True Average Penis Size

[ItsAll4Kim]

Why would gay men be larger than straight men? I've never really done a survey, but I'm fairly large and I'm not interested in other men.

There are no valid surveys investigating any correlation between penis size and sexual orientation.

In my opinion this is no different than the BBC myth....there's been no solid evidence to confirm any correlation between race and size. Valid studies haven't focused on this. There's little reason to commit time and resources to either issue.

 

[Khegan]

There are no valid surveys investigating any correlation between penis size and sexual orientation.

In my opinion this is no different than the BBC myth....there's been no solid evidence to confirm any correlation between race and size. Valid studies haven't focused on this. There's little reason to commit time and resources to either issue.

I don't remember which study it was, but one said that the homosexual average was .1" larger than the heterosexual average, which is insignificant. So I agree, it's just a myth. Anything showing a significant difference I would bet is subject to selection bias and/or only self-reported.

 

[deleted1547822]

Of course your opinion of something is going to fall within the context of what you've "encountered so far". Nowhere did I imply that your claim was global, and expecting such pedantry when quoting an opinion is really over-the-top.

You first backpedaled and denied even using those words, which I was careful to quote exactly. When shown them, now you're attempting a game of semantics.



I was trying to have a discussion. In several instances you either misunderstood what I had written, or denied what you had written, so restating seemed useful. Obviously all of this has been a waste of time.

I’ve been attempting to have a discussion too. Above, you accuse me of “attempting a game of semantics”, and say I’ve “denied what I’ve written”. That makes me question whether or not you are trying to have a discussion.

Your posts read to me that I was asserting that calcSD was “definitive”, etc... Clearly I said that they were the best that I had found so far. You bolded portions of my text for emphasis. That’s not me playing semantics, and it’s not me denying what I posted previously. If anything, any semantic games being played are by you. I’m happy to be mistaken in my impression.

Conversely, I’ve said you seemed to be ascribing motive to calcSD. That implies that it’s my impression, not your assertion; and leaves you space to clarify. You haven’t offered me the same courtesy.

If I thought this was a waste of time, I wouldn’t bother. I very rarely let the internet bother me. If you want to continue to discuss the topic, I’m happy to. It seems we’ve both been talking past each other. I think the point we’re both arguing (in agreement) is ultimately beneficial to a lot of people.

 

[deleted1547822]

Why would gay men be larger than straight men? I've never really done a survey, but I'm fairly large and I'm not interested in other men.

This is an enormous promotional opportunity the gay community is missing out on.

“Forget pills, pumps and procedures! Want a bigger dick? GO GAY!!! Studies show that gay men have larger members!!!” etc...

 

[hawse]

I don't remember which study it was, but one said that the homosexual average was .1" larger than the heterosexual average, which is insignificant. So I agree, it's just a myth. Anything showing a significant difference I would bet is subject to selection bias and/or only self-reported.

(PDF) The Relation Between Sexual Orientation and Penile Size

 

[Cum_is_Great]

It is totally hypothetical and shows what a few samples of 10 penis sizes that could "average" around 5-6 inches. Each column represents an hypothetical list of 10 penis sizes and the bottom row is each column averaged. It was not intended to be a scientific study in any way. It's just showing that if you took 10 guys off the street and checked their pants you possibly could find almost half packing some good wood and the others to be either just ok size or lacking size. Unless we actually looked at real data its kind of a guessing game. There aren't too many actual studies of penis size. I know there is the one of 15,000 males but don't really know much about it. I'm just guessing if I went into a gay bar filled with 100 men I would bet that at least a third of them would be over 7 inches and there would be at least 10 packing 8 or 9 inches. Disclaimer ( an opinion and not a scientific study!).

I know it's just an opinion but you gotta account for things that skew data. Suppose there are 75 more gay men that WOULD have gone to that bar but don't because they are ashamed of their "small" penis because they are "only" 5.5 inches. Those guys are now unable to be put in the total number of men in that bar and instead are replaced by only the guys more confident solely BECAUSE they know they have a large penis.

