"Definitive" Penis Size Study

Here is a new, seemingly controlled study on penis size.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/03/03/penis_researchers_measure_average_penis_size_in_comprehensive_new_penis.html?wpsrc=fol_tw

WOW-----finally I am better than average at something

I read an academic paper about this study. While I don't question the results, I wonder about the methods. The authors simply compiled results from smaller studies around the world. Some subjects were military, others urology patients or volunteers. There were inclusion criteria. What I didn't see was a standardized measurement method and standard tools.

This study seems to have done a good job adhering to a sound methodology which produced believable results. The dick pics from porn and other areas of the Internet are not a fair representation of what's out there. And I really liked that they debunked the issues connecting the size of other body parts (hands, feet, height) to penis size was especially interesting.

So I guess you can let your imagination go wild when you see a guy with a big pair of hands and feet, but in reality he probably is packing something very average.

Now lets move on and enjoy what we have to play with.

This is interesting if you even care about such a banal subject. I agree with Jds that the study might be flawed because it is a summation of previous studies.

You can find fault with any study and this was a compilation of several studies which means each study may have had a different set of instructions in how the data was collected. But I feel these differences will be minimized with the larger sample sizes so for me I tend to believe the overall results. Could the results or data shifted a bit if one research group had done the entire study, probably. But would the results be far off form this study, I think it would have produce similar results.

Big picture: we can file this data away and move on.

As I said originally, I don't dispute the results, just the methods,especially if you use those results for regional comparisons, which was part of the rationale for the study.

Its not how deep you fish .. it is how you wiggle the worm.. size don't matter .. I hope

I too might quibble with labeling this "definitive". This study, being a summation of previous studies, can only be as good as the weakest methodology of the studies included. And some of those would be far from random. But a flawed methodology doesn't in and of itself invalidate the study.

On the other hand, it would be hard to imagine how a truly random study could be conducted. So this type of summary research may be about as good as it gets.

It is also difficult for me to imagine how a study like this can be useful. Please, jds or liquidsky correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there is much that can be done to adjust penis size in adult men. I know there is implant surgery for chronic ED patients, but I've never heard of penis augmentation surgery to lengthen or shorten the penis. While growth charts can be used to monitor a child's development, and if one is lagging far enough behind growth hormones can be prescribed. But there is nothing similar to be used for a male developing with a shorter or longer than normal penis.

Modern science and medicine are wonderful, but they have limits.

There are cosmetic surgical procedures that have mixed results.

I too might quibble with labeling this "definitive". . . .

That is why it's in quotes.

Few things are definitive.

On the other hand, it would be hard to imagine how a truly random study could be conducted. So this type of summary research may be about as good as it gets.

If I am not mistaken, the best opportunity for conducting such types would be at military induction exams, especially during the years when so many nations instituted a universal military draft. Even men who were turned away for medical problems would have had to pass by a medical revue board.

I'm sure that some studies of this type were carried out, but I don't think they were done with all inductees, otherwise this would have been mentioned by someone at some point as being part of their personal experience when called up.

That is why it's in quotes.

Few things are definitive.

Well... on the contrary; I think that a lot of things are. But this isn't really the proper thread to get into philosophical matters! ;-)

It's not? When she actually brought it up? Few things actually are definitive except that we're here for a very short time. All the rest is conjecture.

Hmmm, penis measuring seems to tricky business.

With so many threads on the topic here recently, I decided to take a measurement of my own fun stick.

I measured it from the top side, pressing one end of the tape against my pelvic bone. With a firm erection, I got a measurement of 7.25" length 1.5" width (my tape wasn't flexible enough to take a circumference measurement).

Interestingly, I decided to re-check my readings a couple days later. With what seemed like a duplicate erection, my length measurement only came to 6.5"! (width still 1.5") Looking down, my penis did appear as if it were a tad bit shorter. I was like "WTF?"

So I grabbed it and gave it a few tugs in different directions and measured again - 7.5"! It didn't feel any harder than it had just moments earlier so I'm forced to assume that there must be something that affects how much of an erection protrudes outside the body. I'm surprised that there would be that much variance.

Is there an accepted "standard" procedure for measuring a cock?

. . . . (my tape wasn't flexible enough to take a circumference measurement).. . . Is there an accepted "standard" procedure for measuring a cock?

You can wrap a string around your penis and measure that for your girth.

If you read the full article, they explain their procedure to measure the penis length.

I just found an interesting mention about this subject in a book on the Civil War. From 'The Cause of All Nations' by Don H. Doyle, in chapter 7, 'Foreign Legions' the author mentions a book published after the Civil War called 'Investigations in the Military and Anthropological Statistics of American Soldiers'. It was written and compiled by Benjamin Apthorp Gould, a Boston resident who was trained as an astronomer and became the chief statistician for the United States Sanitary Commission, a nongovernmental organization that played a major role in tending to wounded Union soldiers.

In Gould's book, he gives the results of the 'anthropological statistics' he was charged with compiling which included things such as national origin, age, height, weight and 'other rather intimate physical measurements' ...

This last obviously refers to genital measurements. So this is a statistic that was of interest to military and scientific authorities and circles and actively researched and recorded. Even back in Civil War days, 150 years ago.

Sadly the modern book gives no more information on this, as genital measurements is not really the subject of the book at all ... 😃

It's still an interesting read and fun to discuss in groups like this.