Penis Size: The True Average

Wad,

Thank you for the extensive reply. (Also thanks for the variety of brilliant threads recently!) I will address each of your substantive points.

As beenthere demonstrated, all five of the studies of predominantly white populations in well-fed nations – excluding the Israeli one, due to the fact that the men in it suffered ED – showed EBPL averages within the range of 5.9” to 6.5”. This is very strong convergence of data. I did not cherry-pick these studies; I included every one I could find. I agree with you that it’s possible that other populations in the world have different averages, due to differences in majority genetics or in nutrition. My post was aimed at the concerns of the typical Thunder’s reader, who tends to live in America or a European nation and whose penile “competition” is therefore well represented by these studies. Thanks for the clarification.

I addressed this point in my post. Some of the studies used a direct drug injection into the penis to induce full, 100% erection – perhaps better even than a “Viagra erection”. These studies’ averages were no greater than the others’.

I agree, but this point has also been addressed. You are ignoring the countervailing effect of self-selection bias: These were the guys who had the balls to go into this tent and get their erect cocks measured by two nurses. The fact that this survey ended up producing an average larger than any of the studies in which 100%-erection was induced by drug – or in which FSL was used, and therefore erection-quality was irrelevant – suggests that the self-selection effect was at least as strong as the imperfect-erection problem. Notice also the two studies without self-selection problems – the soldier studies – produced relatively small averages.

Until you can adduce evidence that the average penis length is more than about 6” BP, then I would say that there are likely as many men out there with under 5” BP as there are with over 7” BP. Neither big cocks nor small cocks are “as rare as Haley’s Comet,” regardless of what the mean is, as long as the distribution is normal, since the designations “big” and “small” depend for their meaning on deviation from the average.

Why? Assuming a fat pad of 1” for the Kinsey men (they weren’t all young, right?), they averaged 7.16” BPEL – quite a bit more than has been found in any of the medical studies ever done.

And the Italian study that examined 3,300 men – also a study in which self-selection bias didn’t factor in, since it was done on soldiers, making it by far the best of the studies – found the smallest average size of the five studies on predominantly white populations without ED. When you have a figure (~6” BPEL) that has been replicated almost exactly in five studies, a criticism of sample size is weak.

Well, I agree with #3 wholeheartedly – as long as you qualify “women” with “most”. Obviously I disagree about #1, since that’s the topic of this thread.

I know it’s sort of silly that we’re arguing over only one inch here, but that inch matters to plenty of men, and I don’t think that any of your criticisms of these studies holds water. In the end, I cannot compel anyone to put more trust in the data than in friends’ and women’s anecdotes; my goal has been simply to establish what the data say.

>>”Until you can adduce evidence that the average penis length is more than about 6” BP, then I would say that there are likely as many men out there with under 5” BP as there are with over 7” BP.”

Para, you have no argument from me there <wonders if Para read any of my earlier posts on this subject>. In that other thread, to which you submitted a post, I stated the Kinsey figure of 83% at 5-7”, which left 17% either < 5 or > 7, and I agreed that the < 5 lot was likely more populous than the > 7 crowd.

>>”Neither big cocks nor small cocks are “as rare as Haley’s Comet,” regardless of what the mean is, as long as the distribution is normal, since the designations “big” and “small” depend for their meaning on deviation from the average.”

Not sure what you mean by “as long as the distribution is normal.” There is nothing that logically, empirically asserts that size must be evenly distributed - proportionately - both above and below the average, with uniformity. If that were the case, consider this: the largest penis ever scientifically measured was more than 13” NBP (by Dr. Richardson). If the “smallest” penis cannot be less than 0, then the “average” could not be below 6.5” NBP - if the figures are distributed “normally.”

The same with human height. I believe it’s far more common to be 4” shorter than average rather than 4” taller than average. With bodyweight extremes, it’s the opposite - the largest is more common. The world record for heaviest human weight is about 1,400 lbs; obviously, the average is nowhere near 700 lbs.

