I've been meaning to start this thread for a while, but haven't had the time. Turtler's post on that other thread about 7 X 5.5 being enough, finally gave me the motivation to do it. This is a long post, but if you're interested in the topic, I encourage you to read the whole thing. There have been so many threads on this topic. I say we hash it all out right here.
Here's Turtler's post:
https://www.pegym.com/forums/penis-e...tml#post735590
I think this deserves its own thread. I hope people will chime in. I'm going to post some studies individually, not all of them at once, and I'm going to ask the skeptics to tell all of us what they don't trust about the study, and why they think it doesn't give an accurate answer to the "average size" question. It would also be great if anyone with factual information about that study could post the details that they are aware of.
I've read the abstracts of a lot of the medical studies, and have read the full articles of a good number of them, but not all. If you chime in, please state where you are getting your information from, and include the text from the source. Let's try to keep this thread free of paraphrasing and conjecture, and really stick to the facts.
I'm not saying we shouldn't question the methodology. That's a big part of what I want to discuss. What I'm requesting is that people refrain from saying things like "It has to have been a BPEL study, because that's the only measurement that makes any sense". If you believe a study is BPEL, and not NBPEL, please quote the actual paper. I think we have enough students here, with free access to research sites, that we might be able to do a fairly good study of our own right here.
A couple of disclosures, up front:
1)This is not an attack on the skeptics. It's an attempt to engage them, and hopefully convince them that the size studies that have been done represent a substantial argument for the average size that is often quoted around here. But I'm open minded. If the skeptics can prove otherwise, I'll be the first to admit it. Question: Why engage the skeptics? They're crazy, right? They're torturing themselves, and misleading others, and causing those others to torture themselves, right? Yes, but if we can really get to the bottom of this, we can prevent all of that self-torturing, and the world will be a better place-
2)I am a skeptic myself, in a way. I have the same anecdotal experiences the skeptics have, and probably most of us have, floating around my head. Most of the flaccid penises I've seen in my life have been bigger than mine. It's hard for me to believe the studies myself, but it's even harder for me to disregard the large number of scientific studies that all give a very similar answer to the same question.
3)I have yet to find a study that I can't find a flaw in - even the medical ones, in Urology departments, at reputable universities. Every single one of them did something that I would have done differently. It drives me crazy.
OK, sorry for the lengthy intro, but let's talk about study #1. The Italian study.
Here's a link to the abstract:
Penile length and circumference: a study on 3,300 y... [Eur Urol. 2001] - PubMed - NCBI
And here's the Results section from the abstract:
----------------------------------------
RESULTS:
The median values of penile dimensions recorded in the present study are flaccid length 9.0 cm, flaccid circumference, at the middle of the shaft, 10.0 cm, and stretched length 12.5 cm. We also observed that the penile dimensions are highly correlated with height and weight.
----------------------------------------
Please don't focus on the correlation between penile dimensions and weight and height. That's a completely different discussion. There are many studies that have found no correlation. Let's just leave that one alone.
OK, median flaccid length of 9 cm. I know, it says median, not mean. Let's not lose our minds. I know there's a difference, but median is relevant, maybe even more relevant, for a guy who's trying to figure out where he stacks up. 9 cm is 3.54 inches. I believe this study is NBPFL. I can't remember why I believe this, so I am not going to state it as fact, but I'm pretty sure. Before we accept it as fact, it would be great if someone could look at the full article. I don't have access to it, but I think I saw another study by the same researcher, and there was enough detail to conclude that it was NBPFL, at least in his other study. But I am not claiming the study linked to above is NBPFL. Let's confirm that.
Let's talk about NBPFL. I know, it has absolutely no correlation with NBPEL. And black guys have long flaccids because they live in warm climates, and people in South East Asia have long flaccids because...
OK, back to non bone pressed flaccid. I believe it does have SOME correlation with erect length. I'm not a statistician, but if you told me you had two guys - one with a 2 inch flaccid and one with a 4 inch flaccid, and then you told me that one of those guys has a 4 inch erect penis and the other guy has a 6 inch erect penis, and asked me to match those guys up, I would obviously pick the 4 inch flaccid guy to have the 6 inch erect penis. If I had to make that bet all day long, with different pairs of guys with the same measurements, I would put some serious money on there being a correlation, and I'm pretty sure I would win big.
It might sound like I just violated my own rule of avoiding conjecture, but I think I have no other option. I'm not making assumptions about what the study did measure. I'm making assumptions about what the study didn't measure. This study didn't measure erect length. So if we want to discuss this study's take on erect length, we have to either make some assumptions, or throw it out altogether. The fact that there were so many subjects in this study, and that they were apparently chosen randomly(stated in the abstract, not confirmed, but probable, based on the fact that the subjects were in the military and might not have had a say in the matter), makes me very reluctant to throw this study out. In my mind, this is possibly the best study out there, if my assumptions are confirmed. Why did they not measure erect length, though! Crazy!
Anyway, let's make a few assumptions about what wasn't measured, because we have no other choice with this study.
Let's say we assume that the average guy gains 2 inches when his penis becomes erect. That would mean that the average NBPEL in this study would be 5.54 inches. If we assume a 0.5 inch fat pad, that would be a BPEL of 6.04 inches. That's higher than some of the other studies, but clearly lower than the average that some of the skeptics claim.
I would encourage the skeptics to chime in, and tell us why they think this study failed to reveal the true average length that they believe is accurate.
I've used the word average above, but I'm aware that the Italian study reported median, not mean. We could go nuts with that, but I think we already have enough to deal with.
By the way, we still have girth to discuss, but this post is getting ridiculously long. Let's deal with that later.
Please chime in if you're interested in this topic.
Thanks,
TJ
Here's Turtler's post:
https://www.pegym.com/forums/penis-e...tml#post735590
I think this deserves its own thread. I hope people will chime in. I'm going to post some studies individually, not all of them at once, and I'm going to ask the skeptics to tell all of us what they don't trust about the study, and why they think it doesn't give an accurate answer to the "average size" question. It would also be great if anyone with factual information about that study could post the details that they are aware of.
I've read the abstracts of a lot of the medical studies, and have read the full articles of a good number of them, but not all. If you chime in, please state where you are getting your information from, and include the text from the source. Let's try to keep this thread free of paraphrasing and conjecture, and really stick to the facts.
I'm not saying we shouldn't question the methodology. That's a big part of what I want to discuss. What I'm requesting is that people refrain from saying things like "It has to have been a BPEL study, because that's the only measurement that makes any sense". If you believe a study is BPEL, and not NBPEL, please quote the actual paper. I think we have enough students here, with free access to research sites, that we might be able to do a fairly good study of our own right here.
A couple of disclosures, up front:
1)This is not an attack on the skeptics. It's an attempt to engage them, and hopefully convince them that the size studies that have been done represent a substantial argument for the average size that is often quoted around here. But I'm open minded. If the skeptics can prove otherwise, I'll be the first to admit it. Question: Why engage the skeptics? They're crazy, right? They're torturing themselves, and misleading others, and causing those others to torture themselves, right? Yes, but if we can really get to the bottom of this, we can prevent all of that self-torturing, and the world will be a better place-
2)I am a skeptic myself, in a way. I have the same anecdotal experiences the skeptics have, and probably most of us have, floating around my head. Most of the flaccid penises I've seen in my life have been bigger than mine. It's hard for me to believe the studies myself, but it's even harder for me to disregard the large number of scientific studies that all give a very similar answer to the same question.
3)I have yet to find a study that I can't find a flaw in - even the medical ones, in Urology departments, at reputable universities. Every single one of them did something that I would have done differently. It drives me crazy.
OK, sorry for the lengthy intro, but let's talk about study #1. The Italian study.
Here's a link to the abstract:
Penile length and circumference: a study on 3,300 y... [Eur Urol. 2001] - PubMed - NCBI
And here's the Results section from the abstract:
----------------------------------------
RESULTS:
The median values of penile dimensions recorded in the present study are flaccid length 9.0 cm, flaccid circumference, at the middle of the shaft, 10.0 cm, and stretched length 12.5 cm. We also observed that the penile dimensions are highly correlated with height and weight.
----------------------------------------
Please don't focus on the correlation between penile dimensions and weight and height. That's a completely different discussion. There are many studies that have found no correlation. Let's just leave that one alone.
OK, median flaccid length of 9 cm. I know, it says median, not mean. Let's not lose our minds. I know there's a difference, but median is relevant, maybe even more relevant, for a guy who's trying to figure out where he stacks up. 9 cm is 3.54 inches. I believe this study is NBPFL. I can't remember why I believe this, so I am not going to state it as fact, but I'm pretty sure. Before we accept it as fact, it would be great if someone could look at the full article. I don't have access to it, but I think I saw another study by the same researcher, and there was enough detail to conclude that it was NBPFL, at least in his other study. But I am not claiming the study linked to above is NBPFL. Let's confirm that.
Let's talk about NBPFL. I know, it has absolutely no correlation with NBPEL. And black guys have long flaccids because they live in warm climates, and people in South East Asia have long flaccids because...
OK, back to non bone pressed flaccid. I believe it does have SOME correlation with erect length. I'm not a statistician, but if you told me you had two guys - one with a 2 inch flaccid and one with a 4 inch flaccid, and then you told me that one of those guys has a 4 inch erect penis and the other guy has a 6 inch erect penis, and asked me to match those guys up, I would obviously pick the 4 inch flaccid guy to have the 6 inch erect penis. If I had to make that bet all day long, with different pairs of guys with the same measurements, I would put some serious money on there being a correlation, and I'm pretty sure I would win big.
It might sound like I just violated my own rule of avoiding conjecture, but I think I have no other option. I'm not making assumptions about what the study did measure. I'm making assumptions about what the study didn't measure. This study didn't measure erect length. So if we want to discuss this study's take on erect length, we have to either make some assumptions, or throw it out altogether. The fact that there were so many subjects in this study, and that they were apparently chosen randomly(stated in the abstract, not confirmed, but probable, based on the fact that the subjects were in the military and might not have had a say in the matter), makes me very reluctant to throw this study out. In my mind, this is possibly the best study out there, if my assumptions are confirmed. Why did they not measure erect length, though! Crazy!
Anyway, let's make a few assumptions about what wasn't measured, because we have no other choice with this study.
Let's say we assume that the average guy gains 2 inches when his penis becomes erect. That would mean that the average NBPEL in this study would be 5.54 inches. If we assume a 0.5 inch fat pad, that would be a BPEL of 6.04 inches. That's higher than some of the other studies, but clearly lower than the average that some of the skeptics claim.
I would encourage the skeptics to chime in, and tell us why they think this study failed to reveal the true average length that they believe is accurate.
I've used the word average above, but I'm aware that the Italian study reported median, not mean. We could go nuts with that, but I think we already have enough to deal with.
By the way, we still have girth to discuss, but this post is getting ridiculously long. Let's deal with that later.
Please chime in if you're interested in this topic.
Thanks,
TJ
Comment