Did Master's and Johnson lie?

[trulybig]

I remember many years ago way before the internet where you couldn't see some many videos and pics of anyone other than a model or porn guy erect reading their famous book. I am a well-endowed guy but maybe on the slightly larger side of average soft. I clearly remember them stating the average erection was 6" and that small penises grew proportionately bigger than larger soft penises so erect the majority of men evened out.

Now having seen so many amateur videos I don't recall ever seeing a large hung soft penis growing less or being only 6" if the guy hangs lets say anywhere from 4 1/2 long or larger. Big soft from what I see means big hard. This is the opposite of what they "scientifically" stated.

Am I wrong? Has anyone ever seen a well-hung flaccid penis (if you are a woman, gay, or your own) not grow to be a big cock as well? Did they simply lie to not hurt men's egos?

 

[Bigbrosef]

i've definitely seen some guiys with thick, shorter penises not really grow too much in length but get real nice and stiff. sorry i dont have any visuals on hand...

 

[JockFull]

I'm sure Masters & Johnson didn't lie, but their results could be based on the methods they used to gather data. For instance, earlier, Kinsey took surveys of penis sizes, but he used self-reported measurements, which as we all know, tend to be exaggerated. I don't know whether any of Masters & Johnson's data was self-reported or not. Their results could also have been influenced by the populations they studied. For instance, I have read that they only surveyed heterosexual couples. It seems reasonable to me that the people who volunteered to be studied were probably not those with shy personalities, which could also mean the men who volunteered were self-selected in part by the confidence of having larger penises than average. There are so many variables that can affect the outcome of scientific studies, and the earliest studies usually turn out to have had less complete or accurate results than studies done later with better scientific methods.

 

[Sturdywords]

I remember many years ago way before the internet where you couldn't see some many videos and pics of anyone other than a model or porn guy erect reading their famous book. I am a well-endowed guy but maybe on the slightly larger side of average soft. I clearly remember them stating the average erection was 6" and that small penises grew proportionately bigger than larger soft penises so erect the majority of men evened out.

Now having seen so many amateur videos I don't recall ever seeing a large hung soft penis growing less or being only 6" if the guy hangs lets say anywhere from 4 1/2 long or larger. Big soft from what I see means big hard. This is the opposite of what they "scientifically" stated.

Am I wrong? Has anyone ever seen a well-hung flaccid penis (if you are a woman, gay, or your own) not grow to be a big cock as well? Did they simply lie to not hurt men's egos?

M&J were trying to establish the dimensions of the *average man. Guys who decide to do porn are probably not average.

 

[hardwaters113]

I imagine that it can seem large flaccid cocks don't grow so much as small ones. If a 6" flaccid cock grows 2" it's a 25% increase, but if a 3" one grows 2" then it's a 40% increase and seems to have grown much more.

 

[Longwood8]

I knew a guy that hung 5.5" soft and only grew to 6". When he got hard his dick just stiffened up basically with not much growth in length.