Best "Average Size" Poll I've Seen
- Thread starter BTBrian
- Start date
The mr. average one says 1% 7-7.25, 1% 7.25-7.5, like .9%7.5-7.75 etc.. or something like that. So if you added all of them up it would put 7 inches into like the 4th or 5th percentile or something. So like top 95%
Yep, essentially MrAverage is saying only 4.5% of men have 7inches or more erect length, only 1.1% have 6in. or more erect girth, and only 8% have 5.5in. or more erect girth.
I'm a bit confused by one of the links: condom size and facts: January 2012
So if I enter my EG (which is the same MS and Base) of 122mm, then it says my perfect condom fit is a size 54mm condom.
But then if you look at this link: condom size and facts: Condom Size Chart: a condom fit for everyone
It shows a list of condoms based on size, and the size 54mm condoms include the Trojan Magnum. Does this mean that I could actually use a Magnum at only 4.8 inches BEG and MSEG?
So if I enter my EG (which is the same MS and Base) of 122mm, then it says my perfect condom fit is a size 54mm condom.
But then if you look at this link: condom size and facts: Condom Size Chart: a condom fit for everyone
It shows a list of condoms based on size, and the size 54mm condoms include the Trojan Magnum. Does this mean that I could actually use a Magnum at only 4.8 inches BEG and MSEG?
@Colt:
Just to satisfy your skeptism:
According the US Census Data in July 2011, US population is roughly 311.6 million. The population here is roughly 49000. According to my poll data, roughly 50+% of the population here is from the North American continent. If we take into account gender ratios of both populations, the percentage of the male populace here compared to the NA population is about:
(48000*0.55/159.6 million)*100 = 0.017%
Now, can you accept that it is likely that the population here is a skewed sample of the NA population?
Just to satisfy your skeptism:
According the US Census Data in July 2011, US population is roughly 311.6 million. The population here is roughly 49000. According to my poll data, roughly 50+% of the population here is from the North American continent. If we take into account gender ratios of both populations, the percentage of the male populace here compared to the NA population is about:
(48000*0.55/159.6 million)*100 = 0.017%
Now, can you accept that it is likely that the population here is a skewed sample of the NA population?
Do you have a wide boner? I think the largest dimension is what counts most. So if you were really wide but maybe not as thick you wouldn't have a massive girth but could still probably where a magnum
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2010
- Messages
- 1,632
- Reaction score
- 159
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 42
You and I are similar sized girth - I can fit into a magnum, no slippage, comfortable yet tight.
Yes, I fit and wore magnums when I was your girth. Though I always had about a 5.25" base girth when I had a MSG of 4.75". Now I prefer the Durex XXLs as they are basically perfectly shaped for my penis. The Durex XXL is roughly in between a Magnum and a Magnum XL.
Sorry to bring up an old thread,
But I just wan't to point out, that the Mr. Average website is made by a guy with no affiliation to lifestyles. That study was never published. I got a response from the owner of the website, and he said that he "assumes" it was bone pressed. He actually doesn't know, because those answers do not exist beyond the hidden chambers where lifestyles keeps its unpublished statistics. The condom link you presented assumes it was bone pressed, but the actual fact of that is not known.
The three studies that I know of that took place on primarily white American men consisted of,
Wessels, 5.08 NBPEL, but also recorded that the men (all middle aged and older) had a average fat pad of around 1.12 inches. This puts the BPEL at 6.19.
Another was done on a 100 american men with and without a
But I just wan't to point out, that the Mr. Average website is made by a guy with no affiliation to lifestyles. That study was never published. I got a response from the owner of the website, and he said that he "assumes" it was bone pressed. He actually doesn't know, because those answers do not exist beyond the hidden chambers where lifestyles keeps its unpublished statistics. The condom link you presented assumes it was bone pressed, but the actual fact of that is not known.
The three studies that I know of that took place on primarily white American men consisted of,
Wessels, 5.08 NBPEL, but also recorded that the men (all middle aged and older) had a average fat pad of around 1.12 inches. This puts the BPEL at 6.19.
Another was done on a 100 american men with and without a
prostatectomy. There average was roughly 6 BPEL.
Lastly, theres the cancun lifestyles one that you guys are talking about, with an average of 5.87 inches. It is unknown whether or not this was bone pressed. One part of me wants to say, well it was done medically with doctor supervision, so they must've bone pressed.
