Thunder's Place

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

Penis Size: The True Average

Originally Posted by marinera
Post-op have decrease in penile size, so their measures are unuseful, or am I wrong? We have to take pre-surgery sizes.

The post-op men in their sample actually had a slightly larger size (6.06”) than the men who had not had surgery (5.98”). The authors split up the post-op group based on how many months had passed since their surgeries, and try to claim based on these data that there may be a trend to lose length over time, but their analyses supporting this contention are very flimsy. (I agree with you, though, that most sources suggest that there is a loss in size after prostatectomy; this study just doesn’t provide good evidence of that fact.)

Lampwick, I agree with you that the authors indicate they measured in a normal way, so I didn’t add any special description of the measurement method in the first post of this thread. It’s just odd how the men seemed to have average or above-average lengths, but girths that were overwhelmingly on the small-to-average side. Might have to do with the effects of prolonged ED.

Originally Posted by Lampwick
‘taking author’ words so literally as you insist’?

Why, yes. I tend to think etc. etc..

I get about 1” more length measuring from the side. So measuring from the top and measuring from the side isn’t the same thing. I get also about 1/3” less measuring from the top, laying down, than measuring from the top standing. So, measuring from the side is different than mesuring from the top and both are different when measuring standing than measuring laying down.

It’s the same that is said here

Measure Your Penis - 2001 Site - Tom Hubbard

so it has to be right, you say? Wrong. If you look at the description of “measure erect lenght” there, you see that, while the text says measuring from the ‘pubic bone’ standing or laying down, the pic shows measuring from the side. So that also is wrong.

I measure from the top standing, I think it is the correct way to mesaure, and it doesn’t requires to go inside of urethra to get the correct measurement.

Cheers.


Last edited by marinera : 02-25-2009 at .

Originally Posted by marinera
I get also about 1/3” less measuring from the top, laying down, than measuring from the top standing.

Really? I always thought the measurement standing up was smaller. When I measure, its laying down.


My goal is to be the best me, mind, body and soul, PE is part of achieving the best me.

Originally Posted by Para-Goomba

The post-op men in their sample actually had a slightly larger size (6.06”) than the men who had not had surgery (5.98”). etc. etc.

I get what are you saying: table in page 3 says:

AVG NSRRP - EL 154 (mm)

AVG NS - EL 152

But it also, it says : GROUP A (0 - 8 mos) EL 168 (mm).

This group is about 10% longer than both others. So, what I speculate is: couldn’t be that, in the attempt to confirm their supposition, they got the measurements of the GROUP A (supposed more near to ‘true, original average length’) in a bad way? Also, all considered, isn’t true that this study raise some perplexities?


Last edited by marinera : 02-25-2009 at .

Originally Posted by HardbodyPEer

Really? I always thought the measurement standing up was smaller. When I measure, its laying down.

Maybe it’s not the same for everybody? I get near no differences in measurements from standing or sitting, in example, where many say they get about 1/2”-1” difference.

Originally Posted by marinera
So, what I speculate is: couldn’t be that, in the attempt to confirm their supposition, they got the measurements of the GROUP A (supposed more near to ‘true, original average length’) in a bad way?

Very good point. The methods section specifies that the third author, AM, took the measurements. Presumably he was not blind to his own hypothesis (: , or to the “condition” of the subject (i.e., how much time had passed since his prostatectomy), so it’s certainly possible that the researcher’s own biases in measurement produced the results he was expecting.

I agree it’s not a very high-quality study (published in a not very high-quality journal), but of course several of the other “dick size” studies that have been published were probably of middling quality also. One has to look across the studies and see the overall pattern of results, and I agree with you that the results from this particular study are a bit of an outlier in some ways.

That’s sure - a bunch of those studies seems of not excellent quality. It seems we’ll never know ‘the scientific true on average penis size’. :)

However, summing all it up (I confess I haven’t read all studies), what we can call ‘the average erect length’? Is 5.75” - 6.25” trustable? P-G, Invisible…anyone? So we can tell something to about 50% of newbies’ first post. ;)

Yup, I think it’s extremely safe to say, given the preponderance of evidence, that most dicks, in well-nourished populations, are in the 6” BPEL range (measured in a “conservative,” ordinary way). There’s less evidence on girth, but the average in well-nourished populations is almost certainly less than 5” EG.

