Thunder's Place

The big penis and mens' sexual health source, increasing penis size around the world.

Anyone Asian with a P.H.D. pretty huge dick

Ahhh.OK.. I overlooked on the forum rules.

Guys! I’m an asian.. We must admit that asians have pretty smaller penis than guys who live in the western countries, but what is good with asian’s penis is while on it’s erect state! It’s really hard dude! After sex, erection is still there.. I mean, maintaining the erection is one of the abilities of asian guys! Where no other race has.. :) -Asiandude.. :)

Well being an asian I wud agree with most members that asian generally don’t have big lenght but again it depends from region to region and also on demography. There are lucky few who have it extra large and few with small size. So, The girl must be lucky enough to have bumped into some well endowed guys nothing more or she’s taking you for a ride

I used to go clubbing with this short muscled guy from Vietnam,he had a dick that measured 8 inches long and 7 inches around.

How is phillipines pacific islander? LOL, just a way to avoid stereotypes.. (Which obviously aren’t true btw)

Asians have the most blood flow to the penis which means hardest penis while blacks have the limpest

And japanese do not represent asians.japan has the shortest people in all of the industrialized nations

I’d like to put this debate to rest once and for all. When are people going to realize in this race-obsessed country (the United States) that “race” doesn’t determine everything? There’s no “race” gene. Certain versions (alleles) of genes are more common in some parts of the world than in others. The ones that we notice most—skin-color, hair texture, etc.—are the ones by which we classify people, but there are so many other clines (i.e., differential distributions) in genes that we DON’T notice—like blood type, thalassaemia, etc.—that have little to do with our socially-determined racial classifications. Above all, the vast majority of genetic diversity (I have heard the statistic as being 0.95) is WITHIN populations, not ACROSS populations. Roughly speaking, this means that the variance in the genomes of any two random Polish people, or between any two random Koreans, is about 19 times the variance between the genome of the AVERAGE Pole and the AVERAGE Korean. Yes, “race” is based on genetics, to the extent that we decide to classify all people with frizzy hair and dark skin from one part of the world, or slanty eyes and pale skin from another part of the world, to be a certain “race,” but that is all there is to it.

Also, with regard to Asians in particular: Asia is a huge continent. Even within the Mongolian “race” there are differences between Mongols, Chinese, Turks, Siberians, Koreans, etc. (though all of these populations are highly mixed, both with each other as well as with Europeans and Southeast Asians). People in the Mongolian “race” tend to be more adapted to the cold—longer torsos, shorter arms and legs, epicanthic folds that make the eyes look more “slanty,” flatter nose etc. Perhaps a shorter dick is less prone to frostbite, and maybe that is why Africans have a reputation for having big dicks. However, the fact that human beings have worn furs and other clothing over our private bits throughout the entire history of our outwandering out of Africa would seem to invalidate this just-so-story. But the bottom line is, that all humans are descended from the same small band of common ancestors less than 100,000 years ago, and Europeans and Central/East Asians diverged even more recently . That is an eyeblink in evolutionary terms. Moreover, these populations have never been really isolated, but rather, have been having sex with each other in limited amounts (and in large amounts in contemporary times) ever sense.

The racial dick size idea is certainly possible, but any differences across “racial” groups are dwarfed by individual differences. Even less so do I believe that certain “races” are more likely to have success with PE than others.


Last edited by Swinteck : 02-09-2006 at .

Just to clarify

Just to clarify: I’m NOT trying to be politically correct. But this topic is very dear to me, and I am doing academic research on a related topic. The debate over whether race is biological or “socially constructed” is largely based on semantics. OF COURSE differences between races are largely due to genetics. Hair color, skin color, facial bone structure, etc. are all determined by genes (as well as by the physical environment). But the fact that we choose to classify people according to certain criteria like hair color and skin color is a product of culture and of the societies in which we live. We could just as reasonably call everyone who can roll their tongue into a U one race (and all who cannot another race), or all people who have curly hair one race and straight hair yet another, and this would give rise to an entirely different classification system. I don’t know how dick size factors into all of this — just throwing my ideas out there for people to think about.

Also, all of you who have a big dick or a small dick, or who have seen a few big dicks or small dicks here and there, should not claim to speak for entire populations of people. For example, for those of you who claim that Asians have harder, bigger erections: how the f**k (pardon my French) could you know something like that? Have you read a study? Have you experienced being another guy and having his erection? Also, those of you who live in countries where there are few people of other “races” to compare yourself against should also shut up. Speak for yourselves, is what I say.


