Thunder's Place

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

The (statistical) Truth About Cock Size

Originally Posted by Para-Goomba
:Anyway, for your length analysis, I don’t think this really matters much; the SD you cite seems similar to what I’ve seen in other studies. In your girth analysis above, however, I think that the tiny-girth outliers (obviously from men who self-measured diameter rather than circumference in the Kinsey survey) are increasing the SD, thus making small- and large-girth penises look more common than they actually are. I suspect that you’d find a normal distribution of girths in studies that did not involved self-measurement.

I agree, at first glance I would guess that the SD is too large. Thus thowing off the rarity of the very thick and the very thin.

Current: 1 in 44

Goal: 1 in 31, 574


Liquid c :gulp:

Originally Posted by Para-Goomba
Priap, if you’re working with the “Lifestyles data” breakdown posted on the MisterAverage site (and seemingly copied onto Wikipedia), they are — at least the girth data are — a weird amalgam of the Kinsey data and who-knows-what-else. People are constantly citing the MisterAverage site, but its data do not appear to be from the Lifestyles survey.

Originally Posted by Priapologist
Hey, Para-Goomba,

I drew my numbers from this site, which is registered to Ansell International, the makers of LifeStyles condoms.

Para-Goomba

Mr. Average says he took the data from a Lifestyles chart. Lifestyles is aware of his website and has never disputed his numbers.

There is indeed a close correlation to Kinsey girth data.

This suggests that Kinsey subjects were more accurate when measuring girth while not so accurate at measuring length. Which sorta makes sense when you think about it.

Or somebody screwed up at Lifestyles when they put together their charts.

Originally Posted by 10inchadvantage
Did they measure girth as the “thickest point” on the penis?

Nope, they measured midshaft girth…which is kinda weird, because I think many people have a thicker base ?


April 2008 : BPEL = 13.6 cm NBPEL = 12.7 cm ( measured girth wrong I think, so I won´t put it up here before next time I measure)

May 2008 : BPEL = 14.2 cm NBPEL = 12.8 cm

June 2008 : BPEL = 14.7 cm NBEL = 13 cm MSEG = 10.9 cm

Originally Posted by Norwegian92

Nope, they measured midshaft girth.which is kinda weird, because I think many people have a thicker base ?

Nope, I’m thicker up top, skinnier at base. Like a bat, even with PEing.


`Start: 5"NBPEL, 6"BPEL, 4.5"EG

`Current: 5"NBPEL, 6"BPEL, 4.5"EG

So far a few fractions of inch increase on base erect girth.

Thanks again Priapologist.
“1 in 44” frequency stats (length and/or girth) is a respectable goal as far as relative size to the population goes.

i.e. In a crowd of a 1000 men there are only 22 or 23 people who can match you.

According the stats that Priapologist has so graciously taken his time and effort to work through and post:

It would seem that 7.527 x 5.988 is the proverbial “1 in 44” for both length and girth respectively and therefore the proverbial “1 in 44” in terms of volume size.

Using Priapologist’s tables and similar logic; one could compose the following table:

5.877 x 4.972 inches: 1 in 2
6.702 x 5.480 inches: 1 in 6
7.527 x 5.988 inches: 1 in 44
8.352 x 6.496 inches: 1 in 741
9.177 x 7.004 inches: 1 in 31, 574
10.00 x 7.512 inches: 1 in 3.5 million

Converting this table to volume we get:

11.55: 1 in 2
16.01: 1 in 6
21.46: 1 in 44
28.03: 1 in 741
35.81: 1 in 31, 574
44.88: 1 in 3.5 million

Now simply determine your volume and extrapolate your standing in the volume table above.
The radius of your unit is half of your girth divided by 3.14
and your height is your length.
Then plug those numbers into this calculator here:
http://www.online-calculators.co.uk…indervolume.php

Example:

Supersizeit 8.5 x 6.0

Half of 6.0 divided by 3.14=.955 (radius)
8.5 (height)

Calculator says 24.36

If you dont want to be bothered to use that calculator for the future or if that link goes bad;
then simply square the radius and multiply by 3.14 and then multiply by the length.

24.36 is in between:

21.46: 1 in 44
28.03: 1 in 741

Hence extrapolation of 24.36: 1 in 351

That seems more mathematically intuitive to me as far as to how frequent a unit like mine appears in the population.

You can play around and have fun with these numbers.
For example:
A dude that has 7.5 girth but only 6 in length=26.98 volume or roughly 1 in 619 in terms of volume.
However the same dude with reverse stats; 7.5 in length and 6 in girth=21.51 or roughly 1 in 49…
thereby mathematically demonstrating the importance of girth in any PE routine. ehhh?

Caveat:
Of course all these calculations are just rough approximations as to where you stand in terms of total volume size.
No hard rules here, just rough approximations.


If you knew you could not fail...what would you attempt to do? Female Foot Fetish Current Stats: 5/4/10 8.5BPx6.0, 7.5NBP Achieved Goal and have been on maintenance program since

2006.

Originally Posted by Priapologist
Hey, Para-Goomba,

The reported means and std dev, on Mr. Average, are identical to those reported on the Ansell website, so those numbers are legitimate (inasmuch as they can be :) ). I agree with you about the sub-three inch category, it seems disproportionately well populated. To put things into perspective: 3 inch girth is barely larger than my wedding ring. Another thing that I noticed is that the girth data break down is binned in quarter-inch increments. If these were converted to half-inch increments (which is what the standard deviation is anyway, so basically what I did in my analysis), the data would become much more normally distributed. What would be nice is to have access to the pure, raw data, though.

Thanks, I am glad to help out.

Why is your 4.5 percentile, for example, so low then? I think you have around 16th percentile, whereas mr average and wikipedia quote a percentile between 30 and 40, looking at the graphs. If it’s form the same data, shouldn’t it be the same?

Originally Posted by Priapologist
I drew my numbers from this site, which is registered to Ansell International, the makers of LifeStyles condoms. Norwegian92 was the one who found the Mr.Average site and posted the link earlier in the thread.

I had read something several years ago that reported the original data, which remarked that the length, but not the girth, data were normally distributed. I cannot recall what the source was, but I thought that it was credible at the time.

Thanks for the explanation of your source. You’re right, the SDs appear to be from the Lifestyle survey, so I don’t dispute your figures :up: It’s a terrific thread you made here. If I have time later, I’ll look for means and SDs from a couple other medical studies and create a similar frequency breakdown for illustrative purposes.

Originally Posted by Invisible
Wikipedia also has the same graph as Mr. Average for the Lifestyles data.

Yes. As I said, someone seems to have copied the Mr. Average charts (which are clearly from the Kinsey study, not the Lifestyles study, at least for girth) onto Wikipedia.

Originally Posted by sta-kool
There is indeed a close correlation to Kinsey girth data.

Compare the girth breakdown on the Mr. Average site to the Kinsey data I linked to. They are identical, not just closely correlated. As Priap showed above, the means and SDs reported on the Mr. Average site are accurate. The more detailed breakdowns, however, are crap (inasfar as men in the Kinsey study made some girth measurement mistakes). Either that or 1 in 50 men has a penis with smaller girth than the tip of my pinky ;)

Originally Posted by supersizeit
Thanks again Priapologist.
“1 in 44” frequency stats (length and/or girth) is a respectable goal as far as relative size to the population goes.

I.e. In a crowd of a 1000 men there are only 22 or 23 people who can match you.

According the stats that Priapologist has so graciously taken his time and effort to work through and post:

It would seem that 7.527 x 5.988 is the proverbial “1 in 44” for both length and girth respectively and therefore the proverbial “1 in 44” in terms of volume size.

Using Priapologist’s tables and similar logic; one could compose the following table:

5.877 x 4.972 inches: 1 in 2
6.702 x 5.480 inches: 1 in 6
7.527 x 5.988 inches: 1 in 44
8.352 x 6.496 inches: 1 in 741
9.177 x 7.004 inches: 1 in 31, 574
10.00 x 7.512 inches: 1 in 3.5 million

Converting this table to volume we get:

11.55: 1 in 2
16.01: 1 in 6
21.46: 1 in 44
28.03: 1 in 741
35.81: 1 in 31, 574
44.88: 1 in 3.5 million

Now simply determine your volume and extrapolate your standing in the volume table above.
The radius of your unit is half of your girth divided by 3.14
And your height is your length.
Then plug those numbers into this calculator here:
Http://www.online-calculators.co.uk…indervolume.php

Example:

Supersizeit 8.5 x 6.0

Half of 6.0 divided by 3.14=.955 (radius)
8.5 (height)

Calculator says 24.36

If you don’t want to be bothered to use that calculator for the future or if that link goes bad;
Then simply square the radius and multiply by 3.14 and then multiply by the length.

24.36 is in between:

21.46: 1 in 44
28.03: 1 in 741

Hence extrapolation of 24.36: 1 in 351

That seems more mathematically intuitive to me as far as to how frequent a unit like mine appears in the population.

You can play around and have fun with these numbers.
For example:
A dude that has 7.5 girth but only 6 in length=26.98 volume or roughly 1 in 619 in terms of volume.
However the same dude with reverse stats; 7.5 in length and 6 in girth=21.51 or roughly 1 in 49..
Thereby mathematically demonstrating the importance of girth in any PE routine. Ehhh?

