Scientific Study: Judging penis size (length) by comparing index, ring fingers

D_JuanAFock

Experimental Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2007
Posts
538
Media
0
Likes
9
Points
103
No, that means you are a woman. :rolleyes:

By "lower" they mean a large difference between index and ring fingers. I.e. the longer the index finger is compared to your ring finger, the larger your penis.

hilarious.
I see. Well, it still makes no sense and I find it insanely difficult to believe. And which ratio is it? Is it index finger:ring finger or ring finger:index finger?

EDIT:
Also, apparently the formula is
stretched penile length=−9.201×digit ratio + 20.577
http://www.nature.com/aja/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/aja201175a.html
Which means I should be 11.57 somethings (guessing cm)...
 
Last edited:

lowhung

Superior Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2006
Posts
567
Media
70
Likes
6,158
Points
498
Gender
Male
My index and ring finger are the same length. I've included a picture. I suppose that means I have a small penis.
 

Attachments

dirkjesje

Loved Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2009
Posts
1,407
Media
26
Likes
674
Points
258
Location
belgium
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
If you read the article well :
It's the ratio of length index finger devided by the length of the ring finger.
The smaller the number the longer the penis.
Women have an index finger mostly with approx the same lenght as the ring finger.
Men have mostly an index finger shorter.

All to do with the testosteron level during the first weeks of pregnancy.
This was already a conclusion more than 10years ago, and they found then a correlation between women with remarkable longer ring fingers that they had a higher sexdrive.

It's just an indication.
 

dirkjesje

Loved Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2009
Posts
1,407
Media
26
Likes
674
Points
258
Location
belgium
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
My index and ring finger are the same length. I've included a picture. I suppose that means I have a small penis.
In that picture your ring finger is longer.
You have to stretch your hand flat on the table.
Look at the position of your ring finger against the index. A difference of 0.25" is a remarkable difference.
 

D_JuanAFock

Experimental Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2007
Posts
538
Media
0
Likes
9
Points
103
Once again, that means you have NO penis. Same length = woman. :rolleyes:
Using their formula, same length does not = woman, it means 11.376cm... still a horrible thing that isnt accurate at all though. To demonstrate the insanity of it, lets look at the ever "common" 7" penis. If you had a 7" penis, you would need to have a ratio of .304 (or a .9" index finger and a 3" ring finger... or a 3" index finger and a 10" ring finger... whichever sounds more ridiculous to you). Do you know ANYBODY with ratios even remotely similar to that? Excluding people that lost their index finger due to some incident.

Also, looking at the graph doesnt really show much of any significance... most of the people they measured were ~4-5.5" with only 6 people being much bigger than that. Maybe a bigger sample size would produce better results.

The only significance that I can see is if you are between .9 and 1.05 ratio you can be anything. If you get higher than 1.05 odds do seem to be higher that you wont be as big. So if your index finger is longer than your ring finger by a decent margin you might be small, anything else is impossible to tell.
 

D_Percy_Prettywillie

Account Disabled
Joined
Jul 6, 2011
Posts
748
Media
0
Likes
22
Points
53
The article makes use of one equivocal term after another. "May," "might," "could," etc. I'm sure their math works out /some/ of the time but it seems like a pretty major leap to try to apply it practically. The author seems aware of that and so qualifies all of the claims they made... making not only the study but the article covering it seem kind of...meaningless.

"Tomorrow it might rain... and it might not. That's the weather report!"



JSZ