Last edited by Swinteck : 02-09-2006 at .

Swinteck,

Sure it’s blurred, but correlations exist, making the term race not so cut and dry incorrect, no?

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————

http://raceandgenomics.ssrc.org/Leroi/

A Family Tree in Every Gene

By Armand Marie Leroi*

Published: March 14, 2005, The New York Times, p. A23.

London — Shortly after last year’s tsunami devastated the lands on the Indian Ocean, The Times of India ran an article with this headline: “Tsunami May Have Rendered Threatened Tribes Extinct.” The tribes in question were the Onge, Jarawa, Great Andamanese and Sentinelese—all living on the Andaman Islands—and they numbered some 400 people in all. The article, noting that several of the archipelago’s islands were low-lying, in the direct path of the wave, and that casualties were expected to be high, said, “Some beads may have just gone missing from the Emerald Necklace of India.”

The metaphor is as colorful as it is well intentioned. But what exactly does it mean? After all, in a catastrophe that cost more than 150,000 lives, why should the survival of a few hundred tribal people have any special claim on our attention? There are several possible answers to this question. The people of the Andamans have a unique way of life. True, their material culture does not extend beyond a few simple tools, and their visual art is confined to a few geometrical motifs, but they are hunter-gatherers and so a rarity in the modern world. Linguists, too, find them interesting since they collectively speak three languages seemingly unrelated to any others. But The Times of India took a slightly different tack. These tribes are special, it said, because they are of “Negrito racial stocks” that are “remnants of the oldest human populations of Asia and Australia.”

It’s an old-fashioned, even Victorian, sentiment. Who speaks of “racial stocks” anymore? After all, to do so would be to speak of something that many scientists and scholars say does not exist. If modern anthropologists mention the concept of race, it is invariably only to warn against and dismiss it. Likewise many geneticists. “Race is social concept, not a scientific one,” according to Dr. Craig Venter—and he should know, since he was first to sequence the human genome. The idea that human races are only social constructs has been the consensus for at least 30 years.

But now, perhaps, that is about to change. Last fall, the prestigious journal Nature Genetics devoted a large supplement to the question of whether human races exist and, if so, what they mean. The journal did this in part because various American health agencies are making race an important part of their policies to best protect the public—often over the protests of scientists. In the supplement, some two dozen geneticists offered their views. Beneath the jargon, cautious phrases and academic courtesies, one thing was clear: the consensus about social constructs was unraveling. Some even argued that, looked at the right way, genetic data show that races clearly do exist.

The dominance of the social construct theory can be traced to a 1972 article by Dr. Richard Lewontin, a Harvard geneticist, who wrote that most human genetic variation can be found within any given “race.” If one looked at genes rather than faces, he claimed, the difference between an African and a European would be scarcely greater than the difference between any two Europeans. A few years later he wrote that the continued popularity of race as an idea was an “indication of the power of socioeconomically based ideology over the supposed objectivity of knowledge.” Most scientists are thoughtful, liberal-minded and socially aware people. It was just what they wanted to hear.

Three decades later, it seems that Dr. Lewontin’s facts were correct, and have been abundantly confirmed by ever better techniques of detecting genetic variety. His reasoning, however, was wrong. His error was an elementary one, but such was the appeal of his argument that it was only a couple of years ago that a Cambridge University statistician, A. W. F. Edwards, put his finger on it.

The error is easily illustrated. If one were asked to judge the ancestry of 100 New Yorkers, one could look at the color of their skin. That would do much to single out the Europeans, but little to distinguish the Senegalese from the Solomon Islanders. The same is true for any other feature of our bodies. The shapes of our eyes, noses and skulls; the color of our eyes and our hair; the heaviness, height and hairiness of our bodies are all, individually, poor guides to ancestry.

But this is not true when the features are taken together. Certain skin colors tend to go with certain kinds of eyes, noses, skulls and bodies. When we glance at a stranger’s face we use those associations to infer what continent, or even what country, he or his ancestors came from—and we usually get it right. To put it more abstractly, human physical variation is correlated; and correlations contain information.