When I thought I was small I NEVER took a pic. I thought "why the fuck would I show off my little dick". Then when I actually took a pic for a potential partner, they basically said I am big. I took more, posted them and published them online to confirm. Now I am another guy flooding the internet with my big dick pics while another 10 guys who are average or small refuses because "there's no point". You never see them, but see all the hung gay men showing off online because they are big. Its a subtle bias that needs to be acknowledged before you draw conclusions.

The same thing with your chart of 10 men a gay man sleeps with (Because as the studies, which DO show the actual sizes sometimes, show if you pull 10 random men off the streets its more likely to look like [4.5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5.5, 5.5, 6, 6.5, 7] which Average to 5.5) Of COURSE the bigger men are putting themselves out there so you find them. The "small"(and I put in quotes because they FEEL small because of porn and all the hung men yet are average) men may be shying away or regulating themselves as a bottom.

If you are a top you probably arent going to see many hung men because its almost expected for hung men to top and two tops rarely meet.

if you are a bottom you are probably going to see more big dicks because the hung men are sought after and therefore advertise more. The "small" men shying away as tops and therefore seen less.

Of course these are all PROBABILITIES and may not even happen but they must be accounted for before making conclusions!

 

[ItsAll4Kim]

I’ve been attempting to have a discussion too. Above, you accuse me of “attempting a game of semantics”, and say I’ve “denied what I’ve written”. That makes me question whether or not you are trying to have a discussion.

Your posts read to me that I was asserting that calcSD was “definitive”, etc... Clearly I said that they were the best that I had found so far. You bolded portions of my text for emphasis. That’s not me playing semantics, and it’s not me denying what I posted previously. If anything, any semantic games being played are by you. I’m happy to be mistaken in my impression.

Conversely, I’ve said you seemed to be ascribing motive to calcSD. That implies that it’s my impression, not your assertion; and leaves you space to clarify. You haven’t offered me the same courtesy.

If I thought this was a waste of time, I wouldn’t bother. I very rarely let the internet bother me. If you want to continue to discuss the topic, I’m happy to. It seems we’ve both been talking past each other. I think the point we’re both arguing (in agreement) is ultimately beneficial to a lot of people.

It is a fact that you wrote your opinion of CalCSD, I quoted it, you stated having no knowledge of who wrote your quoted opinion, I requoted you, and you took exception that I left out the obvious...that what you wrote was your opinion at that time. That's playing semantics.

CalcSD clearly stated they hoped others wouldn't use Veale, et al. Yet they obviously employ it, in three versions, within their comparison calculators.

So they fault the data, leaving out details that make the data methods robust, recommend others not use it, then use the data in their own calculators anyway. That's some fucked-up shit right there.

 

[deleted1547822]

It is a fact that you wrote your opinion of CalCSD, I quoted it, you stated having no knowledge of who wrote your quoted opinion, I requoted you, and you took exception that I left out the obvious...that what you wrote was your opinion at that time. That's playing semantics.

CalcSD clearly stated they hoped others wouldn't use Veale, et al. Yet they obviously employ it, in three versions, within their comparison calculators.

So they fault the data, leaving out details that make the data methods robust, recommend others not use it, then use the data in their own calculators anyway. That's some fucked-up shit right there.

I'll make one last try here. If anyone is being pedantic, it's you. You're acting like a Jack Russell with a squeaky toy - you just can't let it go...

I think FrigidShadow's critique of Veale was fair. You don't. We're at an impasse.

FrigidShadow's post said Veale is cited by many people, and that it's treated as definitive (with the contextual implication of being treated by the same "many people" mentioned earlier). I think he's just giving his opinion. I don't think it's an unreasonable statement. You see it differently. We're at an impasse.

You're criticizing calcSD for using Veale in previous versions, implying some hypocrisy. They used to include it, but don't include it now, and explain why. They leave Veale's data on their site if others want to use it. That seems pretty objective to me. You appear to still be asserting some nefarious motive. We're at an impasse.