Yet, it seems illogical to believe that the mass of club goer college spring break kids would yield a lower average than 60 year old men getting measured in a doctors office. In addition to this, if the lifestyles was non bone pressed, it would put the average BPEL somewhere around 6.3, which coincides with PE website averages, maybe a little more.
Another reason I think it possibly was NBP, is because the median was 5.65. This is the point in which 50 percent are bigger, and 50 percent are smaller, due to the longer ones skewing things upwards. Assuming a .5 inch skinny college kid fat pad, that means 50 percent of college spring breakers are out banging chicks with a roughly 5 inch or less penis? Just doesn't seem right. The ultra professionally measured wessels study measured the average at 5 inches. And that was with an average fat pad of above 1 inch.
Yet, part of me still wants to believe that online PEGYM survey type things cannot be trusted, and the average BPEL could in fact be 5.8ish. But it does make an awful lot more sense if it was it. For some reason I've noticed that the studies on American men seem to yield higher averages than those done in other countries. Possibly due to the melting pot effect of everyone having genes from various parts of the world.
Anyways sorry for the wall of thought, I was just reading through this old thread and thought I'd add my input. Does anyone have any thoughts?
***Edit
I also just wanted to add that I frequented PE sites for many years before joining. When you talk about the size being skewed by who posts and who doesn't, it very much is. As an unbiased onlooker, I could almost predict who's usernames I could see in each thread. And this was even spread across PE websites, some guys showing up on both of them in almost every thread. The people who actively post and make their stats and opinions constantly at the forefront of the forum, are probably under 5 percent of the actual membership, nevermind people practicing without accounts. I can literally open up any thread from the last 3 years and guess fairly accurately who is going to be posting in it.
Lastly, theres the cancun lifestyles one that you guys are talking about, with an average of 5.87 inches. It is unknown whether or not this was bone pressed. One part of me wants to say, well it was done medically with doctor supervision, so they must've bone pressed.
Yet, it seems illogical to believe that the mass of club goer college spring break kids would yield a lower average than 60 year old men getting measured in a doctors office. In addition to this, if the lifestyles was non bone pressed, it would put the average BPEL somewhere around 6.3, which coincides with PE website averages, maybe a little more.
Another reason I think it possibly was NBP, is because the median was 5.65. This is the point in which 50 percent are bigger, and 50 percent are smaller, due to the longer ones skewing things upwards. Assuming a .5 inch skinny college kid fat pad, that means 50 percent of college spring breakers are out banging chicks with a roughly 5 inch or less penis? Just doesn't seem right. The ultra professionally measured wessels study measured the average at 5 inches. And that was with an average fat pad of above 1 inch.
Yet, part of me still wants to believe that online PEGYM survey type things cannot be trusted, and the average BPEL could in fact be 5.8ish. But it does make an awful lot more sense if it was it. For some reason I've noticed that the studies on American men seem to yield higher averages than those done in other countries. Possibly due to the melting pot effect of everyone having genes from various parts of the world.
Anyways sorry for the wall of thought, I was just reading through this old thread and thought I'd add my input. Does anyone have any thoughts?
***Edit
I also just wanted to add that I frequented PE sites for many years before joining. When you talk about the size being skewed by who posts and who doesn't, it very much is. As an unbiased onlooker, I could almost predict who's usernames I could see in each thread. And this was even spread across PE websites, some guys showing up on both of them in almost every thread. The people who actively post and make their stats and opinions constantly at the forefront of the forum, are probably under 5 percent of the actual membership, nevermind people practicing without accounts. I can literally open up any thread from the last 3 years and guess fairly accurately who is going to be posting in it.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2008
- Messages
- 9,338
- Reaction score
- 313
- Points
- 0
We sure wish more of the lurkers would join us. It would make for a much
richer experience on all our parts.
richer experience on all our parts.
Man you are so obsessed with thinking you're smaller than you are, it's really sad
This may be true, but do I not present a very valid argument? Can you honestly believe the lifestyles study was bone pressed putting 50% of people under 5.6 BPEL? Yeah, maybe i'm obsessed. Yes, I think too much about it. But regardless, I believe the wrong information is being presented, so I brought it up.
Fair enough and I didn't mean to sound rude, sorry about that. Yea I completely believe that 50% would be under 5.6 BPEL, that's only slightly lower than other studies and would be fairly consistent with them.