Caveat:
Of course all these calculations are just rough approximations as to where you stand in terms of total volume size.
No hard rules here, just rough approximations.


Ok so what are the odds below 5.8inches, it looks to be a bell curve, when does it start reversing?
And this is BPEL right?


`Start: 5"NBPEL, 6"BPEL, 4.5"EG

`Current: 5"NBPEL, 6"BPEL, 4.5"EG

So far a few fractions of inch increase on base erect girth.

Originally Posted by refresh9
Ok so what are the odds below 5.8inches, it looks to be a bell curve, when does it start reversing?
And this is BPEL right?

1.752 x 2.432: 1 in 3.5 million
2.577 x 2.940: 1 in 31,574
3.402 x 3.448: 1 in 741
4.227 x 3.956: 1 in 44
5.052 x 4.464: 1 in 6

Volume:

0.82: 1 in 3.5 million
1.76: 1 in 31,574
3.19: 1 in 741
5.24: 1 in 44
8.00: 1 in 6

It reverses after the mean.

5.877 x 4.972 inches: 1 in 2

V-11.55: 1 in 2

I can’t confirm if this is BP but the author of this thread might be able to tell you.


If you knew you could not fail...what would you attempt to do? Female Foot Fetish Current Stats: 5/4/10 8.5BPx6.0, 7.5NBP Achieved Goal and have been on maintenance program since

2006.

My mind doesn’t really understand the outcome of the volume. I can understand that 1 out of 3.5 million would have 10EL and 1 out of 3.5 million would have 7.5EG. It doesn’t make sense then that someone having BOTH such enormous measurements COMBINED would also have the same frequency 1 out of 3.5 million. It saying that there’s just as much a chance of finding a 10EL by 7.5EG as you would finding just a 10EL dick or a 7.5EG exclusively. It’s like you’re just assuming all the longest guys are also the thickest. I find it hard to believe that a 8.5EL who has a 6EG(as you do) is found in only 1 out of 351 people. Alot of the thicker guys could have short dicks and vice versa. I don’t think a good volume assumtion can be made without knowing the volume of each individual. Maybe I’m wrong. It just doesn’t seem right to me.

I understand your point totally and I had anticipated this concern by placing a caveat in my analysis:

“Just rough approximations”

Remember that girth will usually be in close proportion to length.
i.e. a dude with a 10L and 6.0G would look like a pencil dick (proportion wise) but not so if his length were only 8.5.
I dont think that 10L and 5.0G even happens in nature.

If you wanted an even better approximation then theres actually more math involved;
One would have to determine what the range of girth is for any given length.
Thats an entire distribution bell curve in itself.
For example you wouldn’t reasonably expect a guy who is 10 length to have only 2.4 in girth
and vica versa one who is 1.75 length to be 7.5 in girth.
However we do know that there is some range in which someone with a 10 length would fall into for girth.
Lets say its arbitrarily between 6.8 and 7.5. Then all combinations of 10 with say 6.8, 6.9,7.0.7.1….7.5 would have to be calculated for volume.

1 in 351 sounds about right for volume but who knows? It does not of course indicate you have an 8.5 length if you fall in the 351 category (above the mean) 8.5 is significantly higher than 1 in 351 (8.35L is 741) if length is the only variable but we are talking volume here.


If you knew you could not fail...what would you attempt to do? Female Foot Fetish Current Stats: 5/4/10 8.5BPx6.0, 7.5NBP Achieved Goal and have been on maintenance program since

2006.

Talk to some gay men. Huge ones aren’t as rare as this. I’d be willing to bet there are more than thirty men in America with 10+ inches. Very rare but not that rare.


Grow yourself a whopper, then tell her to fuck off.

Originally Posted by BiggusMickus
Talk to some gay men. Huge ones aren’t as rare as this. I’d be willing to bet there are more than thirty men in America with 10+ inches. Very rare but not that rare.

Possibly.

How many guys with confirmed 10 inch dicks do you know, though? I don’t know any, but then I do not have occasion to view erect penises outside of watching porn, and I certainly do not have occasion to watch another man measure his erect penis.

I am inclined to agree with you, though, about the absolute number of men at 10 inches and greater. When I first ran the analysis, I was a bit surprised by the very low number of men who putatively possess this size. I suspect that the tails are not quite as asymptotic as a normal distribution would demand. But, the whole point of this thread was to demonstrate that based on a fairly robust data set of good power, 95% of men in the US fall between 4.23 and 7.53 inches in length. Let us not get too bogged down by the esoterica of the top 2.5% or the bottom 2.5%.

Top

All times are GMT. The time now is 02:45 AM.