Putting size into perspective

[thenewdude]

I respectfully disagree with you. There is not actually prove on height and length. It is a theory not a fact. And, not 6.9 girth is not as common as 9 inch penis. Not in the least. The modulos does go higher the longer the penis. Even 9 inch dildos do not usually come in 6.9 girth but usually 6 - 6.5 where it is not too thick for uncomfort.
And again, if you read, you would have found that height, size, structure all vary just like the penis does. They come in all shapes and sizes. So all these charts of what should be correct are not because in life and biology it all varies.

[donjelqer76]

This obviously went over your head (and I'm not saying this in a mean way)

This is accurate statisticalalysis. It's based on standard deviations from the mean. Again, I'm not saying that every 9" length penis has a 6.9" girth. This chart is showing that it is as likely to have a 9" length as it is to have a 6.7" girth, statistically speaking. These are equivalent in that they are both 4 standard deviations over mean and only found in 1 in 31,547 men (as they are both the 99.99683288th percentile , though I didn't publish this part)

[thenewdude]

Over my head. Thank for the insult but anyway...
It's obvious that the rarity is there (this don't take rocket science but 'over my head' people I guess also know how to write with good grammar too). I don't agree with the likelihood. What is wrong with that? The math is correct (with the correct ratio of 1.1 to 1.2) but in most cases it is more common for a man to have 9 inches than a man to have 6.7 girth. Hell, starting PE my base was 6.0 exact with a 7.2 in length. This is not mathematically correct based on a scale because biology just don't work that way. That's all I said. I understood what you were saying but in a biological setting it will never be correct. So, it really was not over my head; I just have the right to disagree and in return you insult me. Hmmm...

[donjelqer76]

I was clear that I didn't mean it in a mean or insulting way, I'm sorry if you felt that way.

In every response it is very clear you don't understand statistical analysis, which is fine. I'm not insulting you over this. Again, the numbers presented are accurate. You can disagree all you want, but it's statistically accurate.

Your example of your starting measurements reinforces that you are completely misunderstanding the concept. They aren't supposed to line up in scale or be mathematically correct and biology has absolutely no affect on the statistics. I wish I could find a better way to explain it, perhaps somebody else can explain it better

[Padawan787]

I think it's quite simple really, you aren't correlating length or girth with height, or even correlating length with girth. It is a chart that is designed to help us visualise how common a certain length or girth may be, seeing as we see more people on a daily basis than we see erect penises. Great work, and thanks for taking the time to do the math and make the chart

This chart doesn't exactly inspire me with confidence though! lol i'm bang on average height, and I honestly know maybe 4 or 5 guys who are shorter than me, i'm pretty much always the shortest male in my social group, or whenever I meet someone new. Technically my height is average, but it is rarely the case in reality.

[donjelqer76]

Exactly! Thanks for the explanation- it's hard for me to explain it typing from my phone, especially with the forums not being too cellphone friendly!

As you point out, statistic and averages kind of fall apart when working with small numbers. All my math was based on an adult male population in the USA of 105,000,000. I know this math very well as I've been developing a PE app suite for a while that includes a lot of this type of stuff

[thenewdude]

Again, I was not even talking about height, or even body mass but the penis size which comes in all shapes and sizes which is hard to determined due to biology. That's all I said. Where you are getting me mixed up with height, weight? All that has nothing to due with what I was saying. Yes, I already said mathematically (I say 1.1-1.2 * g(girth) = length approx) which is more correct and agree without biology in the way would be correct. So where you getting all this other stuff is beyond the scope of the parameters of my argument.

[BrianStorm]

This chart is saying that my dick is about 6ft long and 6ft 3" in girth (whilst I stand at 5ft 2.) I don't see any problem with that

The stats are quite interesting - they also show how rare a genuine 8 x 6 is (in comparison to how rare a 6ft6 person is within the US).. a lot of porn stars really aren't at that size despite looking huge on screen (camera angles, fake rulers, small co-stars whatever..)

I'm now working hard to get to 6ft 6 each way. Winning.

[donjelqer76]

You're still taking about something completely different. You are trying to correlate length and girth. The chart is making no correlation at all, but you're trying to make it out to be.

[thenewdude]

Camera plays a role. A dude with under 5 feet can have 8x6. Biology cause a variant which is all I was saying.