Statistics

[D_Ben_Gay]

Inspired by some conversations that I've had, and curious to know just how likely it is that a guy is telling me the truth when he says, "I've met x guys over 10 inches," I looked into the stats to see what the numbers actually say about the frequency of different sized cocks among men.

Before I explain my results, I want to come clean about some assumptions that I make. There are three.

1. Human penis length follows a normal distribution.

Click here if you don't understand what a normal distribution is:

Normal distribution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2. The mean (average) length of the human penis is 5.9".

3. The standard deviation of the human penis is 0.8".

Click here if you don't understand what a standard deviation is:

Standard deviation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

All my assumptions are, of course suspect, but I think that I will be criticised mostly on the basis of the 2nd and 3rd ones. I got the data from the following source:

ansell - education

I'm rather inclined to think that the data is reasonably accurate. That is, it's initially plausible, and probably close enough to reality to draw some interesting conclusions from. I'm not suggesting that the data is perfect, but it's probably good enough that we can learn something from it.

This is the only study I've seen where the results are not self-reported. I'm likely to be criticised because there is a sampling error inherent in the test, in that perhaps guys with bigger dicks might be inclined to volunteer. I'm willing to accept that criticism, and say that the real average might be lower than the one given by this study.

I've made a spreadsheet indicating what it actually means for there to be a normally distributed variable with a mean of 5.9" and a standard deviation of 0.8", which I have attached to this post.

I will explain each of the columns by reference to one example row, the 7.00" row.

The second column, "Probability" indicates the area under a standard normal curve to the left of the size in question. It tells you the proportion of the population that is likely to be below the indicated size. So, a 7.00" dick would most likely be bigger than 91.5% of a randomly selected group of guys.

The next column indicates what proportion of guys would have dicks in the 7.00" to 7.25" range.

The "This is a '1 in x' size" column tells us that 7.00" (for example) is a "1 in 12" cock.

The "Number in a group of the given size" is just the "Differences in area" column multiplied by 6.7 billion. So one would expect to find 130,020,526 guys between 7.00" and 7.25" in a group of 6.7 billion people (half of them, men).

The last column is the one that is most interesting to me. A 7.00" cock is the same number of standard deviations away from the mean as a 6-0 (72") tall man's height is away from the mean height for men. This means that you probably know as many guys with 7.00" dicks (or longer) as you know guys who are 6-0 tall (or taller).

Of course, I'm not claiming that this is the absolute truth, but I am saying that this study, as inadequate as I'm sure it is, is better than a lot of other studies on the subject. And it is certainly a better indicator of how many cocks of different sizes there are than the subjective impression that most of us have from seeing pictures on LPSG, Monstercocktube.com or from the claims of guys in the chat room.

I think there's reason for us to treat the claim that someone has a 10" dick with as much suspicion as if he claimed that he was 6-11 tall.

Your thoughts?

 

[D_Ben_Gay]

I just realised that the attached file is way to small to read. Here's a better one, although due to size restrictions, it's not ideal.

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

Two questions, big.c.

1) Are you saying a penis of your reported size (taking your low-end estimate) occurs only once in 224,000,000 men? Which means that there may very well not be an equivalent unit in North America. Certainly possible.
Or maybe I just don't get it ... I was several times a statistic in Statistics class.

2) Why does a Montreal boy spell criticize and words like that with an 's'?
Montcalm would have you drawn and quartered.

 

[D_Ben_Gay]

1. That might be a reasonable conclusion. It doesn't necessarily mean that there's no one as big in North America. It just means it's unlikely.

2. I spell criticise with an "s" and judgement with an "e" and colour with a "u" and sceptic with two "c"s and I refuse to apologise. I don't like the American spellings as much. I'm a Canadian, with a British background.

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

1. That might be a reasonable conclusion. It doesn't necessarily mean that there's no one as big in North America. It just means it's unlikely.