Genetic variants that aren’t written on our faces, but that can be detected only in the genome, show similar correlations. It is these correlations that Dr. Lewontin seems to have ignored. In essence, he looked at one gene at a time and failed to see races. But if many—a few hundred—variable genes are considered simultaneously, then it is very easy to do so. Indeed, a 2002 study by scientists at the University of Southern California and Stanford showed that if a sample of people from around the world are sorted by computer into five groups on the basis of genetic similarity, the groups that emerge are native to Europe, East Asia, Africa, America and Australasia—more or less the major races of traditional anthropology.

One of the minor pleasures of this discovery is a new kind of genealogy. Today it is easy to find out where your ancestors came from—or even when they came, as with so many of us, from several different places. If you want to know what fraction of your genes are African, European or East Asian, all it takes is a mouth swab, a postage stamp and $400—though prices will certainly fall.

Yet there is nothing very fundamental about the concept of the major continental races; they’re just the easiest way to divide things up. Study enough genes in enough people and one could sort the world’s population into 10, 100, perhaps 1,000 groups, each located somewhere on the map. This has not yet been done with any precision, but it will be. Soon it may be possible to identify your ancestors not merely as African or European, but Ibo or Yoruba, perhaps even Celt or Castilian, or all of the above.

The identification of racial origins is not a search for purity. The human species is irredeemably promiscuous. We have always seduced or coerced our neighbors even when they have a foreign look about them and we don’t understand a word. If Hispanics, for example, are composed of a recent and evolving blend of European, American Indian and African genes, then the Uighurs of Central Asia can be seen as a 3,000-year-old mix of West European and East Asian genes. Even homogenous groups like native Swedes bear the genetic imprint of successive nameless migrations.

Some critics believe that these ambiguities render the very notion of race worthless. I disagree. The physical topography of our world cannot be accurately described in words. To navigate it, you need a map with elevations, contour lines and reference grids. But it is hard to talk in numbers, and so we give the world’s more prominent features—the mountain ranges and plateaus and plains—names. We do so despite the inherent ambiguity of words. The Pennines of northern England are about one-tenth as high and long as the Himalayas, yet both are intelligibly described as mountain ranges.

So, too, it is with the genetic topography of our species. The billion or so of the world’s people of largely European descent have a set of genetic variants in common that are collectively rare in everyone else; they are a race. At a smaller scale, three million Basques do as well; so they are a race as well. Race is merely a shorthand that enables us to speak sensibly, though with no great precision, about genetic rather than cultural or political differences.

But it is a shorthand that seems to be needed. One of the more painful spectacles of modern science is that of human geneticists piously disavowing the existence of races even as they investigate the genetic relationships between “ethnic groups.” Given the problematic, even vicious, history of the word “race,” the use of euphemisms is understandable. But it hardly aids understanding, for the term “ethnic group” conflates all the possible ways in which people differ from each other.

Indeed, the recognition that races are real should have several benefits. To begin with, it would remove the disjunction in which the government and public alike defiantly embrace categories that many, perhaps most, scholars and scientists say do not exist.

Second, the recognition of race may improve medical care. Different races are prone to different diseases. The risk that an African-American man will be afflicted with hypertensive heart disease or prostate cancer is nearly three times greater than that for a European-American man. On the other hand, the former’s risk of multiple sclerosis is only half as great. Such differences could be due to socioeconomic factors. Even so, geneticists have started searching for racial differences in the frequencies of genetic variants that cause diseases. They seem to be finding them.

Race can also affect treatment. African-Americans respond poorly to some of the main drugs used to treat heart conditions—notably beta blockers and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. Pharmaceutical corporations are paying attention. Many new drugs now come labeled with warnings that they may not work in some ethnic or racial groups. Here, as so often, the mere prospect of litigation has concentrated minds.

Such differences are, of course, just differences in average. Everyone agrees that race is a crude way of predicting who gets some disease or responds to some treatment. Ideally, we would all have our genomes sequenced before swallowing so much as an aspirin. Yet until that is technically feasible, we can expect racial classifications to play an increasing part in health care.

The argument for the importance of race, however, does not rest purely on utilitarian grounds. There is also an aesthetic factor. We are a physically variable species. Yet for all the triumphs of modern genetics, we know next to nothing about what makes us so. We do not know why some people have prominent rather than flat noses, round rather than pointed skulls, wide rather than narrow faces, straight rather than curly hair. We do not know what makes blue eyes blue.

