Originally posted by ElCamino55@Sep 13 2005, 02:57 AM
You fell into my trap.
You see, circumference is less of a SUBJECTIVE measurement. There's no "angle of perception", no room for error - it's a RAW number - you are X inches around, period. No measuring from the pubic bone, no putting the ruler off to the side, no measuring from underneath the scrotum, none of that foolishness. The ONLY way to measure circumference is to wrap a tape measure around the penis, and that is that.
You see, everyone sees other penises as being MUCH bigger than their own, despite the two being the same size. I've experienced this myself - only when I "suprise" myself do I notice how big it really is (for example, walking into the bathroom with an erection, and turning the light on and seeing myself in the mirror...). Until you SYSTEMATICALLY measure each and every penis you see, it's all GUESS WORK.
<<a study becomes available with a large enough sample size to be comprehensive, and give an indication of the general population. No, this does not mean 146.>>
Yes, 146 is PLENTY enough of a sample size to determine the statistics needed to determine averages and standard deviations for a population, within some acceptable range of error. I was simply throwing out averages in my first post - if you knew anything about statistics, you would have mentioned that we don't truely know what the averages are, nor the standard deviations. The "one in a million" size could probably be as low as 8 inches, or as high as 10 inches - but that's not known - anywhere between the two could be possible. But that still doesn't solve the issue of people sighting 11, 12, 13, 14+ inch penises on a rather regular basis - if they are seeing them at, for example, the local gay bath house, then why am I not seeing them, say, in amatuer internet porn?
My answer to that last question is: because they don't exist in the numbers claimed. People are either a) mistaken; or b) liars.
As for you 30+ encounters with men 8"s and above - I don't doubt that...my numbers show that about 1 out of every 3,300 men are 8 inches or longer. That means, in Buckeye State alone, there are about 1,100 men between the ages of 18 and 65 with erect penises 8 inches or longer, or about 0.03% of the "dating age" male population. You see, these numbers aren't so unbelievable afterall, are they?
[post=342709]Quoted post[/post]
There was no trap to fall into, you are an idiot.
146 is an absurdly small sample size where there is a population of three hundred million people! Say half of these are male, 150,000,000. Say half of these are "dating range" (I like to err on the side of caution), 75,000,000. Kinsey's study of 5,000 men put 9'' and over at .1%, that's 75,000 men of dating range being 9'' or longer in the US alone. Say one percent of THOSE MEN are over 10'' (still, extremely cautious) 750 in the us. I wouldn't have a problem believing a few of these could be 12'', maybe 10, and possibly 200 to 250 worldwide. Yeah, we could have a small handful here, in the LARGE penis support group, where something that rare could in fact be a condition a man would look for information about.
I don't disagree that many are liars, I'm just saying that it's not impossible that some are real. Not every single one is lying, and .1% over 9'' is NOT one in a million. I trust Kinsey's study more than YOUR personal opinion. His study was as scientific as we get, we don't have anything better. It's not gospel, but it's a good indication. Your opinion as an indiviual carries no weight whatsoever, so spouting out numbers and claiming to know something only shows you to be a fool, and one with an axe to grind at that.
Obviously my estimations are not scientific either, just showing what one might reasonably find if they had the ability to measure EVERYONE. For this argument, it isn't good enough to know what 146 men have, or even 5,000. We have to be able to imagine the one in 20,000's, one in 50,000's, one in a millions. We could easily do study after study on random men and never uncover one of these, much less enough to predeict the rest.
Now as for girth, here Kinsey was more liberal, nearly 5% were girths over 6''. Unlike the low side, which is finite, you can't have a negative girth, or really a girth much below 1.5'', reality is such that the upper end is not limited in the same manner. Obviously, someone in the world has the biggest girth, but there's no way other than to measure every single man to determine the exact number. It's very hard to calculate what nature will do in terms of abnormalities. An argument can be made that anyone with a penis aver 9" in length or 6.5" in girth could be considered an abnormality, but that's a whole new subject. What about the guy with Beckwith-Weidmann Syndrome? People exist with giantitis (I am NOT suggesting this condition applies to penises, I am not, just suggesting that there are conditions that skew any attempt to classify ALL people). Just because I personally have seen more guys with unusual length than girth is only anecdotal, Kinsey's experience was the opposite, and he saw more!
He put average girth at about 5", with 1.5 being the smallest. that's 3.5" of difference on the low end, 3.5" difference on the high end is 8.5!!! I have never seen a guy that thick. I saw one in the massage parlor where I worked, years before I had ever measured a dick, that MAY have been close to that, but I honestly couldn't say. I'm fairly sure he would have been well over 7", but can't be sure. I am sure I've never seen anyone else close to that, perhaps only five or less in the 6 to 6.5 range, but that's just my personal experience, based on sketchy memory. Here again, it's just not good enough to use a small sample and say "Well, we didn't happen to uncover a one in ten thousand guy with our study of 500, so they don't exist". Absence of proof is NOT proof of absence, which is the flaw in your theory.