The complete relevant quote of what I said is:

"For taking the time to read, scrutinize, correlate and publish such a wide body of data; the 2 guys at calcSD really impress me. They’re the most objective and (pardon the expression) “definitive” researchers I’ve encountered so far."

I put "pardon the expression" before the word 'definitive', put quotation marks around the word to represent 'air-quotes', and qualified the whole sentence with 'so far'. You keep misrepresenting that as if I asserted that calcSD was absolutely, unarguably definitive. I didn't say that. Clarifying your misrepresentation is not backtracking. We're at an impasse.

 

[fournineteenfiftynine]

I know it's just an opinion but you gotta account for things that skew data. Suppose there are 75 more gay men that WOULD have gone to that bar but don't because they are ashamed of their "small" penis because they are "only" 5.5 inches. Those guys are now unable to be put in the total number of men in that bar and instead are replaced by only the guys more confident solely BECAUSE they know they have a large penis.

When I thought I was small I NEVER took a pic. I thought "why the fuck would I show off my little dick". Then when I actually took a pic for a potential partner, they basically said I am big. I took more, posted them and published them online to confirm. Now I am another guy flooding the internet with my big dick pics while another 10 guys who are average or small refuses because "there's no point". You never see them, but see all the hung gay men showing off online because they are big. Its a subtle bias that needs to be acknowledged before you draw conclusions.

The same thing with your chart of 10 men a gay man sleeps with (Because as the studies, which DO show the actual sizes sometimes, show if you pull 10 random men off the streets its more likely to look like [4.5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5.5, 5.5, 6, 6.5, 7] which Average to 5.5) Of COURSE the bigger men are putting themselves out there so you find them. The "small"(and I put in quotes because they FEEL small because of porn and all the hung men yet are average) men may be shying away or regulating themselves as a bottom.

If you are a top you probably arent going to see many hung men because its almost expected for hung men to top and two tops rarely meet.

if you are a bottom you are probably going to see more big dicks because the hung men are sought after and therefore advertise more. The "small" men shying away as tops and therefore seen less.

Of course these are all PROBABILITIES and may not even happen but they must be accounted for before making conclusions!

1. As far as I know, none of us are scientists.
2. I am not.
3. I am not pretending to be.
4. I have an opinion.
5. I often provide logic, not hard data, to explain where my opinion comes from.
6. Again, it is opinion and not hard evidence from any scientific study.

You say: I know it's just an opinion but you gotta account for things that skew data

Again, I am not talking about hard data from a scientific study standpoint.

It has not been my experience that only hung guys go to gay bars. I think it is generally a cross section. I also don't think my personal experience is that skewed either. If you go on Adam for Adam in almost any city you will find about 1/3 are hung and 2/3 that are average. Possibly the tiny don't go on the app. If big cocks were so rare hardly anyone would have experience with them. Cock size hasn't been a requirements for me....but in the somewhat random sample of my experience with perhaps 50 guys in the 10 years that I have been out I would say almost all were between 6-8 inches. Only a couple were 4-5 inches.

 

[Cum_is_Great]

1. As far as I know, none of us are scientists.
2. I am not.
3. I am not pretending to be.
4. I have an opinion.
5. I often provide logic, not hard data, to explain where my opinion comes from.
6. Again, it is opinion and not hard evidence from any scientific study.

You say: I know it's just an opinion but you gotta account for things that skew data

Again, I am not talking about hard data from a scientific study standpoint.

It has not been my experience that only hung guys go to gay bars. I think it is generally a cross section. I also don't think my personal experience is that skewed either. If you go on Adam for Adam in almost any city you will find about 1/3 are hung and 2/3 that are average. Possibly the tiny don't go on the app. If big cocks were so rare hardly anyone would have experience with them. Cock size hasn't been a requirements for me....but in the somewhat random sample of my experience with perhaps 50 guys in the 10 years that I have been out I would say almost all were between 6-8 inches. Only a couple were 4-5 inches.

