Thunder's Place

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

Rethinking how much size matters to women

Interesting. I think I’ve read that somewhere before.

So I’m thinking you’d have to have a penis under 4 inches NBP for you have something to worry about (that should account for that 5% of 6% of the women, the other 1% being size queens). I say NBP because of what you point out in (1), it’s hard to believe that only 2.5% of men have a penis over 6.9”… but it is easy for me to believe that only 2.5% of men have a penis over 7.5” BPEL.

PS. I seem to love beating dead horses.

I don’t think I have ever seen that study on this forum before.

It does seem hard to believe that only 2.5% of men out there are 6.9” or more; but maybe I also have a dysmorphic concept of what ‘makes sense’ when it comes to penis size (like many others on this forum probably do). Like Jawbone though, I also wonder if they used NBP measures.

This study seems far more trustworthy than the lifestyle (or other condom manufacturer studies) where the sample was a self-selected group of men from a night-club or something like that (it sounds like these guys truly used a random sample, and not a self-selected group).

I’m pretty sure it’s NBPEL measurements. Still, I’m a bit surprised. Maybe me and many of us in this forum suffer from SPS-small penis syndrome (see link below). Either that or the researchers themselves are out of touch with reality. I still find it hard to believe that only 2.5% of penises are longer than 6.9” NBPEL. So basically, if I’m sitting in a room with 100 guys, on average, I would be 1 of the 3 or 1 of the 2 biggest guys, in the room. I still find that hard to believe. Either they’re out of touch with reality or maybe I am. The original starter of this thread who thinks a 7” NBPEL is small has anxiety issues in my opinion but I think these researchers are also going a bit overboard with their size estimates.

http://majorityrights.com/images/uploads/penis_size.pdf


Starting Size: April, 28, 2010: NBPEL-7" Girth-6" (base, MSG, glans)

Currently: BPEL-8" NBPEL-7.25" Girth-6.25" (base)/6.125" (MSG)/6.125" (glans)

For measurement methodology, you would have to track down the size studies they referenced:

Senegezer et al., 2002; Wessells, Lue, & McAninch, 1996

I don’t know why there is a rush to say it is NBP. For example Lifestyle study lightly pressed the ruler against the pubic bone. But you’d have to find the studies they used to know for sure. Probably somebody here is good at that sort of thing?

The Wessels study uses a NBPEL measurement. The mean was 12.9 cm or 5.08”. And the average fat pad was~ 1” or so. There was some diversity of American males of both European and African ancestry.


Starting Size: April, 28, 2010: NBPEL-7" Girth-6" (base, MSG, glans)

Currently: BPEL-8" NBPEL-7.25" Girth-6.25" (base)/6.125" (MSG)/6.125" (glans)


Last edited by bohm : 08-16-2010 at .

Originally Posted by bohm
I’m pretty sure it’s NBPEL measurements. Still, I’m a bit surprised. Maybe me and many of us in this forum suffer from SPS-small penis syndrome (see link below). Either that or the researchers themselves are out of touch with reality. I still find it hard to believe that only 2.5% of penises are longer than 6.9” NBPEL. So basically, if I’m sitting in a room with 100 guys, on average, I would be 1 of the 3 or 1 of the 2 biggest guys, in the room. I still find that hard to believe. Either they’re out of touch with reality or maybe I am. The original starter of this thread who thinks a 7” NBPEL is small has anxiety issues in my opinion but I think these researchers are also going a bit overboard with their size estimates.

Http://majorityrights.com/images/uploads/penis_size.pdf

They aren’t “estimates”. They’re “measurements”.


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

The researchers cannot be ‘out of touch’ as they are not estimates, they are measurements. So… yes you most probably have a dysmorphic concept of penis size.


Starting Stats - 5.5 NBPEL x 5.6 EG

Current Stats - 5.7 NBPEL x 6.2 EG

Goal - 7 x 6 (with hopefully a large flaccid hang)

2.5% > 7” NBP measured conservatively sounds reasonable to me. With PEers’ typically aggressive measuring techniques, that would probably translate to 7.5” NBP, which in turn would be about 8.5” BP for a guy with an average fat pad. This is in the largeish-even-for-a-porn-star territory; very few men have that kind of length.


Please :donatecar to Thunder's Place to keep it running.

Para-Goomba: really good point. That actually puts things completely in perspective for me.

Originally Posted by Para-Goomba
2.5% > 7” NBP measured conservatively sounds reasonable to me

Yes, and the numbers are similar to the lifestyles data for over 7” (top down measurement, ruler lightly against pubic bone, measured from base to tip)

7.00” to 7.25” 1.0 %
7.25” to 7.50” 1.0 %
7.50” to 7.75” 0.9 %
7.75” to 8.00” 0.8 %
8.00” to 8.25” 0.3 %
8.25” to 8.50” 0.3 %
8.50” to 8.75” 0.1 %
8.75” to 9.00” 0.1 %

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

Originally Posted by Fantom
They aren’t “estimates”. They’re “measurements”.

The Wessels study is measurements, but most are estimates based on stretch length and/or overall measurements/estimates of various studies (look at table 1). I do have mild performance anxiety issues (seems to be somewhat common on this forum) and my own perspective may be skewed which is why I try to take the overall estimates of such studies at face value even though I find them sometimes hard to believe.

I just find it hard to believe that at least 50% of men have a penis length < 5.3” NBPEL (if one takes such studies/reviews at face value). I say “at least” because one would expect the median to be lower than the average with respect to penis size, for obvious reasons.

The Korean study, in particular is really incomprehensible to me. Their estimate is an erect length average of slightly less than 4” (based on stretch length). If accurate this means that at least 50% of Koreans have a penis length of of less than 4”? Not sure if this a BPEL or NBPEL measurement but sorry, I really find that hard to believe. Almost as hard to believe as the original poster of this thread who thinks a 7” NBPEL is small. Maybe I really do have a biased perspective but I am more than willing to learn.


Starting Size: April, 28, 2010: NBPEL-7" Girth-6" (base, MSG, glans)

Currently: BPEL-8" NBPEL-7.25" Girth-6.25" (base)/6.125" (MSG)/6.125" (glans)

Originally Posted by sta-kool
7.50” to 7.75” 0.9 %
7.75” to 8.00” 0.8 %
8.00” to 8.25” 0.3 %
8.25” to 8.50” 0.3 %
8.50” to 8.75” 0.1 %
8.75” to 9.00” 0.1 %

These numbers 7.5” and up could be the BPEL versions of the study posted by bohm earlier.

They do after all add up to exactly 2.5%. Coincidence?

Also it is not a BPEL like a thunders style groin-stabbing. From the articles that describe the methodology generally say something like “at the pubic bone” or “pressed lightly against the pubic bone”.

So yeah I think in general these numbers correspond.

Somebody earlier suggested that these studies cited by Bohm’s article may not have been self selected (as opposed to the Lifestyle one). The idea being that in self-selected studies bigger guys are more likely to want to be measured than smaller guys.

But I don’t know if those studies were self-selected or not, I guess because I am too lazy to track them down.

Originally Posted by sta-kool
Also it is not a BPEL like a thunders style groin-stabbing.

By carefully cutting open a slit above my groin I’ve gained 0.3 inches. It’s the fastest method I’ve used for Penile Enlargement.

Yes I did that too, but I found that by carefully working on my pubic bone with a Dremel tool I could gain another .2 inches.

Top

All times are GMT. The time now is 05:49 PM.