Weird EG statistics

To reiterate, the study I posted found an average of 5.7” BPEL, 4.9” EG, and 3.8” FG. Note that the last two measurements were converted from the width measurements from the study. These results are pretty much in line with what all the other studies have found.

The girth stats where really converted from shaft width measurements?! How well do you think they took the fact that shafts are rarely completely round, into account? If I had a fully round shaft, my girth would be *grabs calculator* 6.28”, but it is in fact 5.5”.

I probably could have made this clearer. They didn’t convert the shaft measurements—-I did. And yes, it’s obviously an approximation. I included it for illustrative purposes. You can read about their methodology in the information I included in the link.

They could be true. I have seen some seemingly tiny ones in the locker room to, but then exercise can turtle you up temporally.

I find this figure slightly weird.

It is like saying average male height is between 5’8 and 6’3, the distribution between the values is too wide to indicate it to be average. For example, 5” would be less than average or small. 7” would be high average. I’d say 90% of men would fall between 5 and 7, not approximately 50% to make it an average figure.