Big builds on women vs small builds indicate in general?

Helluva,

Forget me. How could people, say, a foot apart in height be equal in any way without one of them looking like he belonged in a carnival?

I wear a size 12 shoe. I have a cousin who is a little taller who wears a 13. And another who is taller than him who wears a 14. Our family has genes for large feet.

I’ve seen guys my height who wear like a size 7 or 8. Different GENETIC factors.

Why would a taller person’s penis not increase with height? (Aside from the fact that some taller guys are under- endowed for their height).

You might be able to tell that i’m knowledgeable in sports because of some of the things that i post. Here is another: Michael Jordan is the ONLY male in his family who is over 6’ tall. His hands, feet, height, head, shoulder width, in short, everything is bigger/ larger than his father and brothers.

His GENETICS are the same as the rest of his family. His head looked just like his dad’s, just on a larger scale. For some reason, his chromosomes/ genes were ‘kicked up a notch’. It would be a cruel joke of nature for him to be 8-10” taller than the rest of his male relatives and have the same size penis.

As i said, i followed sports when i was growing up. I remember hearing of guys in the NBA wearing size 22 and 23 shoes (not all wore those sizes). Hell, Charles Barkley wears a size 16 and he’s only 6’4”. It only stands to reason that a tall man with genes for large feet will have larger feet than a man much shorter than him.

Don’t you think that there are tall males who are well-endowed for their height? Is there are a penis size limitation imposed by nature, that i don’t know about?

In the study that you cite, 78” and up males AVERAGE 7.1”. That was the AVERAGE. What would well-endowed be?

How tall was the tallest person in the study? What was the largest penis? What was the smallest? An extreme in either direction will change the average.

What i meant by, an empirical study can only find what it observes is this:

The study can ONLY find the penis size of the men who were WILLING to have their penises measured.The study itself admits that it was not definitive. The study admits that all groups were not represented equally.

I just went and took a look at the size survey site that was posted in this thread. According to that survey, in general there is a “strong relationship”between height and penis size. I believe it said they had a lot of people in this sampling. They show a graph that breaks it down like this:

Height ———— Penis Length

5’4” - 5’5” ——— 6.1”

5’6” - 5’7” ——— 6.15”

5’8” - 5’9” ——— 6’2”

5’10” -5’11” ——— 6.3”

6’0” - 6’1” ——— 6.6”

6’2” - 6’3” ——— 6.6”

6’4” - 6’5” ——— 6.8”

> 6’6” ——— 7.2”

So there is a correlation it would seem. That’s not really all that surprising is it? Of course there are going to be plenty of exceptions. I knew a guy 6’7” in height that was 5 inches(that’s what he said) and I’ve known a 5’8” tall guy that was 10 inches(I saw it).

To me it’s looking now like there can be a correlation in penis size and in vagina capacity based on height. Also,pelvic/hip size can have a correlation. Once again the key word is correlation. It’s just a trend. In other words there will be many exceptions.

So a woman who has both height and big hip build would tend to be able to handle the very most or is that mistaken to combine the two like that? Since this is just a generaliation it wouldn’t necessarily mean a woman matching that discription would be able to handle a lot , just the chances are she could.

Wouldn’t this all indicate (in general) that taller women will have more depth abilty ( in natural correlation to taller men having more length) and a wider pelvis will indicate(in general) more thickness capacity? This is what I meant by asking in my above post about a tall woman with big hips.

Right: I agree, beenthere, that there’s definitely a correlation between height and penis size in the survey. The meaning of “strong” in this context, however, is to indicate high statistical significance (probably a p-value of <.01 or maybe even <.001), not good predictive value for individual men. The data plots for the different height groups here, given the standard deviation of penis sizes, would include such overwhelming overlap that the predictive value of height for penis size in particular males would be quite small. In other words, you may need to experience a huge sample size of men and their penises (like that used in the survey) before the relationship became clear to you. Likewise with vagina size probably — thus my opinion that assuming anything about the size of a *particular* woman is not worthwhile.

My argument with anonymous was, at root, about whether the issue is empirical or something that can be solved by reason alone. He implied in his initial response to sunshinekid that it’s an issue of mere math. I say it’s entirely empirical.

Well, i’m glad the issue is resolved. But i think it is resolved on numbers. If Helluva believes it’s resolved on the study so-be-it.

But penis size, sizes of women, think of this:

Take a woman that is 65’ (5’5”) and has that ‘classic’ 36-24-36” hourglass figure. If ANOTHER woman (before Helluva jumps on my ass again) was 72” and had the same dimensions, she would not have that same strikingly voluptuous visual appearance. She would look much thinner.

The 72” woman would have to be 39.87-26.58-39.87” to have equal dimensions as the shorter woman.

