Thunder's Place

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

The rare 1% penis-what size?

I am surprised straight men think/worry about the size of other guys dicks in public situations. Straight men assume gay men do, but its never occurred to me in that context. if I’m not boning them, I can’t care less.


“I was like, Am I gay? Am I straight? And I realized...I'm just slutty. Where's my parade? What about slut pride?”

― Margaret Cho

Originally Posted by tinytim
If you believe ending inequality is so important then why are you so obsessed with having a bigger penis than everyone else?
Why should the size of one’s penis be any different than the size of one’s bank account?

I love it how the proponents of social and material equality believe it should apply to everyone except themselves.

If we applied the same proposals for creating economic equality to penis size, everyone would end up with a 1 inch penis.

Economic equality does not equal everyone gets the same. That’s communism, not equality. A distinction that seems hard to grasp for some.

Your misunderstanding of the idea is exemplified by your faulty penis math. How do you take a group with an average penis of roughly 6”x5”, and end up with everyone at 1”? If you had a communist redistribution of peni, everyone would end up with 6x5, unless you can tell me where those other 5” went.

Originally Posted by trips
Economic equality does not equal everyone gets the same. That’s communism, not equality. A distinction that seems hard to grasp for some.

Your misunderstanding of the idea is exemplified by your faulty penis math. How do you take a group with an average penis of roughly 6”x5”, and end up with everyone at 1”? If you had a communist redistribution of peni, everyone would end up with 6x5, unless you can tell me where those other 5” went.

Just think of it in terms of the wealth building capacity of the free market capitalist system that has created the American standard of living working in reverse.

The wealth of this country grew from nothing. That is the result of private property ownership, and unfettered investment .
Redistribution not only dilutes the investment ability of any single individual, but it eventually has the affect of diminishing returns. The lack of available investment capital means fewer new businesses, fewer jobs, no growth. More competition for fewer jobs leads to lower wages. Lower wages leads to less consumption and less demand for goods and services. More business fail. The cycle perpetuates until the entire country is at the poverty level.

So I don’t share your definition of equality. Frankly I’ve never really heard anyone that supports this notion actually define it themselves.

If it does not mean exactly what the word implies then why do you use the term? Equality is equality what the hell else can it mean?

Tinytim total unfettered investment leads to a very rapid serfdom/feudal system. History has shown this over and over. The question is not about income redistribution but how much and by what means. What trips was trying to point out was that equality does not mean everyone having the same size slice of the pie but that everyone has a shot at their slice based on how hard they work and their abilities, not on the age old idea that the best way to make a million dollars is to start off born with a silver spoon in your mouth.

Sounds absurd so show me a couple specific cases in history that point this out.

It looks like there is some confusion in terms here.
I was making a point about a specific socio/economic philosophy that is prevalent in a certain segment of the political spectrum.
To them redistribution is the central theme.

Now you and Trips is telling me that is not what equality is about. Well in their case IT IS! And that was my point.

What you are describing is equality in liberty, not economic equality. I agree. Everyone should have equal liberty. Thats it. What they do with it is their problem. And the results of what they do with it is also their problem. Success is not guaranteed.

But this is really off topic. Sorry to sidetrack the thread. Go back to talking about big dicks.

Originally Posted by tinytim
Just think of it in terms of the wealth building capacity of the free market capitalist system that has created the American standard of living working in reverse.

The wealth of this country grew from nothing. That is the result of private property ownership, and unfettered investment .
Redistribution not only dilutes the investment ability of any single individual, but it eventually has the affect of diminishing returns. The lack of available investment capital means fewer new businesses, fewer jobs, no growth. More competition for fewer jobs leads to lower wages. Lower wages leads to less consumption and less demand for goods and services. More business fail. The cycle perpetuates until the entire country is at the poverty level.

So I don’t share your definition of equality. Frankly I’ve never really heard anyone that supports this notion actually define it themselves.

If it does not mean exactly what the word implies then why do you use the term? Equality is equality what the hell else can it mean?

It’s a lot more complex then that. I you want to delve into a huge contributing factor that played a major part in the economic strength the US acquired but no longer exists, research our history with the gold standard, fiat money and the central banking system.

