Durex Survey

I remember a durex survey concluding that the average girth ( at widest point) was about 5.2 inches. the latest data on their site claims that their average is about 5 inches, or 130 mm ( which is more like 5.1 inches). anyone know what methods they used to collect the newest results?

also… I had a short email correspondence with the designer/maintainer of the poll at SIZESURVEY.COM. He told me that based on his “verification survey”, where he measured men himself, it seems the average girth is closer to 5.2 inches than the 5 inches cited on his web survey. I’m thinking that has to do with the fact that men who volunteer to have their cocks measured by another man in person may tend to be at least slightly larger than average. or rather… those with very small cocks may be more reluctant than those with very large ones. I don’t see how one could overcome that tendency in their measurement surveys.
However, the lifestyles survey seemed to note that it’s participants were large groups of friends , so one could see how that would create somewhat more even variation.

I’ve heard of two ways of collection of such data…

1.) Men come in and get measured, and get paid for it.

2.) Women who “do” someone measures and reports it to the company, they measure by using hands or something I dunno.

Usually those surveys don’t account for margin of errors or some do say that to make up for it if they use number 2 I guess.

doubleOtoseven,

I can’t answer your question about how they arrived at the latest figure of 5” g. I know in 2001 they ran an online survey and over 3000 males measured themselves and the average was 5.2” girth then just like you said. I assume they were told to measure at their thickest area, but I don’t know for sure. There’s a girth poll here at Thunder’s with almost 1500 members reporting their pre pe size and the average is 4.90” g. Unfortunately it wasn’t specified in the poll here whether to report best measurement or mid shaft (some here go by mid shaft whether it’s their best measurement or not, and some go by best measurement), and therefore that would throw the result off some. The average in Thunder’s poll is 4.90” g. Lifestyles, staff measured at Cancun, arrived at almost 5” g. Wessells (staff measured) arrived at 4 7/8” g. About your statement that the average would be raised because of reluctance of smaller sizes, there may have been the case, but a member a while back made a good point when he said that in general the level of concern amongst the guys at Cancoon over such as that probably wasn’t anywhere near what some of us on a penis enlargement forum would tend to think.

Yes, the lifestyles survey is the only one I have ever seen that was done with good methodology. I would disregard all of the other ones and consider the results of the lifestyles survey as the only valid average of what your girlfriend is likely to have seen.. It was an almost completely random sampling (due to peer-pressure effects) of American college students, measured in privacy by trained clinical staff, with a very good sample size. Now a Chinese urologist or a gerontologist’s study may produce a smaller average, and a survey of NBA athletes or porn stars may produce a larger one, but this is a well done study of that group of people that your girl is most likely to have fucked. I would like to see the distribution of individual results, though (in addition to the S.D.), to see how normal the distribution is, and get a real understanding of exactly what percentile I rank in.

phallomegaly,

The Lifestyles study in detail.

Length
% of men

3.50” to 3.75”
0.2 %

3.75” to 4.00”
0.3 %

4.00” to 4.25”
0.2 %

4.25” to 4.50”
0.7 %

4.50” to 4.75”
0.8 %

4.75” to 5.00”
2.0 %

5.00” to 5.25”
9.0 %

5.25” to 5.50”
10.8 %

5.50” to 5.75”
24.3 %

5.75” to 6.00”
23.9 %

6.00” to 6.25”
9.3 %

6.25” to 6.50”
6.7 %

6.50” to 6.75”
4.4 %

6.75” to 7.00”
2.9 %

7.00” to 7.25”
1.0 %

7.25” to 7.50”
1.0 %

7.50” to 7.75”
0.9 %

7.75” to 8.00”
0.8 %

8.00” to 8.25”
0.3 %

8.25” to 8.50”
0.3 %

8.50” to 8.75”
0.1 %

8.75” to 9.00”
0.1 %

Circumference
% of men

Under 3.00”
3.3 %

3.00” to 3.25”
0.4 %

3.25” to 3.50”
0.9 %

3.50” to 3.75”
1.1 %

3.75” to 4.00”
4.7 %

4.00” to 4.25”
6.3 %

4.25” to 4.50”
17.1 %

4.50” to 4.75”
11.7 %

4.75” to 5.00”
24.1 %

5.00” to 5.25”
9.9 %

5.25” to 5.50”
11.5 %

5.50” to 5.75”
3.0 %

5.75” to 6.00”
3.9 %

6.00” to 6.25”
0.5 %

6.25” to 6.50”
0.5 %

6.50” to 6.75
0.1%

Considering it was 301 guys the 0.1 and 0.2 percentages are curious.

Thanks beenthere! I put these figures into excel and made graphs with analysis for everyone to see in a new post. The results do indeed follow a standard distribution (except for some bias shown by the measurers towards 1/2 inch increments), so I will try to show people how they can figure an exact percentile ranking for their dimensions using z-scores, etc.it is nice to know exactly how many people out of 100 you can count on being longer or thicker than.

.Also, In regards to the .01 and .02 figures, you are right, they should be either .03 or zero with a sample size of 301. But as with any data, extreme outliers such as those sizes are essentially worthless for interpretation. You can only really extrapolate as to the general population within about 1.5-2 std. Deviations from the mean either way. Within that range, however, the data looks damn good, and should be quite accurate as to the general population.