We like a man of confidence.:tongue:

2. I spell criticise with an "s" and judgement with an "e" and colour with a "u" and sceptic with two "c"s and I refuse to apologise. I don't like the American spellings as much. I'm a Canadian, with a British background.

Of course you shouldn't apologize.
But the Canadian spelling of 'criticize' and 'apologize' is with a 'zed.'
(Didn't know you had a British background ... thought you were 'un fils de Marianne,' going back a bit.)

 

[TurkeyWithaSunburn]

Getting back to the topic of statistics...

The guys who are 6'11" are rare, the guys who are 10" or more are rare. Out of all the people I've met in my whole life (work, friends, or acquaintance) I've met one guy 6'9", one guy 7'. Of all the people who I've had the pleasure to get naked with, nobody has had a 10 inch yet. Although a 9 inch does come close :biggrin:

Just a standard bell curve, most people will fall into the ordinary part. When you start getting to the ends of either side of the curve is when things make your eyes pop. Be it huge dick, small dick, huge breasts or small breasts.

 

[D_Ben_Gay]

The guys who are 6'11" are rare, the guys who are 10" or more are rare. Out of all the people I've met in my whole life (work, friends, or acquaintance) I've met one guy 6'9", one guy 7'. Of all the people who I've had the pleasure to get naked with, nobody has had a 10 inch yet. Although a 9 inch does come close :biggrin:

Yeah, I'm not saying that this is infallible, just that this should give us some sort of a guide to go by when evaluating just how ridiculous a guy's claims really are.

 

[B_Nick4444]

why would anyone assign any merit to a claim on size, if it's not going to be relevant to an actual encounter?

in which case considerations of locus on the Gaussian curve are rather superfluous

 

[D_Ben_Gay]

why would anyone assign any merit to a claim on size, if it's not going to be relevant to an actual encounter?

in which case considerations of locus on the Gaussian curve are rather superfluous

Can you explain what you mean?

 

[B_Nick4444]

I would only be concerned about someone's size if we were in the middle of an encounter

otherwise, why would the subject even come up?

(BTW, why are you assuming the bell curve? why do you dismiss kurtosis, or fat tails?)

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

(BTW, why are you assuming the bell curve? why do you dismiss kurtosis, or fat tails?)

He doesn't dismiss them.
There's just no point in alluding to them in the absence of real observations.

 

[B_Nick4444]

He doesn't dismiss them.
There's just no point in alluding to them in the absence of real observations.

wondered if he had considered the possibility, or was aware of clinical or other data that led him to do so

 

[D_Ben_Gay]

(BTW, why are you assuming the bell curve? why do you dismiss kurtosis, or fat tails?)

The central limit theorem (CLT) states that the re-averaged sum of a sufficiently large number of identically distributed independent random variables each with finite mean and variance will be approximately normally distributed (Rice 1995).

Since many real populations yield distributions with finite variance, this explains the prevalence of the normal probability distribution.

Stated simply, I'm making an assumption, but one that's defensible. A lot of other physically measurable biological phenomena happen to be normally distributed, and I'm assuming that penis length is also one of these. I would be open to modifying the data if you can give me good reason, though.

That said, the results seem reasonable to me, and conform to what I've experienced, so I would have to be given a pretty good reason for it.

 

[B_Nick4444]

well, to consider anecdotal data, one of the other reasons I wondered was because I seem to run into a larger number of the larger specimens that the assumption warrants on a weekly basis

it also varies geographically -- I've noticed the phenomenon is more pronounced in the US Rocky Mountain region (specifically Denver), and there have been threads at this site on the larger distribution in a Caribbean nation --Dominican Republic, I believe

on the other hand, it might be a distorted sampling, a self-selected category of practicing gays, maybe

interesting thread, though

 

[007baby]

very interesting! Awesome... I wonder what the height equivalent is for an 8 inch cock or a 7.5 incher... such as you said 7" was as common as a 6ft tall man. Anyway... neat info... thanks!

 

[D_Ben_Gay]

very interesting! Awesome... I wonder what the height equivalent is for an 8 inch cock or a 7.5 incher... such as you said 7" was as common as a 6ft tall man. Anyway... neat info... thanks!