Forming an opinion should be informed and not just made up without data. Just because I used the word "data" doesn't mean scientific studies. Environment, timing, so many things can alter ones experiences. And using just your own personal experiences to make an opinion or hypothesis on something that is universal or fact should be thoroughly test/reflected for biases or things to skew the experiences or "data"

For example which will seem TOTALLY OBVIOUS but drives my point in an obvious way. Lets say I think the data on population demographics is wrong. Why? Because they say black people only make up about 13% of the population. But out of the all the people I've seen and interact with when going out about half are black! When I go online and talk to other people about it, lots of people attest to the same thing or even higher percentage!

As for your finding most men between 6 to 8 inches, I am NOT denying that they were that size. But if you didnt measure each guy, how could you KNOW for sure the size? We are very bad at estimating. Everyone is confident in themselves but things like passion and state of mind can easily interfere. (also if your base is off all other estimations are thrown off too!)

I've asked so many people to estimate my size and they keep overshooting by about 2 inches. In their minds, If I had sex with them, they had a guy who was 2 inches bigger than reality. Now I am NOT saying you are off that bad by your estimates, but lets just say hypothetically they were, your real range is now closer to 4 to 6 inches. Now, I doubt its off that much BUT lets make it a bit more realistic and say 5 to 7 inches. That's actually much closer to the average found in studies and my range example I made above!

Anyway I digress.

 

[Sherwood D. Likelym]

What everyone should be talking about is the mean penis size. Averages are garbage. #math

Great observation @mrcurve -- I'm not sure many of us understand the concept of a "sample mean".

The mean is the average. Do you mean median?

What everyone should be talking about is the standard deviation, and what falls in the range of one standard deviation.

… and @Herodotus reminds me of my initial struggles with STATISTICS CLASS back in the early 70's when calculators were forbidden in the classroom …

During the past few months, I've encountered numerous cocks that are apparently smaller than the 4.92” - 6.42” is the range of “average” … during the summer when I attend nudist recreational areas, I tend to observe more cocks that appear "larger" …

Look - I'm gay and have seen hundreds of penises. This nonsense about the average dick size being 5.1 inches is just meant to make guys feel better about their own dicks. I can affirmatively say that the average is definitely over 6 inches and there are quite a few 7, 8 and even 9 inchers out there. These stats that say 7 inches is bigger than 99% of guys are just WRONG. I've probably only seen one or maybe two dicks as small as 5.1 inches in all my years. Curious what your experiences have been.

I'm not comfortable with @cockboiii's initial generalization, "about the average dick size being 5.1 inches is just meant to make guys feel better about their own dicks".

 

[ItsAll4Kim]

The complete relevant quote of what I said is:

"For taking the time to read, scrutinize, correlate and publish such a wide body of data; the 2 guys at calcSD really impress me. They’re the most objective and (pardon the expression) “definitive” researchers I’ve encountered so far."

I put "pardon the expression" before the word 'definitive', put quotation marks around the word to represent 'air-quotes', and qualified the whole sentence with 'so far'. You keep misrepresenting that as if I asserted that calcSD was absolutely, unarguably definitive. I didn't say that. Clarifying your misrepresentation is not backtracking. We're at an impasse.

At no point did I ever claim you "asserted that calcSD was absolutely, inarguably definitive". Quote where I wrote or implied that. You know I didn't.

You wrote: "They're the most objective and (pardon the expression) "definitive" researchers I've encountered so far".

My leaving out "l've encountered so far" doesn't change anything...we know it's your opinion and not others', we know that "so far" is obvious unless you can time-travel. No part of those phrases changes the fact that you think they're the most objective, definitive researchers.

 

[deleted1547822]

Dude, I’m done arguing with you about this.

 

[spaj8987]

Heres an interesting thought. We all know that most people, man, woman, trans, gay, bi, lesbian and so on has a much higher chance of thinking larger equals better. With that being even more of the case when it comes to us americans because we generally think bigger is better on a whole host of things.

Porn specifically screams that to the top of it's lungs. It isn't necessarily true because it's entirely dependent on individuals but generally speaking society does in fact say that larger is better.

