Thunder's Place

The big penis and mens' sexual health source, increasing penis size around the world.

Penis Size: The True Average

◀ 1 171819202122232425 124 ▶

Originally Posted by Para-Goomba
Acid Jazz,

Well, if you have a regular lady, then the visual shouldn’t matter too much — she knows how big you are when you’re inside her. It must just suck when you pull out your dick for the first time with a woman, and she sees a lot less dick than you actually have to offer. :) Even if you’re married, I can understand the motivation to increase your NBP for vanity’s sake. There’s nothing wrong with wanting a bigger dick, and thankfully PE works! :)

PG,

In growing up, I never knew of a girl commenting on my dick size, EXCEPT, when a girl saw a naked picture of me after I had come out of a iced over swimming pool I had been thrown in on my 21st birthday.

Yes, it drives me nuts to packing 7 inches, but looking like I have a stubby. In the right (or wrong) position, I can hit the cervix right now. But, it would be nice not to have to pull back my fat pad to see all I’ve got. I will always exercise, and if I can add 1.5” in length and 1/2” or more in girth, I will certainly feel more comfortable.

I know I’m more than “acceptable” to her now. Can you blame me for wanting more? (I didn’t think so :D )

Paraphrased: It is not the critic who counts: The credit belongs to the man in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, who, at the best, knows the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat.

Originally Posted by marinera
Lampwick, you had to made a photoedited version of that page because it was wrong - so you referred to a page with the wrong style of measurement in your previous post. Still, the text says ‘standing or laying down’, where these two ways of measuring gives different results.

But the core point here is: do you believe the average erect penis length, for a man in his middle-third age, for hypothesis smaller than average due to ED, measured laying down, is is 16.8 cm?

You could read the last posts of this thread, mines and P-G' posts, so I think you can agree with what I’m saying: there are chances that sizes reported in that study are inflated due to measurement errors.

I can’t understand why you are so angry for my opinion on that, maybe you were in the equipe that made that study?

No, it is not wrong, marinera. The version that is posted shows the ruler to the side for clarity, but also shows the lines extending over to the midline at the base, which is where the measurement is taken place. If that is not the case, what do you think the purpose of those lines on that diagram are meant to represent?

Go ahead and try to define the ‘core point’ for yourself if you wish; my point was that you were trying to explain away the results by saying that you believed they were measuring from the side or underneath. My sole point has been to say that the study is clear that that isn’t so. The study defines clearly how and where they measured from.

As to your speculations about whether I was in the ‘equipe’ (group?) that made the study, no, I was not in the study either as a researcher or a subject. I am not ‘angry’ about anything about the results of the study; frankly, I could not care less. What does bother me is those who seem unable to understand the clear meaning of “The penis length and circumference were initially measured from symphysis to penile tip in the flaccid state in the recumbent position.” and try to explain away results they do not like by saying “Well, maybe they measured from the side! Or underneath! Or maybe they’re measuring from somewhere in the region of the pubic symphysis ! Yeah, that’s it!” That seems more like wishful thinking or willful misunderstanding of clear language to me, but if it helps someone sleep better at night by understanding it that way, well, sweet dreams.

For Lampwick, becoming hung like a donkey was the result of a total commitment.

Originally Posted by Lampwick
No, it is not wrong, marinera. The version that is posted shows the ruler to the side for clarity, but also shows the lines extending over to the midline at the base, which is where the measurement is taken place. If that is not the case, what do you think the purpose of those lines on that diagram are meant to represent?
………….

Lines start from the side. The only way to explain that version is that it was assuming that measuring laying down, standing, from the top or from the side, all gives the same measurement. What’s not the case. That’s why you had to change that pic.

Originally Posted by Lampwick
………..
Go ahead and try to define the ‘core point’ for yourself if you wish; my point was that you were trying to explain away the results by saying that you believed they were measuring from the side or underneath. My sole point has been to say that the study is clear that that isn’t so. The study defines clearly how and where they measured from.
……….


My point has this backup : the first group had an average measured EL of 16.8 cm, where the others group had an EL 1/2” shorter AND the fact the the average EL of the first group is bigger than any other average length I’ve seen reported in others survey about penile size. Your hypothesis that they have always measured as they wrote can’t explain those inconsistencies. You seems to trust a little too much in authority, IMHO. Meds do mistakes as anyone else.

Originally Posted by Lampwick
……….
What does bother me is those who seem unable to understand the clear meaning of “The penis length and circumference were initially measured from symphysis to penile tip in the flaccid state in the recumbent position.” ……

So you are bothered by our stupidity, you are saying. Well, you shouldn’t.

Originally Posted by marinera
So you are bothered by our stupidity, you are saying. Well, you shouldn’t.

I said I was bothered. You extrapolated to “stupidity”. Don’t put words in my mouth.

Originally Posted by marinera
You seems to trust a little too much in authority, IMHO. Meds do mistakes as anyone else.

I’ll admit, I do generally place greater trust in the scientific rigor of something that appears in a medical journal over the baseless speculation of participants in an internet forum. I suspect that’s why a thread entitled “Penis Size: The True Average” cites so many medical studies.

I guess that would be more ‘trusting in authority’, though.

For Lampwick, becoming hung like a donkey was the result of a total commitment.

>>What does bother me is those who seem unable to understand the clear meaning etc. etc.<<

Lampwick - Penis Size: The True Average

If someone is unable to understand a clear meaning, he is not bright, right? No extrapolation, just your rude words.

Anyway, Lampwick, would you mind answering this very simple question: what’s the average EL in your Medical Scientific supported (and not baseless etc. etc.) opinion?

Last edited by marinera : 02-28-2009 at .

Mod catfight, rrrraaaor!

4/2008 Bpel 6.50, Beg 5.5, Mseg 4.9

6/2008 Bpel 6.75, Beg 5.5, Mseg 5.1

9/2008 Bpel 7.00, Beg 5.5, Mseg 5.1

Originally Posted by marinera

>>What does bother me is those who seem unable to understand the clear meaning etc. etc.<<

Lampwick - Penis Size: The True Average

If someone is unable to understand a clear meaning, he is not bright, right? No extrapolation, just your rude words.

Anyway, Lampwick, would you mind answering this very simple question: what’s the average EL in your Medical Scientific supported (and not baseless etc. etc.) opinion?

Your calling my words ‘rude” does not make them so. You are attributing intent. There are a variety of reasons other than level of intelligence that might result in someone not understanding a clear meaning. And I did say ‘seem unable to understand’. Perhaps some do understand it perfectly well and just choose not to accept it, for whatever their reason.

As to the average EL, the studies speak for themselves. Why would my opinion of the studies matter more than the actual study results?

For Lampwick, becoming hung like a donkey was the result of a total commitment.

Last edited by Lampwick : 02-28-2009 at .

So, is it 6.61” laying down, Lampwick, as the measure I was supposing wrong? If it isn’t, how that measure came out?

Why can’t you let it alone, marinera? My sole point, as I am getting tired of repeating, is that the original study is clear on how they measured, and I take issue with those who suppose without apparent basis other than idle speculation that they measured from the side or from underneath.

Take up the validity of the results with someone who cares about defending the results.

For Lampwick, becoming hung like a donkey was the result of a total commitment.

Originally Posted by Lampwick
Why can’t you let it alone, marinera? My sole point, as I am getting tired of repeating, is that the original study is clear on how they measured, and I take issue with those who suppose without apparent basis other than idle speculation that they measured from the side or from underneath.

Take up the validity of the results with someone who cares about defending the results.

And my sole point is: those who (me among them) are supposing that they measured unerneath, from the side or anyway in a wrong manner (despite what the study says) are basing their idea on apories in the study himself, as well with other studies:

Originally Posted by marinera
I get what are you saying: table in page 3 says:
AVG NSRRP - EL 154 (mm)
AVG NS - EL 152

But it also, it says : GROUP A (0 - 8 mos) EL 168 (mm).

This group is about 10% longer than both others. So, what I speculate is: couldn’t be that, in the attempt to confirm their supposition, they got the measurements of the GROUP A (supposed more near to ‘true, original average length’) in a bad way? Also, all considered, isn’t true that this study raise some perplexities?

marinera - Penis Size: The True Average

Originally Posted by Para-Goomba
Very good point. The methods section specifies that the third author, AM, took the measurements. Presumably he was not blind to his own hypothesis (: , or to the “condition” of the subject (i.e., how much time had passed since his prostatectomy), so it’s certainly possible that the researcher’s own biases in measurement produced the results he was expecting.

I agree it’s not a very high-quality study (published in a not very high-quality journal), but of course several of the other “dick size” studies that have been published were probably of middling quality also. One has to look across the studies and see the overall pattern of results, and I agree with you that the results from this particular study are a bit of an outlier in some ways.

Para-Goomba - Penis Size: The True Average

You can disagree with that idea, but it should not bother you also. The difference in the AVG NSRRP group could be just due to the really small sample, but could be due to bad measurement, and finally to both causes.

Apologize if I wasn’t able to explain my point better.

And yes, of corse we should get along, since it’s just a difference in opinions, and I know you are fine with different opinions. :)

Yeah guys, I don’t think there’s much to argue about here :) Lampwick is clearly correct that the authors specified that they measured from the top of the dick. Their results are rather odd (the long lengths coupled with small girths), so Marinera speculated that perhaps the docs’ measuring techniques were shoddy, despite what they wrote in the paper. We can’t know either way — I think Marinera was just proposing one possible way to make sense of the odd results, not claiming that he had any proof that’s how it happened :) May have just been a strange sample of men, perhaps an effect of the ED or the surgery.

Originally Posted by retention_head
I love reading the debate, but mostly prefer lurking. This article may have some relevant data; or perhaps the data is
silly; http://www.scie lo.br/scielo.ph … arttext&tlng=en

Awesome, so perhaps I still have 0.5cm of natural growth left in me :D

Retention_head,

Looks like another interesting study! Thanks again. I’ll look at that later and post the relevant data on the first page of this thread. :up:

From the Brazilian study, this is an interesting graph:



The mean BPFSL for Brazilian 18-year-olds was 5.71”, while the 90th percentile was approximately 6.61”.

The participants in this study were randomly selected from patients visiting physicians for ordinary check-ups.

Top
◀ 1 171819202122232425 124 ▶

All times are GMT. The time now is 03:45 PM.