Serious question for everyone:

[ManlyBanisters]

Quoted for emphasis. :tongue:

Is it over emphatic to emphasise the emphasis? :notworthy:

 

[brokebackTJ]

There's no way to tell how many guys have a bigger than normal dick. Unless everyone in the whole world was forced to measure their penis in front of someone, (to make sure they weren't lying) then we will never know how many guys are "above average". Those of us lucky enough to see a few guys that are bigger than most can be happy about it. But no one should try to say that there are a lot of "big guys" out there or there's hardly any. There's simply no way to know. Even a condom company that does a survey isn't reliable, cause they only survey a small number of guys. You've have to get EVERYONE's measurements and that's never gonna happen.

 

[deleted49365]

You're right TJ, there is no way to no exactly how many people have a certain penis length, or exactly how many people are above average. But then again, nobody said they did. The numbers I mentioned are all just estimates, based on data collected by the Lifestyles crew. Like any other measurable aspect of nature, penis size follows a normal (bell shaped) distribution. It can be, and has been proven several times. Therefore, estimates (like I made) of the total population based on large samples are very accurate... assuming the study which collected the data was unbiased.

For one thing, out of the few staff-measured, penis size studies available online, I picked the one with the largest sample mean. Also, I don't get why a condom company would do a study just to try and prove that the average size is.... on par with every other study. I don't see an incentive there. If they were to find the average was bigger, wouldn't you think they'd want to get a jump on their competition and be the first to have better-fitting condoms? As it is, I'm pretty sure the length of the average condom is longer than the average penis anyway, with room to spare.

By the way, the Lifestyles study sample size was of 301 volunteers (another thing that could actually produce a bigger mean if smaller guys don't volunteer), in Cancun Mexico over spring break, 2001. The rule of thumb for this kind of thing is to have the sample size be above 30, so that checks out. They were a variety of races, and all over 18. As far as the amount of hardness... even if every guy measured had the potential to be .25" longer (not likely) if more excited, it still really doesn't ruin my earlier numbers.

 

[FrenumFellow]

The Lifestyles study is in line with a number of other studies:

Survey Name Av. Length Av. Girth Research flaws. Kinsey Institute for Sex Report 6.2 inches 4.8 inches Self-measurement process. Limited to Caucasian males. Durex Internet Survey 6.4 inches 5.2 inches Self-measurement process. Anonymous via Internet. California University (S.F) 5.1 inches 4.9 inches Only measured 60 men. Brazilian Urologist 5.7 inches 4.7 inches Only measured 150 men.

Source: http://www.the-penis-website.com/size2.html

 

[Robbo Melton]

If you've EVER asked a woman to park the car, you'll know they can't measure distance properly.....

 

[tessa42fma]

If you've EVER asked a woman to park the car, you'll know they can't measure distance properly.....

Hey, hey, hey... I resent that!!!

I may be spatially-challenged when it comes to driving around corners, but I excel at parking -- especially parallel parking!!!

No need to get sexist here!

 

[JMeister]

That's because for decades men have been telling women that 5 inchers are 9 inchers

 

[B_ScaredLittleBoy]

If you say its 2% then its 2%.

The impact upon me is 0 (zero). Statistics are numbers on a page.

And if you are "huge" down there - why do you care about screaming that only 2 in 100 men have penises greater than (whatever)? It just seems futile to me.

There is no way to be sure either way (many or few LP's)...are you so insecure you need to put a number on it?

My point is - so you find out how many big dicks there are in the world. What does that achieve? Does it stop you worrying that your girlfriend has had bigger? Does it make you content within yourself?

And I don't think your maths is wrong...I just don't care. So what if its 2 or 20%.

 

[deleted49365]

Actually I'm not insecure at all, I just happen to like stats and wanted to share a few numbers that I thought were counterintuitve. As far as why I singled you out, it was because after I showed evidence why the 2% is legit (or at least near it), you went on again about how it was mystical. Just kind of annoying when I had explained it before. All I was doing after that is trying to explain just what I meant with my numbers.

I also don't "worry that my girlfriend has had bigger" because I don't care. This thread doesn't affect me personally, just wanted to share some knowledge that relates to this topic. I thought it was interesting stuff, since most of us are lead to believe that the average is bigger, and that there are a lot more bigger ones than there really are. I'm content with myself, but thanks. And don't try and use my username against me, it's just a goof for a site which I know no one from. I'm not obsessed with this stuff.

