Geographic area and penis size

I was thinking about the thread that RWG started the other day, and Dino said something about men who live in warmer climates have bigger flaccid tools. I remember reading a survey in an old issue of Maxim about men’s sexual habits and characteristics (basically who gets more, who gets more oral/anal/etc., who’s bigger, etc.). I don’t know how honest you can expect the readers of Maxim to be, but if I remember correctly, guys who live in the South were the biggest, guys who lived in the Northeast were the smallest and everybody else fell somewhere in between. Please do not take offense at this if you are an exception because this is a statistical blanket statement. Anybody else have any thoughts?

Peace,
Taz

I’m 2nd generation American (Norwegian)… Fairly sure that Norway is very cold and I started out fairly good, also think that Secjay, Piet, lookingformore are from the cold north… I do know for a fact that on average that blacks do indeed have much larger flacids then do whites and I would guess that they, on average, are bigger then other races… I fairly sure that with their culture of doing various forms of PE has helped the size issue… I guess the garlic thing blew up so perhaps that isn’t specific to size of guys from Italy but I can’t help but think it does… Warm weather is better for flacid hang then cold for sure but other then that I don’t know…

RWG

Originally a Northerner, you got it right RWG :D

Lived in Australia pretty much my whole life though. Big on the garlic as well :)

I’m modestly well-endowed and I’m from the cold north.

Horsehung

You guys are just freaks though :) My thoughts were that if you were say from Northern Europe or Russia it would be a genetic advantage to have a small flaccid and tight balls. It would have been better protection against the cold. And if you were from Spain or southern Italy or Africa or the middle east would have been better to have a large flaccid to dissipate heat.

Climate should play a role in the genetics of flaccid hang, and personally I agree with rwg that flaccid hang should in general effect erect length. I recently started a poll checking the flaccid length to erect length correlation, but so far not nearly enough guys have chosen to participate. Going through Thunder’s data base to get the answers would be very cumbersome—-months back I did that and compared some 3” flaccids to 5” flaccids. It was taking so long to do that I abandoned it before I had enough numbers to really trust. What I was seeing, in the comparison between those 2 different flaccid lengths, was that the grower/ shower theory is partly true, mostly false. In other words, there was a 2” difference to start with, growers closed the gap 1/2” leaving a 1 1/2” difference in erect length.

If the latitude was responsible for the size of flacid hang or anything else, then most men from similar latitudes would have similar penis sizes…right?

I mean, it’s okay looking at it that way - do you think men from Africa, Southern India, Thailand, Central/South America etc should be big. (Excuse me if I got some of the geography wrong but you get my drift)

I am basically Celtic in origin and I have a flacid hang of 18 cm on a good day. (22 cm erect) - where is on the same latitude as Ireland?

We have for sure what we started with genetically. But PE can change that and I don’t believe flaccid size is totally ruled by climate, at least for me.

When I moved to the tropics from the cold, far N.E. my flaccid size didn’t change a millimeter. Very gradually, though, PE and some mechanical intervention, specifically perforeal’s discovery of the TheraP wrap, changed things around in a positive way. I still “turtle” when I swim in a cold pool, but the turtle has a much longer neck now.

Climatic genetics is just a part of the equation. The height of the people living in that climate is a part as can be seen from the height poll at sizesurvey.com (though this poll is about erect , I’m assuming the flaccid link I mentioned in my earlier post in this thread). What are some other possible factors? Just my opinion and am willing to listen to anyone that can demonstrate otherwise.

I live in Florida and I started a little above average. I guess the logic is there but the numbers and anecdotal evidence is not. I guess individual genetics carries more weight than the climate where people live. I was thinking about how people of African decent typically have things like darker skin and flared nostrils to deal with the warmer climate.

RWG, I know the garlic thing did not pan out, but I wonder how something like cayenne pepper would work. I’ve been taking it for over a year and I definitely look more vascular (at least in places like my arms, legs and shoulders). If anyone is interested, let me know and I’ll tell you what brand and dose I take.

Peace,
Taz

Hey, can anyone give me a hand flipping this dead horse over? I think we missed a spot on the other side of it’s torso.

The point I was making is not that if you live in a warm climate now that you will have a large flaccid the point that I was making is that if you ancestors were African you may have a large hang even if you live in a cold climate now. But on the flip side if your ancestors migrated to a warm place from a cold place like say American Indians who most likely walked over a frozen land bridge from Northern Asia you still might have the small flaccid I think it takes a huge amount of time for changes to occur

Exactly Dino. That is also the point I was trying to make by using the term climatic genetics.

You guys are also forgetting how much intermingling & relocation the various peoples are subjected to. For example, very few Blacks in America are anywhere near 100% African. And look at how the various peoples mix throughout Europe - and this goes back before the royal families were mixing all over the place (i.e., Czar Nicholas’ wife, Alexandra, was German; the British royalty is related to Greek royalty, etc., etc.).

And some of the climate-based assertions for race don’t seem consistent - i.e., Eskimoes & other extreme Northerners have more bodyfat to keep warm, whereas those in hotter regions are thin (well, what about the heavy build of Samoans? or the thin builds of many Scandanavians?).

The thinness of many Africans is attributed the “need for heat to dissipate from the body, hence less surface area”, etc. Well, what about plain & simple poverty & limited crop options in those brutally hot regions? I know many American Blacks who’ve had no trouble packing on lots of fat.

And if you trace the globe around the equator, at longitudes equal to Bantus or Zulus, you don’t find other peoples that dark. Also, if you look at the builds of well-educated (hence, well paid) Africans - or those that have relocated to America - they don’t share the skeletal builds of the poorer Africans.

Just some thoughts.

Ok. :horse: