Penis Size: The True Average

>>>any woman who attempts to completely dismiss the significance of the pleasure of a big cock vs. a little cock is either lying or has personally experienced only smaller cocks.<<<

The latter of these explanations is very insightful. A lot of women have experienced only small variations in penis size. Of course little differences don’t matter much. Big differences can and most certainly do.

The former explanation is interesting. I agree with you, Wad, that women who say they don’t care about size, and who have experienced large variation in size, are often (though, IMO, not always) lying. I agree that self-reports on such a sensitive subject are not to be trusted, whether collected through everyday conversations or through formal research . Penis size is, for men, an equally sensitive subject; hence self-reports in this domain, too, are not to be taken too seriously, even when collected in a formal and anonymous survey (e.g., the Kinsey report).

So how do we ascertain the truth about either of these matters, when self-reports are notoriously imperfect? For the question of size’s importance to women, I think you’ve shown the very best way available to us: grow a bigger dick, and see how your woman’s reaction to sex changes (hot description, by the way!!). There’s no (ethical) way to carry out any sort of formal research on the topic that would give a more definitive answer, even though there are still difficult confounds affecting the question (e.g., as a guy’s penis grows bigger, his confidence in the sack grows too, which could be a mediating variable). On the other hand, with the question of the average penis size, there is a very easy, unproblematic way to answer the question more definitively: collect a statistically sufficient number of men together, and measure their penises. That’s why I started this thread: to show that this procedure has been carried out several times by a variety of researchers, and to share the results for those who care to know. There are still potential problems with the method — some studies did not induce 100% erection through a drug, perhaps diminishing the resultant average, while some asked for volunteers, perhaps inflating the average — but it seems far better than any other method available.

Shorter Para-Goomba: Different questions call for different methods.

What these studies do give us is a ballpark figure. Over and over it seems the 5.5-6.5 BPEL range is average, that’s good enough for me.

We will probably never know the exact average.

Trigger,

When I took my pics for this forum, a member told me to take as many as I could and at all angles, (no fluffing, as you term it), which is what I did. Your penis is always changing in size based on room heat, personal stimulation, psychological factors, etc. Maybe I’m just projecting, but why would a member go to all the trouble to “fluff” their photos for the pics section? You might question their meauring devices, etc. but it doesn’t make sense. I’m sure there are guys who exaggerate. That’s only human. But if you read all the stats, posts, and pics on this site, I’ll bet you get as good a cross section of the population as you would from any of these other, granted, limited studies.

I know if I were at a nudist beach, junior would probably shrink back to turtle stage in a flash. When I’m relaxed and in a warm environment, he hangs long and proud.

I do agree with you guys that some women enjoy a larger penis, especially with the bigger girth because of the sensation of feeling “filled,” the guy likewise.

BTW, I envy you guys with the small penises, like RWG, with his frustrated anal fixation, I, have rarely had a good blow job, and have been deep throated only a couple of times. They usually choke on it!! Sigh!! The grass is always greener.

Andrew69,

Now don’t get greedy, mate.

:jumpers:

Goomba-Stud Pal,

Are you writing statistical reports for your class/work papers? It sure sounds like it. You sure as hell can get a lot of good practice here at Thunder’s.

Maybe we should all get together and write a Thunder’s Sexology Manual. What do you think, Thunder?

I guess, in a way, that’s what we’re doing. The beauty is it’s all for free!! Thank you, Thunder.

Horsehung

Goomba-Stud,

I like your comment about making a bigger dick, then measuring the results by watching your woman’s reaction, moans, etc. rather than her “objective” description of her perceived difference. There is definitely something to say about such anecdotal reporting, which goes beyond simply gathering scientific data. But then I’m a poet, not a scientist.

Horse

Wad,

I hope you don’t totally give up your relationship with, as you describe her, your soon to be ex. There had to be some good times, sexual and otherwise, during those sixteen years. Maybe it’s not such a bad idea to continue the relationship on some level, even if it’s only sexual, after your anticipated split. Just a thought.

Sincerely,

Horsehung

I think people are doing too much speculation and worrying about how many women have experienced a big one. Ok the logic is there that there are 7% or so men out there with 8” or more, but does that mean right out that they are all getting alot of pussy and are big studs? I know that looks also play a factor, personality etc. Now how many of those 7% are attractive and good with the ladies?

Now even of those that are, and get around, how many are actually good lovers? In case you didn’t know, the average amount of time a man can go without cumming is 3 minutes, which is not enough for the average woman to reach orgasm. So this lowers how many guys out their with big cocks who are really satisfying the women out there even more. So instead of worrying about all the big penis’ out there and whether your girl present or future has experienced one, why not work on your staying power? I used to be a 3 minute man myself, but with enough practice, I can now delay ejaculation as long as I want. (with the added bonus of experiencing multiple orgasms.) If you read up on womens biggest problems with intercourse it isn’t the size of their partners but the length of time it lasts. If you can last as long as you want, you can bring ANY girl to orgasm even with a small penis. I recommend anyone interested to read a book called “The Multi-Orgasmic Man”, it’s a pretty amazing book that taught me alot! (It even has a little PE routine in there, though not a super affective one in my opinion.)

The reason I PE isn’t out of fear, but just to make my job easier. That and looking even better naked!
A big penis doesn’t mean you are good in bed, it just gives you an advantage if you know how to use it.