One way to find out would be to study people of mixed race ancestry. In part, this is because racial differences in looks are the most striking that we see. But there is also a more subtle technical reason. When geneticists map genes, they rely on the fact that they can follow our ancestors’ chromosomes as they get passed from one generation to the next, dividing and mixing in unpredictable combinations. That, it turns out, is much easier to do in people whose ancestors came from very different places.

The technique is called admixture mapping. Developed to find the genes responsible for racial differences in inherited disease, it is only just moving from theory to application. But through it, we may be able to write the genetic recipe for the fair hair of a Norwegian, the black-verging-on-purple skin of a Solomon Islander, the flat face of an Inuit, and the curved eyelid of a Han Chinese. We shall no longer gawp ignorantly at the gallery; we shall be able to name the painters.

There is a final reason race matters. It gives us reason—if there were not reason enough already—to value and protect some of the world’s most obscure and marginalized people. When The Times of India article referred to the Andaman Islanders as being of ancient Negrito racial stock, the terminology was correct. Negrito is the name given by anthropologists to a people who once lived throughout Southeast Asia. They are very small, very dark, and have peppercorn hair. They look like African pygmies who have wandered away from Congo’s jungles to take up life on a tropical isle. But they are not.

The latest genetic data suggest that the Negritos are descended from the first modern humans to have invaded Asia, some 100,000 years ago. In time they were overrun or absorbed by waves of Neolithic agriculturalists, and later nearly wiped out by British, Spanish and Indian colonialists. Now they are confined to the Malay Peninsula, a few islands in the Philippines and the Andamans.

Happily, most of the Andamans’ Negritos seem to have survived December’s tsunami. The fate of one tribe, the Sentinelese, remains uncertain, but an Indian coast guard helicopter sent to check up on them came under bow and arrow attack, which is heartening. Even so, Negrito populations, wherever they are, are so small, isolated and impoverished that it seems certain that they will eventually disappear.

Yet even after they have gone, the genetic variants that defined the Negritos will remain, albeit scattered, in the people who inhabit the littoral of the Bay of Bengal and the South China Sea. They will remain visible in the unusually dark skin of some Indonesians, the unusually curly hair of some Sri Lankans, the unusually slight frames of some Filipinos. But the unique combination of genes that makes the Negritos so distinctive, and that took tens of thousands of years to evolve, will have disappeared. A human race will have gone extinct, and the human species will be the poorer for it.


Last edited by beenthere : 02-09-2006 at .

Yes, of course, “correlations” exist. Give me any random sample, and I can find you a correlation. There is a very high correlation between the length of one’s left foot and the length of one’s right foot. There is a correlation between the length of a country’s name and its income (France v. Tajikistan). There is a correlation between height and weight (eating more will not make me taller). There is a correlation between the average temperature of a city in January and the gender ratio (I have no idea in which direction). But correlations are only meaningful if we can interpret what they mean. And in the case of “race,” correlations exist BY DEFINITION. BY DEFINITION, we’re defining people with certain traits as being from certain races. So of course, there’s a very high degree of correlation between race and certain traits, but that is only because we’ve defined things in a way to make this so. If I defined all people who are prone to getting osteoporosis as being of one race (Caucasians and East Asians) and called them “blablooblahs,” there would be a very high correlation between being a blabloobah and getting osteoporosis. If I defined all very tall people to be one race (Africans living near the Nile River and Scandinavians) and called them “bweeps,” there would be a very high correlation between being a bleep and being tall. So yes, the concept of race is intertwined with genetics, but you have to give an interpretation to any correlation you find. That being said, race MAY be correlated with dick size (I don’t know), though I don’t see how race can have any significant correlation PE growth potential. And all this still doesn’t negate the fact that our definitions of race are very artificial, whereas the reality is much more—as you put it—“blurred.” People don’t fit neatly into categories or race. Even if you want to classify people as “blacks, whites, browns, reds and yellows,” take a foot-journey from Amsterdam to Beijing, or from Jerusalem to Cape Town, and you see what you mean. Populations blend very gradually into each other, and there are no distinct categories that correspond to what we call “race.”


Last edited by Swinteck : 02-09-2006 at .

