Thunder's Place

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

Is there a correlation between length and girth

And yet how many times do we hear women say to us, “you are not the longest but the thickest” well the evidence seems to show that women are liars when it comes to talking candidly about penis size to their partners


For our demands most moderate are,

We only want the earth.

James Connolly

Another comparison that I once did, from the database, was to see if growers caught up with showers upon erections. I only compared 3” flaccids vs 5” flaccids, and found that erect 5” flaccid averaged out to 7.25 bpel” and that 3” flaccid averaged out to 5.75” bpel.

So what had begun as a 2” difference when flaccid wound up a 1.5” difference when erect. In other words, “growers” gained ground but did not catch up.

My study was incomplete. I don’t think I quite got through all the 3” vs 5” flaccids available, and as I said, I didn’t check any other flaccid sizes.

A possible problem exists in the studying of flaccid sizes in the database - for while it’s fairly understood that bpel is intended for erect charting, it seems some are charting their flaccids bp while others are charting their flaccids nbp. Here’s a poll I setup quite a while back. It’s possible that my poll is not quite indicative of the database, since I didn’t ask directly in the poll title for one to indicate how one measures for the database input. Plus there are not all that many votes in the poll, so the percentages could still change quite a bit upon more total votes.
Flaccid measuring poll

In my comparison, it would seem reasonable to think that 3”ers inputted nbp and bp data, and that 5”ers inputted both nbp and bp data, and therefore the correlation could be valid. The problem is whether one group happened to have a much higher occurrence of measuring one way, bp for instance, while the other group happened to have a higher occurrence of measuring another way, nbp for instance. I don’t really think that is likely to have happened. My poll shows that approximately 3 out of four guys measured their flaccids nbp and approximately 1 out 4 measured their flaccid bp. The poll shows 60% and 22%, but for my post here I’ve removed the ones that voted that they don’t measure flaccid, since that doesn’t apply to the comparison. That changes it to 73% nbp (38 votes) and 27% bp (14 votes) out of 52 total applicable votes.

Does the poll indicate that the majority of guys in the database measured nbp? Probably. Especially since the database does instruct to measure nbp, though it’s not all that apparent nbp is being instructed. In addition, I believe most guys are prone to measure flaccid as nbp anyway.

.


Last edited by beenthere : 12-10-2006 at .

Originally Posted by Para-Goomba
I missed this thread.

I just downloaded the PE Data Site spreadsheet and found a correlation of 0.62 between erect length and erect girth (R-squared = 0.38), pretty strong but not as strong as I’d have expected. One limitation of these data is that several data pairs represent the same dick (growing over time via PE) in many cases.

See the attachment for a scatterplot.

I’m assuming your graph is pre pe, which is what I used in my study, of course.

While I’m typing, I forgot to mention in my previous post that the flaccid comparisons I did were pre pe. It’s easy to forget to mention that pre pe comparisons were done since pe comparisons wouldn’t be logical for checking out the validity of widespread opinion - that growers catch up with showers - but I think it should be stated clearly what was analyzed.

A post pe comparison of various flaccids to erect would be interesting in it’s own right, to see if PE alters the correlation strength.

Originally Posted by beenthere

I’m assuming your graph is pre pe, which is what I used in my study, of course.

Nope, I just used the whole spreadsheet available for download (with its 5500 cases, or whatever it is). I didn’t have time to delete all the repeated cocks:

Originally Posted by Para-Goomba
One limitation of these data is that several data pairs represent the same dick (growing over time via PE) in many cases.

I call this a “limitation” because guys with long, skinny cocks may work to achieve girth (and hence their later entries may reflect a more “proportional” penis than they were born with) and vice-versa for guys with short, fat cocks — thereby inflating the correlation coefficient. Frankly, though, I doubt the results would be dramatically different even if we edited away all post-PE entries. Do you have a spreadsheet of members’ first entries only? (Although I suppose some members only make an entry after making some PE gains, so even that wouldn’t be perfect…)

Para,

My post #9 in this thread was done with pen, paper and calculator.

I think it may be important that it’s done pre pe. To include anything else just adds more uncertainty into the equation. Not really the way to go about it.

You’re welcome to edit the *.csv down to size and run the correlation in Excel. From my experience working with similarly large and flawed data sets, I doubt the correlation will be changed dramatically by cleaning up the data (you could also remove outliers while you’re at it), but I could certainly be wrong.

It’s a bit unclear to me how to, as I haven’t worked with Excel in this manner. I could figure it out, but the thread hasn’t gotten posted into by many people anyway, so I’m not even sure how much real interest there is in this particular topic. If someone decides to do it I’ll read it, but I just don’t feel enough urge to tangle with it. I would think that with so many members someone would want to help out, but perhaps the interest just isn’t there. It took quite a bit of time to gather the data for my #9 post, so I feel like I’ve done my part. Besides, my post and your post indicate a correlation exists, so maybe there isn’t a good enough reason to pursue any further what has become fairly evident now, and might explain why no one else has bothered.