Good point, Redwood. I have to laugh, though, my problem, along with a few others I’ve read on this forum, is that I didn’t give myself enough pleasure. I could, and can, go for long periods of time, (the three minute orgasm was never my problem), and help create multi-orgasmic experiences for my lovers, but I had to learn to pleasure myself and not just my lady. It’s only late in life that I have reached the point of learning how to enjoy muli-orgasms for myself. Live and learn.

I’m always amazed how different each one of us is and how what works for one, doesn’t necessarily do it for the
next guy.

Horsehung

Wad,

>>Does this imply what I think it does?<<

No. The qualification "as long as the population size is at least ten times larger than the sample size" was just an aside aimed at any stat geeks present to assure them that I knew what I was talking about.

Using a sample size larger than a tenth of the population size does, indeed, as intuition suggests, produce a more narrowly bounded confidence interval than using a sample size smaller than a tenth of the population size.

My point was that the population size does not appear as a variable in the set of standard inferential formulas I used to calculate the confidence intervals I gave for the Israeli study (i.e., the population size is irrelevant, to use my original shorthand). Virtually all studies, including the ones under discussion, use sampling without replacement , but, since the sample size is virtually always a tiny fraction of the population size (yes, even in cancer research, Wad), the formula for sampling with replacement is used as a shortcut when calculating a confidence interval, since it is a simpler formula and yields virtually the same result in this case. When the sample size, however, is a significant proportion of the population size — one-tenth is the commonly accepted standard I cited, but it’s arbitrary — the formula for sampling without replacement begins to yield substantially different results from that for sampling with replacement. [This is because the extra factor that appears in the calculation for sampling with replacement is the square root of (1 - n/N), where n is the sample size and N is the population size. So suppose n/N is 1/10; i.e., the population is only ten times larger than the sample size. Then the relevant factor is approximately 0.95, i.e., the result of the formula for sampling with replacement will be 5% different from that of the sampling without replacement formula. As the sample size becomes a larger proportion of the population size, the difference between results of the two equations gets bigger and bigger.]

To quantify it, suppose that the Israeli study had actually sampled exactly one-half of all Israeli men with erectile dysfunction, the relevant population to which we want to generalize — i.e., that there were only 110 Israeli men with erectile dysfunction in existence. [I am decreasing population size rather than increasing sample size simply because sample size enters into other parts of my calculations, and I’m lazy. I’m not pulling a fast one here, trust me.] Adding in the extra factor that now makes a substantial difference to the resultant confidence interval, my calculations reveal that we could be 99% confident that the population’s mean BPEL was between 5.18" and 5.52". Likewise, the limits of the 95% confidence interval would be reduced.

***

In short, as counterintuitive as it may be at first glance, a statistic based on a sample size of 100 is equally valid regardless of whether the population from which the sample is drawn is 100,000 or 100 trillion. To understand why this is so, I would again encourage you to read the excellent and accessible explanation here .

What I have described here is a foundational part of statistics, and if you have some new insight that calls it — or its application to any domain, including the extremely simple task of inferring a population mean for penis size — into question, then I invite you to enter the field and turn the entire discipline on its head. I did not, and in principle could not, overstate the centrality of the central limit theorem to modern medical research and sundry other domains of inquiry.

Horsehung,

>>Are you writing statistical reports for your class/work papers? It sure sounds like it. You sure as hell can get a lot of good practice here at Thunder's.<<

No, the papers had nothing to do with stats, thank God :) . I will have to teach stats at some point in the future, however, so it’s helpful to try to explain one or two things here, and explore the web for good introductions. I am not, incidentally, an expert on statistics by any stretch of the imagination, nor will I ever be.

By the way, HH, I just realized that your calling me “Goomba-Stud” must be quite perplexing to all the guys here who do not know about my previous username. Heheh. Perhaps we are secret lovers?? ;)

I’ve chipped up some pieces now and then. ROFL

It goes without saying, “size does matter,” it is simple physiology, the greater the surface area the more nerve endings that can be stimulated. A guy will receive more pleasure due to this fact and so will the woman. Its just that women for what ever reason are not very logical. And women don’t care all that much about your pant-size (this is just an undeniable fact, the majority of women do not care). Men enter a bar and pitch the gal with the largest mammories, the converse is not true i.e. the gal is not looking for the biggest bulge. Our Lord would have designed us differently if this were a predominate trait of female attraction. And if you believe most women think otherwise you have not been with many women or your head is too far up your anatomy.

horsehung,
I think you may have misunderstood me. What I mean by “fluffing” is stimulating yourself so you are almost semierect so you look bigger than your usual flaccid size. When you say “go to all the trouble to fluff their photos” I presume you thought I meant doctor/edit/photoshop the photos. Some people do this but it is usually obvious since they are 15” or bigger!

I was down at the sea the other day, it is a known nude-optional bathing spot, very small with steps down and a little open changing room. I was getting undressed when down come 3 women about 25-30. They were looking at the sea so of course I start stretching and jelqing like crazy and walked out with a proud 5.5” thick flaccid swinging about, they turn around and stared. Of course when I got out I went into hiding as it was a miserable frozen shrivelled 1.5-2” they were still in the sea so my back was to them. I love the looks I get now, never would have dared show it like that a year ago!

Are you serious? That seems a bit far-fetched. I would be more inclined to think that most men COULDN’T come in 3 minutes if they tried. I know I couldn’t…