I don't really know why you said, "I don't think your maths is wrong." Is that more correct than saying, "math is wrong"? And as far as you not caring about my maths, how 'bout this: I just don't care what you think, and believe it or not, I didn't post it exclusively for you (sounds like someone is a little self absorbed).

 

[basque9]

Just to clarify the numbers. Lifestyles conducted an experiment, in which they had staff measure mens erect equiptment, and concluded that the mean lenght was 5.9" with a standard deviation of 0.8" (so I guess we didn't all know what the average was). I'll spare everybody the math unless you want it, but according to Lifestyles' numbers:

The % of the population (males) over X" is Y%.

X | Y
7.5 only 2.2750!
8.5 0.0577
9.5 0.0003




I superimposed the numbers you quote from Lifestyles over a normally distributed Gaussian curve, using a mean erect length of 5.9 inches , and determined that the standard deviation of erect penis length is nowhere even close to their quoted 0.8 inches. If that were the case, then almost no penis would ever exceed 8.3 inches and we know that is just not true. All the studies I am familiar with use a standard deviation of erect penis length of 1.2 inches. Using this figure for the standard deviation, then we can expect about 0.13% of penises in the total male population to exceed 9.6 inches in erect length. It follows from this that just about 9 % of erect penises in the total male population can be expected to exceed 7.5 inches in length! The math is quite simple and can easily be verified using cumulative normal distribution frequency percentages!:smile::smile:

 

[deleted49365]

I'm not trying to argue with you, but I'm curious exactly how you determined that Lifestyles standard deviation "wasn't even close". The only things you mentioned were that it didn't seem right to you, and other studies had different values. Did the studies you are referring to have staff measure?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to attack you here. I'm just curious what your basis is. If it's a valid one, I'll gladly discredit/adjust my earlier posts.

And by the way, I know the math is simple, as I used the same exact math myself, only with a different sd. Thanks tho.

 

[WildHoney]

I live in the unrealistic world of swinging, where most ( I'd say 80% and that is being cautious) have cocks over 7 inches, and of that 80% ....more than half are bigger than that...our biggest regular guy is said to be around 10 x 9 . A massive big meaty cock, I have not fucked him or seen it to verify.

( my travel agent doesn't go to the cub, they all want him to though

My experiences are a not normal though as I think in swinging clubs with the single men, they seem to draw a man with a lot of confidence in his cock.

There are a few guys ( I am talking about a sample of regular men who attend the club - around 200 men) who are 5-6 inches.

In our world, When you come to a club to play around and have sex - everyone soon knows about your cock and how you use it....plus most of the sex is in the open so we get to see a whole lot of cock.

x

Honey

 

[basque9]

I'm not trying to argue with you, but I'm curious exactly how you determined that Lifestyles standard deviation "wasn't even close". The only things you mentioned were that it didn't seem right to you, and other studies had different values. Did the studies you are referring to have staff measure?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to attack you here. I'm just curious what your basis is. If it's a valid one, I'll gladly discredit/adjust my earlier posts.
And by the way, I know the math is simple, as I used the same exact math myself, only with a different sd. Thanks tho.

I said nothing about anything not seeming right to me..what I said is I superimposed the sigma of 0.8 onto the mean of 5.9 and the numbers make no mathematical sense whatsoever. Do it yourself and you will have to agree. I thought I made it very clear.... using a standard deviation of 0.8 inches for an erect cock normal distribution, the outermost 3 sigma limit is a cock of 8.3 inches, now if you understand that , then you obviously see that 0.8 inches does not give a meaningful result! I do not know how to make it any clearer than that . Mathematically, 0.8 does not work as a standard deviation. Not only does 1.2 work as a standard deviation, but also it provides a meaningful result. Go ahead try the math yourself and you will see the obvious error in the purported Lifestyles's numbers! Surely you know from experience that erect cocks can be larger than 8.3 inches! The math proves the case, not me, I merely did the math and the logic of the math proves the absurdity of their standard deviation. What more can I say? I can go step - by-step, but you say you already understand the statistics of Gaussian curves. I don't think we have a case of one mathematician disagreeing with another, but rather we have a case of a study perhaps quoting a number incorrectly in its results. I could work backwards and determine what the true standard deviation should be for their results, but it really does not matter to me all that much. I am confident that approximately 9 % of erect penises should be expected to be longer than 7.5 inches and that 2.27 % can be expected to exceed 8.3 inches and that 0.13 % of erect penises would be expected to be equal to or greater than 9.6 inches. Very slight variations would occur depending whether one uses 5.9 inches used by Lifestyles or the usually accepted mean of 6.0 inches for mean erect penis length.

