Originally Posted by beenthere
I quoted the post the table is created from. It’s relevance is to demonstrate in table form that the quote is not accurate. An effort to make a point as clearly as possible.
OK, I understand now that you created that table to demonstrate what Phyriel’s apparent suggestion of a 3 - 4” overestimation factor, would result in over a wide range of sizes, particularly relatively smaller ones.
I think it would be more accurate to say that womens’ overestimation of penis size is probably proportional to length, rather than a specific amount across all size ranges as Phyriel’s post might seem to suggest - though perhaps that wasn’t really what he intended. If the overstimation factor were, say, around 30%, then a genuinely oversized penis of 7 - 8” length might get reported as 3” longer or 10” - 11”, which is consistent with some of the reports I’ve seen of womens’ overestimations, particularly statements by women that they have slept with more 10” partners than is statistically plausible for such a genuinely rare length; and at a more average length of 5.5 - 6” the overestimation would be more like 2”, which also seems consistent with women talking about 8” penises being common.
It’s also not implausible that at least a few women - who probably tend to look at a penis more from the underside, where its starting point is less clearly delineated - may genuinely believe that a penis is measured by the entire length of the corpora cavernosa down to near the anus, which is actually technically correct from the point of view of anatomy, and so would add about the amount suggest by Phyriel to any penis. Also, apparently some people at least think that measuring from the side, which results in larger numbers, is actually correct.
This does remind me that our top-down, BP/NBP oriented approach to penis size, is very male- and PE- centric, and that women may indeed have a genuinely different perspective on penis size and measuring.
FF