Last edited by beenthere : 12-10-2006 at .

So are these pencil dick people we hear about mythical creatures there, or just outliners


For our demands most moderate are,

We only want the earth.

James Connolly

Bump.


For our demands most moderate are,

We only want the earth.

James Connolly

No they are not, I just recently found out.

On a drunk night out, we had a verbal joust about our penises. No we actually didn’t, two friends who had sex with the same chick did, I was just a passive observer.

They were talking about how she was in bed, and one seemed to express his experience, a bit differently then the other. He mentioned screaming and moaning, and words, which are irrelevant.

So the other asked him how big his dick was, and he showed him what appeared to be something around 8.5x6.5. The guy asking bowed his head for a second.

Me being the passive observer, and grabber of the side laugh, asked how big his dick was, and the guy just said, well mine is also long, but it’s much thinner then that.

Remember this though, girth contributes far more to total size in cubic inches, so being .5” longer then someone is not a big deal, but being .5” thicker then someone can definitely make you the thickest.


Wishing and hoping for the best - yup your doing it wrong.

Damn man you and your pals are very open about your dick size.


For our demands most moderate are,

We only want the earth.

James Connolly

It’s the age we live in.

Fortunately, no one whips their dicks out. Thank fuck for that.


Wishing and hoping for the best - yup your doing it wrong.

Got some more data to add. Even though this thread is about length to girth ratio (of which I posted my findings earlier in this thread), while at it I had also compared flaccid length to erect length earlier in this thread. My data for the flaccid to erect wasn’t as much to go on as the length to girth data. I started to go back into the database here and gather some more, of a different pre pe flaccid size, which still can be done, but I recalled having seen this website once upon a time and decided to use it this time around. At the website, if the measurements weren’t in inches, or didn’t include height, flaccid penis length and erect length, then I didn’t fool with recording it. The vast majority I was able to record.

http://www.erectionphotos.com/softH…dGalleryP01.htm

Flaccid Length———————-Averaged Erect Length
1.00-1.49——————————————4.71
1.5-1.99——————————————-4.89
2.00-2.49——————————————4.88
2.50-2.99——————————————4.92
3.00-3.49——————————————6.07
3.50-3.99——————————————6.08
4.00-4.49——————————————6.69
4.50-4.99——————————————7.00
5.00-5.49——————————————7.35
5.50-5.99——————————————7.80
6.00-6.49——————————————na
6.50-6.99——————————————9.00

Not as many to go by in some categories from the website as wanted to go by, but nevertheless, along with the 3” vs 5” flaccid to erect comparison I had made earlier in this thread from the database at Thunder’s, that website and Thunder’s both indicate that various size flaccids do not average out equal in length upon erection, despite popular opinion.

Also, from that website, the height vs penis length comparison also show what the polls here at Thunder’s have been indicating, that there is a correlation between height and penis length, and it’s not a weak one, despite popular opinion.


Last edited by beenthere : 06-24-2007 at .

Originally Posted by beenthere
Got some more data to add. Even though this thread is about length to girth ratio (of which I posted my findings earlier in this thread), while at it I had also compared flaccid length to erect length earlier in this thread. My data for the flaccid to erect wasn’t as much to go on as the length to girth data. I started to go back into the database here and gather some more, of a different pre pe flaccid size, which still can be done, but I recalled having seen this website once upon a time and decided to use it this time around. At the website, if the measurements weren’t in inches, or didn’t include height, flaccid penis length and erect length, then I didn’t fool with recording it. The vast majority I was able to record.

http://www.erectionphotos.com/softH…dGalleryP01.htm

Flaccid Length———————-Averaged Erect Length————————Amount of increase in inches
1.00-1.49——————————————4.71——————————————————-+3.50
1.5-1.99——————————————-4.89——————————————————-+3.14
2.00-2.49——————————————4.88——————————————————-+2.63
2.50-2.99——————————————4.92——————————————————-+2.17
3.00-3.49——————————————6.07——————————————————-+2.82
3.50-3.99——————————————6.08——————————————————-+2.33
4.00-4.49——————————————6.69——————————————————-+2.44
4.50-4.99——————————————7.00——————————————————-+2.25
5.00-5.49——————————————7.35——————————————————-+2.10
5.50-5.99——————————————7.80——————————————————-+2.05
6.00-6.49——————————————na————————————————————na
6.50-6.99——————————————9.00——————————————————-+2.25

I’ve added a column in the above chart. The numbers are somewhat unstable, which more data in each range would likely smooth out. The average increase is 2.5 inches.

When I get a chance I’ll compare Stevie31’s pre pe flaccid and erect polls to see if I can draw an approximate comparison on the average increase in size. Not quite sure yet if that can be done, though my first instincts are that it can. Will look into that when I have more time. I’m thinking that the average increase in size is a stone unturned up until now. This can better help define grower and shower, though I think the above chart indicates the distinction between the two terms isn’t as great as generally thought.

Top

All times are GMT. The time now is 11:35 PM.