Thunder's Place

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

Penis Size: The True Average

If you don’t get the answer you want, just keep asking til someone gives it to me! :)


2007-01-27 5.3" BPEL 4.8" EG, Less than 3" Flaccid, and sometimes less than 2"

As of 12-07-2008 7.75" BPEL 7.1" NBPEL 5.7"MSEG 6"+ BSEG. Ultimate goal 8+ inches NBPEL, 8.5" BPEL 6.3" EG (2" diameter just sounds so cool!)

Flaccid 5+ inches on a good day. 4 1/2+ pretty much anytime. My gains have slowed to a snails pace, but I will not quit!!!!!!!

My view is that the average size has to be between 5.25 and 5.75 inch.


Started: NBPEL 5.5 == EG: 5

Current: NBPEL 7.5 == EG: 6

Goal: NBPEL 8 == EG: 6

Is there a reason everyone seems to cite lifestyles as the “best” study. It seems to me that the wessels study is the best, as he uses flaccid stretch, nbp - “erect length”, and bp - “functional.” while 80 is a rather small group, if they are truely random (which might not be the case) a group over 30 has little statistical skewing on a few larger or smaller members

Check out all the data with ranges
http://www.measurection.com/fusionb….php?tid/49686/
And some other studies too
http://www.measurection.com/fusionb….php?tid/22234/

Originally Posted by redskins2k9
Is there a reason everyone seems to cite lifestyles as the “best” study. It seems to me that the wessels study is the best, as he uses flaccid stretch, nbp - “erect length”, and bp - “functional.” while 80 is a rather small group, if they are truely random (which might not be the case) a group over 30 has little statistical skewing on a few larger or smaller members

Check out all the data with ranges
http://www.measurection.com/fusionb….php?tid/49686/
And some other studies too
http://www.measurection.com/fusionb….php?tid/22234/


I find the Lifestyles study useful because it provides standard deviation information on both length and girth. This allows computation of percentile rankings (provided we assume normally distributed data). It does suffer from serious self-selection bias because of how the study was done (i.e. asking for volunteers during Spring Break) so it likely overstates the true average since smaller, less confident, guys would be less likely to partake. The results of this study might best be interpreted as average size among a group of sexually confident young men (although even this interpretation is open to criticism).

If anyone has more information regarding the Wessels study (or any other study), please post. Of particular interest would be information on sample selection and standard deviation (or other distribution parameters if applicable). I wasn’t able to find the Wessels study online. Maybe one day when I’m not feeling lazy I’ll go to the library and read it.

Originally Posted by redskins2k9
Is there a reason everyone seems to cite lifestyles as the “best” study. It seems to me that the wessels study is the best, as he uses flaccid stretch, nbp - “erect length”, and bp - “functional.” while 80 is a rather small group, if they are truely random (which might not be the case) a group over 30 has little statistical skewing on a few larger or smaller members

Check out all the data with ranges
http://www.measurection.com/fusionb….php?tid/49686/

Finally a study that’s clear on the “is it bp or nbp!?” problem.. it even lists both. Thanks!

My problem with the “true average” is that they say the average male height is about 5’10”. I am exactly 5’10” and I seem to see a lot of men taller and very few shorter. So if the average penis is about 5 inches, then there must be quite a few that are a lot larger.

Originally Posted by Yanni

My problem with the “true average” is that they say the average male height is about 5’10”. I am exactly 5’10” and I seem to see a lot of men taller and very few shorter. So if the average penis is about 5 inches, then there must be quite a few that are a lot larger.

It’s more likely that your observations about height are wrong. To see why, consider that the standard deviation for height is probably only a few inches (if anyone can find a reliable source I’d be interested to know this figure). Let’s say that it’s 3” for the sake of argument and that the average male height is indeed 5’ 10”. That means over 84% of men will be 5’ 7” or taller. Basically, most men are near your height or taller. That may account for your perception that very few short men exist.

Norsey: Finally a study that’s clear on the “is it bp or nbp!?” problem.. it even lists both. Thanks!
(sorry i dont know how to quote)

Yea I think that the wessels is probably the best, but even it is out of place.
6.2” average for bp? the other studies come close to 5.7”, which is actually very close to Lifestyles study, which never specified whether it was bp or not. The nice thing about Lifestyles is that it does give useful deviations.

Even though I dont really like lifestyles, I use it to figure out my percentile in length and girth. it also seems to me that Lifestyles study is skewed because if it is outside of a bar, alcohol make it difficult to get it up, making the “real” average longer. Although only 300 out of the 400 participants were able to “qualify,” meaning they could get it up enough to be considered an erection, which can be loosely define, I know that when taking measurements of myself, the difference between really hard and full can be up to 1/2 inch when BP (very little difference for me NBP as the skin starts to ride up as I get more full, negating any bp growth, thank god for bp). There is no way for a nurse to know how much more can it can fill. I get rock hard, but I see a lot of pornstars able to bend it all over. If I were in that study, the nurse would say, ok your full, and I would say, no, no im not, let me get full. I wouldn’t be able to given the alcohol, and then she would end up taking the measurement anyway, not really representing my true length. Add on the given self selection bias, and you have one messed up survey.

