Thunder's Place

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

Anyone seen the size statistic in Feb Playboy?

12

Anyone seen the size statistic in Feb Playboy?

I just found an interesting bit of information published in the February 2004 issue of Playboy.

On page 45 they state that 2 is the percentage of men who have erections larger than 7.2 inches. That number seems low to me even for NBP measurements. I was wondering if anyone knew where they get this information. Was it gathered from the stats of the guys who work for playboy?

It seems almost like a scheme to get readers to quit sending letters asking about penis size.

Opinions?


"You can't judge a fisherman by the size of his boat, but a bigger boat sure makes his job easier!"- unknown "Its not the size of the boat, its the motion in the ocean. Yeah but it takes a long time to get to England in a rowboat!" - Jeff Foxworthy June 2002: BPEL:6.5-6.75" EG:5.5-5.75" ? (Toilet Paper tube girth) October 2003 BPEL:8.0" EG:6.5" mid 7.0" @ Base February 2005 same :( New Year's Resolution: Lose 15 lbs and break this stupid plateau!!!!

Feel free to write to the editors of the magazine by email. Some editors are cool about that. I especially think since Playboy is redesigning itself they will be very receptive of your question.


“You see, I don’t want to do good things, I want to do great things.” ~Alexander Joseph Luthor

I know Lewd Ferrigno personally.

Quote
Originally posted by Nlarge
Shortwide, it may be of some interest to you and others that I've taken the basic stats from the Lifestyles condom survey of 300 college age males and converted them into a percentile ranking chart using statistical software. A sample size of 300 is pretty strong for population estimates. I felt like this survey was the most accurate since medical personnel performed each measurement exactly the same way on a subset of the population relatively similar to the average PE'er: male, American, and educated. Essentially, the competition :) .

In my attachment you'll find that statistically, an erect johnson of 7.25” BPEL would be at the 95.2 percentile, leaving 4.8% larger than this. Playboy's numbers may be skewed downwards for some reason. Perhaps their sample was too “small”.

How do you know it was bpel? Maybe I didn’t look enough when researching it. When reading about it in the past I didn’t see anywhere that they mentioned if it was nbp or not. I’ve been of the opinion that they did nbp because they are a condom company and in today’s competitive marketing world everything is about getting the edge over the competition so as to make big money. If I remember correctly, they were interested in getting a very accurate measurement so that their condoms would fit well. I don’t think they would have measured bp because that wasn’t what the study was about. Condoms stop at the skin and since they were interested in fitting then they would have stopped at the skin.
A urologist, Wessells, not too long ago did a study himself and his staff did the measuring of 80 men. He clearly stated his nbp and bp measurement findings.
Average: 6 3/16 bpel—— 4 7/8 g


Last edited by beenthere : 01-22-2004 at .

Shortwide, it may be of some interest to you and others that I’ve taken the basic stats from the Lifestyles condom survey of 300 college age males and converted them into a percentile ranking chart using statistical software. A sample size of 300 is pretty strong for population estimates. I felt like this survey was the most accurate since medical personnel performed each measurement exactly the same way on a subset of the population relatively similar to the average PE’er: male, American, and educated. Essentially, the competition .

In my attachment you’ll find that statistically, an erect johnson of 7.25” BPEL would be at the 95.2 percentile, leaving 4.8% larger than this. Playboy’s numbers may be skewed downwards for some reason. Perhaps their sample was too “small”.

Attached Files
pctrankchart.zip
(3.6 KB, 292 views)

Beenthere,

I haven’t verified if it was BP or NBP. I got that information secondhand from another “researcher” who was making a fairly definitive statement about Lifestyles methods. i.e. top of the penis, BPEL. That fellow could be wrong, which would make me wrong as well. I thought about calling Lifestyles for the exact protocol, but didn’t want to make a career of making a spreadsheet, so I ran with the data as presented.

I debated putting it up here, but thought, what the hell, it’s probably at least as accurate as what we usually have access to: anecdotes.

As for whether Lifestyles would choose one or the other method, there are arguments for both. Yours is a good one for NBP. If however, you were making condoms for a variety of men with varying bodyfat percentages, then it would be a good idea to see how much length is covered by a fatpad for the customers who have little or no fatpads.

As for Dr. Wessell’s data, I haven’t seen it, but I’m sure he’s a careful man and a sample of 80 is more than adequate for the population to begin to assume a normal distribution. Provided with a standard deviation, some basic stats could be run. His 6.19” avg is .31” over Lifestyles 5.88”, which may lend some weight to your NBP theory, but I doubt a difference that small would be statistically significant with these small samples.

One thing it does for sure is it puts the average American pecker squarely at about 6”, like most everyone has been saying all along.

At least now if a guy has 6”+ root at least he knows he has a fighting chance in a short-arm competition :)

Do you mean the average is 6” BP or NBP? I read somewhere that 90% of men have a penis between the lengths of 5” to 7”. Obviously theres a huge difference between 5 and 7 inches but very few studies out there mention if they used BP or NBP, they just leave it for the imagination as to what they used.

I think that thorough researchers would opt for BPEL over other measurments since it would be consistently reproduceable with the same subjects over multiple measurements. I’m not suggesting that these dudes got measured multiple times; rather from a research standpoint, it would eliminate one source of variability and further improve the quality of the data. That would lend credibility to the source that claimed Lifestyles was done BPEL. I would suspect that the good doctor (esp. a Urologist) would be wise to this.

The data would suggest that about 75% are between 5” and 7”. With 15% less than 5” and 10% over 7”.

