Wiki average size - why use kinsey?

If I see one more average size post, I’m going to go ABSOLUTELY NUTS! It all depends on the person and other factors like genetics. There is no worldwide average penis size, because its all biased.

Makes sense Sed26. To tell you the truth I think I will always believe that I am small. My dick just doesnt look that big to me. I guess with other guys to, cause I see lots of guys with 6.5+ and cell themselves small or average.

I saw that girth measuring procedure - averaging the girth from 3 measurements: (1) Just below the head, (2) Midshaft, and (3) Base.

That sounds like a good idea. I think I’ll start tracking those 3 measurements.

Is there some sort of way to view the averages of the data entered in the PE Data site?

/pedata/

Small is just that, small. 6.5 isn’t small but in the average RANGE meaning that wether its on the low or high side, its still average. Some guys think that just because they’re not big, its small. There is still average.

The data have been analyzed in a couple threads…

Logarithmic PE Gains
Size’s PE data analysis

…but I believe they were looking only at gains over time and not average penis size.

So why is average percieved as small? What makes our minds see it as such and some women think of it as small? Looking back I know that when I was 6.25 bp (about 5.75 nbp)x 4.75 girth base, 4.5 girth mid, (and probably about 4.25 girth shaft top underneath the head) I had a gf make a small type remark even though she didn’t mean anything negative towards me when she said it, and another gf called me pencil dick during an argument. My visable dick was 5.75 nbp x 4.50 (girth measurements averaged together).

According to what we know from charts, that falls within average range. I think the reason why an average size dick can be percieved as small is a result of when either girth or length or both barely make it into the average range.

That is good example of where volume comes in. Women may not know volume numbers, hell I don’t even know volume numbers, but it seems to me that they percieve volume. That is why I was small to them, and quite possibly to others. My girth pulled my volume down. If a volume chart breakage line was shown as to where small, average, above average and big begin, my previous size would be sitting just about right at the line where small stops and average begins. It would be on the average size of the line, but not far from the small line. That close to the small line, and her previous experiences might push her into preceiving it as small, despite the chart indicating average.

I’m not aware of a volume chart here. I realise calculators have been presented, but I’m speaking about a chart set up in the way the length charts and girth charts here are. A few here have preached the value of volume, and to be frank I never fully understood how that is really applicable. I puzzled and moved on. I’ve never replied much to such remarks, and volume is not a topic that seems to get anywhere near the amount of discussion that length and girth does. Now for the first time I understand. Volume helps explain what the overall impression of a dick’s size is. Of course other factors are relative to this, such as her previous experiences and/or her vagina size, but generally speaking a volume chart would be useful. Is there not such a chart at Thunder’s? Somehow I’m not aware of one. I know that there is volume data in the progress database, but I’m talking about an overall volume chart to compare by. A volume chart could be more useful in a practical sense than looking at length charts and girth charts. Perhaps I should have been listening to the volume preachers all along.

Interesting.

I just think it’s more about average not being good. Average is exactly that.just average. Most people want to be above average, and that is why people are still unhappy if they are the average.

OobieDoobie — The wiki page doesn’t seem misleading to me — it’s pretty explicit about the fact that it’s the Kinsey self-measurement survey, not the last word on the “average size” topic. The most useful edit might be just to add a link to my thread listing all the third-party measured studies we’ve compiled, noting that such studies tend to show somewhat shorter average lengths than the Kinsey and other self-measured surveys.

Beenthere — I agree volume is what matters in overall perception of dick size, and the volumetric difference between the lower end of the “average range” (say, 5x4.3; volume = 7.36 cubic inches) and the upper end of the “average range” (say, 6x5.4; volume = 13.92 cubic inches) can be quite large.

Para-Goomba - Having read your thread I would have to agree! It’s obvious you’ve done a lot of research on this issue, and the subsequent discussion covers a lot of ground too. I feel that a link to that thread would make a lot of sense. I’m afraid to confess that I’m not that computer literate, how do you do links for other pages within Thunders?

So we are not going to get the multi-colored, three dimensional, shotgun graph treatment for all of these studies?

Bummer.

In one of the threads cited by WestLA:
Size’s PE data analysis

take a look at:
effects_of_pe.png

It shows before and after PE size distribution.

I never did understand that graph.

The blue bars are the pre-PE measurements with the average of those who posted stats in the database being just over 6 inches. The yellow bars are the post-PE measurements showing the average of those who posted stats in the database with the average being just under 7 inches. The gray bars are the blue ones showing through the yellow ones.