>>”Assuming a fat pad of 1” for the Kinsey men (they weren’t all young, right?), they averaged 7.16” BPEL – quite a bit more than has been found in any of the medical studies ever done.”

Not sure how you got this figure of 7.16 BPEL. Kinsey stated that the most common measurement was 6” NBP (24% of men were exactly at that size). If you assume a fat pad of 1”, wouldn’t it be 7” BPEL, not 7.16? Are you asserting that it’s impossible that 24% of men are 6” NBP/7” BP?

>>”6” BPEL is a pretty definitive answer to the “what's average?” question.”

So, you’re asserting that the “average” guy is 5” NBP (assuming a 1” fat pad)? I’ve always been a grower, not a shower. And I can recall my own self-consciousness back in high school locker rooms. My flaccid was often only about 3-3.5 inches, to my disgust. Most of that guys in that locker room had a longer flaccid hang - the vast majority. I would say that most guys in there were about 4” or more NBP flaccid hang. To believe your conclusion, is to believe that they only grew by 1” to erection, whereas I was growing 3-3.5 inches.

Do you see why I have a problem with that? I am one who is unable to convince my eyes that they have not seen what they’ve seen.

>>”In the end, I cannot compel anyone to put more trust in the data than in friends’ and women’s anecdotes; my goal has been simply to establish what the data say.”

Para, funny how you imply that I’m putting my trust in anecdotal evidence and not data; clearly shows your prejudice toward the Kinsey study - which used more test subjects, by far, than all of those studies you cited, combined.

I might as well say, “In the end, I cannot compel anyone to put more trust in a vast, comprehensive research study (the results of which have been published in numerous volumes), than in brief, spotty little surveys which included a sparse few test subjects.”

Furthermore, to blindly follow the findings of any study - especially when the results seem to fly in the face of your daily encounters - is neither wise, nor commendable. I accept Kinsey because of it’s vastness & scope, but also because it’s findings do not clash with what I’ve observed in life.

And while anecdotal evidence cannot be scientifically qualified, it’s often the most reliable way to gain particular types of knowledge. If you assert that the average guy is only 5” NBP/6” BPEL, how do I interpret the findings of my wife (3 guys: 5.5, 6.5, 7.5)? Or the stories of miss “2-hander”? Or the clear visual evidence of the majority of guys in my locker room being a solid 4+ flaccid? Am I to honestly believe that all of those guys only grew 1” - or even less? And for the guys in the 5-6, even a few 7+, flaccid hangs….am I to suspect that they shrank when they became erect?

If you need anymore food for thought about why Kinsey studies seem “inflated” over modern studies, you need go no further than the epidemic of obesity. Modern Westerners - particularly Americans - are grossly overweight. I hear it everyday on the news. Doctors warning how many hundreds of thousands will die of heart disease in a given year, etc. The doctors, nutritionists all hollering about how fat kids are today, etc., etc.

Kinsey study was done about 2 generations ago - when Americans were far more active (few people drove, many workers were laborers, no video games - hell, few people even owned a TV) - and far lighter than they are today. Kinsey was also NBP. If you find roughly a 1/2” difference or so, it could easily be attributed to the American male’s ever-growing fat pad.

Para,
A few final thoughts. I think that all of us are, at times, guilty of making something far more complex than it need be. And often, the more intelligent a person is, the more likely they are to do this. You spent a lot of time & energy sharing those studies with us, analyzing them, and analyzing our responses. And I sincerely appreciate that interchange. But I think you failed to overlook the very simple, and undeniable reality, that we have become – as a society – much fatter than we were during the Kinsey era (Kinsey actually conducted his study over a number of years and published the Kinsey Report in 1948 – so his data was collected more than 56 years ago).