The moral of the story is: A 7” cock puts you in the top 10%, while an 8” joint gives you the title of a 1%’er. It would have to feel good to walk around and know that you’re hung better than 99% of the guys you pass on the street.

I’m neither, but like to imagine receiving my trophy one day. 2 1/2 months in and making surprising and very encouraging progress. Top 10% seems doable, top 1% seems at least possible.

The lifestyles study is seriously flawed as are most, I think it was about 25% of guys in it who pulled out when they saw it was a female nurse who was going to do the study. Did these guys who pulled out have big or small cocks? I think we all know the answer.


The "average size" is usually over-estimated. Small guys don't take part in surveys and big guys jump at the chance.

Girl claims she had a huge ex? Stick a spider in the bathroom or a mouse in the kitchen and when she comes out screaming ask her how big the spider/mouse was...

Quote
Originally posted by trigger
The lifestyles study is seriously flawed as are most, I think it was about 25% of guys in it who pulled out when they saw it was a female nurse who was going to do the study. Did these guys who pulled out have big or small cocks? I think we all know the answer.

OH! OH! I KNOW! <franticly waving hand over his head.> The guys who pulled out would be, ummmmm …. smaller? LOL


"PUT THAT THING AWAY! YOU'RE SCARING THE LADIES!!" (I wish!) Sean Jacobs

1999: 6" EBPL X 5.25" EG ~ 2001: 7" EBPL X 5.75" EG ~ 2003: 7.25" EBPL X 6" EG

Current (Jan 2013): 7.125 EBPL X 6"EG ~ GOAL = 7+" (anything more is fine) EBPL X 6.5" EG

If Lifestyles was nbp then it matches up closely with the Wessell’s study:
Wessell noted that the fat pad from men 40 up averaged just under 1 1/4 inches while on men under 40 it was just under 3/4 inches. Since Lifestyle used college students the fat pad would likely have been even less , perhaps 1/2 inch on college guys. The guys that pulled out of the Lifestyles survey would mostly be the smaller guys so that would drive the average up some in their survey. That would explain why 5.88 plus .5 fat pad(guessing here) being about 6 3/8 inches which is a bit higher than 6 3/16 from Wessells.

Wessells noted that the men he had in his survey were all men suffereing from penile erection problems and that he thought this may cause a bit of shinkage. If this is the case, than a bit should be added to his averages in length and girth —perhaps the 6 3/16 should more accurately be rounded up to 6 1/4 and the 4 7/8 g could be moved up to 4 15/16 g or even 5 g to account for some shrinkage. Also maybe Lifestyles numbers should be brought down because of smaller guys pulling out of the survey—6 3/8 should more accuratey be reduced to 6 1/4 to allow for this.
Aha! We have a match with a little logical adjusting based on who was being measured and why they were being measured. I hereby declare 6 1/4 L the average bpel of men! :)

Quote
Originally posted by seanjacobs
OH! OH! I KNOW! <franticly waving hand over his head.> The guys who pulled out would be, ummmmm …. smaller? LOL

LOL


You all are still missing the point... The story was great and all but should have ass (and) some anal in it.- RWG

Quote
Originally posted by beenthere
I hereby declare 6 1/4 L the average bpel of men! :)

Thank gawd thats settled once and for all. I have been waiting for someone to do that forever.

789


You all are still missing the point... The story was great and all but should have ass (and) some anal in it.- RWG

BP measuring is real science.

In a country where people have lot of body fat that can distort the statistics.

But if a condom manufacturer is making the survey then I understunt the need for npb measuring.

Well most of these penis size surveys are made for men that they could feel better about them selfs, not against at all.


Looking to be a kiwi.

Originally Posted by beenthere
If Lifestyles was nbp then it matches up closely with the Wessell’s study:
Wessell noted that the fat pad from men 40 up averaged just under 1 1/4 inches while on men under 40 it was just under 3/4 inches. Since Lifestyle used college students the fat pad would likely have been even less , perhaps 1/2 inch on college guys. The guys that pulled out of the Lifestyles survey would mostly be the smaller guys so that would drive the average up some in their survey. That would explain why 5.88 plus .5 fat pad(guessing here) being about 6 3/8 inches which is a bit higher than 6 3/16 from Wessells.

Wessells noted that the men he had in his survey were all men suffereing from penile erection problems and that he thought this may cause a bit of shinkage. If this is the case, than a bit should be added to his averages in length and girth —perhaps the 6 3/16 should more accurately be rounded up to 6 1/4 and the 4 7/8 g could be moved up to 4 15/16 g or even 5 g to account for some shrinkage. Also maybe Lifestyles numbers should be brought down because of smaller guys pulling out of the survey—6 3/8 should more accuratey be reduced to 6 1/4 to allow for this.
Aha! We have a match with a little logical adjusting based on who was being measured and why they were being measured. I hereby declare 6 1/4 L the average bpel of men! :)

I agree completely. Not only were the men at the DaddyRock nightclub probably younger on average then the average thundersplace member but many were also probably pretty lean. I don’t know about you guys but I worked out really hard before going down to Cabo and/or Mazatlan and so did my friends. Many of the people that I saw down there had obviously been working out too! In fact, I will go out on a limb here and say that the people there were disproportionately low in bodyfat when compared to the average american.

And how about the guys who “hung” in for the study? Can we assume they were average or higher? Again, doesn’t that make the study less valid? All I know is in the locker room at the club the less endowed fellows cover up with their towel, the big guys let it all hang out.

HH


"It's not the getting there but the going that's gotta be good." Varg

Horsehung

Top
12

All times are GMT. The time now is 07:51 PM.