Economic equality provides equal opportunity for economic advancement, not taking money from one bank account and putting it in another. Economic equality involves everyone paying an equal proportion of their income in taxes, not the dollar amount, the percentage. The strong secure middle class the powered our emergence as a super power is disappearing at a frightening rate. The crumbling education system is one perfect example of the inequality that exists. There is a huge swing between the quality of education two different children may receive almost completely tied to the economic level the area they go to school is located. That trend continues in higher education.

Slavery also played a nice hand in our early economic development. As did abusive work conditions and child labor. Are you a proponent of slavery, 14 hour shifts in hazardous conditions, no vacation time and child labor, or do you feel there is a balance to be struck between whats good for business and whats good for the countries citizens?

Originally Posted by tinytim
Sounds absurd so show me a couple specific cases in history that point this out.

I gave you two broad examples above. In equality of education, and inequality in tax law. A family of 4, two full time incomes making enough to cover the bills and order a pizza once in awhile pays a far far higher percentage of their income in taxes then a multimillionaire or a billionaire. That has twice the impact as the lower income family “needs” the extra percentage of their income far more then a multimillionaire or billionaire.

Quote
It looks like there is some confusion in terms here.
I was making a point about a specific socio/economic philosophy that is prevalent in a certain segment of the political spectrum.
To them redistribution is the central theme.

No, you were making a point about your interpretation of a specific socioeconomic philosophy that you have decided is prevalent in a certain segment of the political spectrum. If this philosophy is specific and prevalent by the definition you offer it shouldn’t be hard to point me to specific proposed policy that directly redistributes wealth. While a tenuous case can be made for the welfare system, that in my opinion is somewhat outside of the scope of the broad philosophy you offer, and we probably agree on the huge pressing need for overhaul of the system and eradication of life long recipients and gaming of the system. Just to be clear, I’m looking for sources from the horses mouth, not the interpretation of anything by an outlet with opposing views. And please no left wing nut job blogs published from a basement apartment.

Quote
Now you and Trips is telling me that is not what equality is about. Well in their case IT IS! And that was my point.

It doesn’t bode well for the conversation when you come from a position where you have started by redefining a base term to fit your preexisting world view, but I try not to make assumptions about anyone’s ability to keep an open mind or assume I know exactly what their views are until they are revealed to me.

“Economic equality refers to an economy in that all of the inhabitants the same opportunity to acquire wealth and have the same status in the economy, because they have had the same opportunities, non discriminant on race, gender, skill, culture, or wealth condensation.” - nothing more, nothing less.

I do not believe everyone has the same innate ability. I am a huge proponent of a meritocracy assuming we have economic equality (which includes equal access to a similar high level education for all citizens). Unfortunately we have a very limited meritocracy in place where who you know and what your last name is has far to large an influence on the path to individual wealth.[/quote]

Quote
What you are describing is equality in liberty, not economic equality. I agree. Everyone should have equal liberty. Thats it. What they do with it is their problem. And the results of what they do with it is also their problem. Success is not guaranteed.

No, not even close.

“Liberty - 1: the quality or state of being free: a : the power to do as one pleases b : freedom from physical restraint c : freedom from arbitrary or despotic control d : the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges e : the power of choice”

You’ll notice there is not a single reference or statement referring specifically to equal access to the things required to acquire personal wealth. While personal liberty is a requirement for economic equality, economic equality in not a requirement for personal liberty.

While I do agree with you that success in not guaranteed, it is not what is being discussed. You can try to reframe the argument into it being about everyone getting a chicken in their pot, but as I’ve stated that has nothing to do with economic equality. That is communism.

Quote
But this is really off topic. Sorry to sidetrack the thread. Go back to talking about big dicks.

Speaking of big dicks, you never explained to me where the 5” disappeared to. If you need a mathematical example, here you go:

dick sizes of 10 men in a population in inches:

3.5, 4, 4.5, 5, 5.5, 6, 6, 6, 6.5, 7, 8.

average of those 10 men: 3.5 + 4 + 4.5 + 5 + 5.5 + 6 + 6 + 6 + 6.5 + 7 + 8 = 62 / 10 = 6.2”

So if we “redistributed” penile length, everyone would have 6.2”, not 1” as you offered.

