A Completely Unofficial SIZE FAQ

The Swede

Just Browsing
Joined
Aug 5, 2007
Posts
11
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
146
Location
Stockholm
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Fortiesfun, in Your first post You gave us some numbers on length, "only 1 in 100 ..." etc.

Do You have any "scientific" numbers of girth? For example, "only 1 in 100 will have a bigger girth than XX inches/centimeters, only 1 in 1000 will etc"

Cheers /TS

Edit: Or if any other member have any interesting material of course...
 

fortiesfun

Sexy Member
Joined
May 29, 2006
Posts
4,619
Media
0
Likes
78
Points
268
Location
California (United States)
Sexuality
60% Gay, 40% Straight
Gender
Male
Fortiesfun, in Your first post You gave us some numbers on length, "only 1 in 100 ..." etc.

Do You have any "scientific" numbers of girth? For example, "only 1 in 100 will have a bigger girth than XX inches/centimeters, only 1 in 1000 will etc"

Cheers /TS

Edit: Or if any other member have any interesting material of course...
I don't, because as I mention in passing, the available research on girth is much smaller and less definitive. (I am not an original researcher myself, and am reliant on available and published studies. I am always glad to have new ones brought to my attention.)

And a quick plug, since this thread seems to have recently revived, that I still think this thread would make a great "wiki" topic where we could collectively edit and source our information. I am sympathetic with anyone who finds it not worth their time to really work hard at supplying citations and studies, because hours and hours of work are always literally trumped by a post that declares the owner to have a two foot dick, or to travel in a circle of friends who are all hung better than any individual membe of LPSG. Wiki solves that by allowing the power of collective editing to override the sequential nature of current threads. Just my two cents worth.
 

nudeyorker

Admired Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2006
Posts
22,742
Media
0
Likes
821
Points
208
Location
NYC/Honolulu
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Wow...excellent work Doc! Do you have too much time on your hands? I'm thinking of hiring a Charge d'affair to handle LPSG boards while I'm busy or traveling. Also litght cooking and housekeeping! Interested?
 

fortiesfun

Sexy Member
Joined
May 29, 2006
Posts
4,619
Media
0
Likes
78
Points
268
Location
California (United States)
Sexuality
60% Gay, 40% Straight
Gender
Male
Wow...excellent work Doc! Do you have too much time on your hands? I'm thinking of hiring a Charge d'affair to handle LPSG boards while I'm busy or traveling. Also litght cooking and housekeeping! Interested?
If you are hiring someone to handle something of yours while you travel, your LPSG involvement would be perhaps my second or third choice, but not my first. :eek:
 

The Swede

Just Browsing
Joined
Aug 5, 2007
Posts
11
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
146
Location
Stockholm
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
I don't, because as I mention in passing, the available research on girth is much smaller and less definitive. (I am not an original researcher myself, and am reliant on available and published studies. I am always glad to have new ones brought to my attention.)

[COLOR=#00e0]And a quick plug, since this thread seems to have recently revived, that I still think this thread would make a great "wiki" topic where we could collectively edit and source our information. I am sympathetic with anyone who finds it not worth their time to really work hard at supplying citations and studies, because hours and hours of work are always literally trumped by a post that declares the owner to have a two foot dick, or to travel in a circle of friends who are all hung better than any individual membe of LPSG. Wiki solves that by allowing the power of collective editing to override the sequential nature of current threads. Just my two cents worth.[/COLOR]

Okidoki. The plot thickens... :wink:

Take care/TS
 

fortiesfun

Sexy Member
Joined
May 29, 2006
Posts
4,619
Media
0
Likes
78
Points
268
Location
California (United States)
Sexuality
60% Gay, 40% Straight
Gender
Male
This may confuse some, but it is moving a discussion about correlation to penis size and race from the "Race and Size Meta-thread" discussion over here, where it is more appropriate.

superlarge said:
When it comes to penis size data the polls at Thunder's matches closely with doctor studies. There is a great thread there linking to very many doctor studies (not polls). I've compared it. Thunder's appears to be unique in that it's polls have shown to have a high degree of reliablity.
I never thought I find myself spending so much time at Thunder's Place, but I can't find the thread to which you refer there. I see the Penis Size page, which uses the Definitive Penis Size Survey(which is actually a separate site) data and compares it to the famous Kinsey statistics, but the Thunder's Place page doesn't refer to their conclusions about race. (Surprisingly, the DPSS actually concludes that white men have bigger penises than black men on average, which does not correlate with the Kinsey data.) Perhaps you can point me to the exact thread that compares their data to doctor's studies.

The only drawback is that it's not definitive (just like doctor studies). In other words it doesn't indicate black, white, and Asian separately, and therefore one can't know the number of each voted and their sizes data to see the affects on the numbers on the overall chart.
For those that are following this stuff closely, the DPSS does break their results down by race, but cautions that the low number of black and hispanic respondents renders the conclusions somewhat suspect. I think that is what superlarge is getting at.

Of course, since you 'believe' all races (if you accept the word race) are the same then that part isn't really relevant to you.
What I believe can be seen more clearly in my original post in this thread, which is that the majority of recent, clinic polls find no statistically significant difference among the races, including the DPSS, which is the data set used by Thunder's Place. Since even the authority you cite finds this to be the case, I don't think it is anything more that trusting the data.

Since the penis size poll checks out well in comparsion, then that should be an indication the height vs penis length poll probably checks out well.
I'm not quite sure how and why you concluded that I think there is no correlation between height and penis length, but all the data I can find on this subject says there is a weak one and I accept that. (The DPSS actually finds weak correlations between all body part sizes and penis size. It seems to apply to feet, hands, nose, thumbs, and just about everything. Weak is the operative word, however. Statistically it means that a tall man has a better chance of having a long penis that a short man, but not enough to make money from betting on it.)

Size survey also ran a height vs penis length poll, and found the same upward curve correlation, though it's curve runs higher up (stronger correlation) which is no doubt indicative of it's exaggeration that plaques so many self polls, but nevertheless the curve is uniform which is an important detail that indicates some validity to it results. Especially when Thunder's indicates a correlation is reality. The probabilty is high that you have been incorrect in believing height plays no role whatsoever
.You lost me in the early part of that, but I hope by now I've cleared up that it is not me who is saying that there is no correlation to height in the surveys, however (as Thunder's Place says) it is a weak one.

Your posts strongly lean towards no correlation that, no correlation this, when it comes to anything pertaining or relating to this penis size subject. I could probably name a dozen believed correlations and you and many posters would probably check mark "no" as your answer to all of them
. That's true, but mainly I think you are vexed because I stand by my conclusion that the majority of recent, clinical studies (which I think have the highest reliability) do say there is no statistically significant difference among races, even the DPSS one quoted at Thunder's Place which you cite repeatedly! As I note above, however, I concur there is a weak correlation to body size. The taller you are and bigger your hands, feet, noses and thumbs are, the greater the possibility that you will have a longer than average dick.


They aren't all "no" (I'm not saying some aren't or can't be). Some yess exist. Especially since the truth sometimes lays somewhere inbetween yes and no, as in the growers catching up to showers. The truth is it is partially true, as growers gain ground, but mostly false as they don't catch and the gap difference isn't even closed by 50% and appears to be more like 25%.
I am unrepentant on this one, because growers and showers are not reliable categories. Everyone's flaccid dick undergoes significant size changes from temperature and exertion and there simply isn't a reliable way to measure flaccid "size." I know of no survey, in fact, that reports flaccid measurements that isn't completely reliant on self-reporting. I know that DPSS includes a flaccid measurement and correlations section, but since it gives neither a definition of flaccid, nor instructions on how to obtain you flaccid measurement I can't see the validity in it. Clinicians recognize that there can be small difference between one's erections, but flaccid length is not fixed. Period.