Imagine being 5 inches in that sort of climate. Would you be more likely to be sexually expressive or less likely?

We're talking small penis jokes, toxic masculinity tying penis size to imagined levels of manhood, it crossing the gender barrier hidden in sexism and a few other things. Wouldn't a 5 inch guy at that point be much more hesitant to be sexually active?

And wouldn't that then skew people's personal experiences sexually? Leading to a lopsided view of what the average penis size is?

Then there's lying. One thing that has begun to get on my last nerve is the term girls inches. Where guys label it as women getting average sizes wrong. When in fact most guys do in fact lie about their size to said women. Making the issues of what the average is that much more difficult to pinpoint anecdotally.

I would imagine a certain percentage of that also happens in the lgbtq community. Muddying the anecdotal evidence even more.

Could all that have contributed to threads like this? Where studies are ignored instead of anecdotal evidence? Because i think it not only could but has.

 

[fournineteenfiftynine]

Forming an opinion should be informed and not just made up without data. Just because I used the word "data" doesn't mean scientific studies. Environment, timing, so many things can alter ones experiences. And using just your own personal experiences to make an opinion or hypothesis on something that is universal or fact should be thoroughly test/reflected for biases or things to skew the experiences or "data"

For example which will seem TOTALLY OBVIOUS but drives my point in an obvious way. Lets say I think the data on population demographics is wrong. Why? Because they say black people only make up about 13% of the population. But out of the all the people I've seen and interact with when going out about half are black! When I go online and talk to other people about it, lots of people attest to the same thing or even higher percentage!

As for your finding most men between 6 to 8 inches, I am NOT denying that they were that size. But if you didnt measure each guy, how could you KNOW for sure the size? We are very bad at estimating. Everyone is confident in themselves but things like passion and state of mind can easily interfere. (also if your base is off all other estimations are thrown off too!)

I've asked so many people to estimate my size and they keep overshooting by about 2 inches. In their minds, If I had sex with them, they had a guy who was 2 inches bigger than reality. Now I am NOT saying you are off that bad by your estimates, but lets just say hypothetically they were, your real range is now closer to 4 to 6 inches. Now, I doubt its off that much BUT lets make it a bit more realistic and say 5 to 7 inches. That's actually much closer to the average found in studies and my range example I made above!

Anyway I digress.

Thanks for the respectful dialogue. Some on this site could learn a few manners!

Anyway....it's just that the word "data" is kind of a scientific word that implies science. I avoid using that word in my opinions and rather point to my personal experience, experience of friends that I talk to, and what I see on a site like Adam for Adam; and just my own logic. Maybe what I would guess is that most guys in my universe of gay men seem to be in the 5.5-7.5 range I would say. More seem to be bigger than smaller. Some guys really surprised me in how big they were. I remember one young guy who was Asian (20 year old) had this big fat at least 8 inch cock. Cock size was not a requirement. I assumed he was small. One long time fuck buddy I had said he had a 7 inch penis on adam for adam, he was actually well over 8 inches and posted 7 as he didn't want to scare people off. I had a friend who was a nurse and he saw lots and lots of cocks....kind of a random sample of sorts and he said about 1/3 were pretty big....anyway it's fun to talk about and think about; and until there is some definitive and extensive scientific studies, we really don' know and are left to talk about our own experiences. In fact, I love hearing about people's experiences...it's kind of hot, too.....but there are some people on this site that like to shut it down sadly.

 

[deleted1547822]

Heres an interesting thought. We all know that most people, man, woman, trans, gay, bi, lesbian and so on has a much higher chance of thinking larger equals better. With that being even more of the case when it comes to us americans because we generally think bigger is better on a whole host of things.

Porn specifically screams that to the top of it's lungs. It isn't necessarily true because it's entirely dependent on individuals but generally speaking society does in fact say that larger is better.

Imagine being 5 inches in that sort of climate. Would you be more likely to be sexually expressive or less likely?