Finally, pardon the verbal diarrhoea, but I just want add one more thing. Yes, you can almost certainly find correlations between “race” and dick size, just as you can find correlations between race and the tendency to get hangnails, the ability to wiggle your ears, the ability to roll your tongue, or having detached earlobes. But there are two issues to consider: (1) A correlation can exist without being meaningful. For example, imagine if you had two populations of 100 people, and the average dick size in each population were exactly 6”. One day, lightning strikes one guy with a slightly above-average-size dick in in population A. Then, there would be a correlation between being in population B and having a larger dick. This does NOT mean that it’s meaningful, as the underlying mechanism that determines dick size in each population remains unchanged. Here, I’m not even getting into the issue of sampling and statistical significance (which is a related, but slightly different issue)
Moreover, (2) just because there is a correlation between being in a category and particular trait does not imply causality. That is to say, being in population A does not MAKE you have a smaller dick. I may be black, and I may have a big/small dick. I may be Asian, and I may have a big/hard/weak/soft erection. But this does not allow you to make a statement like “I have a XYZ dick BECAUSE I am black/Asian” etc.

By the way, I am enjoying this respectful and healthy debate. I may disagree with some of you all, but I appreciate the atmosphere of respect. “Respect.”


Last edited by Swinteck : 02-09-2006 at .

Originally Posted by beenthere
Swinteck,

Sure it’s blurred, but correlations exist, making the term race not so cut and dry incorrect, no?

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————

http://raceandgenomics.ssrc.org/Leroi/

A Family Tree in Every Gene

By Armand Marie Leroi*

Published: March 14, 2005, The New York Times, p. A23.

<Indeed, a 2002 study by scientists at the University of Southern California and Stanford showed that if a sample of people from around the world are sorted by computer into five groups on the basis of genetic similarity, the groups that emerge are native to Europe, East Asia, Africa, America and Australasia—more or less the major races of traditional anthropology. >

What do you make of that?

I don’t disagree with it. There’s no conflict between what I’m saying and that result. What this study means is that race is sort of like flipping coins. There is no race gene, but rather there are genes for individual traits. Genes for blue eyes, genes for having medium leg thickness, genes for having a small nose, genes for type A blood, genes for susceptibility to osteoporosis, etc. exist in ALL populations. Genes for having an eyefold, genes for being less hairy, genes for fair skin, genes for dark hair, genes for having dry earwax, genes for having stocky legs, and genes for type B blood exist in all populations. But since the event of inheriting each of these genes is independent, the chances of inheriting all of these genes helps to pinpoint the first person as most likely being a northern European, and the second person as being an East or Central Asian. It still doesn’t mean that there’s a gene for race.

As I said, people descended from a small band of common ancestors 100,000 years ago. They have branched into many groups, roughly corresponding to the five “anthropological” groups. But still, there is no race gene. And we’re all still pretty similar, especially with regard to genes that aren’t directly interacting with the environment, like skin color for UV protection.


Last edited by Swinteck : 02-09-2006 at .

Originally Posted by Swinteck
Here, I’m not even getting into the issue of sampling and statistical significance (which is a related, but slightly different issue)

Thank goodness. :)

Finally, some traits are obviously linked to phenotypes for which there are strong selective pressures that differ across groups. For example, skin color and body shape are things that can confer strong advantages or disadvantages to people depending on the climate in which they live. However, many genetic differences across “races” are due to mere historical accident. For example, why do Australian aborigines tend to have whorls instead of loops on their fingerprints? This is almost certainly a historical accident. Also, susceptibility of Europeans to getting cystic fibrosis is also probably a historical accident rather than because it somehow makes you better adapted to conditions in Europe. Not to mention, the mitochondrial and Y-chromosome tandem repeat haplotypes upon which these genetic studies (that you cite) were done were chosen PRECISELY because they tend to mutate at a fairly steady rate, and don’t have any effects on people’s phenotypes, and therefore can serve as a reasonably accurate “clock” of when different populations diverged. Maybe you can concoct some kind of story for how selective pressure for having a large dick is stronger or weaker in some populations. The same would be true if there were other traits LINKED to having a large dick that were differentially selected for (For example, this would be the case if the gene that controls earwax odor somehow also influences penis development, and it also just so happened that certain types of earwax were selected for in certain populations. Such an indirect linkage is called a “spandrel,” by the way). Commonsense renders this scenario rather unlikely, so any correlations are most likely due to historical accident.


Last edited by Swinteck : 02-09-2006 at .

Swinteck,

Check your PM.

Top

All times are GMT. The time now is 07:24 PM.