The main difference I see between believers in correlations and non believers is that non believers have this all or nothing reasoning (and think that since it's not absolute across the board that it must be no correlation), whilst believers tend to post a more middle ground acceptance.
Funny, I would say just the opposite! :cool:
 

B_andyo

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2007
Posts
1,928
Media
0
Likes
40
Points
183
Location
Miami
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
wonder how you got the 1 in 10 has 6.5+ and so on... while i think a woman most likely will find a 7 incher in 8-13 partners
 

B_superlarge

Experimental Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2007
Posts
912
Media
0
Likes
10
Points
163
fortiesfun,

Your last reply to me in this thread misses the boat altogether. Not only did you miss the boat, you're were standing at the airport when the boat left. :smile: This is the thread I was talking about. It links to doctor studies, just like I said. The Definitive site you kept posting about in your reply isn't a doctor study! Come on, I know better than that, lol. I see from that you don't think I know what I'm talking about at all, lol. I've got years into this stuff.
Penis Size: The True Average - Thunder's Place Free Penis Enlargement Forums

As far as the height vs penis size poll goes, it's in the Poll forum and isn't accessible to guests. One can't even see a Poll forum on one's page as a guest.

You brought up Definitive Size Survey indicated white guys being bigger than black guys. In the survey not only does he mention the small sampling of black guys, he also talks about discarding the top 2% (overall votes, regardless of race) and the bottom 1% of all sizes. He did that in a guessing effort to keep the results more realistic. Some people believe that black guys have a much higher percentage of long penises than other races. If black guys do have a higher percentage of long ones, and it's only a small sampling, then the discarding of the top 2% of long ones could potentially have a significant effect on the result for black guys, pulling their average down. Also, the discarding of the bottom 1% could have raised the average of white guys at least a bit, if indeed white guys tend to have smaller ones than black guys. One must consider all the detail available at a site if one is to be OBJECTIVE, and not just pick out what suits them and turn a blind eye to anything else that might affect it.

Also, the Definitive penis site indicates a strong correlation between height and penis size. Your eyes only seemed to see the other correlation results or lack of correlation results there, which do indeed indicate weak to no correlation on various body parts. Thundersplace has a shoe size to penis size poll and it also shows a very weak correlation like sizesurvey does. I have no problem accepting that the correlation is very weak when it comes to shoe size, and none on other parts. See, that shows I'm willing to accept the results whatever it is.

I, however, was referring to the height results. You don't mention that result and proceed to bring up the others that don't show much correlation. You accepted those others from that site. Do you accept the height one? Here's the quote you left out (there is also a graph with it at that site):

"With the rather impressive number of responses I have amassed since the inception of this survey, I have detected that, on average, there exists a strong relationship between erect penis length and height, as illustrated in Figure 9. For the purposes of demonstrating possible correlations between length and various hand and foot measurements, it became necessary to control for this phenomena by performing a partial correlation between length and the various measurements in question. The results of such an analysis are presented below."
Definitive Penis Size Survey Results

Thunders poll doesn't show the height correlation to be as strong as that site does and I consider Thunders' result more realistic.
 

fortiesfun

Sexy Member
Joined
May 29, 2006
Posts
4,619
Media
0
Likes
78
Points
268
Location
California (United States)
Sexuality
60% Gay, 40% Straight
Gender
Male
fortiesfun,

Your last reply to me in this thread misses the boat altogether. Not only did you miss the boat, you're were standing at the airport when the boat left. :smile: This is the thread I was talking about. It links to doctor studies, just like I said. The Definitive site you kept posting about in your reply isn't a doctor study! Come on, I know better than that, lol. I see from that you don't think I know what I'm talking about at all, lol. I've got years into this stuff.
Penis Size: The True Average - Thunder's Place Free Penis Enlargement Forums
I have to confess that your posts are not easy to follow many times since they make reference to a lot of data that is not supplied, and I openly said that I could not find the thread for which you have now supplied a link.

