Penis length and its correlation to Ethnicity

Penis length has alot to do with the suspensory ligament that attaches the penis to the pelvic bone.

The Genetic / Ethnic Factor

Among the different ethnic groups and their respective genetic origins there are concrete differences in penis size, particularly in what concerns the anchorage of the suspensory ligament.

Therefore, the suspensory ligament anchorage is located at the back in Negro men and their penises are completely outside of the body, this determines a very large penis that is slightly elevated during the erection.

For Caucasians, the suspensory ligament anchorage is located forward, what determines a somewhat shorter penis with an erection that is practically perpendicular to the body.

East Asians have a very forward suspensory ligament anchorage, which means that a relevant part of the penis is hidden inside the body; when erect the penis is almost parallel to the body and, in many cases, this results in an upward curvature.

Individuals of mixed race are closer to one or the other description, depending on their predominant genetic features.

Since you seem to be speaking with authority here, I assume that you have a citation/ source available?

Whenever you C&P material from another source you are expected to provide a link to that source.

Hmmm… androNYC why the assumption that I am speaking with an authority? Personally I don’t see any point with that kind of tone(authorativeness) in a penis enlargement forum. I beg your pardon if I unknowingly sounded like that.

Well the aforementioned is a personal implication from my mere observation and surveys of the penis size of races of men that would fall under three major ethnic groups; caucasoids, negroids and mongoloids.

Truth be told these are just my words and they are not necessarily true unless proven by proper scientific evidence.

But I think most would find it reasonable from their own personal observations.

I take the blame for not stating this in my original post. I do not expect anyone to believe me. However I’d gladly hear if anyone else got links to prove me otherwise.

After all I’d like to know that there is’nt a better or less endowed race and that the competition is even.

Sounds like crap to me. Let me get this straight black guys have their penis hanging just in front of their ass, white guys hang out just under the pubic bone, and asians come out halfway to the belly button. Yeah. Seems likely.

>But I think most would find it reasonable from their own personal observations.<

Doesn’t jive with my observation.

It is not up to others to disprove your opinion- up to you to prove it.

Does’nt jive with mine either. Your taking my words notches further.

Usually;

Black guys have dicks that are at lower erection angles with a downward curvature. White guys have erection closer to a 9 o’clock angle. And asian guys have higher erection levels with an upward curvature.

Again- citation please.

Honestly I’ve got better things to do. Its just an observation. I’m not giving a damn about what kind of penises different ethnic groups produce. I’m just concerned with my own pe. The whole black guys having monsters and asian guys having it smaller thing seems to be overhyped and ubiquitous so I thought I’d present some reasoning behind it. Why is it that some get so bitter and ready to attack a poster who has stated something without any backup. I already stated its just an observation. Penis enlargement itself has no solid credibility or any consensus from the majority of the medical community. But are you gonna say, “Argh screw it, its prolly total BS!”, no right? likewise my friend, likewise. I understand the skepticism but there’s a difference between lacerative accusation and coherent argumentation.

>Black guys have dicks that are at lower erection angles with a downward curvature. White guys have erection closer to a 9 o’clock angle. And asian guys have higher erection levels with an upward curvature.<

Not in my experience.

Sounds like you are starting with a conclusion and then building a theory around it.

Black guys have big dicks => big dicks hang lower when erect => attachment point is further back.
White guys have medium sized dicks => medium sized dicks don’t hang as low as big dicks when erect => attachment further forward
Asian guys have small dicks => small dicks don’t have any weight to them so point straight up => attachment further forward still.

Note that all three of these steps are fallacious.

There’s a saying that would seem to apply in this case. “Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.” (That which is gratuitously asserted may be gratuitously denied.) - attributed to medieval philosophers and theologians.

You asked earlier, “why the assumption that I am speaking with an authority?” Others made that assumption because that’s the way you presented it. You made clear and specific assertions (albeit without a source).

If your initial post had been “In my opinion, there is racial variation on the ligament attachment point and proportion of external versus internal penis”, or “In my experience”, or “In my observations”, that would have been different. Note that the very first post in response to you asked, in essence, “what’s your source?”. It goes to the point of establishing credibility.

The attachment point of internal structures, and the proportion of internal versus external penis does not seem to be the type of thing that one would see on casual observation. Perhaps you have some personal or professional reasons to see quantities of penises from different ethnic groups up close and personal, such that you could speak with credibility on subtle internal structure differences between races. If so, you haven’t shared that yet.

If you don’t give a damn about what kind of penises different ethnic groups produce, why did you take the time and effort to start a thread on it?