EDIT: and if we're going to round it, it would actually be 5.7 (you said it was 5.65) you can't just round randomly to make your argument sound that much more convincing!
No worries man.
What makes me not so keen on believing that is the fact that the other two professionally measured studies that were done on American Men turned up an average of 6+ BPEL. Wessels, although only a little under 5.1 inches NBPEL, recorded an average fat pad of 1.12, putting the BPEL around 6.2, which is where it is generally placed on most PEGYM and thunders online surveys.
I tend to believe the studies done on Americans more for me because I'm from America. I never really previously thought of any difference between countries because the skin colors weren't different (i.e White americans vs. white germans), however my opinion was swayed by a few posts by gay men on another PE website, and they said that it seems like not only is race a factor in size, but it also seems as if different countries of the same race of people seemed to have different averages. These guys were also Adamant about African Americans having bigger penises, which so far has been medically unproven. So it depends on who you trust. But my point is, besides for those three studies on U.S.A. men, the rest of the studies have been done abroad and in random countries. I'm not necessarily saying that Americans have bigger penises, but it could be a possibility due to the fact that we are a melting pot of many different races and nationalities.
And also, as far as the wessels BPEL average is concerned (which is I think .1 higher than the 4000 respondents at thunder survey), while i'm sure the 80 men in the wessels one had to respond to an add or something based on penis size, these guys, as far as they were concerned, only had 5 inch penises. They didn't walk in there thinking they were hung and their dicks were just hidden under fat.
I hope what I'm trying to say makes sense. Basically, i'm trying to say that these guys wouldn't be responding to the study because of willingness to show off a big penis, because as far as they knew they had 5 inchers. So I would feel the BPEL would be accurate. However, it is possible that the pharmacological erections created 100% EQ, which maybe would not be attainable in a normal situation. I don't really know how those things work.
What makes me not so keen on believing that is the fact that the other two professionally measured studies that were done on American Men turned up an average of 6+ BPEL. Wessels, although only a little under 5.1 inches NBPEL, recorded an average fat pad of 1.12, putting the BPEL around 6.2, which is where it is generally placed on most PEGYM and thunders online surveys.
I tend to believe the studies done on Americans more for me because I'm from America. I never really previously thought of any difference between countries because the skin colors weren't different (i.e White americans vs. white germans), however my opinion was swayed by a few posts by gay men on another PE website, and they said that it seems like not only is race a factor in size, but it also seems as if different countries of the same race of people seemed to have different averages. These guys were also Adamant about African Americans having bigger penises, which so far has been medically unproven. So it depends on who you trust. But my point is, besides for those three studies on U.S.A. men, the rest of the studies have been done abroad and in random countries. I'm not necessarily saying that Americans have bigger penises, but it could be a possibility due to the fact that we are a melting pot of many different races and nationalities.
And also, as far as the wessels BPEL average is concerned (which is I think .1 higher than the 4000 respondents at thunder survey), while i'm sure the 80 men in the wessels one had to respond to an add or something based on penis size, these guys, as far as they were concerned, only had 5 inch penises. They didn't walk in there thinking they were hung and their dicks were just hidden under fat.
I hope what I'm trying to say makes sense. Basically, i'm trying to say that these guys wouldn't be responding to the study because of willingness to show off a big penis, because as far as they knew they had 5 inchers. So I would feel the BPEL would be accurate. However, it is possible that the pharmacological erections created 100% EQ, which maybe would not be attainable in a normal situation. I don't really know how those things work.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2011
- Messages
- 2,000
- Reaction score
- 187
- Points
- 83
Great find, BT! One thing I just wanted to ask - and I'm sorry if this has been covered already - but do you know if those 'averages' are the mean or the median? I expect the two figures are similar but they're probably not exactly the same. Just wondering.
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2011
- Messages
- 2,000
- Reaction score
- 187
- Points
- 83
Yeah, assuming penis size is 'normally distributed' (follows a perfect bell-shaped curve) would put me at 1 in more than 30,000 for length. Which I sure as hell don't believe, as awesome as it would be if true! Penises at the high end of both length and girth are probably a bit more common than you'd expect from a normal distribution, quite possibly as a direct result of PE. I mean, if one man in 1,000 has attempted some form of PE, and grows an inch or so over a PE career of a couple of years, well some of those guys will have been quite big to start with - and while the effect on the average size will be infinitesimal, it will significantly increase the number of guys in the higher size categories which, by rights, should be rarer than hens' teeth.
