- 09-24-2013 #1
- Join Date
- Apr 2011
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:
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:
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.
Last edited by ThinJohnny; 09-24-2013 at 04:02 AM.
- 09-24-2013 #2
- 09-24-2013 #3
The first post raises so many questions that it's hard to know where to begin, but here is the methodology for the italian study: "Penile length was defined as the linear distance along the dorsal side of the penis extending from the pubopenile skin junction to the tip of the glans in the flaccid and fully stretched but still flaccid state, while the penile circumference was measured at the middle of the shaft. Measurements were acquired by means of a tape measure to the nearest 0.5 cm immediately after the men undressed to minimize the effects of temperature. In order to reduce errors of measurement, two measurements were performed by the same physician, and their median was recorded."
As to them not measuring erect length, it's probably down to several factors: doing the flaccid measurements is quick and fairly painless and doesn't add substantial overhead to the physical examination, ordering them to have a high quality erection is a) very time consuming, and b) morally and maybe legally questionable; previous studies have shown that stretched length is a reliable indicator of erect length, it's not a perfect match, but the variations are believed to be minor. Out of the 3300 participants, they drew a subset of 325 men where they correlated the flaccid states with height, weight and BMI. There was a positive correlation with height, and a negative correlation with BMI.
Hope that answers some of your questions, like I said it's a bit hard to know where to begin.
- 09-24-2013 #4
- Join Date
- Apr 2011
It does answer some of my questions, and that's a great place to begin. Thanks for posting. I think what you posted clearly shows that this study measured NBPFL and NBPSL(non-bone-pressed stretched length), not BPEL and BPSL. Unlike some other studies, this one is very clear on this point.
turtler, do you have access to the full paper for this study? I'm curious if it mentions anything about how they chose the 3,300 men. I know it says they were chosen randomly, but I wonder if people had the freedom to opt out, and if so, how many people did opt out. One great study that was done in Iran(if I remember correctly), gave this type of information in the full paper.
I know I wrote a lot up there in the first post, so just to boil it down, I'm interested in the question I just asked - how they chose the subjects, but my main question is for the skeptics. I'm not saying I don't want to hear the opinion of believers, but I'm just hoping we get some skeptics, too. I would like to know a few things:
1)Do you believe this study gives us a good approximation of flaccid length? If not, why?
2)Do you agree with my method of approximating BPEL from the results of this study? If not, what part do you disagree with? Adding 2 inches to get from flaccid to erect, or adding 0.5 inches to get from non bone pressed to bone pressed?
3)If you have something else that makes you think this study isn't strong evidence that average BPEL is around 6 inches, please post your reason.
Personally, I don't see how anyone, after reading the results of this study, can believe that NBPEL is 6.5, or 7, or whatever number it is that people throw around here as average, so I would like to know how someone who believes in those higher numbers can reconcile that view with this study's results.
Let's say you believe that average NBPEL is 6.5. That's just shy of a full inch longer than what this study suggests. To believe that NBPEL is 6.5 for the men in this study, you would have to believe that the average man in this study gains 3 inches in length when going from flaccid to erect. I've seen a few guys on here who grow that much, but I think it's very rare, and far from average.
Come on skeptics, chime in! I'm not trying to start a big argument over it. I just want to understand how people who believe in the higher numbers interpret the studies, and for now, this one in particular.
- 09-24-2013 #5
Wow what a post too much for my tired mind to take in I think ill come backbto this one tomorrowWanna be bigger than big
- 09-24-2013 #6
- Join Date
- Apr 2011
- 09-24-2013 #7
I have the paper as published in European Urology, and it's about 3.5 pages. This is what they say about their participant selection: "For our investigation we enrolled all men visited on Mondays and Fridays by the same physician. Genital abnormalities were detected by history and physical examination; men with penile abnormalities were excluded from the study." So, doesn't seem like an opt-out was available. If you want to be really picky, then maybe rumours of the penis measurements got out and people who didn't want to be measured called in sick on mondays and fridays, but that's a) conjecture and b) very unlikely to affect results in any meaningful way. The selection process seems perfectly fine to me.
- 09-24-2013 #8
- Join Date
- Apr 2011
turlter, thanks very much for posting this. I've never seen any detail about this study anywhere, and I've tried to buy the paper from a couple of sites. It wasn't available through either of them.
That's funny about calling in sick. "I'm calling in sick to my dick measuring appointment"
- 09-24-2013 #9
Louis Theroux - Louis and the Brothel - Full Episode - YouTube
In this documentary about a brothel in USA, at 17:20 the reporter asks an escort about the average size and she says that is 5 or 6 inches, and that once in a while will encounter a 7.
Last edited by Martin Eden; 09-24-2013 at 02:02 PM.
- 09-24-2013 #10
- Join Date
- Apr 2011
Do you remember where you saw the studies you're referring to. If you do, would you please post links. Thanks.
- By Appleman in forum A Woman's PerspectiveReplies: 20Last Post: 07-05-2014, 01:07 PM
- By miami-cock in forum The GymReplies: 18Last Post: 04-14-2013, 09:10 AM
- By dearleader in forum Penis Enlargement ForumReplies: 11Last Post: 04-09-2013, 09:49 PM
- By Closed039 in forum The GymReplies: 5Last Post: 10-04-2012, 01:36 PM