So, in reality, he's probably around 8". The pornstar with supposedly one of the largest cocks.

That's not correct. Straight out from the body and parallel to the ground:

http://www.lpsg.org/attachments/63874d1243950462-measured-porn-stars-lex2.jpg

The ruler is placed to the side of his cock, not on top, and it still looks to be well over 9" ... but let's not start up that bullshit again...

 

[latinluva]

I use to look at cocks in my old job (trust me I did), and I have had alot of men in my life. But I know for a fact that it is not uncommon to come across cocks that are eight inches or bigger. I prefer fat thick cocks of any size....but never complain about any cock that is rock hard.

 

[B_625girth]

well, for the record, (I'm sorry I have no verification photos), I am 7.25" x 6.25". that is measured off the top, bone pressed. the girth is an average measurement. you will find a cock like mine or bigger in 3 out of 100 men according to some study I saw a while back. I don't think my length makes me that "rare". it is my girth. and that fits with my true life experiences.

 

[silverheart]

Well I would probably know best when it comes to this subject as I have looked over the results of the surveys you mention and much more. More and more people, esp online, are aware of these newer studies and accept the average being less than 6 inches. The failure with these surveys besides an unrealistic sample is they dont have a standard way of measuring. I suspect a portion of these studies where the results are around 5 inches were done by measuring the flaccid length while pulled. And I also suspect in many studies that some of these men were not fully erect while being measured. Most studies are not bone pressed but they do slightly press. I have seen some medical studies that show an average that resembles something similar to lifestyles. I do believe if you wanted a real average and these men were fully erect, which can only be medically induced to assure best results, you would see an average of 5.5 inches but with a mode closer to 6 inches (range from about 4.5 to 7). But if you were to look at a healthier more sexually active population of men the average would be a half an inch more. There are men, although extremly rare, who measure 10, 11, 12, and at most 14 inches. And world wide the average might be smaller cuz asian men represent like half the world and they range from 3.5 to 6 where as black men range from 5.5 to 8. And black men are thinner than white men so pound for pound they are about the same.

 

[dirkjesje]

Depending of the source of the survey and the purpose avg varies.
A study of the urology dept at the university in Leuven; sponsored by Durex; found what we allready knew.

The participants didn t knew that they were invited for a survey when they won 1 of the 1000 prices ; it was a lottery sponsored by Durex ( min age 18 )
All were measured by medical staff with the same method non-bone pressed ( as Durex is certainly interested in only the visable part of the penis and were injected all with @pf - a chemical that urologists use to get a full erection.
Well of the 1000 winners - 190 didn t show to get their price or refused.
34 were rejected for medical reasons. ( overweight, etc... )
Also the smallest and biggest measurement were cut out.
The population was 774 of healthy men between 18 and 65.

They found what we allready knew :
A penis is between 84mm (3.3") and 198mm (7.8") 99.8% ( sigma 3 ) erect non bone pressed.
That means that only 0.2% is out of these limits.
So we can conclude that 8" exist; 9",10" very rare and above 10" honestly it will exists like 6 fingers on a hand.

 

[_avg_]

...A study of the urology dept at the university in Leuven; sponsored by Durex; found what we allready knew.
...

Fascinating. 775n is more than twice the Lifestyles survey. I was unable to locate the source; do you have a link to this study, or can tell me where it's published? Thanks!

 

[h8r4life]

About fractions of an inch being important... for instance, in my first post in the $2 thread, I said I'm about 7.6 inches... because I wasn't gonna try and portray myself as 7.9 or 8 inches, even though I'm only fractions of an inch smaller :tongue:
...and I sure as hell don't want to give up any of those fractions of an inch and have people thinking I'm 7.1 inches... even though 7.1 is only fractions of an inch smaller... see what I'm talking about ? :biggrin1:
I really think most people on this site (as dick size obsessed as we are...well, I admit to being awfully concerned about mine, although it's not too important really) would feel the same way about their precious, tenths of an inch, lol.

I understand what you mean with the track and field example, but I don't really see how that parallels measuring a penis with a ruler or tape measure. You're just making an emperical analogy to show the importance of tenths and hundredths of a decimal place. In lots of things that is important, however penis size it is not. So you're telling me that I have to state my size to the second decimal place now?

And it's generally understood on this site that fractions of an inch mean a lot? I've been here for years and I've never seen that be a big deal anywhere.

In fact, I'd go as far to say that fractions of an inch are actually not important at all in real life situations. Reason being, what I've stated numerous times already: that people can't easily tell the difference between things are that are 1-2 inches different in size in the real world. Let alone .5 or less of an inch in the size of a penis in the real world or a photo!

I'm mean think about what your saying here and look at how long one inch really is visually on a ruler. Or say the difference visually between 7.64" and 8" on the ruler. Or heck even the difference between 7" and 8" on the ruler. Visually, you can't say the distance between those sets of numbers is huge. If you have two different sized objects side by side, yeah it's easier to see which one is bigger. However, only having one object there and no measuring device, it can be very difficult to tell the exact size.

 

[455639]

This is a good subject From all the studies Ive read which ive read a lot (Lifestyles Durex ect) what Ive taken from them is this Avg Length about 5.5 and only 5% of men are over 7 inches.