The info given to newbies here is, then, pretty accurate — it’s often said that if you’re at least 6x5, you don’t have much to worry about in the penis department (unless you have a 2” fat pad, perhaps ;) ). This thread might provide additional help to anyone whose mind has been warped by porn or that “penis size debate” website, who refuses to believe, without strong evidence, that most dicks really aren’t very big. Of course, a walk through any locker room should help in this regard also (:

Originally Posted by marinera
That’s sure - a bunch of those studies seems of not excellent quality. It seems we’ll never know ‘the scientific true on average penis size’. :)

However, summing all it up (I confess I haven’t read all studies), what we can call ‘the average erect length’? Is 5.75” - 6.25” trustable? P-G, Invisible…anyone? So we can tell something to about 50% of newbies’ first post. ;)

I think yes. Using your numbers here a 6” dong is right at middle of the road. (not small, not big) I also think this would definitely be a bone pressed number.


Paraphrased: It is not the critic who counts: The credit belongs to the man in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, who, at the best, knows the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat.

Originally Posted by Para-Goomba
The info given to newbies here is, then, pretty accurate — it’s often said that if you’re at least 6x5, you don’t have much to worry about in the penis department (unless you have a 2” fat pad, perhaps ;) ).

Goomba,

I am one of the unfortunate guys that has a fat pad between 1&1/2 to 2” fat pad. Unfortunately, I think it is hereditary. This being said, I also have an area at the base of my unit that is almost like “welled out” area. So, I probably get all but about 1/2 of my shaft in my lady. But damnit, with my girth at 5.5 and a fat pad that is so big, I look kind of stubby.

Herein lies the reason why my goal is to get to a 8.5” bpel. :) Wish me luck!!! (please?)


Paraphrased: It is not the critic who counts: The credit belongs to the man in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, who, at the best, knows the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat.

Originally Posted by marinera

I get about 1” more length measuring from the side. So measuring from the top and measuring from the side isn’t the same thing. I get also about 1/3” less measuring from the top, laying down, than measuring from the top standing. So, measuring from the side is different than mesuring from the top and both are different when measuring standing than measuring laying down.

It’s the same that is said here

Measure Your Penis - 2001 Site - Tom Hubbard

so it has to be right, you say? Wrong. If you look at the description of “measure erect lenght” there, you see that, while the text says measuring from the ‘pubic bone’ standing or laying down, the pic shows measuring from the side. So that also is wrong.

I measure from the top standing, I think it is the correct way to mesaure, and it doesn’t requires to go inside of urethra to get the correct measurement.

Cheers.

marinera, have another look at that link. The ruler is shown shifted to the side for clarity’s sake, but see the line with the dot at the end that goes to the centerline of the penis? That's where the measurement is taken from.

Because this subject comes up from time to time, I did a photoedited version of that picture that makes it clearer:

/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=52075

The thread where that came up was measuring wrong!.


For Lampwick, becoming hung like a donkey was the result of a total commitment.

Acid Jazz,

Well, if you have a regular lady, then the visual shouldn’t matter too much — she knows how big you are when you’re inside her. It must just suck when you pull out your dick for the first time with a woman, and she sees a lot less dick than you actually have to offer. :) Even if you’re married, I can understand the motivation to increase your NBP for vanity’s sake. There’s nothing wrong with wanting a bigger dick, and thankfully PE works! :)

Lampwick, you had to made a photoedited version of that page because it was wrong - so you referred to a page with the wrong style of measurement in your previous post. Still, the text says ‘standing or laying down’, where these two ways of measuring gives different results.

But the core point here is: do you believe the average erect penis length, for a man in his middle-third age, for hypothesis smaller than average due to ED, measured laying down, is is 16.8 cm?

You could read the last posts of this thread, mines and P-G' posts, so I think you can agree with what I’m saying: there are chances that sizes reported in that study are inflated due to measurement errors.

I can’t understand why you are so angry for my opinion on that, maybe you were in the equipe that made that study?


Last edited by marinera : 02-26-2009 at .

With my 7+ inch NBP length and 4.5 girth this study seems perfectly normal to me :)

:)

Top

All times are GMT. The time now is 07:47 AM.