Circumference Measurements

Decent Study on Circumference here. You will have to get a calculator and convert from mm to inches.

1 millimeter = 0.0393700787 inch

By studying BP length to girth ratios here on Thunders, one might infer/approximate what the corresponding lengths were in these studies from 7 authors from the years 1879 to 1931. I did not bother to actually crunch Thunder data to arrive at such an estimate (maybe someone will volunteer) however, a good educated guess here is that a 1.33 to 1 ratio is a probably a good ballpark estimation of what the length to girth ratio is for most e.g. 4.5G infers 6BP; likewise 6G infers 8BP

http://www.cond omerie.com/webs … php?language=en

TABLE 1. Circumference measurements* of the penis (from Dickinson, 1933/1971)

Range (mm.)
Flaccid 75-105
Erect 83-120

Average (mm.)
Flaccid 85
Erect 110

In the nine years between 1939 and 1948, Kinsey, Pomeroy, and Martin collected self measurements of penile circumference in 2505 American men (Kinsey, Pomeroy, & Martin, 1948; Gebhard & Johnson, 1979). For these men, who were mainly white college students, the median (see note in box)
circumference of the flaccid penis was about 102 mm, and the median circumference of the erect penis was about 121 mm.

I used an internet conversion calculator and rounded off. Hopefully I didn’t screw up somehow.

That means I started with above average girth. Yay. :)

I’m confused. Average erect girth is 4.33 inches? Then it goes on to say the medium erect circumference is 4.76 inches.

Thanks for converting

The .43 discrepancy you speak of is pretty significant however you should note that the 4.33 inches pertains to a combination of stats by 7 authors from 1879 to 1931 but the 4.76 inches is from another study all together from 1938 to 1948. There are two sets of data but I think what we really need to know is the method for determining the data in each set. i.e. did the participants merely answer a survey, was it self measurements? or were the authors taking or observing the measurements themselves?

In the latter study, it actually states it was “self measurements” (white college students) Assuming the first study was scientifically controlled for accuracy (not allowed to self measure without an independent observer to record the results) then the .43 discrepancy seems to be a reasonable. My speculation is some people added a little to their measurements and if the participants were more honest in their self measurements then there would be no little to no discrepancy.

Median doesn’t mean average. To get an average, you add up all the numbers, then divide by how many numbers you added. To get the median, you look at the number in the middle.

Lets picture we meausre 5 guys dick circumference. We get:

4, 4.5, 5, 6, 7

The median is 5. Two were bigger, two were smaller.

The average is 5.3.

An average is going to take into account every number you are comparing - unusually high or low numbers will effect the outcome. Medians drop extreme outlying results, and give you what’s the real middle of the road.

In the study, there isnt’ a discrepancy, they are just talking about two different numbers.

Good observation Northmiamitop. You are 100% correct and your explanation could actually account for the difference…

However it does not rule out the other possibilities i.e. since we dont actually know anything about how the data was gathered in that first set but we do know about the second set…. its also possible, the results could be a combined effect but we will never really know.

Good catch!

I know that medium is not the average, the mean is average.

Based on everything I’ve read, average girth is 4.9 inches. An average of 4.33 seems way too low. Likewise the 4.76 also seems low but it is the medium and not an average.

I do see now that there are two different studies with different results.

I don’t know if people would lie about their results from a self-reported girth study, simply because most men don’t know how big around an erect penis should be. In contrast, most men believe that the penis should be 6 inches long and are more likely to report their length being 6 even it is not.

fools and your girth measurements!

Everyone knows width is the most telling penis statistic.

It is interesting that the data for erect midshaft penis girth comes from four studies. Three of these studies all had 120mm as the average and the fourth recorded an average of 83mm. There is so much difference in the fourth study that I would wonder if the average is misprinted, not at all uncommon in scientific reports. At any rate, I would be inclined to throw out the outlier, and accept 120mm as a reasonable estimate for average midshaft penis girth.

That is just under 4.75” which I think is closer to a true average girth than the average of just under 5” reported from the LifeStyles condom Cancun study. The Cancun reporters never really spelled out their methodology, so the 4.972” they reported may have been a maximum erect girth. But in the Cancun study, over 25% of guys who volunteered were allegedly unable to achieve an erection to allow measurement, a percentage that seems awfully high for young men, and one wonders if the less well-endowed opted out using this as an excuse.

For what it is worth, when I was sexually-active with a variety of female partners (as opposed to just one) I had a MSEG of about 5.25” and I had several women offer the opinion that I was considerably thicker than average.

The only way to get the most accurate idea of the true erect girth average is to find every single study based on injecting vasodilators in the penis to ensure max. erections, add those numbers up, and come up with an average based on those seemingly reliable sources.

From the 5 or so years of experience on this subject, IMO I think the true median, mean average is 4.5 eg from the collection of many studies I have seen. I think the average girth for Caucasians is around 4.875 eg to 5.00 eg….and for African males around 5.00 eg to 5.275 eg. This would be a good guess I think.

Has anybody looked at the Pre-PE girth results recently? 20% of men started between 5 and 5.199 inches. While 46% started under 5”. The rest were over 5.2”.

http://www.cond omerie.com/webs … VariatiesNL.pdf . On the end of the document you see the Girth distribution of black end white students.

The medium white is 5.0 ( 2316 students)
The medium black is 4.75 ( 55 students, so a little bit small sample)

And in east Asia medium is 4.15 -4.35 I read somewhere but not much data about them.

That’s strange, others study seems to suggest no difference between blacks and caucasian OR a slightly bigger thickness for blacks. This one instead suggest the adverse.

Not all too strange when you consider that the sample size for blacks was only 55 and the sample size for whites was 2316. i.e. the black sample size was only 2% of the white sample size.