The (statistical) Truth About Cock Size

I agree, at first glance I would guess that the SD is too large. Thus thowing off the rarity of the very thick and the very thin.

Current: 1 in 44

Goal: 1 in 31, 574

Para-Goomba

Mr. Average says he took the data from a Lifestyles chart. Lifestyles is aware of his website and has never disputed his numbers.

There is indeed a close correlation to Kinsey girth data.

This suggests that Kinsey subjects were more accurate when measuring girth while not so accurate at measuring length. Which sorta makes sense when you think about it.

Or somebody screwed up at Lifestyles when they put together their charts.

Did they measure girth as the “thickest point” on the penis?

Nope, they measured midshaft girth…which is kinda weird, because I think many people have a thicker base ?

Nope, I’m thicker up top, skinnier at base. Like a bat, even with PEing.

Thanks again Priapologist.
"1 in 44" frequency stats (length and/or girth) is a respectable goal as far as relative size to the population goes.

i.e. In a crowd of a 1000 men there are only 22 or 23 people who can match you.

According the stats that Priapologist has so graciously taken his time and effort to work through and post:

It would seem that 7.527 x 5.988 is the proverbial "1 in 44" for both length and girth respectively and therefore the proverbial "1 in 44" in terms of volume size.

Using Priapologist’s tables and similar logic; one could compose the following table:

5.877 x 4.972 inches: 1 in 2
6.702 x 5.480 inches: 1 in 6
7.527 x 5.988 inches: 1 in 44
8.352 x 6.496 inches: 1 in 741
9.177 x 7.004 inches: 1 in 31, 574
10.00 x 7.512 inches: 1 in 3.5 million

Converting this table to volume we get:

11.55: 1 in 2
16.01: 1 in 6
21.46: 1 in 44
28.03: 1 in 741
35.81: 1 in 31, 574
44.88: 1 in 3.5 million

Now simply determine your volume and extrapolate your standing in the volume table above.
The radius of your unit is half of your girth divided by 3.14
and your height is your length.
Then plug those numbers into this calculator here:
Cylinder Volume Calculator | online-calculators.co.uk

Example:

Supersizeit 8.5 x 6.0

Half of 6.0 divided by 3.14=.955 (radius)
8.5 (height)

Calculator says 24.36

If you dont want to be bothered to use that calculator for the future or if that link goes bad;
then simply square the radius and multiply by 3.14 and then multiply by the length.

24.36 is in between:

21.46: 1 in 44
28.03: 1 in 741

Hence extrapolation of 24.36: 1 in 351

That seems more mathematically intuitive to me as far as to how frequent a unit like mine appears in the population.

You can play around and have fun with these numbers.
For example:
A dude that has 7.5 girth but only 6 in length=26.98 volume or roughly 1 in 619 in terms of volume.
However the same dude with reverse stats; 7.5 in length and 6 in girth=21.51 or roughly 1 in 49…
thereby mathematically demonstrating the importance of girth in any PE routine. ehhh?

Caveat:
Of course all these calculations are just rough approximations as to where you stand in terms of total volume size.
No hard rules here, just rough approximations.

Why is your 4.5 percentile, for example, so low then? I think you have around 16th percentile, whereas mr average and wikipedia quote a percentile between 30 and 40, looking at the graphs. If it’s form the same data, shouldn’t it be the same?

Thanks for the explanation of your source. You’re right, the SDs appear to be from the Lifestyle survey, so I don’t dispute your figures :up: It’s a terrific thread you made here. If I have time later, I’ll look for means and SDs from a couple other medical studies and create a similar frequency breakdown for illustrative purposes.

Yes. As I said, someone seems to have copied the Mr. Average charts (which are clearly from the Kinsey study, not the Lifestyles study, at least for girth) onto Wikipedia.

Compare the girth breakdown on the Mr. Average site to the Kinsey data I linked to. They are identical, not just closely correlated. As Priap showed above, the means and SDs reported on the Mr. Average site are accurate. The more detailed breakdowns, however, are crap (inasfar as men in the Kinsey study made some girth measurement mistakes). Either that or 1 in 50 men has a penis with smaller girth than the tip of my pinky ;)

Ok so what are the odds below 5.8inches, it looks to be a bell curve, when does it start reversing?
And this is BPEL right?

1.752 x 2.432: 1 in 3.5 million
2.577 x 2.940: 1 in 31,574
3.402 x 3.448: 1 in 741
4.227 x 3.956: 1 in 44
5.052 x 4.464: 1 in 6

Volume:

0.82: 1 in 3.5 million
1.76: 1 in 31,574
3.19: 1 in 741
5.24: 1 in 44
8.00: 1 in 6

It reverses after the mean.

5.877 x 4.972 inches: 1 in 2

V-11.55: 1 in 2

I can’t confirm if this is BP but the author of this thread might be able to tell you.

My mind doesn’t really understand the outcome of the volume. I can understand that 1 out of 3.5 million would have 10EL and 1 out of 3.5 million would have 7.5EG. It doesn’t make sense then that someone having BOTH such enormous measurements COMBINED would also have the same frequency 1 out of 3.5 million. It saying that there’s just as much a chance of finding a 10EL by 7.5EG as you would finding just a 10EL dick or a 7.5EG exclusively. It’s like you’re just assuming all the longest guys are also the thickest. I find it hard to believe that a 8.5EL who has a 6EG(as you do) is found in only 1 out of 351 people. Alot of the thicker guys could have short dicks and vice versa. I don’t think a good volume assumtion can be made without knowing the volume of each individual. Maybe I’m wrong. It just doesn’t seem right to me.

I understand your point totally and I had anticipated this concern by placing a caveat in my analysis:

“Just rough approximations”

Remember that girth will usually be in close proportion to length.
i.e. a dude with a 10L and 6.0G would look like a pencil dick (proportion wise) but not so if his length were only 8.5.
I dont think that 10L and 5.0G even happens in nature.

If you wanted an even better approximation then theres actually more math involved;
One would have to determine what the range of girth is for any given length.
Thats an entire distribution bell curve in itself.
For example you wouldn’t reasonably expect a guy who is 10 length to have only 2.4 in girth
and vica versa one who is 1.75 length to be 7.5 in girth.
However we do know that there is some range in which someone with a 10 length would fall into for girth.
Lets say its arbitrarily between 6.8 and 7.5. Then all combinations of 10 with say 6.8, 6.9,7.0.7.1….7.5 would have to be calculated for volume.

1 in 351 sounds about right for volume but who knows? It does not of course indicate you have an 8.5 length if you fall in the 351 category (above the mean) 8.5 is significantly higher than 1 in 351 (8.35L is 741) if length is the only variable but we are talking volume here.

Talk to some gay men. Huge ones aren’t as rare as this. I’d be willing to bet there are more than thirty men in America with 10+ inches. Very rare but not that rare.

Possibly.

How many guys with confirmed 10 inch dicks do you know, though? I don’t know any, but then I do not have occasion to view erect penises outside of watching porn, and I certainly do not have occasion to watch another man measure his erect penis.

I am inclined to agree with you, though, about the absolute number of men at 10 inches and greater. When I first ran the analysis, I was a bit surprised by the very low number of men who putatively possess this size. I suspect that the tails are not quite as asymptotic as a normal distribution would demand. But, the whole point of this thread was to demonstrate that based on a fairly robust data set of good power, 95% of men in the US fall between 4.23 and 7.53 inches in length. Let us not get too bogged down by the esoterica of the top 2.5% or the bottom 2.5%.