The (statistical) Truth About Cock Size

This is awesome work Priapologist :thumbs: Thanks for putting it together.
I realize that one can only work with the data they have at hand and I’m just throwing out some ideas.
My thoughts here are that these stats don’t take total volume into account. If these stats are true to life and “length” is our only objective then these stats are a great source however shouldn’t girth figure into these equations in some way?

I think the frequency of cock size in a population should be attributed to total volume size and not length or girth per say.

i.e. These stats would seem to implicate (using extrapolation) that I’m about 1 in 6269.35 (based only on length)
In reality, the overall “physical and visual” impact of my cock when total volume is taken into account may actually be 1 in 20,000, 35,000, 50,000 or more (arbitrarily) simply due to the fact that a dude thats 8.5 x 6.0
is not found in the population as frequently as a guy thats 8.5 x 5.0 (girth around/near the mean of all girths)
I think total volume study would be more indicative of how… shall we say “unique” one is in a given population.

I second supersizeit in that there should also be a girth distribution and a volume distribution. This would make the large length with large girth even more rare, would it not?

I don’t think that all women miscalculate the size of their partners penis.

I once asked my girlfriend what size she thought I was. Without thinking about it much, she said 6”. At the time I was 6” NBPEL so she was right.

So whats 5 to 6 inches? 1 in what?

About 1 in 2.

My ex gf thought I was average (about 6”) when I asked her. I was 8” at the time.

This also depends greatly on what females think and/or hear. So optical illusions run rampant. Think about it, all it takes is for one 6 inch dude to tell his girl he’s 8 inches, and 8 inches is her size. Also a chubby man’s penis is smaller than a scrawny man’s, but they technically can be the same size! A 6 inch penis probably looks huge on a lanky track kid, but looks small on a football player.

There are more than 3 solutions…just so you know.

4. What constitutes “huge” is ridiculously subjective.
5. They might NOT be lying, (see Option 4)
6. ? …

Thanks. I had fun putting it together and figured that you all might enjoy it. Plus, I hope that it helps to dispel the notion that twelve inch cocks are everywhere and six inches is small.

Yes, that would be optimal, but the girth data were too irregular to do simple statistics on, although I might do it anyway, with a caveat.

True dat.

Okay, due to popular demand, I plugged the girth numbers into the analysis. Please note though that these numbers have to be taken as suggestive only as the data set was not normally distributed (bell shaped). So, for what it is worth, here are the numbers:

Girths at each standard deviation:

5th sd below mean: 2.432 inches
4th sd below mean: 2.940 inches
3rd sd below mean: 3.448 inches
2nd sd below mean: 3.956 inches
1st sd below mean: 4.464 inches
Mean: 4.972 inches
1st sd above mean: 5.48 inches
2nd sd above mean: 5.988 inches
3rd sd above mean: 6.496 inches
4th sd above mean: 7.004 inches
5th sd above mean: 7.512 inches

Frequency in population:

2.432 inches: 1 in 3.5 million
2.940 inches: 1 in 31,574
3.448 inches: 1 in 741
3.956 inches: 1 in 44
4.464 inches: 1 in 6
4.972 inches: 1 in 2
5.480 inches: 1 in 6
5.988 inches: 1 in 44
6.496 inches: 1 in 741
7.004 inches: 1 in 31, 574
7.512 inches: 1 in 3.5 million

Rank in population, by percentile:

2.432 inches: 0.0000003rd percentile
2.940 inches: 0.000032nd percentile
3.448 inches: 0.14th percentile
3.956 inches: 2.3rd percentile
4.464 inches: 15.9th percentile
4.972 inches: 50th percentile
5.480 inches: 84.1st percentile
5.988 inches: 97.7th percentile
6.496 inches: 99.86th percentile
7.004 inches: 99.9968th percentile
7.512 inches: 99.99997th percentile

Note that the frequencies in population and ranks in population are based on a normal distribution, so they are identical to those seen in the length analysis (although the raw data is different, obviously). Again, the girth data are not normally distributed, so these results are somewhat specious, but remain suggestive.

So, greater than 6.5” girth is pretty rare, but then so is sub 3.5” girth.

Just imagine though, 10”x7.5”…. hey, wait! I think that that is my “Insane Goal” ;)

EDIT: LOL! No, my “Insane Goal” (posted last July) was 10” x 7.85” (the girth of a beer can). Now I can see just how absurd those goals are. Oh, well. It was fun to dream.

But let’s see, 9” x 6.5”…

Thanks again!

Well my stock just took a dive, almost 1 in 44 on length, now 1 in 2 on girth :(

Curses!! *Orders clamps*

Priap, if you’re working with the “Lifestyles data” breakdown posted on the MisterAverage site (and seemingly copied onto Wikipedia), they are — at least the girth data are — a weird amalgam of the Kinsey data and who-knows-what-else. People are constantly citing the MisterAverage site, but its data do not appear to be from the Lifestyles survey. I explained in another thread:

Anyway, for your length analysis, I don’t think this really matters much; the SD you cite seems similar to what I’ve seen in other studies. In your girth analysis above, however, I think that the tiny-girth outliers (obviously from men who self-measured diameter rather than circumference in the Kinsey survey) are increasing the SD, thus making small- and large-girth penises look more common than they actually are. I suspect that you’d find a normal distribution of girths in studies that did not involved self-measurement.

Who knows though… Perhaps Mister Average’s SDs are from the Lifestyles survey (as the means appear to be), even though the more detailed distribution breakdowns clearly are something else.

Your post is excellent in any case and really helps to illustrate the rarity of monster cocks, despite what many men want to believe based on porn :up: Something I often point out to posters convinced that 9x7s are relatively common is that 3x3s should, then, also be relatively common, based on a reasonable assumption of symmetrical distribution of dick size… yet somehow no one believes that 3x3 (especially the girth) is anything other than quite rare, and quite small.

Wikipedia also has the same graph as Mr. Average for the Lifestyles data.

Hey, Para-Goomba,

I drew my numbers from this site , which is registered to Ansell International, the makers of LifeStyles condoms. Norwegian92 was the one who found the Mr.Average site and posted the link earlier in the thread.

I had read something several years ago that reported the original data, which remarked that the length, but not the girth, data were normally distributed. I cannot recall what the source was, but I thought that it was credible at the time.

The reported means and std dev, on Mr. Average, are identical to those reported on the Ansell website, so those numbers are legitimate (inasmuch as they can be :) ). I agree with you about the sub-three inch category, it seems disproportionately well populated. To put things into perspective: 3 inch girth is barely larger than my wedding ring. Another thing that I noticed is that the girth data break down is binned in quarter-inch increments. If these were converted to half-inch increments (which is what the standard deviation is anyway, so basically what I did in my analysis), the data would become much more normally distributed. What would be nice is to have access to the pure, raw data, though.

Thanks, I am glad to help out.