I've taken the time to read the new thread you have supplied completely. As an overview, it presents data from 11 studies clinical studies, where the measurements were taken by staff and where, in all but a couple of cases, the participants were not volunteers. (Not surprisingly, the cases where the subjects were volunteers produced the longest averages.) It does not supply citations about any of the studies (or even identify them beyond where they took place) so the work can't be checked, but the data does (indeed) look authentic and I am happy to accept it at face value.

Of course, the major reason I am more than willing to accept it is that it agrees almost completely with my first post in this thread. For those who may not want to take the time to go there and read the whole thread, here is a helpful bit of math done by a reader at Thunder's Place who combined all the results of the studies into categories depending on the measuring methodology, averaged them and came out with a length which confirms my original posting:

The average of the average (based on the facts presented in the first post [of the thread at Thunder's Place]

NonBone Pressed Erect Length: (5.08+5.88+5.01)/3 = 5.32"

Bone Pressed Erect Length: (5.35+5.7+5.58)/3 = 5.54"

Flaccid Streched Length: (4.92+5.31+4.88+5.12+5.30)/5 = 5.1"

Bone Pressed Flaccid Streched Length: (4.92+4.21)/2 = 4.56"

Combining all values: (5.32+5.54+5.1+4.56)/4 = 5.13"
Averaging them all without first averaging by methodology gives the only slightly longer value of 5.17 inches. Not a single one of these studies finds an average even close to 6 inches.

These studies do not specify race, by are generally held in identifiable national regions where it is easy to presume the race of the majority of participants. It does include a Korean study which has the smallest average of all, and a Nigerian study that falls firmly in the middle of the pack, but those are both very small numbers of participants. It does not seem to supply much support for your position that there are racial differences in average sizes.

You brought up Definitive Size Survey indicated white guys being bigger than black guys. In the survey not only does he mention the small sampling of black guys, he also talks about discarding the top 2% (overall votes, regardless of race) and the bottom 1% of all sizes. He did that in a guessing effort to keep the results more realistic. Some people believe that black guys have a much higher percentage of long penises than other races. If black guys do have a higher percentage of long ones, and it's only a small sampling, then the discarding of the top 2% of long ones could potentially have a significant effect on the result for black guys, pulling their average down. Also, the discarding of the bottom 1% could have raised the average of white guys at least a bit, if indeed white guys tend to have smaller ones than black guys. One must consider all the detail available at a site if one is to be OBJECTIVE, and not just pick out what suits them and turn a blind eye to anything else that might affect it.
There is a circular argument in there, which is that "Some people believe that black guys have a much higher percentage of long penises," so you have to adjust for that in order to arrive at the conclusion that black guys have longer penises. That hardly seems OBJECTIVE to me.

Of course, I am no defender of the Definitive Penis Size Survey (DPSS) which is a voluntary on-line poll. I was merely using it because it is the data set specified upfront by Thunder's Place, the source you cited as your reason for believing there were racial differences in average. I'm more than happy to defer to the newly supplied individual thread at Thunder's Place, since it does not lend much support to claims of racial difference and arrives at an objective penis size average for all men that I think fairly reflects the best medical averages.

Also, the Definitive penis site indicates a strong correlation between height and penis size. Your eyes only seemed to see the other correlation results or lack of correlation results there, which do indeed indicate weak to no correlation on various body parts. Thundersplace has a shoe size to penis size poll and it also shows a very weak correlation like sizesurvey does. I have no problem accepting that the correlation is very weak when it comes to shoe size, and none on other parts. See, that shows I'm willing to accept the results whatever it is.
I am simply mystified as to how height/penis size correlations became the subject. It is a topic that this thread does not address at all, and I have barely touched on anywhere until it became an obsession of yours. I've already specified there is a weak correlation, and I see no point in pursuing it further, since even you, after writing at length about it suggest that you tend to think the same thing:

Thunders poll doesn't show the height correlation to be as strong as that site does and I consider Thunders' result more realistic.
So, just to keep us on track, we entered into this whole discussion because of your strong belief that there are significant racial differences in average penis size. You supplied one source which didn't check out, as discussed here. You've now directed me to a very interesting thread at Thunder's Place, but that one offers little data and no conclusions about or support for racial differences.