I was equally guilty in ignoring this reality when I conceded, without any objections, the assumed 1” fat pad of the Kinsey subjects. Also, I know my own fat pad is always at least 1.13” and fluctuates (probably due to varying levels of water retention) to as much as 1.25 inches. I am 7.72” deeply bone-pressed, but at times my NBP is about 6.6” but sometimes is just under the 6½ inch mark. But I am more than a little overweight.

I’m not going to deluge you with vital statistics records of average American bodyweight of the 1940’s, or earlier. It’s beyond any argument that we’ve become significantly – even dangerously – more obese since that era. The fat pad of those subjects may well have averaged only ½ inch, or even slightly less. My older relatives, and the relatives of my friends, who lived during that era spoke of how skinny they all were (and indeed, looked skeletal in old photos) and they commented how rare a fat person was back then.

I also don’t accept your contention that college guys are somehow thinner. All of the college folks I’ve known ate like shit (burgers, fries, pizza – often at 2 or 3 a.m.) and drank beer by the truckload. Most of them actually lost weight after college, when they began working.

A Kinsey area fat pad may well have only averaged 0.4-0.5” or so. And it’s possible that most men today have a fat pad in excess of 1” (indeed, I’m not rotund, just a bit overweight, and mine is more than 1” – and I see many, many guys who are significantly fatter than I am). We can take Kinsey’s findings of 83% at 5-7” NBP and end up with only 5.4-7.5” BP. And their most common (24%) at 6” NBP could well be only 6.4-6.5” BPEL – a figure, which, our own resident physician luvdadus has stated he believes to be the average.

It is very possible that if we take the average weight & body fat percentages of the 1940’s and compare them today, we might well have, on average, ½” to ¾” thicker fat pads than those guys did – if not even more. That alone could account for any discrepancies between the findings of the 1940’s and today. And the Europeans and Canadians are not far behind us in this trend (the diet industry is multi-billions of dollars annually throughout the Western world).

I apologize if any of my postings sound condescending, I didn’t mean them to be. I just think that if we pause & consider these things, we may well end up back at square one – the Kinsey Report. I know that these posts have actually reinforced my belief in the accuracy of Kinsey’s size research, and I have little doubt now about his findings.

- w a d

>>Para, you have no argument from me there <wonders if Para read any of my earlier posts on this subject>. In that other thread, to which you submitted a post, I stated the Kinsey figure of 83% at 5-7", which left 17% either < 5 or > 7, and I agreed that the < 5 lot was likely more populous than the > 7 crowd.

Yes, I read that post. The 5-7" is an NBP number in the Kinsey study. My claim is that 5-7" is, more likely, an accurate range for average BP. You and I disagree on this.

>>Not sure what you mean by "as long as the distribution is normal." There is nothing that logically, empirically asserts that size must be evenly distributed - proportionately - both above and below the average, with uniformity. If that were the case, consider this: the largest penis ever scientifically measured was more than 13" NBP (by Dr. Richardson). If the "smallest" penis cannot be less than 0, then the "average" could not be below 6.5" NBP - if the figures are distributed "normally."

I agree. My post does not make any assertion about the distribution. A reasonable default hypothesis, however, without any data to disconfirm it, would be that penis size is roughly normally distributed, like many natural endowments, no? Because you are correct that the upper tail for the data in this case will inevitably be longer than the lower tail, it is reasonable to assume that the mean penis size is larger than the median. Therefore the median penis size is actually probably smaller than the averages we have been talking about.

>>Not sure how you got this figure of 7.16 BPEL. Kinsey stated that the most common measurement was 6" NBP (24% of men were exactly at that size). If you assume a fat pad of 1", wouldn't it be 7" BPEL, not 7.16? Are you asserting that it's impossible that 24% of men are 6" NBP/7" BP?

The Kinsey mean was 6.16" NBP . I stated this in my post here and in other threads, and no one has disputed it. Sometimes you hear it rounded to 6.2". In one source I saw it listed as 6.21". Add a 1" fat pad to 6.16" and you get 7.16" BP. Your last question is a non sequitur.