In the tiny Jpeg that I attached to the 2nd post, there's a chart. But because it's so small and nearly impossible to read, I'll post a few equivalences.

Height equivalent for an 8" cock is 6-4. For a 7.5" cock, it's 6-2.

6.0" : 5-9
6.5" : 5-11
7.0" : 6-0
7.5" : 6-2
8.0" : 6-4

Note that what I'm not saying is that a guy with an 8" dick must be 6-4 tall. I'm saying that 8" is as many standard deviations away from the mean cock size as 6-4 is from the mean human male height, and so we can assume that in a given population, there would be just as many guys over 6-4 tall as there are guys over 8" long.

 

[hoggindaz]

i know this is an old thread but...

i agree with the statistical analysis to an extent, however i am far too lazy to bother to calculate the chi square value, however i would assume it would be unreasonably high for the information on both the high end and low end of the spectrum of penis size. what i mean by that is when the largest officialy measured (not self reported) study was i believe the lifestlyes condom study of just over 300 people, ascertaining information about the rarity of 12" and 1" penises would be very inaccurate as if there were none of that size, it might be inferrred that they are much rarer than they are and if one just happens to be in that study then they would likewise seem to be much more common when in fact there is no way of determining statistically how common(or rare) they are, with such a small sample size. however this study does give good information about the comparative rarity of penises which fall within a few standard deviations of the mean, which covers the vast majority of men.

 

[kudo451]

Okay I am not a mathematician. And like the last guy said this thread is rather old, but doesn't this data come with a number of implied fallacies:

That height would have any association with cock size other than some guys are bigger than others.

That the data gleaned on cock size is equal in accuracy to the data gleaned on height.

Test group association is equivalent to population with little or no deviation.

Other forms of information gathering could not inhance or correct statistical results.

I only ask all of these questions because if the information holds true then both the rarity of the 6'11 man and the 10 inch cock is simply dispelled (at least in North America) by attending one tall guys dating party at the same time you are watching a basketball game. The numbers posted in these stats seem more likely toward women than men.

 

[D_Lewd_Costello]

I don't have any statistical data to back me up but, I've mostly been with black guys of different ethnicities. I have been with a couple of white guys. The black guys that I've been with have average at least 8 inches. Most were 8.5-9. A few were 7. I've been with or have personally seen guys and have friends that are at least 10 inches. 6 to be total. One of Them is 5'8 and he's 10.5. The ones that were at least 10" were Jamaican or Trinidadian. Carribean guys have a more dense population of big dicks. The white guys I've been with or seen in person have averaged 6.5.

So let's say I was with 20 black guys, I would estimate 13 had dicks from 8-10", 5 were 7-8 and 2 were 10 and over. Not uncommon for me to see regular sized 8-8.5" dicks. At least that's regular for me. I personally haven't seen any black guys under 7 yet. But I have noticed that southern guys have bigger dicks than the rest of the region as well as large cities, except for la. Jamaicains and trinidadians consistently have the largest with at least 8.5 being the norm.

Sorry for typos if any, I'm typing on my phone.

 

[D_Selmus_Swallow]

The thing about the Lifestyles survey is that it's:

A. A very small sample, that is still the largest comprehensive survey done so far.

B. Not really representative of the larger male population, beyond American college guys in Mexico over spring break. That it was voluntary would lead one to assume that the guys who showed up for it were the ones who felt they had the most to show; in other words, it would attract a "larger" crowd than a more random survey.

With that in mind, it would probably be a good bet that an even larger and more random survey would yield both a smaller average number, and a lower standard deviation number. Which would yield a much smaller statistical chance of running into an 8, 9, or 10 inch dick.

If you lower that average to 5.5" for the length, with a standard deviation down to 0.5", a genuine 10 inch penis medically measured would be nine standard deviations above the average number. With a 5.9" average and an 0.8" standard deviation, it's "only" about five standard deviations above the average.