It did, however, offer some additional evidence that original post got the measurement part right, and until I see something more convincing, I stand by everything else I wrote also.
 

B_superlarge

Experimental Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2007
Posts
912
Media
0
Likes
10
Points
163
You shouldn't be too mystified, as this thread appears to me to talk about correlations in your first post, and the thread title concerns FAQ. I must admit I'm getting a bit turned around here with the jumping back and forth inbewteen two threads and then you were apparently looking for an answering one into another.

Btw, I didn't indicate I thought the height correlation was "weak". Definitive site shows it as strong, and I said Thunder's doesn't show as strong and I consider Thunder's to be more realistic. I did say the shoe size poll indicates a weak connection.

You brought up the Definitive site and black men being smaller. I know I responded to that showing how the 2% and 1% cutoffs may play a role. I don't really want to go to both threads and reread our exchanges and see what I can determine about this apparent misconmunication in some ways, but I realise, and already realised, that the doctor links do not, nor do Thunder's polls, provide information about races. There is, however, the Korean study and it was the smallest result. You can brush it off, and you might be right. I just wish they would have been average to help support for your viewpoint. But alas, it's the other way around. I don't wish some guys to be bigger and some smaller, I just see it as the way it is. When it comes to black guys being bigger, and Asians smaller, hearsay and porn (including amateur porn!) is about all there is to go on. I've read around BET for years and the vast majority of the black women there do think black guys are bigger, even the ones that say size doesn't matter. There is reason to believe it is so.
 

fortiesfun

Sexy Member
Joined
May 29, 2006
Posts
4,619
Media
0
Likes
78
Points
268
Location
California (United States)
Sexuality
60% Gay, 40% Straight
Gender
Male
You shouldn't be too mystified, as this thread appears to me to talk about correlations in your first post, and the thread title concerns FAQ. I must admit I'm getting a bit turned around here with the jumping back and forth inbewteen two threads and then you were apparently looking for an answering one into another.
That is completely fair. For the record, I am attempting to keep the actual discussion of any correlation to average penis size and race in this thread, where it is on-topic. (The other thread referenced, for future historians :rolleyes: , is Race and Size Meta-thread, which is a discussion area for those who already take for granted there is no correlation and want to discuss the enduring power of the urban mythology.

Btw, I didn't indicate I thought the height correlation was "weak". Definitive site shows it as strong, and I said Thunder's doesn't show as strong and I consider Thunder's to be more realistic. I did say the shoe size poll indicates a weak connection.
Again, fair enough. My point was that this thread never made any connection between height and penis size in the first place. (If you re-read the original post in this thread you will realize that I used the loose correlation of height and basketball ability to try to illuminate the correlation between penis size and sexual ability. I, frankly, have no stake in the height debate. If you want to pick up tall men in hopes they have big dicks, more power to you. At 6'3", I think I only stand to gain from that. :wink:

You brought up the Definitive site and black men being smaller. I know I responded to that showing how the 2% and 1% cutoffs may play a role. I don't really want to go to both threads and reread our exchanges and see what I can determine about this apparent misconmunication in some ways, but I realise, and already realised, that the doctor links do not, nor do Thunder's polls, provide information about races.
Right. Let us agree that the DPSS is not the data set we want to discuss and just let it go. (From my perspective the problem isn't that they cut off the top 2% and bottom 1%, it is that as a voluntary, self-reporting study the study population is neither random nor reliable but completely worthless.) I just misunderstood that you thought they were a valid data set, though their conclusion ran counter to your thesis. I got that wrong. End of matter.