 

[dreamer20]

With that in mind, I have asked hundreds of girls in my life what the biggest they've ever experience was.

They almost always answer anywhere from 9" - 10.5".

This is just not possible.

Your thoughts?

If they had all been with the same horse, erhmm I mean guy, that would be even more probable.:wink:

 

[deleted49365]

So you superimposed the sigma of 0.8 onto the mean of 5.9 and the numbers make no mathematical sense whatsoever. By mathematical sense, don't you mean: it doesn't seem right to you? Where's the mathematical logic that you keep saying you are using. All I'm seeing is that you believe there are more large penises than the data suggests. I understand that argument, but where is this mathematical fallacy you keep speaking of? My problem is when you say how 0.8 does not work, and doesn't produce a meaningful result. What do you mean by "does not work." And I'm sorry if I'm just missing something and frustrating you, but please don't be condescending. I thought I was pretty civil in my reply.

you can just private message me if you'd like, I'm just curious about your methods, and I'm not sure too many others on here are as concerned with our side discussion... up to you

 

[basque9]

So you superimposed the sigma of 0.8 onto the mean of 5.9 and the numbers make no mathematical sense whatsoever. By mathematical sense, don't you mean: it doesn't seem right to you? Where's the mathematical logic that you keep saying you are using. All I'm seeing is that you believe there are more large penises than the data suggests. I understand that argument, but where is this mathematical fallacy you keep speaking of? My problem is when you say how 0.8 does not work, and doesn't produce a meaningful result. What do you mean by "does not work." And I'm sorry if I'm just missing something and frustrating you, but please don't be condescending. I thought I was pretty civil in my reply.you can just private message me if you'd like, I'm just curious about your methods, and I'm not sure too many others on here are as concerned with our side discussion... up to you

I agree that the discussion is a side issue and I apologize sincerely that my explanation came across as condescending... I may have felt somewhat frustrated in my failure to explain, but please forgive me! I meant no disrespect to you or your analysis! I can be a little impatient sometimes..guess this was a case in point!:smile: :smile: :smile:

 

[shaguar]

I for one don't believe the stats. The averages and proportion of men who have bigger ones is understated as far as I am concerned.

 

[LongTimeComing]

I have been to a few sex parties (maybe four or five). Probably seen about 25 or 30 erect guys. Pretty small (and highly unscientific) sample. I'd say my observations are roughly in line with the published (Kinsey, Lifestyles, etc.) studies. There's one guy I've seen at more than one of these parties, and he "stands out" at probably 9". Lot's of guys I would guess to be in the 5 to 6 range, even a few really small guys.

I don't know why there is so much passion about whether the studies underrepresent larger guys... I have no reason to think they do, but even IF they do... so what???

 

[Knight Attrition]

The problem I see here is that larger guys have far more partners consequently skewing perception of average size. Most guys on here report multiple partners, wife swapping, swinging, and just in general banging a lot of people. Go over to measurection though, a lot of those guys are still virgins, or have had at most 1 - 2 partners. This is why the sample is skewed.

The only study I believe that has any validity would be the one performed in Italy. It was performed on an entire Army unit, the unit was ordered to participate consequently the smaller guys couldn't opt out. The average from that study was only 5.1 inches. I suspect that this is a more realistic approximation of the true average size.

 

[basque9]

I don't know why there is so much passion about whether the studies underrepresent larger guys... I have no reason to think they do, but even IF they do... so what???

You ask a good question, so what? Well, I guess it matters to me in that as a mathematician, I sense what I feel is a bias in the Lifestyle's data.
I have not sensed such a bias in the Kinsey and similar studies. When a thread such as this appears, it gets my adrenalin flowing and my mind running along pretty fast. I have explained my reasoning privately in greater detail to another poster who accepted the Lifestyle's data more readily than I. We have come to an amicable understanding on the matter..and I will not bore you with the details. If threads are to have meaning and be educational and exhillarating...then there needs be some passion!:smile::smile::smile: