How big is well- endowed....

It’s so hard for me to believe, but that’s what the published studies say. My seemingly modest starting length with above average girth (6.5x5.25) when I started is in the top 3%. I certainly never considered myself “well endowed” back then, but what else could you call it?

Without a doubt, if you’re above 7” in length and 5.25” in girth you can consider yourself well endowed. When you’re in the 8” length & 6” girth range you are very well endowed. Now, when you get into 9” length and 6.5” girth or above you are an absolute monster!

The thing is, as mentioned before (more than likely), big will always be 1”x0.5” than you are, and huge will always be 2”x1”. It’s funny, because if someone was starting with 4” or 5”, they’d be ecstatic at making it to the 6s, meanwhile if we start in the 6s or 7s, then we aren’t happy until 8s or 9s. I’m willing to bet most that start in the 8s won’t be happy until they see 9 or 10, which is barely even seen in porn.

The main calculator on the site https://calcsd. … alloon.com/full uses flawed data. It includes data from the flawed Veale study in 2015, the one that was widely reported in the media. That study included two studies, the Indian one and the Italian one on 3300 or so soldiers that were both non bone pressed measurements, but included them in the whole compilation of other bone pressed studies, and incorrectly recorded the whole lot as having been a compilation of bone pressed studies. This would have lowered the statistics, the actual statistics should have been higher,

That is why on that site I used the data from the et al Habous study, as that study is correctly recorded as of being bone pressed. Therefore, I suggest that is the data a man should use if he most accurately wants to find out how he compares to other adult men in my opinion.

To be honest, there is a size when you realized your huge. When you are on the top end of the scale. But yes, always wanting one more inch length. However, I have no interest in being thicker.

YES! I’m well endowed then! All I needed to know. Sorry for my ‘gloating’ it just makes me so damn happy. Funny thing is I know of a couple of guys who used to say I had a small one (just to be dick heads) that are way smaller than me by now, which makes me even happier as revenge is a dish best served cold, and big, lol. “Schadenfraude” is the word I’m looking for, I presume.

Not flawed, but perhaps you are mis-informed.

The Veale study didn’t use erect length data from the Italian soldiers (Ponchietti, et al ; 2001) — only flaccid length, stretched length, and flaccid circumference.— there is a nice chart on exactly what studies were used, AND what data was used from each study in the full online paper. — go to the link — scroll down to the interactive study list — and you will see n/a for both erect length and erect circumference in the row associated with the Italian study.

(from the paper):

Eligibility Criteria:

Studies were included if there was agreement of two of the authors:

1. Quantitative measurement of penis size was measured by a health professional.
2. The sample included a ≥50 participants.
3. Participants were aged ≥17 years.
4. A mean and sd of the sample size measurements were provided.
5. Flaccid or erect length was measured from the root (pubo-penile junction) of the penis to the tip of the glans (meatus) on the dorsal surface, where the pre-pubic fat pad was pushed to the bone.
6. Flaccid stretched length was measured as above while maximally extending the penis.
7. Flaccid or erect circumference (or ‘girth’) was measured at the base or mid-shaft of the penis, (and not from the corona).
8. They were published in the English language.

http://onlineli brary.wiley.com … /bju.13010/full

Promodu et al, 2007: Penile Length and Circumference, An Indian Study
Penile length was defined as the linear distance along the dorsal side of the penis extending from the pubo – penile skin junction to the tip of the glans. Penile circumference was measured at the middle of the shaft.
This sounds like non bone pressed.
Also from Ponchetti 2001 http://www.natu re.com/ijir/jou … l/3900887a.html ,
Penile length was defined as the linear distance along the dorsal side of the penis extending from the pubopenile skin junction to the tip of the glans in the flaccid and fully stretched but still flaccid state.
Also NBP.

Unless your telling me those NBP measurements of those two studies were not included in the final compilation, only the other parts that met the above criteria you posted?

kb,
It’s an interesting debate to have, and I’m willing to believe that a lot of non-bone-pressed numbers are included in the average size that has been touted (5.1") . The study you mentioned a few posts back found an average of over 700 Arab volunteers to be about 4.9" NBPEL, and 5.6" BPEL with 4.5" EG. An interesting thing in the results was that BMI had a "weak negative correlation" in NBP size and had no effect on BPEL.

Erect penile dimensions in a cohort of 778 Middle Eastern men: establishment of a nomogram

It’s much easier for me to believe a 5.6" average. Thank you!

I am explicitly stating that the Italian study did not inform the Erect Length or Erect Girth values. — n/a is clearly stated.

The paper also defines this as one of the requirements for inclusion:

"5. Flaccid or erect length was measured from the root (pubo-penile junction) of the penis to the tip of the glans (meatus) on the dorsal surface, where the pre-pubic fat pad was pushed to the bone."

Apparently Veale at al contacted the study authors of Promodu — and found their definition of pubopenile skin junction MET the definition of bone pressed — and was thus not excluded.

Look at the list of what is required to be Inclusive — bone pressed.

Veale required ALL included studies to be compliant with this statement:

“5. Flaccid or erect length was measured from the root (pubo-penile junction) of the penis to the tip of the glans (meatus) on the dorsal surface, where the pre-pubic fat pad was pushed to the bone.”

Obviously Veale et al are either lying — or they contacted the study authors and found that the measurements were indeed Bone Pressed.

There are lots of 5” erect dicks out there.

I’m 7.125” Bone Pressed, and hang 4.5-5” flaccid.

You would not believe how nurses that have had to cath me for surgery respond.

Yes, I hang flaccid, at about the average erect length.

And my flaccid girth is 4.5

How do the nurses respond if I may ask?

They provide him with health care and a large bill at the end of it.

:)

99.7 vs 98.7, so still good either way, lol. That said, there are a few more people in that room of 1000 I have to ask to leave or lock out of the room.