Help keep this site alive with your VIP membership and unlock exciting site features available only to our supporting members!
UPGRADE to get lifetime access to dig420's video section, the Meet Up! forums, AD FREE surfing and much, much more!
On optimal cock size...
- Thread starterCuster Laststand
- Start date
Stirling said:
I've seen that chart and it seems suspect. Here's one I recently stumbled upon:
Penis Size Survey
Some statistical comments re. "average" penis size(s) & size distributions
A fatal problem with the vast majority of "surveys" of penis size one finds on-line and in the popular literature (magazines, e-zines, etc.) is that they are not based on random samples of the male population. Rather, they are based on self-selected samples.
In the case of the Kinsey reports, for example, his measurements of penis size and other determinations were based on people, in various subgroups of the population, who voluntarily stepped forward at his request for his measurements and interviews. Thus, his samples were self-selected by definition. Kinsey's books were criticized for that reason. He was devastated by this criticism that his statistical methods were invalid (or only partially valid), because his books were his life's work (after he became interested in human sexuality early in his scientific career). [Despite this criticism, Kinsey's work yielded fundamental advances in knowledge of human sexuality, and American's... as well as others, worldwide... are indebted to him for pressing on and carrying out his studies despite howls of outrage from "moralists."]
In any event, one should suspect (in my opinion) that the determinations of "average" penis size one finds online and elsewhere give an overly large "average," because men who are proud of their somewhat or very large penises are more likely to step forward and have them measured than men who feel embarrassed or even ashamed because their penises are smaller than average. This effect would yield "average" penis sizes that are biased in the over-large direction. Also, it's well-known that men who measure their own penises (then submit the results to, for instance, an online survey) conclude their penises are larger than when the penises of the population sample are measured by a clinician. This too would bias the "average" penis sizes one finds online and elsewhere in the over-large direction.
[Those interested (if any) can find a good description of how to identify a population sample for sex research that's truly random near the beginning, probably in Chapt. 2, of:
Michael, R.T., J.H. Gagnon, E.O. Laumann, and G. Kolata, 1994, Sex in America: A Definitive Survey, Little, Brown, and Company, 300 pp. (Hardcover).
The methodology required for statistical validity, which is well-known to sociologists (as the authors point out), includes an in-depth personal interview with each individual in the random sample. In the case of penis size, a statistically-valid survey would have to include in-person measurement by a qualified clinician of each individual in the (not self-selected but rather suitably-selected) random sample.]
A fatal problem with the vast majority of "surveys" of penis size one finds on-line and in the popular literature (magazines, e-zines, etc.) is that they are not based on random samples of the male population. Rather, they are based on self-selected samples.
In the case of the Kinsey reports, for example, his measurements of penis size and other determinations were based on people, in various subgroups of the population, who voluntarily stepped forward at his request for his measurements and interviews. Thus, his samples were self-selected by definition. Kinsey's books were criticized for that reason. He was devastated by this criticism that his statistical methods were invalid (or only partially valid), because his books were his life's work (after he became interested in human sexuality early in his scientific career). [Despite this criticism, Kinsey's work yielded fundamental advances in knowledge of human sexuality, and American's... as well as others, worldwide... are indebted to him for pressing on and carrying out his studies despite howls of outrage from "moralists."]
In any event, one should suspect (in my opinion) that the determinations of "average" penis size one finds online and elsewhere give an overly large "average," because men who are proud of their somewhat or very large penises are more likely to step forward and have them measured than men who feel embarrassed or even ashamed because their penises are smaller than average. This effect would yield "average" penis sizes that are biased in the over-large direction. Also, it's well-known that men who measure their own penises (then submit the results to, for instance, an online survey) conclude their penises are larger than when the penises of the population sample are measured by a clinician. This too would bias the "average" penis sizes one finds online and elsewhere in the over-large direction.
[Those interested (if any) can find a good description of how to identify a population sample for sex research that's truly random near the beginning, probably in Chapt. 2, of:
Michael, R.T., J.H. Gagnon, E.O. Laumann, and G. Kolata, 1994, Sex in America: A Definitive Survey, Little, Brown, and Company, 300 pp. (Hardcover).
The methodology required for statistical validity, which is well-known to sociologists (as the authors point out), includes an in-depth personal interview with each individual in the random sample. In the case of penis size, a statistically-valid survey would have to include in-person measurement by a qualified clinician of each individual in the (not self-selected but rather suitably-selected) random sample.]
"In any event, one should suspect (in my opinion) that the determinations of "average" penis size one finds online and elsewhere give an overly large "average," because men who are proud of their somewhat or very large penises are more likely to step forward and have them measured than men who feel embarrassed or even ashamed because their penises are smaller than average. This effect would yield "average" penis sizes that are biased in the over-large direction. Also, it's well-known that men who measure their own penises (then submit the results to, for instance, an online survey) conclude their penises are larger than when the penises of the population sample are measured by a clinician. This too would bias the "average" penis sizes one finds online and elsewhere in the over-large direction."
The authors of these studies need to come here for balance. It seems we have a lot of cucks more than willing to offer their tiny penises to equal up the survey!
The authors of these studies need to come here for balance. It seems we have a lot of cucks more than willing to offer their tiny penises to equal up the survey!
![B]6b.jpg](http://www.cuckolds.com/forums/attachments/cuckolds-news/113537d1321158674t-optimal-cock-size-[B][/B]6b.jpg)
ajinuk said:My cock is about 9'5" x 9 so long and thick which is lucky. I have been with 7 women (only 22); none had taken a bigger cock before... but, I still enjoy it being locked up and being a cuck to my girlfriend.
Really...? An erect cock 9 ft. 5 in. long by 9 (ft.? in.?) in circumference would definitely be something to see. I encourage you to post a photo sometime...
Assuming you really mean your cock is 9.5 in. long by 9 in. in circumference, that too would be something to see. The only standard of comparison I can come up with readily is my can of shaving gel, which is 7 3/4 in. high by 6 5/8 in. in circumference. So, I still encourage you to post a photo sometime...
BTW, where did your girlfriend find a chastity device sufficiently large to lock up your cock which has such massive dimensions? Did she have to have it custom made? In any event, it's easy to see she would only want to release it when she's good and ready (if she ever feels that she is)...
I don't think theres a question anymore about size being an issue.....Women crave large cocks. I don't have a single lady friend who hasn't said that a bigger cock is better - its more than just the extra clittoral sensation they get from extra thickness.... they get psychologically more stimulated from seeing big men.
How do you monster-hung men do it though? I'm really big: 7.5"x6", and most girls I fuck who don't have frequent sex are usually torn up unless we use lube. Good thing I fall right into that optimal size
Not every girl wants me to bottom out in her though, sometimes it really hurts them, especially when they have my thick pipe smashing it. I can always tell when I hit cervix, and it always hurts them. So in some ways, being long is bad. I think girth is more important.
How do you monster-hung men do it though? I'm really big: 7.5"x6", and most girls I fuck who don't have frequent sex are usually torn up unless we use lube. Good thing I fall right into that optimal size
Not every girl wants me to bottom out in her though, sometimes it really hurts them, especially when they have my thick pipe smashing it. I can always tell when I hit cervix, and it always hurts them. So in some ways, being long is bad. I think girth is more important.