I think the average woman would pick the man with the rare 1% largest bank account over the man with the rare 1% largest penis any day.


I'm a disciple of science.

Originally Posted by thecrow19
I would guess top 1% is 7.75NBPEL by 6.25EG.

I agree — if we’re measuring by “Thunder’s standards.” As redbear mentioned, guys here become very skilled at measuring their absolute best erection, in the ideal measurement-maximizing way (e.g., the right hip-thrust angle). There’s probably also some wishful thinking in our measurements (e.g., slightly “loose” measuring tapes for girth).

Using a more ordinary measurement standard, like that presumably used in the scientific studies, the top 1% would probably be more like 7.25” NBP by 6” EG.

Originally Posted by scienceguy106
My theory on why pre-PE Thunders members dicks are bigger:

We’ve had partners compliment us on our size, and that felt good. But many or most partners don’t compliment the size. It’s not that they don’t think it’s big, they just don’t think to compliment. But we get insecure and think that their lack of compliment means it’s small.

Thus the complimenters make us think we’re big and that it’s great to be big. The non-complimenters make us feel like we’re too small for a compliment. And therefor we come here.

Yeah, I’ve expressed a similar opinion on why some big guys join Thunder’s. When you receive a lot of compliments on your dick, or just know objectively that you have a big one, you begin to attach your ego to your penis in the same way that a kid earning high grades might attach his ego to his academic success, or a kid who’s good at sports will attach his ego to his athletic prowess. These guys will be unusually hurt when, respectively, they receive a belittling comment about their wang (e.g., a girl mentions a past partner who was twice as big), receive a failing grade, or get cut from their sports team.


Please :donatecar to Thunder's Place to keep it running.

Based on this:
Http://www.free-condom-stuff.com/education/research.htm

If the distributions of girth and length are normal in the population:

99th percentile length: 7,796236996
99th percentile girth: 6,15378472

The problem is, distribution of l and g aren’t probably normal.

I think if your erection is always equal or more than 7.25 NBPEL x 6” on the most strict measurement possible (e.g. parallel to the floor, standing up measurement, no press whatsoever and measuring on mid-shaft not the right or left side of you penis-for example just laying a metal ruler flat on top of your penis) then you’re in the top 1% in my opinion. You can probably get an extra .25”-.5” if you “cheat” a bit (as most of us are likely to do intentionally or unintentionally when measuring ourselves) but in the scientific studies such cheating is very unlikely.


Starting Size: April, 28, 2010: NBPEL-7" Girth-6" (base, MSG, glans)

Currently: BPEL-8" NBPEL-7.25" Girth-6.25" (base)/6.125" (MSG)/6.125" (glans)

1% is 10/12 inch!

Originally Posted by sintagma

1% is 10/12 inch!

You thought 0.001 ! :)

Realistic 7.8”-20 cm (8.25” BPEL(21 cm)) - length x 6.3”(16 cm)

By volume 7.8” x 6.3” = less than 0.1 % .

10/12” is probably the smallest .01%.


“I was like, Am I gay? Am I straight? And I realized...I'm just slutty. Where's my parade? What about slut pride?”

― Margaret Cho

Originally Posted by nowhereman
I don’t mean disrepect Jawbone but if one out of every one hundred guys had a penis that measured 8.5 x 6.25 then there would be about a bazillion of those walking around. If this was true then there would be a ton of amateur pictures on the net of them. I rarely see anything that large on the net. It is purely by observation but I find it hard to believe it would be quite that large of a size. My totally out of my ass guess for the top 1% would 7.6 nbpel, 6.2 girth.

Probably one of the more sensible posts in this thread. I’d say 7.5 NBP and 5.8 girth though.

Lex Steele is 8.5 NBP, some of the people here will have you thinking those that exceed him by .25 inches are every 1 in 100 bros. No.

I don’t know why ppl easily throw out these inflated numbers. Maybe it’s just hard to let go of the idea of 10 inches when you’ve spent your whole life desiring it. I don’t know.

Top

All times are GMT. The time now is 06:35 AM.