There is, however, the Korean study and it was the smallest result. You can brush it off, and you might be right.
It is actually the OP in the Thunder's Place thread that brushes it off, noting that it is too small to be considered a valid sampling of Koreans, let alone all men of Asian extraction all over the world. I'm respecting the authority you accord him, nothing more.

I just wish they would have been average to help support for your viewpoint. But alas, it's the other way around. I don't wish some guys to be bigger and some smaller, I just see it as the way it is. When it comes to black guys being bigger, and Asians smaller, hearsay and porn (including amateur porn!) is about all there is to go on.
Of course, I think hearsay and porn are not sources that we can use to draw any kind of valid conclusion. (Except for the well-known observation that descendants of Mormon pioneers are exceptionally big dicked. That one I am willing to accept as unassailable. :cool: )

I've read around BET for years and the vast majority of the black women there do think black guys are bigger, even the ones that say size doesn't matter. There is reason to believe it is so.
Me, I'll take njqt's word for it here that it just ain't so. Seems as valid as any other source of anecdote, and I trust her!

I shouldn’t be so flip. My position remains that, in the end, no one has produced a data set that shows statistically significant differences in racial sizes, though Kinsey’s famous half inches creeps very close. When I see a new valid and reliable study that does so, I am willing to revise my position. For the time being I notice that all claims otherwise always fall back eventually on anecdote, personal observation, and ultimately, a personal wish that it were so.

A particular parallel is that almost all laypeople know, with the certainly of God, that the average penis size is longer than any data set supports, and that enormous cocks can be found on every street corner. Study after study, including the 11 cited in the thread at Thunder’s Place, have shown the average size to be right around 5 and a quarter inches, no more. (Even here at LPSG, where you'd think we might have an investment in being exceptional, you’ll see the claim that the average size is 7-8 inches bandied about with such frequency that you’d think it was a proven fact. I have learned that we can’t trust anecdote on that front, and for the same reason I don’t believe we can trust it about racial size averages, either.)
 

Tall Tale

Experimental Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2008
Posts
81
Media
1
Likes
18
Points
93
Location
Aberdeen, WA
Sexuality
50% Straight, 50% Gay
Gender
Male
That chart which states that 1 in 10 is over 6.5 and 1 in 100 is over 7.5 and 1 in 10,000,000 exceeds 12.5 inches etc. does not seem very scientific. It seems more of an ego booster for those that fall into those categories. Where is that information from?
 

D_cygktr

Just Browsing
Joined
Jun 10, 2006
Posts
5
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
146
That chart which states that 1 in 10 is over 6.5 and 1 in 100 is over 7.5 and 1 in 10,000,000 exceeds 12.5 inches etc. does not seem very scientific. It seems more of an ego booster for those that fall into those categories. Where is that information from?

I agree with Tall Tale - I have far too many female friends who have encountered big cock for this to be correct...of course this is anecdotal, but if big cocks are that rare, I don't think there would be quite so many credible stories about encounters with them (outright exaggeration or lying, notwithstanding). I think big schlongs are more common than most want to admit.

EXAMPLES:
1) Previous girlfriend estimated my size by glance at "8 or 9 inches." I am about 8" on a good day. So perhaps a little over-estimated, but not hugely so (sorry for the pun). She had a previous boyfriend who she said was bigger than me (I asked) and she said he was 9 inches, measured. Years later, after we broke up, I asked who had the biggest dick she ever had been with, and she said it was yet some other guy (not the previous boyfriend), and she said he might have been closing in on 10." When I asked her what was the biggest she'd ever seen, it a different guy who had flashed her at a teenage pool party and liked to show off his huge dick (I knew this guy, and he was indeed a dick...haha.). She estimated it at 12 - 13" and said it was "more than halfway down his thigh."

Unless this is all imaginary in her head, what is the statistical probability that my ex could have happened upon so many big dicks? Even if her estimates are off by say, 20%, that's still a lot of encounters with some big meat. Math guys help out here?