>>And I can recall my own self-consciousness back in high school locker rooms…

I could cite own experiences in locker rooms and at nudist beaches — which have been very different from yours — but the plural of anecdote is not data. Everyone’s experiences and perceptions are different; hence the need for objective data to adjudicate among varied perspectives. Would it be unreasonable to suggest that a lot of guys at a penis enlargement site probably suffer from a bit of body dysmorphic disorder, specifically concerning their penises?

>>Para, funny how you imply that I'm putting my trust in anecdotal evidence and not data; clearly shows your prejudice toward the Kinsey study - which used more test subjects, by far, than all of those studies you cited, combined.

Well, you spent two paragraphs of your original post and two paragraphs in this new one focusing on anecdotes — were these anecdotes not intended to constitute support for your contention? The only data you have is the Kinsey study. I am not "prejudiced" against it; I have forthrightly stated the reason I do not put faith in it, when it reports a higher average than seven medical studies: it depended on men to self-report their penis sizes. If the only hole you can poke in the studies I have cited is that their samples sizes weren’t big enough for you, I’ll leave the argument at that. By the way, how many men’s penises do you think were reported in the Kinsey study? The only figure I found by Googling was 3,500 (can’t link, due to links on the site) — roughly the same number as in the Italian study.

>>Furthermore, to blindly follow the findings of any study - especially when the results seem to fly in the face of your daily encounters - is neither wise, nor commendable.

I agree, when we’re talking about a single study. That is why replication is absolutely essential in the sciences, especially imprecise sciences such as medicine and psychology that depend on statistical inferences. The penis-size findings have been replicated in the medical literature to my satisfaction. I have no argument with you insofar as we simply have different prejudices about which sources of evidence to give credence to in our everyday lives. As a science researcher, I know that I have a stronger bias to believe studies’ data over personal experiences than do most people. Only a philosophical argument could support this bias, and I have none.

>>If you need anymore food for thought about why Kinsey studies seem "inflated" over modern studies, you need go no further than the epidemic of obesity.

In my opinion, this is by far the strongest point you’ve made. Remember, though, that the best study I listed was of young Italian soldiers — probably not a bunch of lard-asses. Anyway, I concede that the difference between the average BPEL in the Kinsey study and the 6" average I’m claiming is probably less than an inch.

Well, judging by your last post, you seem to agree with me that the “fat factor” is your strongest point.

Anyhow… I’m sure we’re the only two reading these posts back and forth by now :) . The primary aim of my post was to provide guys with reassurance that if they reach, say, 7.5” BP, they are significantly above average. You are right that the Kinsey study, properly interpreted, could constitute further such assurance. The fact is that there is no reason to believe that today’s men, at least, have an average visible penis of, say, 6.5” — which a lot of guys who don’t obsess over this stuff think is the case.

Para,
I’ve enjoyed this thread and it has caused me to rethink “big.” I could tell a gal I’m “almost 8 inches,” but she’ll just see the 6.5-6.6” NBP. If I grab a ruler and impale myself on it and say, “Quick! Look - 196mm, that’s 7.72 inches!”, she’d probably laugh like hell at me. Then, when I pulled my hand and ruler away, the fat pat floats back up……6.6 inches again.

I believe that BP is the most accurate method for charting gains, as there’s virtually no deviation for me (some might argue that BPFSL is the best). But I believe that NBP is probably your “true” size - even though I don’t doubt that I countersink below my fat pad during deep thrusts, thereby finding “usuable” dick beyond what’s seen NBP.

I used to want a BPEL of 8.5”. At my current bodyweight, that would require a huge 9.62-9.75 BPEL - a gain of nearly 2”, which is more than I’ve realized from 2 years of PE. In other words, highly unlikely.