Also, who do you think participates in these size studies. Given that I am much above what has been considered average, I would never ever participate unless they gave out a certificate of proof for your size. Given a choice, I want the average to be as small as possible to make me look more impressive.
If i had what I thought to be a small dick, I would think to my self, “well I want the average to be as small as possible so I better get in there.” I know there is a self confidence issue if you are small going into a study, but if I was small (and I used to think that i was really small) I would have done it in a heart to represent small dicks do exist and to skew the average down.

Originally Posted by redskins2k9

Also, who do you think participates in these size studies. Given that I am much above what has been considered average, I would never ever participate unless they gave out a certificate of proof for your size. Given a choice, I want the average to be as small as possible to make me look more impressive.

If i had what I thought to be a small dick, I would think to my self, “well I want the average to be as small as possible so I better get in there.” I know there is a self confidence issue if you are small going into a study, but if I was small (and I used to think that i was really small) I would have done it in a heart to represent small dicks do exist and to skew the average down.

You seem to be one of the few men with enough blood to operate both his penis and his brain at the same time. :)

ha thanks. does anyone else think that too though?

there are lies, damn lies, and statistics.

There is a “study” on erectionphotos.com that I had never noticed before. It is from the photos in the drop down menu in the top frame of the site. It seems they got 75 guys to take photos against an angle chart and also measured length to the nearest 1/4”. I cannot find a report on this study on the site but I went through each photo and got the lengths and averaged them. The result is 5.78”.

The data is attached in a .txt file since I want to make this post easy to read.

Also in question 2 of Q&A section of the site we find that the length measurements were probably taken NBP:

“Length is measured along the upper side of the erect penis, usually with a ruler but sometimes with a flexible tape. The length is from the tip end of the penis to the pubo-penile skin junction, which is the point where the penis joins the abdomen.”

This could be another worthy data point.

Attached Files
erectionphotos_study.txt
(381 Bytes, 117 views)

Length for show. Girth for "Whoa"!

NBPEL: Start: $1.50; Current: $1.75; Goal: $2

MSEG: Start: <TP Tube; Current: >TP Tube; Goal: >>PT Tube.

Originally Posted by retention_head
There is a “study” on erectionphotos.com that I had never noticed before. It is from the photos in the drop down menu in the top frame of the site. It seems they got 75 guys to take photos against an angle chart and also measured length to the nearest 1/4”. I cannot find a report on this study on the site but I went through each photo and got the lengths and averaged them. The result is 5.78”.

The data is attached in a .txt file since I want to make this post easy to read.

Also in question 2 of Q&A section of the site we find that the length measurements were probably taken NBP:

“Length is measured along the upper side of the erect penis, usually with a ruler but sometimes with a flexible tape. The length is from the tip end of the penis to the pubo-penile skin junction, which is the point where the penis joins the abdomen.”

This could be another worthy data point.

Interesting data and a good post by you. Certainly a unique approach in size studies. I’ve seen that site before, however, I’d say that a photo study is surely subject to the same biases that affect other self reported measurements, and I’d also point out that such photography is not necessarily a valid analytical tool, especially when used in conjunction with a size chart placed behind it, since there is always going to be an optical problem (specifically, depth of field issues) that affects an analysis. It is far easier to compare two objects that are the same distance away from the camera.

That being said, their averages, if accurate, to me would indicate bone pressed, not NBP, as this would be one of the higher average lengths reported by studies. I’m a bit skeptical of both the quality of the data and the measurement method. The author acknowledges much the same concern at the link titled “Related Article”.

One thing that is interesting to me is the use of various verbiages such as “pubo penile junction” which to me indicates the os pubis “junction” with the base of the penis shaft. It conflicts with alternative verbiage such as “where the skin of the abdomen begins” which seems to imply NBP.


4/2008 Bpel 6.50, Beg 5.5, Mseg 4.9

6/2008 Bpel 6.75, Beg 5.5, Mseg 5.1

9/2008 Bpel 7.00, Beg 5.5, Mseg 5.1

Originally Posted by Fantom
The author acknowledges much the same concern at the link titled “Related Article”.


Ugh, I have read that report before, but never closely enough to realize it was from his own study.

This study has been published. It is probably the same text that appears on the site.


Length for show. Girth for "Whoa"!

NBPEL: Start: $1.50; Current: $1.75; Goal: $2

MSEG: Start: <TP Tube; Current: >TP Tube; Goal: >>PT Tube.

Originally Posted by joeym75ld
Does anyone know where to find detailed procedures used in the Ansells/Lifestyles study? I’m wondering exactly how they took the length measurements (I.e., topside, non-bone pressed?) and if it was explicitly stated that girth was measured mid-shaft?

I’ve seen several articles that confirm this description of how Lifestyle measured:

http://www.mraverage.com/results.htm

Quote
Measurement methodology

The following criteria were enforced by a doctor and a team of four nurses, who attended each of the seven nights of the penis size research. Measuring of length was from the point at the base of the erect penis where the top of the penile shaft meets the pubic area to the tip of the glans (“head”). For uncircumcised men, the foreskin was retracted. Measuring of girth was at mid-shaft around the circumference of the penis when the penis was erect. Failure to gain an effective erection for measurement disqualified the volunteer from being included in the data for the calculation of average erect penis length and girth.

Top

All times are GMT. The time now is 01:42 PM.