I took the time and effort to start the thread because a member recently asked a question about asians and jelqing. This is all the effort I’m going to put into it. I’m not even gonna lift a finger to prove myself correct. Honestly I have alot of things to reply to you. But I simply can’t be bothered because by posting in this thread I’m only going to make it resurface and garner negative reception galore. Look although my original post did’nt mention that, this was my opinion. I rectified that by stating it immediately in my next post. I’m not going to further with my observation because I’ve seen the kind of reception that ensues whenever someone posts something deemed as imperative without any solid citation(look no further than the recent racket thread Some side effects of porn and masturbation). I’m going to save myself some trouble by not activating my filibuster switch and parading in circles. End of discussion.

Thank you, God bless you, me and the rest of America

Evergrowing.

ps: If you wanna know my occupation do look at my profile. Well nevermind I’ll save you the trouble, I’m 18 student. :D

As I noted in the other thread touching on this issue of citation/ provenance- you need to dial it back just a bit.

Unlike other some other PE forums we try maintain at least a semblance of mature discourse when appropriate- grab-ass is fine when it’s clear that it’s grab-ass and opinions are always welcome- as long as the author clearly labels it as mere opinion.
If you seen the way an undocumented ‘imperative’ post is received, then perhaps the solution is to posit your thesis as just that- a thesis.

When you make statements as fact and then when called on that reply by suggesting that the responsibility falls to others to disprove you can understand why all subsequent posts may be viewed as suspect.

Following up with dismissals ["not even gonna lift a finger"], warnings ["not activating my filibuster switch"] and sarcasm ["Thank you, God bless you, me and the rest of America"] won’t bolster your thesis.

"Time and effort"- seems not much of either

As to your thesis- the perception of an ethnicity/ penile length* correlation is disputed .

Ironically, had you proposed your notion as a thesis and not as obvious fact, your notion might have garnered a positive reception- many do believe in a correlation despite evidence seemingly to the contrary.

If there were a difference and if it were partially impacted by the attachment of the suspensory ligament, there would still be no explanation for any girth correlations.

There was a link somewhere around here to a site indicating that condom manufacturers do differ slightly in size of condoms delivered to different geographical regions- the Pacific Rim does receive a size ever so slightly narrower in girth than Europe- but again, since EU has standardized condom sizes it becomes a question of who decides the sizes shipped and alternatives available the end-user.

Can’t find the citation, but hey, what the heck- that kind of stuff doesn’t count for much, does it.

*Why length only- why not ‘size’?

Anatomy doesn’t differ due to race a ligament on one person will be I’m the same place as another almost always.

If thundersplace allows a members to re-edit the original post after 10 mins. Then I would have added “the following is merely a personal observation. No emphasis on factuality is placed. There are no reasonable scientific citations.”

That was exactly my first sentiment. Why is there even a difference, but we’re both wrong. Here’s another example;

Anthropological Variations in the Anatomy of the Human Thyroid Arteries

Knowledge of anatomic variability of the superior (STA), inferior (ITA), and lowest accessory (IMA) thyroid arteries may be helpful in certain clinical conditions. However, details of this variability have not been thoroughly described. Specifically, whether the presence and site of origin of STA, ITA, and IMA are influenced by the anthropological group, to what extent their origin is symmetric or asymmetric, and the role played by this variability in visualizing each thyroid artery by nonselective thyroid angiography is not known. To clarify this we conducted a meta-analytical study on Caucasian and Asian subjects, the latter including only Japanese and Koreans. In Caucasians and Asians the presence of superior vessels compared to inferior vessels was more frequent and the probability of symmetric or asymmetric arterial origin for STA were equivalent. However, better recognition of inferior rather than superior vessels was achieved by nonselective angiography in Caucasians. Finally, different frequencies of presence and site of origin for each artery were identified in Caucasians compared to Asians. Our results suggest that the higher frequency of IMA in Asians than in Caucasians should result in a search for an IMA-dependent feeding artery of inferior parathyroid adenomas, primarily the mediastinal ones, especially in Asians both by imaging and transcatheter ablative approaches. In addition, we have found that a small percentage of Caucasian subjects lack an STA on the left side. Therefore, anatomic arterial compatibility should be carefully evaluated in the preoperative stage of laryngeal transplantation maintaining in situ the donor’s thyroid by terminal anastomoses between donor and recipient STAs. Finally, the lack of any individual thyroid artery in either Caucasians or Asians might influence the distribution of autonomic supply that runs with thyroid vessels to the thyroid parenchyma. This appears functionally relevant in cases of traumatic or surgical lesions of the cervical sympathetic chain involving thyroid nerves. In fact, a restricted local autonomic control of thyroid activity might be related to individual rami of thyroid nerves.

I find this fact hard to swallow(no pun intended). But seems like athough on the grander scheme of things we’re all almost exactly the same, there seems to be minor differences. This is the kind of science that white superiority fascists sought after to prove their ideologies.