 

[scrabble]

youll find the majority of guys fall between 5 and 6.5 inches give or take a bit of an inch.

if youre bigger, then lucky genes to you, if youre smaller then learn to use your tongue and hands to better effect. motion of the ocean, even if you got a small rudder you can have big sails.

 

[AlphaMale]

About fractions of an inch being important... for instance, in my first post in the $2 thread, I said I'm about 7.6 inches... because I wasn't gonna try and portray myself as 7.9 or 8 inches, even though I'm only fractions of an inch smaller :tongue:
...and I sure as hell don't want to give up any of those fractions of an inch and have people thinking I'm 7.1 inches... even though 7.1 is only fractions of an inch smaller... see what I'm talking about ? :biggrin1:
I really think most people on this site (as dick size obsessed as we are...well, I admit to being awfully concerned about mine, although it's not too important really) would feel the same way about their precious, tenths of an inch, lol.

Ah ok, now that you explain it that way I completely agree!

Makes perfect sense, thank you for elaborating. :smile:

 

[average8224]

I am straight and have been very curious to see a huge dick in person. So far, I have met a few guys who claim to be 7 and 8 inches, but when I actually get the chance to see, they are usually quite average. One guy was the same exact size as I am and I don't walk around telling people I am 8"!

 

[blg3floor3]

Blah. Length this, length that. Length, length, length. It gets a lot more attention being the more obvious attribute, but I want to see the volumes and volumes of studies and discussions and stories of girth. I guess I'm tired of reading about the attribute I'm average in (or above, depending on which you go by), and am far more interested about the one that I excel in, by far. :tongue: Not to mention that it's the attribute most women appear to prefer and appreciate anyhow. :wink:

 

[joeym]

Depending of the source of the survey and the purpose avg varies.
A study of the urology dept at the university in Leuven; sponsored by Durex; found what we allready knew.

The participants didn t knew that they were invited for a survey when they won 1 of the 1000 prices ; it was a lottery sponsored by Durex ( min age 18 )
All were measured by medical staff with the same method non-bone pressed ( as Durex is certainly interested in only the visable part of the penis and were injected all with @pf - a chemical that urologists use to get a full erection.
Well of the 1000 winners - 190 didn t show to get their price or refused.
34 were rejected for medical reasons. ( overweight, etc... )
Also the smallest and biggest measurement were cut out.
The population was 774 of healthy men between 18 and 65.

They found what we allready knew :
A penis is between 84mm (3.3") and 198mm (7.8") 99.8% ( sigma 3 ) erect non bone pressed.
That means that only 0.2% is out of these limits.
So we can conclude that 8" exist; 9",10" very rare and above 10" honestly it will exists like 6 fingers on a hand.

Can you please provide further info on this study - this is a really good one. What was the average? Did they provide other stats such as median/mode/SD? What about smallest and largest measured? Any detail on measuring technique? Also, since it's sponsored by Durex, I assume girth was measured, what were those results?

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

Depending of the source of the survey and the purpose avg varies.
A study of the urology dept at the university in Leuven; sponsored by Durex; found what we allready knew.

The participants didn t knew that they were invited for a survey when they won 1 of the 1000 prices ; it was a lottery sponsored by Durex ( min age 18 )
All were measured by medical staff with the same method non-bone pressed ( as Durex is certainly interested in only the visable part of the penis and were injected all with @pf - a chemical that urologists use to get a full erection.
Well of the 1000 winners - 190 didn t show to get their price or refused.
34 were rejected for medical reasons. ( overweight, etc... )
Also the smallest and biggest measurement were cut out.
The population was 774 of healthy men between 18 and 65.

They found what we allready knew :
A penis is between 84mm (3.3") and 198mm (7.8") 99.8% ( sigma 3 ) erect non bone pressed.
That means that only 0.2% is out of these limits.
So we can conclude that 8" exist; 9",10" very rare and above 10" honestly it will exists like 6 fingers on a hand.

What's the point of cutting out the smallest and biggest?
I don't quite get it.
Particularly if they claim to describe the frequency of penises shorter than 3.3 inches and longer than 7.8.

 

[dirkjesje]

I don't have access to the "paper", ni in electronic or paper form. I ve only seen a glimp of it of a collague who works for the "Stat" dept.
I was only involved for the budget - and for the end-closing of the project I got a summary of the results.

The average was 141mm - it was a normal distribution.
So you can easily find out what the different classes are - because you 've the limits of sigma3 ( 2x3=6 standard deviations in that range )
Why they cut out 1min and 1max? I do not know the exact reason - only the statistical one
If a value on the lower or higher side is not in line with the distribution they cut it out ( but allways at the end and on both sides )
[ sometimes they cut out six min values but then also six high values ]
This doesn t disturb the analysis - it reflects better the reality.
It could be a measure fault - a notation fault whatever...

Then why only length - there were several tests :
Flaccid lenght; flaccid circum.; the same for erect.
Notation of the curve ( in degrees to the body )
Foreskin notation in A,B,C,... notation ( standards that the dept use )
Testikel measurement flaccid in A,B,c,... notation ( " )
Perhaps some more like body shape, etc... I don't remember

If I can get access to the paper and get authorisation to publish a part of it I will certainly do it.

 

[Sergeant_Torpedo]

There is no easy accurate methodology in measuring soft tissue apart from intricate anthropometrically imaged medical observation. So ease up. If it looks big it probably is,