More recent girth studies

Did anyone see this new post (a couple of weeks old) on that blog? It’s about a big EU 10.000+ self-report survey. Normally those wouldn’t interest me, but in this case it’s pretty noteworthy because the average girth turned out to be 11.7cm (online converter says 4.6"), which is lower than many ‘scientific’ surveys. Usually it’s the other way around. (I wonder what’s up with the French, they always have a high average..)

condom size and facts: The average erect penis girth may be even smaller than previously thought

My girth is 5.5” and it seems really small, I don’t see how the average could be smaller than that when I feel so small

Really small? A paper towel core is about 5.5.

Dude,

You are statistically thicker than at least 84% of men.

If we take 5” as the mean and 0.5” as 1 Standard deviation (SD) (which is what most of the studies show, maybe the mean is at 4.8” or 4.9”), then you are 1SD above the mean.

Numerically, 68% are between - 1SD and + 1SD (4.5” to 5.5”)
Numerically 16% are more than 1SD below the mean (less than 4.5), and 16% are more than 1SD above the mean (5.5” or larger).

I’ve got confused..
Let me do some jelqs after all that maths!
LOL

Saludos!

Interesting post, but this:

This doesn’t come "from the above data", it comes from the definition of the normal distribution! http://en.wikip edia.org/wiki/N … dence_intervals

Can anyone say “porn”? Look, if you earn $100k/year but only ever watch MTV Cribs and re-runs of Dallas and Dynasty, you might feel “poor” - but how much relevance does that have to the read world?

There’s only one way to test this: get the entire adult male population of your city to get hard and line up in order of size. Then get the tape measure out and have an assistant standing by with a laptop with an Excel spreadsheet open.

MTV would probably sponsor it.

Actually it is based on the data.

What the writer meant was that the measured data closely approximates a normal distribution, centered on the mean.

If you look at the charts, it is not exact, but it is close, for both girth and length.

Based on the measurements from that particular survey, penis girth and length very closely follow a normal distribution.

Now lets look at the following hypothetical penis lengths:

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4.5
5
5
5
5.5
13
The Mean is 3, and the SD is 3.27

If the samples constitute a normal distribution, we would expect 68% to be within +/- 1 SD.
However, we find that 93.75% are within 1 SD, and 6.25% are more than 3 SD above the mean.
There should only be 3 in 10,0000 outside of +/-3SD (meaning zero in a sample this size).

Furthermore, in a normal distribution, a close approximation of half the values are above the mean and half below. In the distribution above, 62.5% are below the mean.

The distribution above is decidedly not normal.

I like the way you think.


The idea that self-reported statistics tend to be inflated is unsurprising. Our True Average thread covers this subject well.

It’s interesting to note that this study arrives at similar conclusion that another study comes to. Check out the dot on the curve that corresponds to 50%



Wikipedia seems to have roughly the same idea about average as your link. Just under 5". 4.85-ish.

5.5" is 85th to 90th percentile territory. So much for the idea that it’s small. 6" girth is quite rare and the 7"+ girths are near mythic.

No, the writer says “The scientific community considers that any penis fitting within the mean + or - 2 standard deviations is perfectly normal….From the above data, it appears that more than 95% of the penises can be considered normal. And 2/3 of the penises are average (+ or - one standard deviation).” The idea that “95% of penises can be considered normal” doesn’t come from any “data” at all, it comes from “the scientific community“‘s definition of “normal”, i.e. within 2SD of the mean! It’s a circular argument and a completely arbitrary figure.

Thanks for the stats lesson but I’m well aware of the difference between mean and median. I’m not sure what you’re trying to illustrate by making up such an unlikely collection of penises. Dick length and girth might not be exactly normally distributed but they’re probably pretty close, just like height, weight etc. (c.f. the central limit theorem) However the tables shown on that website have figures that are so close to the likelihood intervals of the normal distribution - basically exactly the same but for rounding errors, probably - that clearly what they’ve done is calculated the mean and SD for a sample of dicks and then used those two numbers (for each measurement) to draw up a table of percentages for <1, 1-2 and >2 SDs from the mean, assuming length and girth are normally distributed.

That girth is the equivalent of a guy that is 6’1-2”s tall, height wise. That girth and growing up pre-internet porn, I never had penis issues. By the same token, at 6.5X5.5 I subconsciously always considered myself dead on average. I also don’t feel tall. People >6’4”s are tall and those <6’1”s are short.

More than one of my surrogate little sisters has that as a reoccurring dream.

As a side note gents— bear in mind that ‘averages’, ‘means’, etcetera, are only relevant in re where we may each stand in relationship to the genpop.
That has little to no bearing on the personal experience of any lady of our affections. Let’s say that you run across a 40 year old divorcee who’s had three lovers total including her husband of twenty years - if her husband and the others were all on the smaller side, all she knows are less than huge cocks.
But let’s just say that she ran across three outliers that were all 95th %-ile types— her experience will skew her grokking of the size continuum regardless of what the general distribution is and where you fall on it.

I’ve run across a few of these in the past few years, and despite the retracement to BP 7.5*5.5 since breaking from active PE, every one of them but one has commented on ‘hugeness’- that one happened to be the one with exclusively outliers in her history.

Isn’t the issue the LIQ (Lady In Question) and not simply numbers generally?

I feel that most women these days have seen hundreds if not thousands of cocks on the internet. Even the rare few who might not have ever been curious enough to type “dick” or whatever into google, still if you do any image search, for example, you end up seeing a naked people one way or another. No it’s not the same as having one in their vaginas. But it’s something that affects their perception of average dick size just as it does ours.