Penis Size: The True Average

Well I for one am hoping this data is correct. At my current size, it would mean I’m (almost) as big flaccid as the average guy is erect…not a bad deal if I say so myself, lol, as I always figured I needed to gain at least 1” more before that would happen. Even still, no set of stats is going to derail me from wanting 8x6 or bigger and at least 6x5 flaccid…

Yeah, I’m not buying that study. I have close to 6.5” NBPEL and 7” BPEL. From pictures that I’ve seen on amateur sites I feel I’m about average. Maybe slightly above and that’s only based on research about average size and real world reactions. I’ve gotten “big” or “huge” cock but I think that’s more based on girth. I’ve been with several women who have been with less than 10 men and it’s not like what I’m packing caught them off guard.

I just can’t seem to get past the feeling that the true average is about 5.5” - 5.75” NBPEL and around 6.25” - 6.5” BPEL. As much as I want that study to be true I’m just not buying it.

I feel ya. I too have never really known what to think about this issue. It’s very confusing.

I mean, girth-wise, at the MOST (with proper erection) I’ll get to 5.2”-5.25” MEG. And yet, some of the women I’ve been with, who had had MANY previous partners, seemed to indicate that they thought my thickness (for a white man) was just normal. More than one of them thought they’d seen quite a few thicker cocks, and not so many skinnier ones. This makes me seriously doubt an average erect girth of 4.6! It surely cannot be. But then, what’s my personal experience VS a supposedly robust study?

If it’s of any value to the discussion, with a BPEL of 7.6” and a NBPEL of > 7”, I have got many “big” or “huge” comments for length, and again from women of great experience. This has always suggested to me that the average length is quite substantially less than those figures, as this study suggests. But honestly? Average of only 5.2” NBPEL among Caucasians? No damn way! I call foul!

Maybe some sort of fat-pad factor? There’s a lot of obesity in Europe, US and the Middle East. I can’t see any other way to account for these figures. But then, what about the girth statistic?

The sources for erect girth were just two studies, both with small samples and different methodology.

Oh, I see.

I wonder why they didn’t include other studies. I was pretty sure that most studies in Caucasian populations seemed to be churning out erect girths of something like 4.9”-5”?? I assumed that stat was quite well established.

Like everyone else, I would really like to believe this study.

How on earth could 6” BPEL, which is called average so often, be just as common as 4,4”, which is pretty rare around here and generally considered small(ish)?

The thing is: this isn’t even a real study, it’s just a bunch of other studies brought together and averaged, so how could they all be wrong?

Maybe they are not really BPEL, as the study claims. Then again, this was one of the main criteria for the selection of the studies.

They claim in the article that all studies pushed to the bone, but when you look at the erect studies you don’t generally find that specified in the methodologies.

What great multitude of BPEL studies are they talking about? This is a mistake.

You guys get to wound up with the exact number. This is always the problem of any statistic and statistician. to convey the picture that the numbers draw.
The diagram of distribution of cock sizes goes like a BELL CURVE.
Many averages with many shapes and possibilities within a rather close range (which can be definied as within the standard deviation sd).

There are many cocks over 5 inches girth. If you look for it you will see really thick cocks are within average standard deviation length more often.

There are so many possbilities combining length and girth within a range of 1.5 inches up and down the median average that you willl always get confused between numbers and reality.

A better measure would probably be Volume.

You can read this whole thread and the studys and you will come to a rather conclusive standard deviation average range that fits reality better then any definite number called average.

Thus average range is pretty clear cut out.

Comparing personal observations of one self and sexual partners will lead to confusion due to the variability of sizes within a narrow range in at least 2 dimensions, - length and girth.

6 x 4.6 can be experienced as average.
5.8 x 4.8 and 4.8 x 5 can both be labelled statisticly as average

Dicker, there are many studies with theirs diagrams posted in this thread, and I haven’t seen similar critics toward them. I don’t think the problem lies in the fact that members don’t understand statistics, the problem is that this specific study is junk. Just my opinion of course.

Guys did you see this study? Ia this reliable?

http://onlineli brary.wiley.com … /bju.13010/full

That’s the one we are speaking about right now Phyriel. :)

Take all studys posted in this thread and overlay them and Im pretty sure you will get a similar range of standard deviation as in the study we discuss.

The critics are about the low median average while ignoring the standard deviation range.
This range is similar to most other studys on this thread.

I dont see a single study checking in every country with same variables happening anyway. So we do that al lthe time here and no single study wil lshow the truth. But the truth can be seen checking the standard deviation of all studys combined

Not if they have a different way to measure the penis. You look only at the numbers and if the calculations are correct, Dicker; of course calculations hardly can be wrong, they learnt how to use a spreadshit I suppose. The problem is some of the studies are summed with the others where they can’t. You want to know the average penis size of a healthy, adult men; you don’t put in the basket penis size of males who are 17een, since penis size reaches maximal length around 20-22 years in most of males. And this is just an example.

Have a look at the study itself. It’s talking in terms of actual mean averages. A mean erect length of 5.2”, with a standard deviation of 0.6”. In other words, study says most people are within half an inch or so of 5.2”. This entails, IMO, too large a percentage of penises of below 5.2” for this number to be realistic. But again, who knows?

I think more or less all the length studies ended up with a standard deviation of around half an inch or so.

This, I believe, is the point.

Ohhh Sorry! LOL! I was just reading And think you could give tour opinion. Will read back comments.