I now want a consistent 8.12” NBP, as I think that is genuinely a *Big Dick* by any standard. If I could reduce my fat pad by 1/2” through diet and exercise, that would show - at my present actual size - a NBP of 7-7.1 inches, which would leave me needing only an additonal 1 inch or so of gains (a lot easier than 2” for sure).

>>”I concede that the difference between the average BPEL in the Kinsey study and the 6” average I'm claiming is probably less than an inch.”

Yeah, and in the big picture doesn’t mean shit really. Whether it’s 6, 6.5 or whatever doesn’t really matter. All that matters to me now is 8.12 NBP - nothing else will do, or offer me any consolation.

Thanks,

- w a d

>>But I believe that NBP is probably your “true” size<<

Another point of agreement between us: I mainly want the look of a huge penis — and I’m very, very near to my goal. But I can understand how for, say, some married men, the bone-pressed size is more important as a goal; that’s what should really make the difference in sex quality.

Wad & Para,
Interesting stuff and great posts.
I love it when two guys can have a great discussion and not personally attack each other as has been the norm of late. Kudos to you both.

After reading the posts, I have decided to increase my goal to 8.5 BP to ensure I am well above average :chuckle:

>>After reading the posts, I have decided to increase my goal to 8.5 BP to ensure I am well above average<<

LOL, talk about counterintentional effects. Oh well — more power to you if you can reach 8.5 BP! :buttrock:

Finally, this is my final thoughts on this topic….at least for now :)

It’s commonly accepted that penis size, throughout the spectrum, varies considerably (from the 13+ NBP record to a number of men with “retractable penis” - often 1” or less). But the indisputable FACT is this - even the best, most comprehensive research ever taken polled such a tiny sampling of the male population.

Our U.S. population is now well over 260 million; if you cut it in half, that’s 130 million males. Eliminate the pre-pubescent youths & the very ancient men, we still must have at least 65 million men with “workable” cocks. Even a current U.S. survey with 10,000 men (which is greater than ever undertaken), would necessarily only be polling about 15/100,000ths of that 65 million segment of the male population (about 1/60 of 1%). Scientifically, how the hell can we draw any conclusive numbers on such a microscopic slice of the pie?

Other statistics are averaged with enormous sources of input: life expectancy - from U.S. HHS, height & weight averages from the frequent doctor visits in our lives, the school nurse, etc. Shoe sizes come from the shoe manufacturers, and we get average clothing sizes from the clothes manufacturers, average income figures from the IRS, etc., etc. And all of this data is drawn from millions of samples of input.

But “average” cock size? Still shrouded in mystery. Of course, there are general guidelines (5-7” etc), but even that is a huge difference when dealing with weinies. If we compare 2 ends of that spectrum and say 5 x 4.5 on the lower end of average, and 7 x 5.4 on the upper end, the volumetric size of the latter sample is literally double that of the smaller (c. 16.24 ci compared to 8.06 ci). Hardly satisfactory, of course. That’s about as helpful as saying the average man is between 5’6” and 6’6”….really? No shit.

I don’t believe we’ll ever see a truly comprehensive survey regarding penis size, due to the intensely private, nearly-taboo nature of the subject. Because even if a modern research team wanted to poll just 1% of that segment I referred to, they’d need to study 650,000 wangs (all across the spectrum as well). Ain’t gonna happen.

I find the most pertinent stat in the Kinsey report to be the most common size, not their average size. And the most common was 6” (24% of all the subjects). If we allow for the “fat factor,” that would give us a BPEL of 6.4-6.5 inches - not as the mean (“average” of course) - but as the mode (or “most frequent”). I believe that mean & the median are probably even more misleading, due to the extremely microscopic section that was sampled.

Onward to 8.12 NBP!!!

