Originally Posted by jGman
Great discussion here. Cudos to Wad and Para.While I agree with Wad that each of the studies taken by themselves may not constitute a large enough sampling, the fact that there are seven separate and distinct studies listed, balances out the lesser respondents for each individual study. Otherwise, think of the probability that among each of the seven studies, that each one somehow was able to only locate men with smaller-than-average penises.
Personally, I don’t give a whole lot of credence to the Kinsey study as far as penis size. While the work he did was groundbreaking, to have 3000+ men measure their own penises with an index card is not what I would consider rock-solid evidence of the average size of the penis. It doesn’t seem it was far off from the average, but looking at these other studies, it just may be a bit on the high side….
Average is somewhere around 6 inches.
I don’t believe Kinsey is the last word of course. There are two things that jump to my mind: (1) The output of the data is not precise enough for my likings [the results are all in 1/4” jumps - did they simply round off the size? - if so, which way?], (2) They are only NBP - and taken at a time when our society was far thinner.
When it comes to researcher-measured or self-measured, each has it’s drawbacks. With self-measure, cheating is presumed; with researcher-measure, sub-maximal erection must be assumed. I know if I was waiting my turn to get measured, fiddling with my yo-yo and a stranger approached me, I would feel pressure, anxiety….I’m sure my stiffy would not be 100% - or even very close. As a footnote to this, I tried an experiment the other night about varying sizes with erection. I wanted to determine the minimal firmness at which I could still penetrate a vagina - and take a measurement at that level. I was 1” away from my max. I’m not suggesting that the participants in any research-measured study would be that far off a maximal erection, but it just shows the size variance potential. But I would say this - if you think that Kinsey folks may have added a 1/2” or so (some of them, anyway), it’s possible that a guy getting measured by a researcher could be that far away from his maximal wood also.
Six of one, half dozen of the other?
And remember, with Kinsey 0.2% of men did report a length of only 3.75”, and 3.2% reported lengths of 4.75” or less. And nearly 6% of men reported their thickest girth at 3.75” or less. Funny how we don’t hear much about that, just guys bitching that the average seems “inflated.”
Anyway, the ideal study approach would be this:
(1) Each participant receives a dose of Viagra (or similar drug) in advance
(2) A researcher takes 4 measurements: NBP, BPEL, EG - base & midshaft
(3) Measurements be taken in mms, not inches, for precision
I would also suggest that these participants should be in a small room by themselves (to minimize self-consciousness or pressure) - with some porn assistance, if need be. And the researchers should be out in the hall, ready to by summoned when Mr. Woody is in a full rage.
I would also suggest more than 300 or 3,000 participants. Also, it would be beneficial if researchers could compile data from several parts of the country, with a good variation on age, race, etc.
Such a study could come damn close to determining a “true average” - taking into account bodyfat as well. Because, face it, if two guys come in to be measured (and let’s say their penis “size” is identical), but one is very fat while the other is very thin, they’re going to post considerably different measurements - deviating perhaps more than an inch. Such data would be very misleading, especially since the thin guy’s cock will “shrink” if he gets fat, and the fat guys cock will “grow” if he loses weight.
