Penis Size: The True Average

Well, damn, I didn’t see that one coming. It indeed was measured NBPEL.

I found the full study here: http://www.natu re.com/ijir/jou … l/3901569a.html

The methodology states: "Penile length was defined as the linear distance along the dorsal side of the penis extending from the pubo – penile skin junction to the tip of the glans."

The pubo-penile junction is the point where the penis meets the fat pad, so it actually was NBPEL. It did not mention anything about pushing into the pubo-penile junction, so clearly this is NBPEL.

5.1 inches NBPEL would be about 5.85 inches BPEL on average. I guess Indians do have an average length.

:up:

Plus, the Indian study shouldn’t have to be included in the meta study : the guidelines state that not self measured studies would be accpeted; but in the Indian study, only part of the subject were measured by the staff, most of subjects self-meausred

So the truth is probably somewhere in between the possible BPEL and the NBPEL with a similar distribution percentage.

90% of dicks are within a rather narrow range that changes up and down depending on the circumstances.
Its about a 1.25 -1.5 inch range where most penis sizes are distributed.

It has probably been posted before, but here is an interesting size chart, it includes %, bone pressed measurements, girth etc..

I don’t think we need more than this, we already have quite an accurate idea of what the average range is.

In inches and in cm

So Californian males have a BPEL of 12.9 cm on average? That is about 5.2” (Wessels). And it was achieved with a farmacological induced erection. Only 80 subjects though.

Wasn’t Wessels established as a NBPEL study? I think they took fat pad measures separately, or something of the like. I might be wrong.

Anyway, I just wanted to apologize to people if I appeared to be promoting the validity of claims about ethnicity and dick size. I didn’t mean that at all. I think my point was, if a study in erect size claims to be representative of (in this case) Caucasians and Middle Easterns, it seems a bit silly that half the data sample was South Asian. That’s all. In much the same way that it would be silly to claim that X study was representative of Africans, when half the participants were European.

If that was an answer to my link, it states average length of each study are 6.2 , 5.7 and 5.35

It is a reference to your graphs yes Walter, they are based among the others on this study:

‘J Urol. 1996 Sep;156(3):995-7.
Penile length in the flaccid and erect states: guidelines for penile augmentation.
Wessells H1, Lue TF, McAninch JW.
Author information
1Department of Urology, University of California School of Medicine, San Francisco, USA.
Abstract

PURPOSE:
We provide guidelines of penile length and circumference to assist in counseling patients considering penile augmentation.
MATERIALS AND METHODS:
We prospectively measured flaccid and erect penile dimensions in 80 physically normal men before and after pharmacological erection.
RESULTS:
Mean flaccid length was 8.8 cm., stretched length 12.4 cm. and erect length 12.9 cm. Neither patient age nor size of the flaccid penis accurately predicted erectile length. Stretched length most closely correlated with erect length.
CONCLUSIONS:
Only men with a flaccid length of less than 4 cm., or a stretched or erect length of less than 7.5 cm. should be considered candidates for penile lengthening.’

Penile length in the flaccid and erect states: guidelines for penile augmentation

Always check your soruces guys. ;)

None of the other two studies cited as references for the graph posted by Walter gets an average length of 6” either. According to the chinese study the average length (BP or BPEL? Not clear) was 12 cm,
http://www.natu re.com/ijir/jou … df/3900627a.pdf

in the other one 14.18 cm
Does penile size in younger men cause problems in condom use? a prospective measurement of penile dimensions in 111 young and 32 older men - PubMed

It seems those who posted the linked graph have a hard time with maths. :)

By the way all the mentioned studies have a really small sample and different methodology.

Maybe it could be explained by the standard deviation (1.7 cm). So the average calculated by adding all erect length and dividing by the number of participants is 12.9 cm, but 50 % have less than 13.6 in length, 50 % have more.
The % help understand how common is each size, so it’s not only about the exact average of a group of males, but also about the distribution of different sizes among them.

On the graph they state erect length is measured bone pressed, I admit I didn’t check .

:up:

Can’t be explained that way I think though. If you read the graph note, Wessel is quoted as giving an average length of 15.74 cm, where the average length is 12.9 cm according to the abstract. That’s a difference of 2.75 cm.

Furthermore, the mean length quoted in the graph is 14.48, but that is false:

‘Does penile size in younger men cause problems in condom use? a prospective measurement of penile dimensions in 111 young and 32 older men.
Schneider T1, Sperling H, Lümmen G, Syllwasschy J, Rübben H.
Author information
Abstract
OBJECTIVES:
Young men often complain about problems with condom use, but very little information exists about the influence of men’s age on penile dimensions and therefore on possible problems in the use of the most important means of contraception in the young.
METHODS:
We performed a prospective measurement of penile dimensions in 111 men,18 to 19 years old (group A), and in 32 men, 40 to 68 years old (group B). We measured penile length and width in the flaccid state and after visual and manual self-stimulation in group A and after intracavernous injection of prostaglandin E(1) in group B.
RESULTS:
The mean flaccid length in group A (8.60 cm) and group B (9.22 cm) was significantly different. The mean erect length in group A (14.48 cm) and group B (14.18 cm) was not significantly different. The mean flaccid width at the base was significantly different between group A (3.08 cm) and group B (2.87cm), but the mean flaccid width at the glans was not (group A, 3.02 cm; group B, 3.01 cm). The mean erect width at the base (group A, 3.95 cm; group B, 3.50 cm) and the erect width of the glans (group A, 3.49 cm; group B, 3.32 cm) were significantly different.
CONCLUSIONS:
Our assumption that the problems young men experience with condom use may be because of smaller penises could not be proved. To address the problems in condom use in younger men, a larger variety of condom sizes and better information about condom use may be useful.’
Does penile size in younger men cause problems in condom use? a prospective measurement of penile dimensions in 111 young and 32 older men - PubMed

So they are taking the wrong number. Furthermore, is that legit to sum up olds and young in a not statistically representative sample, once you know that younger and older could have different sizes? Or to add up measurement through drug induced erections and manually induced erections?

Haven’t checked the other papater citation, but I think it is enough to conclude that those graphs aren’t the ultimate truth.

It would be interesting if somebody would do the right calculations lookin at all the sources that were posted here.

These seem so small

Yes.

In reality a 7.5” long 5.5” girth dick is pretty damn big.

If you are in a room with 19 other guys, chances are your dick is the biggest in the room.

I know the stats, but this still seems wrong in my head. 7.5 non-bonepressed sure, but 7.5 bonepressed just doesn’t seem that big to me, likely because I am about that size now (and just over 6.5 non-bonepressed).

The flaccid stretched length can be an indicator of erect length but when it comes to scientific studies it can be inconsistent.

For example, in the Turkish study, NBPEL was 12.72 cm (5.01 inches) but NBPFSL was 9 cm (3.54 inches). This is a significant difference. It is possible that the researchers didn’t stretch the penis to the full extent when measuring.

I believe this was also the case for the Korean study, because in another Korean study that measured erect dimensions, BPEL was 13.42 cm (5.28 inches). I’m attaching the full text in this post.

The English abstract does not mention whether it’s bone-pressed but the Korean text says the erect length was measured from the pubic symphysis to the tip of the glans.