Thank you for the extensive reply. (Also thanks for the variety of brilliant threads recently!) I will address each of your substantive points.
…any national study (Israeli, British, Korean, etc.) is going to give a skewed picture of the “average man” - unless, of course, you’ve compiled these studies from about 170 countries.
As beenthere demonstrated, all five of the studies of predominantly white populations in well-fed nations – excluding the Israeli one, due to the fact that the men in it suffered ED – showed EBPL averages within the range of 5.9” to 6.5”. This is very strong convergence of data. I did not cherry-pick these studies; I included every one I could find. I agree with you that it’s possible that other populations in the world have different averages, due to differences in majority genetics or in nutrition. My post was aimed at the concerns of the typical Thunder’s reader, who tends to live in America or a European nation and whose penile “competition” is therefore well represented by these studies. Thanks for the clarification.
…however, most men are not going to be at 110% wood when…
I addressed this point in my post. Some of the studies used a direct drug injection into the penis to induce full, 100% erection – perhaps better even than a “Viagra erection”. These studies’ averages were no greater than the others’.
And I have to wonder about that Durex condom study…I think it’s a bit over-optimistic to think these guys were all being measured at 100%.
I agree, but this point has also been addressed. You are ignoring the countervailing effect of self-selection bias: These were the guys who had the balls to go into this tent and get their erect cocks measured by two nurses. The fact that this survey ended up producing an average larger than any of the studies in which 100%-erection was induced by drug – or in which FSL was used, and therefore erection-quality was irrelevant – suggests that the self-selection effect was at least as strong as the imperfect-erection problem. Notice also the two studies without self-selection problems – the soldier studies – produced relatively small averages.
I just think it’s a bit self-deluding to think that a vast number of men out there are only around 5” BP; whereas the big cocks are as rarely seen as Halley’s Comet.
Until you can adduce evidence that the average penis length is more than about 6” BP, then I would say that there are likely as many men out there with under 5” BP as there are with over 7” BP. Neither big cocks nor small cocks are “as rare as Haley’s Comet,” regardless of what the mean is, as long as the distribution is normal, since the designations “big” and “small” depend for their meaning on deviation from the average.
Kinsey stated that the most common size was 6” (NBP), I do tend to believe that’s about as accurate as anything we’ve come across.
Why? Assuming a fat pad of 1” for the Kinsey men (they weren’t all young, right?), they averaged 7.16” BPEL – quite a bit more than has been found in any of the medical studies ever done.
And most of the studies you’ve cited contained only about 55-300 subjects; most were only about 100; 1 study examined over 3,000 men.
And the Italian study that examined 3,300 men – also a study in which self-selection bias didn’t factor in, since it was done on soldiers, making it by far the best of the studies – found the smallest average size of the five studies on predominantly white populations without ED. When you have a figure (~6” BPEL) that has been replicated almost exactly in five studies, a criticism of sample size is weak.
1) The vast majority of men are between 5.5-6.5” NBP (a huge number of men).
2) Huge dicks are statistically rare, but not as rare as many tend to believe, perhaps, and
3) Women definitely, without question, prefer a big dick over a small dick.
Well, I agree with #3 wholeheartedly – as long as you qualify “women” with “most”. Obviously I disagree about #1, since that’s the topic of this thread.
I know it’s sort of silly that we’re arguing over only one inch here, but that inch matters to plenty of men, and I don’t think that any of your criticisms of these studies holds water. In the end, I cannot compel anyone to put more trust in the data than in friends’ and women’s anecdotes; my goal has been simply to establish what the data say.