We're talking small penis jokes, toxic masculinity tying penis size to imagined levels of manhood, it crossing the gender barrier hidden in sexism and a few other things. Wouldn't a 5 inch guy at that point be much more hesitant to be sexually active?

And wouldn't that then skew people's personal experiences sexually? Leading to a lopsided view of what the average penis size is?

Then there's lying. One thing that has begun to get on my last nerve is the term girls inches. Where guys label it as women getting average sizes wrong. When in fact most guys do in fact lie about their size to said women. Making the issues of what the average is that much more difficult to pinpoint anecdotally.

I would imagine a certain percentage of that also happens in the lgbtq community. Muddying the anecdotal evidence even more.

Could all that have contributed to threads like this? Where studies are ignored instead of anecdotal evidence? Because i think it not only could but has.

Great post, that deserves more than just a “like”. Well done.

 

[Shofixti]

… during the summer when I attend nudist recreational areas, I tend to observe more cocks that appear "larger" .

Nudist recreational areas are examples of self-selection (and therefore selection bias), the larger your dong potentially the larger the chance you self-select in to social scenarios where larger dong may be associated with greater status, appreciation, ego, sexual access. (A lot like LPSG in general, eh?)

 

[ItsAll4Kim]

Heres an interesting thought. We all know that most people, man, woman, trans, gay, bi, lesbian and so on has a much higher chance of thinking larger equals better. With that being even more of the case when it comes to us americans because we generally think bigger is better on a whole host of things.

Porn specifically screams that to the top of it's lungs. It isn't necessarily true because it's entirely dependent on individuals but generally speaking society does in fact say that larger is better.

Imagine being 5 inches in that sort of climate. Would you be more likely to be sexually expressive or less likely?

We're talking small penis jokes, toxic masculinity tying penis size to imagined levels of manhood, it crossing the gender barrier hidden in sexism and a few other things. Wouldn't a 5 inch guy at that point be much more hesitant to be sexually active?

And wouldn't that then skew people's personal experiences sexually? Leading to a lopsided view of what the average penis size is?

Then there's lying. One thing that has begun to get on my last nerve is the term girls inches. Where guys label it as women getting average sizes wrong. When in fact most guys do in fact lie about their size to said women. Making the issues of what the average is that much more difficult to pinpoint anecdotally.

I would imagine a certain percentage of that also happens in the lgbtq community. Muddying the anecdotal evidence even more.

Could all that have contributed to threads like this? Where studies are ignored instead of anecdotal evidence? Because i think it not only could but has.

Somewhere around 70% of guys are within an inch of 5 inches. I doubt it matters enough that any substantial number of them are hesitant to be sexually active. If a guy has a chance to hook up, he's far more likely to go for it than not. He's far more likely to not receive negative feedback on his size...both because women don't care about it anywhere near as much as porn tells us, and because they are far more likely to have only encountered the overwhelming majority of average guys than the few unicorns at the far ends of the spectrum.

This thread is mostly a troll. Do we see the OP engaged in it? Troll. Did the OP make a reasoned argument with supportable claims? Troll.

 

[Sherwood D. Likelym]

Nudist recreational areas are examples of self-selection (and therefore selection bias), the larger your dong potentially the larger the chance you self-select in to social scenarios where larger dong may be associated with greater status, appreciation, ego, sexual access. (A lot like LPSG in general, eh?)

great observation, and potentially true -- my "preconceptions" may be tainted by socialization within the naturalist community …. i.e. nonsexual, and body acceptance. Many, many "smaller" cocks are observed
Personally, I oftentimes enhance my flaccid cock's, and admit that I enjoy observing cocks become erect.

 

[Sherwood D. Likelym]

great observation, and potentially true -- my "preconceptions" may be tainted by socialization within the naturalist community …. i.e. nonsexual, and body acceptance. Many, many "smaller" cocks are observed
Personally, I oftentimes enhance my flaccid cock's appearance, and admit that I enjoy observing cocks become erect.

larger appearing cocks motivate me to engorge further …