There is the whole pre-natal testosterone to index & ring finger length difference thing. Not sure if it is right hand only - someone else might know.
How they know this is beyond me...
This has an interesting connection to orientation. I think in men, the index finger is typically the second longest finger, but in women it's usually the ring finger (is that right? anyone else here heard of this?). Lesbians tend to have an index/ring-finger length ratio that's closer to the typical male ration than straight women do, which I guess possibly makes sense - but in gay men, the ratio isn't feminine, it's hyper-masculine, i.e. gay men's index fingers are longer than their ring fingers by a bigger margin than straight men. Which is pretty fascinating, I think.
I don't think there's anything 'strange' about your post, I just disagree with it. Hand size, foot size and overall height are determined by bone growth. Penises don't contain bones, so whatever hormone causes bones to grow (HGH, I would guess) isn't necessarily going to cause penises to grow. In fact dick growth is controlled mainly by testosterone, isn't it?
So I wasn't disagreeing that tall people tend to have large hands and feet - I was disagreeing about those things being correlated with dick size.
I'm not an endocrinologist but as fas as I know, there's no particular reason why a guy's HGH levels should be proportional to his testosterone levels.
its completely logic if A depends from B and C depends from A , C will depend from B. but continue with that. maybe large hands can have an affect on people in their same height class; on the Penis size.
Its pure logic. If A depends from B (penis/foot), and B depends from C (foot/height), A depends from C (penis/height = no studies can prove).
But of course, people in a group of similar hand can possibly have a larger penis, due to their big hands ( in relation to the guys from the same height class.)
So continue with that, may be interesting, but also very hard to show. GL!
PS: dont forget some fools here to write their initial size...
OK, I've now got 42 data points, including my own stats. Here's the updated scatter plot:
https://www.pegym.com/forums/attachm...ibute-cor2.jpg
I can't see any more data making this a more correlated plot, to be honest. Looks like we can finally knock the old foot size/dick size myth on the head for good.
However it may be worth having a look at size and height - watch this space.
Guys, thanks for the measurements but I'm not going to add any new data points to the chart - I don't think anything is going to change the fact that there's no correlation between shoe size and dick length.
Guys, thanks for the measurements but I'm not going to add any new data points to the chart - I don't think anything is going to change the fact that there's no correlation between shoe size and dick length.
I know you guys have already reached the your conclusion, but I just wanted to comment on how interesting an experiment this was. I'd also like to point out some other interesting facts. Theoretically, if foot size and penis size were directly proportional, the size difference would likely not be significant. If the height of the average (American) male is just under six feet (which is what statistics show), and the size of the average penis is a bit under six inches (also statistically accurate), then we have a simple scale to base our foot size/penis size correlation. This would mean a five ft tall man would have roughly a five inch penis, a six foot tall man a six inch penis, and a seven foot tall man seven inches. I know there are men shorter than five feet and taller than seven, but this scale covers probably 99% of the spectrum. My point is that the proportions would never really make sense regardless, and even if they did the size difference wouldn't be significant. Most of the guys I know who are TRULY large are actually very short.
Comment