To see my point, check out the “Big Girl” thread, on page 7 of the Dive.

Anonymous,

You hit it right. I have already stated I am fairly petite, I stand 60” tall and on a good hair day 60.5” tall. I wear a size 4.5 shoe and measure 38-29-39. I have had 3 children, and cannot take a man who is over 8x6. So the correlation between height and size doesn’t work for me.

I can see you two making valid arguments but you are both too blind to the other side to really understand what each other is talking about.

You’re both right and both wrong, just in different ways.
There is a weak corelation, it’s not worth arguing about anyway.

So how were anonymous and I “both right and wrong in different ways”? Seems like we had a fundamental disagreement, even if everyone can agree that in reality there’s a weak correlation, as you say. I think we bother understood quite well what the other was saying, after explaining ourselves, and we just disagree about the way genetics influences development.

Sure, we got caught up in a rather trivial argument, but we were civil and it was fun. I think it’s kinda distasteful to step into a dead argument not to add anything substantive but rather to declare its participants “blind” to each other and the point moot. You end up sounding arrogant, which I know from other posts you’re not. Maybe I misunderstand you and am blind to your own point :) .

Bah humbug, sorry if I’ve been a jackass, I’m in the midst of a 48-hour paper-writing marathon and am not thinking soundly.

Sorry for reading only the first 10 posts. This was the impression I got, since I was sick of reading after that number or so…

Not saying that you weren’t civil or anything like that.

Since I am in the programming field;
too many times I have seen two nerds battling out who has the superior textbook knowledge on syntax or whatever and I must have had a relapse/flashback.

The point is, it doesn’t really matter whether a dick is proportionate or not due to genetics etc. I know plenty of examples that would disprove the case, and that’s pretty much what you were saying. Whereas anon was saying that statistically it makes sense that there is a corelation.

All I am saying is that it’s pretty pointless any way you look at it. If you’re a small guy with a small dick, you’ll still want to make it bigger right?

Same as if you are a big guy with a small dick. Works both ways.

It’s just that in the beginning when I was a newbie with no experience, I used to be real interested in all this statistical mumbo-jumbo, penis-height etc. (This was a few weeks ago if I recall correctly)

And everyone seems to go down the same path to enlightenment - they flip out over numbers, then eventually realise they shouldnt be wasting time on it anyways, and get down to worrying about themselves (belive me I do this alot)

So everyones sword has been sheathed? :D

So now we can go back to discussing girls with big back yards? :moon2: Cool.

What’s up SunShineKid,

38-29-39 is pretty impressive on a 5’ frame!!! When you said that you were petite, i thought you meant as in very lean. Now i see that you meant height, because your measurements put you in the voluptuous category. :up:

Your stats are the type of girl i go for. And from your post, you pretty much confirm what i’ve experienced from being with women of your build (your hip measurement allows you to accommodate more than most thinner figured women).

When you say that 8” is at the upper end of your limits, that’s probably got more to do with being petite height-wise (Kojack10 went into that a little in his posts to the thread).

With a 39” hip measurement, i bet you get a lot of second looks from guys who are into the lower-half,SSK.

Anonymous,

My special man says that I am like a brick house with most of the bricks in place :) .

I feel like some of them have shifted :chuckle:

While my hips measure 39, I’m not hippy by any stretch of the imagination. And yes, I do get admiring looks.

I have had allot of problems with small girls as before I met my girl I went for the round ass J.Lo type as with my size ( 6 foot 5 - 266 pounds at about 10% body fat as I am a Gym Rat) I like something that i can grab onto but all ways seemed to attract smaller girls, fuck knows why but every time I went out it would be the small and thin chicks that I would end up with. Its was good for bouncing them around the room wise but size wise it was a pain in the neck now and then, more so the now then the then.

SSK,

At 5’, 38-29-39 is a lot of ‘product’. That’s DEFINITELY brickhouse!!! The Commodores had a song about that didn’t they?

On another note: As you can see, i like healthy women. And so does BeenThere and FreeWilly too. But i think a lot of guys get ‘shamed’ out of pursuing ‘brickhouse’ girls.

Either by stick-figure women or by other men who aren’t well-endowed enough to ‘handle’ voluptuous women. It’s been my experience that VW can take more, you said you can take 8x6, and let’s face it, 8x6 can’t be found around every corner.

So i think there is an attempt at negative behavioralization toward VW, by smaller women and smaller endowed males. Just a thought.

But i am 9+”x6+”, and i’ve been with slight figured women, and none of the slight figured women i have been with were able to enjoy sex with me. A lot of the bigger girls weren’t either, but at least they were able to tolerate it more.

But enough about me and my thoughts. :)