- w a d

Wad, as usual, great post. :)

Good question, Wad, and a common one. In America, at least, people are generally trained in disciplines such as geometry and algebra that rarely arise in everyday life, while the more practically important fields of statistics and probability are ignored. I have two papers due today, so I can’t spend much time here right now, but as an example, I will calculate confidence intervals for the Israeli study, since it provides the requisite standard deviation and it is also the study with the smallest sample size (55 subjects).

For the Israeli study, we can be 95% confident that the real population mean for BPEL falls between 5.17" and 5.54", and we can be 99% sure that the population mean falls between 5.11" and 5.60". Given the nature of this particular study, a reasonable "population" to generalize it to would be Israeli men suffering from erectile dysfunction.

To understand the relevant and uncontroversial inferential statistics I am using, this should be helpful, as should the first four sections here . To understand why population size (i.e., 65 million for American men whose average penis length you’re interested in) is irrelevant (as long as it’s at least 10 times larger than the sample size) to the statistics, see the central limit theorem , without which medical and psychological research — not to mention all of the social sciences — would be largely impossible.

Hmmm…after reading through all of these well written and well considered posts may I point out that IF “most” women prefer larger than median cocks and IF we have enough of those larger wangs in the sexually active population to give rise to the “her last was a monster” stories- if this is what it all boils down to then why does everyone bash the “penissizedebate” pecker pleasure graph? It seems to me that based on this thread that chart is probably more painfully accurate than we want to admit.

Just a thought.

The graph is more reasonable than it use to be as the owner has adjusted it downward. I believe he says it’s because of mail he recieved from many women.

There is still debate as to whether Kinsey was NBP or BP. You CAN take a BP measurement with a card by putting your finger on the edge and pushing in so it doesnt crumble. I would never trust a self measured survey though, men are liars, especailly about penis size! In most surveys on numbers of sexual partners the male/female figures don’t add up since so many “studs” claim to have bedded 100’s. I also don’t think there is any likelihood that a guy would underestimate his size, just as I wouldn’t think a woman would overestimate her waist measurement.

The averages calculated from logs on this site are also not accurate, these are simply logs, and in other threads people have said that they started their log sometime during their PE career and so were starting out smaller than the first log entry. Also smaller guys may be embarassed to put small starting figures up, especially if they fear somebody they know would find out (people going through internet history files etc). A similar fear could also have influenced the Kinsey participants.

People looking at others in locker rooms suffer from an angular optical illusion which has been discussed many times. If you measure your flaccid at 3” and go into a locker room and see a guy with the exact same cock it will look bigger, so since it looks 1” bigger from your perspective you may call it 4” because you know your own size. Grass looks greener and cocks look bigger on the other side of the locker room. As mentioned negative body image is a factor, like how anorexics can view a slim woman as thin but still think they are fat.

I have had girls give me “2-hander” blow jobs when I was 6.5BP and they always did it BP, girls have smaller hands too, so I don’t think it is rare. Also If they are in a 69 position it is the thumb of the lower hand that is at the base with the fingers going over the inner penis under the scrotum so it is easy to use 2 hands. If you have a girl who says she actually measured a guy, ask her how. I know a girl who said a guy was 8”, turns out he lay on his back and she was measuring inner penis. As for girls estimates of sizes, read my sig, if something is big in their mind, then their hands will show it to be absolutely massive.

My experience on nudist beaches is they are usually about 3” flaccid. I would bet 90%+ of flaccid photos on this site are fluffed up before taking, I know I would fluff to look my best for a photo. On the nude beach you can’t start fluffing at any time so they are the normal unfluffed size. The other place you see flaccid cocks is in porn just prior or after an erection (fluffed), of course they are already big as they aren’t employed for acting skills. Then there are xxx home video shows/streakers/guys on discovery documentaries etc, all these guys are likely to be above average, I can’t imagine a 2” flaccid guy streaking or sending in a video to TV which friends or workmates would see, nobody lashes out a 2” flaccid drunkenly at a party either. So most cocks men and women see in daily life would be bigger than average.