2) Stripper friend - she had an encounter with a guy who got an erection during her dance at a strip club - I was there at the same time but with a different girl. When she told me about it, she did a "karate chop" with her hand at mid thigh to demonstrate to me how big the guy was. The biggest she'd ever seen was some guy she went on a date with (super tall with giant hands). She said "when it started to rise up, I got the hell out of there!" The "karate chop" for this guy to estimate his size was only slightly above the knee...

Based on the stats, how likely is it that she would have encountered these two huge schlongs? [there could be others but I know of at least these two incidents.]

3) Another Stripper friend - she mentioned dancing for a dude, some football player and he was wearing long shorts. As she was dancing she said she was kinda far away and her knees were just grazing him on the inside of his legs...she felt "something warm" and when she glanced down, the head of his dong was sticking out of this shorts near his knee. I'm not gonna estimate the length, but you do the math.

Okay, only one giant dick here...but still, what at the odds of such a giant cock coming in for a lap dance?

4) Another Stripper Friend - she was a size queen (I found this out from the girl in the next story below - they were friends at college). I don't have a lot of detail on this one, but this girl talked about how various guys (i.e. more than one) liked to come in to the club wearing shorts so they could get a visible hard-on (presumably to give her a cheap thrill). She mentioned how their cocks would be hanging across their legs, or over the side of their stomachs, etc.. Well, my dick is decent sized, but I admit it doesn't reach over my leg or stomach that way when hard...it's not long enough. So, unless this is complete bullshit, then she's had at minimum several encounters with 9" range cocks. Yes, of course I realize that individual physiognomy varies, so dudes can have very narrow hips or something, making it easier for the dong to reach over their legs or hips...still, takes a pretty long dick to give the visual impression of hanging over the leg. My dick doesn't even come close to looking that long, and it's around 7.5 to 8.

What are the odds?

5) Female friend - I told her once of a magazine I had seen in the late 80's of this dude calling himself "chocolate thunder" and this dude's cock was below the knee. Very similar to Long Dong Silver. Maybe it was fake (as supposedly Long Dong was...), dunno. Looked real in the magazine and the dude had it propped across the chicks ass like it was a crowbar and he had a big cheshire cat grin.... Anyway, my friend was describing a date with some guy and she was going on and on about how good looking this guy was, and I was teasing her about how cheesy I thought he was in his seduction of her. (As she related the story him taking off his shirt to show his abs, and then cooking her dinner, inviting her into the hot tub where she could see the imprint of him massive log, etc. Total CHEESE - but it worked! Haha). She said he looked pretty big in the hot tub, and that she ended up fucking him. So to deflate her balloon a little bit, I said something like, "well, he may be big, but he can't be anywhere near the size of this guy I saw in a magazine, blah, blah, blah...it was below his knee," and I held my hands about 15" apart. Without even batting an eye, or expressing any disbelief or shock at my story of the colossal Chocolate Thunder, she said immediately, "Well, then he was Vanilla Thunder." She also mentioned that sex was painful (but she also went back for a second try another time! What a little slut! Haha!), which added some credibility to the story. Again, not a scientific measurement...but if she was comparing it to a cock several inches below the knee, I will give her the benefit of the doubt and assume this guy's cock must have at least been hanging quite a ways down his thigh. Given this, even if I put on my skeptical hat, I am willing to concede this guy had a very big dick.

Final question: Assuming these are true, and even accounting for exaggeration on the part of the girls about actual size of the stupendous appendages, what are the chances that I would personally know 5 girls that had encountered so many big dicks? If the stats are right about how rare large cock is, the odds must be astronomical. Maybe I should start playing the lottery if I can buck the odds that much...:wink:yet, time and again I hear stories of others girls who have been with big ones, their friends have, etc.

I guess I believe the statistical averages overall, but I think the deviation from the average is much wider than people think...just based on my own personal experience.
 
Last edited: