My opinion about a cliche problem: size of asian tools

[PrimalGuy612]

I’ve met some big dicked Asians so I no longer care about the story

 

[khaero]

I think he just shared a story, telling people that big is possible, Why did you attack him, since the big Asian one is actually possible? Someone just shared a story, Then why are you so emotional? From the most serious scientific point of view, everyone should have data, and then the data is still authentic. The emergence of statistical methods is because it is difficult to carry out such operations in reality, so it is necessary to get more reliable conclusions on limited data, but it is not necessarily reliable. Statistics provide a facet of reality after a series of limiting factors, such as a certain moment, a certain place, a certain country, etc. But there are always people who regard it as the eternal truth of some kind of world, even though it is not in the first place, huh? The focus of the scientific spirit is doubt, isn't it? Instead of saying that you have to confirm what you say because it is scientific thinking that is right. I think I have to say again, that the point of science is to gain the most knowledge about the world by certain methods and effective means, but it will still be wrong. Bravely admitting mistakes is the key part of the scientific spirit, not turning science into some kind of medieval Christianity, Whose key task is to discover heresy that is different from themselves, instead of admitting mistakes. As a scientific researcher, especially a biostatistician, what I hate most is the misunderstanding or even the opposite application of the scientific spirit of the scientific research colleges or others. Don't turn science into a religion of the new era.
Is it not the trend and possibility that we want to talk about here that there are no interracial differences? Or is the tendency you are talking about different from what I am talking about here? If we all agree that racial differences do not exist and that the myth of Asian smallness has been smashed, then there is no need to be angry about a person sharing a story about his date with an Asian with a big penis.
What you are doing is just how politicians use statistics to manipulate people's minds, confusing objective statistics with cultural trends for the name of diversity, which is the heart of a new kind of conservative, by which governments tell the people who should be supposed to be a united front by all kinds of pressure appears in their lives apart. I suspect you may be or may be not a leftist. Don't you realize what is happening? Or should I put it another way? Isn't this another version of the Metanarrative? If you are really a leftist liberal, then I really have to say that you should reflect on your views, because there are still many contradictions before and after. If you're a rightist, you're doing a great job there. Through a cultural policy that has never stopped since the Cold War, manipulating people's thoughts as conscious participants or unconscious participants.
Or to put it more simply, you may need some help pouring out your emotions instead of dumping your trash on someone who has done nothing wrong at all

Where was I attacking him? Where was I emotional? Or angry? All I did was just enlightening him, because it’s one thing to share a story, the other thing to do it to misrepresent the point of statistics. And good for you for bringing doubt as scientific spirit, it does not work however if the doubt comes from irrational conclusions and unauthorized research that science itself recognizes as cognitive dissonance. It would be as stupid as me saying that your point is complete nonsense because I’ve never met an Asian with a big dick, wouldn’t it? I haven’t read all of your comment, glanced over it but one part in particular caught my attention so I will tell you this: I’m not the one writing long paragraphs and resorting to emotional analogies (comparing below average sized penises to disability, being at the bottom, being worse, ugly etc), so I wouldn’t throw that accusation if I was you. You clearly care about penises, but from your wording it is pretty clear that you mostly care about and are against the association of you/people looking like you with stigmatized and shamed body type. If you’re going to speculate whether someone is a leftist or not in the future I’d suggest you to unpack that and work on that issue first, because it’s not very progressive of you to hold on to that stereotypical and harmful sentiment.

 

[Waldeinsamkeit]

This thread is very dumb tbh

Idiots who still believe in the racism myth now are stupid, I don't think it's dumb to build knowledge of something through data and literature instead of political correctness, stereotype, or some "common sense".

 

[londonhas]

i think the younger generation of east asians are definitely more open to showing off, Telegram groups for chinese people are wild and more amateur big dicks caught on video/photos.

not sure if it reflects the general population though. I'm one of the "older asians" and just from experience we're more growers than showers and there's less deviation around the mean length. anedoctally from female friends only heard white guys with micro or massive but more or less average range for asians, with more likely to have harder erection. girls have said that when it's harder, it can feel bigger against the pressure from vaginal walls than a bigger/softer one . weird how human bodies work!

on the african point, not sure but when my 5'9" asian friend went to Africa he was like 95% percentile height/weight in africa. and i've had an ex who had an african ex and she said I was bigger (she remember he was smaller than i was bigger than her dildo (she used to like to put them side by side to compare lol)

 

[Drifterwood]

You need to add girth to your discussions. Girth determines volume far more than length. As far as I know, penis volume is more important than length to the majority of people having sex with penises. Of course, if you just want to argue about scientifically poor data, then apologies for interrupting.

 

[Waldeinsamkeit]

You need to add girth to your discussions. Girth determines volume far more than length. As far as I know, penis volume is more important than length to the majority of people having sex with penises. Of course, if you just want to argue about scientifically poor data, then apologies for interrupting.

Yes, circumference is actually very important, but the reports I gave are not without them.

,The reason why this matter is a cliche is that there are always people who say things with wrong cultural impressions
,Where does your official data come from? Can you post it? Or do you think this official data comes from The following sources:
1. International penis sizes compared
2. Penis Size by Country 2023
3. Penis Size Statistics - What is the average penis size (length and width) around the world?
and so on.
Do you realize that in fact, the data sources of these websites all come from the same source, racist(J. Philippe Rushton) data: The Racist Origins of Penis-Size Stereotypes
Unfortunately, most people don't realize that there is something wrong with the data they look at by country or region, Even Google search did not deliberately distinguish. I searched the results about the average size of the penis in Chinese, English, German, French, Japanese, and Korean. No. The top result in Google still comes from this wrong data source. if I remember correctly, a few days ago I looked up the average human penis size in French, this even is written in Wikipedia.
This racist result was so widely spread that searching in these languages, on page 1, almost all of which comes from the interpretation of this data by various media in their country, rather than the real scientific data.
If someone is interested in real data:
https://bjui-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bju.13010 （global, but mostly whites)
"Nomograms for flaccid pendulous [n = 10 704, mean (sd) 9.16 (1.57) cm] and stretched length [n = 14 160, mean (sd) 13.24 (1.89) cm], erect length [n = 692, mean (sd) 13.12 (1.66) cm], flaccid circumference [n = 9407, mean (sd) 9.31 (0.90) cm], and erect circumference [n = 381, mean (sd) 11.66 (1.10) cm] were constructed. Consistent and strongest significant correlation was between flaccid stretched or erect length and height, which ranged from r = 0.2 to 0.6."
Yes, the articles need to be paid, but sci-hub will always be your friend.
https://www.auajournals.org/doi/10.1016/j.juro.2013.02.3200 (African blacks)
"In 253 Tanzanian males 10 to 47 years old mean ± SD penile length in adults was 11.5 ± 1.6 cm, mean shaft circumference was 8.7 ± 0.9 cm and mean glans circumference was 8.8 ± 0.9 cm. As expected, given the variability of puberty, measurements in younger males varied significantly. Glans circumference highly correlated with height (r = 0.80) and weight (r = 0.81, each p <0.001). Stretched foreskin diameter moderately correlated with height (r = 0.68) and weight (r = 0.71, each p <0.001)."
Can physique and gluteal size predict penile length in adult Nigerian men? | West African Journal of Medicine (African blacks)
View attachment 116115351

The Relationship between Height and Body Weight and Penile Size in University Students (Korean)
"PURPOSE: Is there any relationship between penile size and physical stature? This study was performed to answer this question and provide guidelines of penile size to assist in counseling patients for penile augmentation. MATERIALS AND METHOD: Penile size, body weight and height were measured in 150 young healthy men, and the body mass index(BMI) was calculated in weight(kg)/height(m)2. The penile length and circumference were measured with tape in flaccid and erect states. The 'lengthening ratio' was calculated by 'erect length/flaccid length', and 'tumescent ratio' was calculated by 'erect circumference/flaccid circumference'. All the data was statistically evaluated and the following results were obtained. Result : The average length and circumference were 8.26+/-1.07cm and 8.34+/-1.03cm respectively in the flaccid state, and 13.42+/-1.38cm and 11.17+/-1.05cm in the erect state. The average lengthening and tumescent ratios were 1.64+/-0.22 and 1.35+/-0.08, and were negatively correlated to the flaccid penile length and circumference. Height was positively correlated to erect penile length and lengthening ratio. There was a relationship between body weight and erect penile length in a positive direction, but with other penile parameters there were none. There was no relationship between BMI and any parameters of penile size. However, the erect penile length of the normal BMI group was longer than that of the lower BMI group."
Your Google's official data is not statistics, it is just a result of bias and delusions. Science is a methodology that people use to produce truth about the world, but most of this methodology is about how to question, not how to prove it——Make bold assumptions and carefully verify them, instead of just making assertions. Scientism doesn't mean just claiming the authority of some data or conclusions for the sake of science but can use a whole set of methodologies to question whether this conclusion is correct.

These figures don't look so poor.
but I indeed find a figure that is not so good.
Penile length and circumference: a study on 3,300 young Italian males - PubMed.
This is a report from Italy, of course, Italy is a country that has developed not very well in Europe.

 

[BuckyD]

Well, this was originally sent in the thread "Asians with Big Dicks", but it seems to be too long for it since there are more about pictures sharing. So I put it here, Try to rationly understand the whole problem.


I apologize for bringing up an old issue that is not much discussed anymore, the size of Asian tools, but there seem to be some factors that have been overlooked for a long time.

First, we need to define 'Asian' as it is generally used here, which usually includes China, Korea, Japan, and a number of Southeast Asian countries, and possibly Taiwan depending on political views.

Famine, malnutrition, and poor national economic development have been the most serious problems in these countries in the past five to six decades. This is more severe than the usual malnutrition or use of dairy products discussed. During the worst times, Chinese people even ate kaolin to fill their stomachs or tree bark, which of course had no nutrition and eventually killed them. This may be quite different from poverty as understood in most of the Western world. An exception in these countries worth mentioning is Thailand, Japan, and Taiwan. Although they were also affected by this malnutrition, it was not as severe compared to other countries. It is also worth noting that the malnutrition or deficiency discussed here is actually based on the intake of calories, proteins, micronutrients, etc., and is a comparison with the typical diet of the Caucasian world, where the most severe malnutrition and deficiency were in countries like China, which were sadly associated with Soviet communism.

As for how to understand this type of famine, whether it's the famine that once occurred in Ukraine or China, or actually in North Korea today, these are good typical examples. There may be degrees of difference, but the nature of their problems is similar, having abundant resources but serious food problems due to insufficient distribution by the bureaucratic system. Another perhaps more familiar example in the Western world, which some people may realize after reading a lot of material, is the famine caused in Germany by the blockade during World War I. Although different, some elderly people in rural Germany may still retain the practice of growing potatoes to prevent famine, as potatoes are a very easy plant to grow and are indeed very nutritious.

A typical Chinese diet, I'm talking about now, and I mean a normal diet that meets the minimum material needs of a family, is actually not complicated in terms of macronutrient calculation: 200 grams of rice or noodles for breakfast, lunch, and dinner, equivalent to about 50 grams of carbohydrates per meal, 150 grams of carbs per day, mainly rice or noodles, 200 grams of meat per day is considered a lot, actually providing 50 grams of protein, and then no more than 40 grams of oil. This totals 1160 calories. As a reference, a standard diet should actually be around 2400 calories per day, even over 3000 for a more varied diet. The calculation of macronutrients is simple: 4 calories per gram for proteins and carbohydrates, and 9 calories per gram for fats. If necessary, you can verify this by entering your daily intake into cronometer.

Another data point related to living standards is that, according to official data from China in 2020, there are 600 million people with a monthly income of less than 1000 RMB (about 150 USD), including 220 million people with a monthly income of less than 500 RMB (about 75 USD). In China, the number of people with a monthly income of less than 2000 RMB (about 300 USD) reached 964 million. It should also be remembered that China has been known to manipulate its data, so these figures are likely beautified.

People don't think that when nutrition is insufficient, even with good genetic endowment, a person can grow very big. This actually explains a lot, especially considering the Asians who are in their forties and fifties now but were in their twenties and thirties when the thread started (06-08), i.e., the mainstream Asians seen at that time. Due to malnutrition, it's normal for them to be smaller than the global average. It might be a foot difference compared to the current world average of 5.5 inches; 4.5, and I'm being very generous with 4.5, considering my experience living in the north and visiting public baths. I thought about 3 feet, but those old people had lived through the Cultural Revolution or the Great Famine in China, hadn't they? This somewhat matches people's past personal experiences (sadly, yes, those Asians seen early in the thread, especially those with six or seven inches, might have had slightly better diets and environments, and could have grown an inch or more). Nutrition's impact on size can be understood as a shift to the left of the entire bell curve of penis size; if the curve goes from small to large from left to right, the curve has shifted left, so it seems that earlier Asians had a smaller average, but there were also larger ones.

As examples of how nutrition can impact human body size, I can cite two more cases. Medieval Europeans' heights can be reasonably inferred from the sizes of the armors found today, which suggest that Europeans, especially during the Middle Ages, were not taller than Easterners. I don't remember the exact figures, but I believe the inferred average height was around 1.5 meters. However, this has now reversed. Similarly, Dutch people have undergone a noticeable change in height over nearly 200 years due to increased intake of dairy products and proteins, reaching an average height of nearly 1.85 meters today. The influence of nutrition on physical development is much greater than we think, but it takes much longer than we might expect for an event to unfold.

I'm not trying to say that the earlier statements about Asians having smaller average sizes but also larger penises exist is without problems. There's an unintended malice in these statements. Yes, they're based on personal experiences, but those experiences only apply to the previous generation, the Asians who are now in their forties and fifties. Asian countries have undergone significant changes in the past three to four decades. Their economies have made their own achievements, so nutrition and living standards have changed a lot, although still relatively poor compared to the rich dietary life of the Western or Caucasian world. Because this was their past experience, it seemed reasonable to them, and it's the reason they unconsciously concluded that Asians are smaller. But extending this conclusion to all Asians, regardless of their growth environment and, intentionally or unintentionally, tracing it back to race, is problematic. Their real point is that they don't believe Asians can be large; they should first prove why they don't believe.

For those truly curious about the size of Asian tools, it may take some time before they see more, as the millennial generation has just grown up. Starting from this generation, it's possible to change the stereotype that Asians tend to be smaller and eliminate any interracial differences. I've heard from many of my Asian friends (specifically Chinese) that there's a lot of discussion about why the new generation seems to be significantly larger on average than their generation. Well, this is anecdotal evidence and may not prove much. But the disappearance of such gaps is always good, especially when these size differences actually reflect a country's development and the quality of people’s daily lives.

Some have mentioned research reports indicating that these interracial differences do exist, but these conclusions are based on specific samples. As I said, the previous generation is indeed a bit smaller, simply due to malnutrition and a horrific living environment. So, whatever report you look at, as long as the sample is based on people born before the 2000s, the data is more likely to be smaller. Everyone lives in a specific environment, but many surveys fail to consider this factor. For example, some American surveys overlook the harm done to homosexuals by homophobes during the Stonewall movement of the seventies and eighties, comparing masculinity between homosexual and heterosexual men.

Another important issue is the sexual shame of Asians. Asian culture not only avoids discussing sex but also views it as kind of taboo, much like pedophilia is taboo in the West. So yes, no matter what natural gifts an Asian man has, he's unlikely to be as openly confident about his masculinity as Caucasians. They consider it barbaric, shameful, and primitive, lacking in education. Yes, I think it's wrong, but that's the mainstream in Asian culture. Perhaps when you talk to Asian friends, they might say that's a thing of the past, but their subconscious is still influenced by culture.

So, when addressing this issue, the best response might be to post their own photos directly, but usually, they are reluctant to do so. Maybe it's just around the average, so posting it won't prove anything, but even if they are that large, they might not be interested in doing so. The cultural factors surrounding this issue are not as simple as a choice like Muslims not liking pork, but rather a complex, perhaps not so scientific or rigorous, collective subconscious-like thing. Caucasians generally don't have this problem because they've never been ashamed of sex, and if they're exceptionally endowed, they'd proudly display it. Such behavior would only invite severe criticism and social ostracism in Asian societies.

Regarding the issue of photos, there's another point worth discussing. I wonder if anyone has overlooked the elephant in the room: the full erection in Asians and Caucasians is different. Firstly, most Asians are growers, and the difference between their flaccid and erect conditions can be very impressive. On average, this change is more noticeable than in Caucasian growers. Secondly, possibly due to the aforementioned sexual shame or other subtle cultural reasons, many photos shown by Asians are only semi-erect (50%). A simple way to tell is that Asians are hard and upward when fully erect; when an Asian is about 75% erect, it no longer feels soft,

but many of the photos actually posted about Chinese are of commercial male models from China, and these commercial models' photos are mostly soft, maybe 50%, but definitely not over 75%. Therefore, many people might mistakenly think that these images represent their fully erect condition.

Additionally, there's another aspect that might venture into politically incorrect territory but is factual. Asian countries, especially East Asia (which often refers to China, Japan, and Korea, all parts of the Confucian cultural sphere), are very resistant to masculine traits. The Masculinity I mentioned demands bravery, self-expression, fighting for honor, etc., but in collectivist Asian countries, this is often seen as the biggest threat by rulers. So, even though every founding emperor or king was full of masculinity, knowing how they had rebelled, they also blocked the path they had taken, leading to a tendency towards demasculinization in Asian culture.

But we can understand this issue more simply. One might wonder how China could have such a vast territory with pre-information age technology. Rulers would go to great lengths to maintain their rule, plotting against their people and ruthlessly killing anyone who might try to rebel. This parallels our understanding of authoritarian regimes. A culture has long been formed: do not resist, conform, and abandon masculinity. Japan is an exception due to its samurai class, which changed Japanese society through coup d'états, so the perception of Japanese people is not as demasculinized.

I must point out that the masculinity I'm referring to is not about being alpha or sigma males but about being resilient, strong, willing to resist and speak up for oneself, like a warrior, and not "toxic masculinity."

Regarding the tendency towards demasculinization, it only applies internally within Asian countries when it comes to stability and security (preventing rebellion, etc.). In people's daily lives, it's not the case. Asian policies and cultural habits often say one thing officially but mean another in reality. The trend towards demasculinization is official, but in real life, people don't act that way. Male stars on TV may be increasingly feminized, but this inner aesthetic preference always remains a small minority in the population. A better explanation for this phenomenon is that investing in and operating male stars with a relatively feminine appearance, like those in Korea, is much cheaper and simpler than those with a rugged style.

About the genetic factors controlling size, it's indeed complex, but not as complex as imagined. 99% of the human genome consists of regulatory factors (auxiliary genomic elements), and 1% are actual genes (controlling enzymes or proteins). Especially with epigenetics now so hot, everyone should realize that their lifestyle, whether or not they get sunlight, what they eat, etc., all have profound effects on their gene expression. And yes, these effects can be passed down for many generations, although they can also be reversed within a generation. However, Asians live under a lot of stress. They go to school from primary to high school from 7 am(get up at 6 am) spending almost all day in classrooms or limited activity spaces until 5-6 pm(middle school) or even 10 pm(high school). They not only lack sunlight and physical exercise (teachers always say the PE teacher is sick), but their classroom lights are primitive, without blue light filtering LEDs. Their homework even forces them to work until 3-4 in the morning(Yes, and they get up at 5 or 6). Many might think I'm making this up, but this is the reality in China, where I've lived for many years. I think I don't need to add too much detail on how hard this life is, as these points are enough. As for whether these poor lifestyle habits can have such a deep impact even over such a long period, men can search for articles on how to increase testosterone to find out.

Imagine being a teenager growing up in such a sexually repressive environment, going to school every day not only without any pleasure but also destroying your sleep. Without space and time for independent thought, without sunlight, without exercise, repeatedly doing useless exercises only for scores. Even with the best genetic endowment, how much can it be utilized? If the earlier famines are too far removed from today's Asians, these hard lives are not. Everyone knows Asians are very diligent, but few think about how painful this diligence is. By the way, don't forget that most East Asians are still in a condition of calorie deficiency, even during adolescence, a time when the body needs to grow and be nourished. Even now, we can derive a very bad new stereotype: Japanese don't eat, Koreans don't sleep, Chinese don't rest. This may be strange for the West, but familiar with East Asians.

A very interesting and informative post that provides plenty of food for further thought and consideration and the author speaks with the authority of having lived in and closely observed the conditions of life in the largest Asian country over multiple decades.

I think it is indisputable that very restricted access to nutrition over large populations and multiple generations does indeed result in smaller physical stature in those populations over time and a significant part of this effect is developmental: lack of adequate nutrition during the key phases of growth and body development such that the individual's genetic potential stature is not reached.

But I think it should also be considered that part of this effect can also be genetic in the sense that an environment with poor nutrition availability will tend to select for genetics that favor survival in this situation - in particular genetically smaller individuals may have a survival advantage in times of severe food scarcity and so would reproduce more successfully and spread their genes more widely in the population over time.

To the extent that this is true alleviating nutritional deficiency may take longer than we expect to result in an increase in bodily stature. Yes the young will almost immediately start to achieve their genetic potential stature once the scarcity is eliminated, but the genetic component will take multiple generations in the new abundance regime to change.

A further consideration to keep in mind is that small stature is not necessarily a survival advantage in all situations of food scarcity. In hunter/gatherer or herding societies such as those that used to exist in the uplands of East Africa the ability to cover large distances on foot can be a major factor in obtaining food and this tends to favor taller, longer legged people. For this reason famine in these societies does not provide the same evolutionary advantage to smaller stature, unless an alternative way of obtaining food is available that does not require so much mobility.

Settled agriculture and survival mainly on grain crops, as would be the case in southern China for much of it's history, however, would be a situation where tall stature would be less of a survival advantage and more of a penalty, so perhaps that is why we see shorter average stature in the south of China in particular.

 

[Waldeinsamkeit]

i think the younger generation of east asians are definitely more open to showing off, Telegram groups for chinese people are wild and more amateur big dicks caught on video/photos.

not sure if it reflects the general population though. I'm one of the "older asians" and just from experience we're more growers than showers and there's less deviation around the mean length. anedoctally from female friends only heard white guys with micro or massive but more or less average range for asians, with more likely to have harder erection. girls have said that when it's harder, it can feel bigger against the pressure from vaginal walls than a bigger/softer one . weird how human bodies work!

on the african point, not sure but when my 5'9" asian friend went to Africa he was like 95% percentile height/weight in africa. and i've had an ex who had an african ex and she said I was bigger (she remember he was smaller than i was bigger than her dildo (she used to like to put them side by side to compare lol)

Maybe you're right, the younger generation prefers to show off, but it's still a pity that they're still not inclined to take many full-erection photos. They are inexperienced in choosing good photo-shooting angles to show themselves.

 

[BuckyD]

Maybe you're right, the younger generation prefers to show off, but it's still a pity that they're still not inclined to take many full-erection photos. They are inexperienced in choosing good photo-shooting angles to show themselves.

A good camera tripod, use of continuous shooting modes and good lighting all go a long way. Probably the best male exhibitionists are guys that masturbate on webcam with other guys - their viewers provide so much valuable feedback!

A lot of young Tiawanese guys have got this figured out!

 

[Waldeinsamkeit]

i think the younger generation of east asians are definitely more open to showing off, Telegram groups for chinese people are wild and more amateur big dicks caught on video/photos.

not sure if it reflects the general population though. I'm one of the "older asians" and just from experience we're more growers than showers and there's less deviation around the mean length. anedoctally from female friends only heard white guys with micro or massive but more or less average range for asians, with more likely to have harder erection. girls have said that when it's harder, it can feel bigger against the pressure from vaginal walls than a bigger/softer one . weird how human bodies work!

on the african point, not sure but when my 5'9" asian friend went to Africa he was like 95% percentile height/weight in africa. and i've had an ex who had an african ex and she said I was bigger (she remember he was smaller than i was bigger than her dildo (she used to like to put them side by side to compare lol)

I have an idea about the average situation you mentioned, although I don't particularly think that a normal distribution would do more change than Horizontal movement with nutritional conditions.

there is a possibility that when the body is undernourished, it will first make progress to an average size of any thing, and then grow beyond the average size. It's like if people don't eat well when they get through puberty, they will complete the most basic development during puberty and then develop something else if their needs are met. So malnutrition, not only does this normal distribution move to the left as a whole, but it also makes the peak higher at the same time? Sounds strange but may be true.
I drew a picture of this with drawing software

If the two changes happen at the same time, then it may be that the blue curve turns into the black one.

 

[Waldeinsamkeit]

Just saying my own thoughts, Personally, I am more likely to believe what you say is only because averages are more common. big or small ones are even rarer. Given that not everyone can really get an at least 30 or even more than 100 data sample(person) to surport their point. (If some people can meet this standard, wow, they must be really crazy about sex)

When the sample size is small,
(According to statistic theory, less than 30 is not a normal distribution theory but a t distribution(The data will be very scattered);

According to the theoretical calculation results, When the sample size is larger than 200 or 300, they satisfy the concept of 99% confidence and 99.9% confidence (People can understand the 99% confidence as covering 99% of the real data, most of what we call the big penises is actually the top 5%) with an error about at most +-1cm. .
it is possible to change the normal distribution .curve to anything that fits the real data

 

[BuckyD]

Okay a quick look around for recent studies on the penis sizes of men revealed the following two sources, one from the USA and one from Italy. The Italian one is a much bigger study but both are statistically large sample sizes.

Erect Penile Length and Circumference Dimensions of 1,661 Sexually Active Men in the United States​

Reported in 2013
Paper can be read at
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/jsm.12244

Results​

For this sample of 1,661 men, the mean erect penile length was 14.15 cm (SD = 2.66; range = 4 to 26 cm), and the mean erect penile circumference was 12.23 cm (SD = 2.23; range = 3 to 19)

The average length was a surprisingly (to me anyway) short 14.15 cm or about 5.6 inches in length. I personally have rarely encountered erect penises this short among young white, latino or men of color in the united states.

Note that the shortest erect penis measured in this study was 4 cm (less than 2 inches, something I have certainly never seen, nor anything close to it, and the longest was 26 cm (about 10.2 inches, something I have never seen either but much nearer to the size of the longest one I HAVE seen than was the case at the short end of the range.


Here is the Italian Study:

Penile length and circumference dimensions: A large study in young Italian men (4685 men)​

Data collected between January 2019 and January 2020 in every major region of Italy
Paper can be read at:
Penile length and circumference dimensions: A large study in young Italian men

This seems to be a far more sophisticated study and reports markedly different results and ones much closer to what I would expect in a mainly caucasian population based on personal observation.

mean (SD) erect penis length was 16.78 (2.55) and mean (SD) erect penis circumference was 12.03 (3.82)

a mean ERECT penis length of 16.78 cm (or roughly 6.6 inches) is probably far closer to what you have actually observed among your friends during your frat years at US colleges and universities or what you can see pretty much anytime you want on sites like Chaturbate or Cam4.

Are modern Italian men on average a full inch longer when hard than American men were six years earlier or is the earlier study of American men pretty much garbage with a very much inferior methodology and sampling method? Can't rule out either at this point but there is something pretty off about the American study unless there is a large unseen population of dwarves in our midst volunteering for medical studies.

Reading the two papers it looks like the Italian study was a much more modern and better designed one and it would be very interesting to see one conducted using the same methodology on other populations.

All this is to point out that there is a pretty wide variance in the results of efforts to study human penis size academically and it's probably important not to take any of these studies too seriously, but to be guided more by our own observations as they accumulate throughout our lives. We rarely know what the real quality of the study is or the expertise of those conducting it and we also don't usually know if the organization or individuals publishing the study have an un-stated agenda unrelated to shedding light on human morphology.

For what it's worth both of these studies do report a positive correlation between the man's height and the erect length of his penis with taller men having on average longer penises, though obviously there are plenty of exceptions to this as can be readily observed.

 

[Drifterwood]

Yes, circumference is actually very important, but the reports I gave are not without them.

You have to wonder what is the point/purpose of the data if it is not relevant to the sexual satisfaction of either the owner or user. My nose is probably twice the size of the average SEA nose, and considered ugly as such by people from SEA. So what?

If the concern is that sex with smaller Asian penises is not as good, then where is the survey to support that?

 

[BuckyD]

You have to wonder what is the point/purpose of the data if it is not relevant to the sexual satisfaction of either the owner or user. My nose is probably twice the size of the average SEA nose, and considered ugly as such by people from SEA. So what?

If the concern is that sex with smaller Asian penises is not as good, then where is the survey to support that?

I think that the empirical evidence based on the overall demographics of Asia is that sex with Asian penises must be very satisfying indeed!

 

[shizhao1997]

Okay a quick look around for recent studies on the penis sizes of men revealed the following two sources, one from the USA and one from Italy. The Italian one is a much bigger study but both are statistically large sample sizes.

Erect Penile Length and Circumference Dimensions of 1,661 Sexually Active Men in the United States​

Reported in 2013
Paper can be read at
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/jsm.12244

Results​

For this sample of 1,661 men, the mean erect penile length was 14.15 cm (SD = 2.66; range = 4 to 26 cm), and the mean erect penile circumference was 12.23 cm (SD = 2.23; range = 3 to 19)

The average length was a surprisingly (to me anyway) short 14.15 cm or about 5.6 inches in length. I personally have rarely encountered erect penises this short among young white, latino or men of color in the united states.

Note that the shortest erect penis measured in this study was 4 cm (less than 2 inches, something I have certainly never seen, nor anything close to it, and the longest was 26 cm (about 10.2 inches, something I have never seen either but much nearer to the size of the longest one I HAVE seen than was the case at the short end of the range.


Here is the Italian Study:

Penile length and circumference dimensions: A large study in young Italian men (4685 men)​

Data collected between January 2019 and January 2020 in every major region of Italy
Paper can be read at:
Penile length and circumference dimensions: A large study in young Italian men

This seems to be a far more sophisticated study and reports markedly different results and ones much closer to what I would expect in a mainly caucasian population based on personal observation.

mean (SD) erect penis length was 16.78 (2.55) and mean (SD) erect penis circumference was 12.03 (3.82)

a mean ERECT penis length of 16.78 cm (or roughly 6.6 inches) is probably far closer to what you have actually observed among your friends during your frat years at US colleges and universities or what you can see pretty much anytime you want on sites like Chaturbate or Cam4.

Are modern Italian men on average a full inch longer when hard than American men were six years earlier or is the earlier study of American men pretty much garbage with a very much inferior methodology and sampling method? Can't rule out either at this point but there is something pretty off about the American study unless there is a large unseen population of dwarves in our midst volunteering for medical studies.

Reading the two papers it looks like the Italian study was a much more modern and better designed one and it would be very interesting to see one conducted using the same methodology on other populations.

All this is to point out that there is a pretty wide variance in the results of efforts to study human penis size academically and it's probably important not to take any of these studies too seriously, but to be guided more by our own observations as they accumulate throughout our lives. We rarely know what the real quality of the study is or the expertise of those conducting it and we also don't usually know if the organization or individuals publishing the study have an un-stated agenda unrelated to shedding light on human morphology.

For what it's worth both of these studies do report a positive correlation between the man's height and the erect length of his penis with taller men having on average longer penises, though obviously there are plenty of exceptions to this as can be readily observed.

But both these two surveys are actually self-report. Self-Report is unlikely to be reliable as we all know man can easily lies on its size. I feel like data measured and collected by doctors is more convincing, considering that they do have no motivation to make up data.

 

[Snakebyte]

Okay a quick look around for recent studies on the penis sizes of men revealed the following two sources, one from the USA and one from Italy. The Italian one is a much bigger study but both are statistically large sample sizes.

Erect Penile Length and Circumference Dimensions of 1,661 Sexually Active Men in the United States​

Reported in 2013
Paper can be read at
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/jsm.12244

Results​

For this sample of 1,661 men, the mean erect penile length was 14.15 cm (SD = 2.66; range = 4 to 26 cm), and the mean erect penile circumference was 12.23 cm (SD = 2.23; range = 3 to 19)

The average length was a surprisingly (to me anyway) short 14.15 cm or about 5.6 inches in length. I personally have rarely encountered erect penises this short among young white, latino or men of color in the united states.

Note that the shortest erect penis measured in this study was 4 cm (less than 2 inches, something I have certainly never seen, nor anything close to it, and the longest was 26 cm (about 10.2 inches, something I have never seen either but much nearer to the size of the longest one I HAVE seen than was the case at the short end of the range.


Here is the Italian Study:

Penile length and circumference dimensions: A large study in young Italian men (4685 men)​

Data collected between January 2019 and January 2020 in every major region of Italy
Paper can be read at:
Penile length and circumference dimensions: A large study in young Italian men

This seems to be a far more sophisticated study and reports markedly different results and ones much closer to what I would expect in a mainly caucasian population based on personal observation.

mean (SD) erect penis length was 16.78 (2.55) and mean (SD) erect penis circumference was 12.03 (3.82)

a mean ERECT penis length of 16.78 cm (or roughly 6.6 inches) is probably far closer to what you have actually observed among your friends during your frat years at US colleges and universities or what you can see pretty much anytime you want on sites like Chaturbate or Cam4.

Are modern Italian men on average a full inch longer when hard than American men were six years earlier or is the earlier study of American men pretty much garbage with a very much inferior methodology and sampling method? Can't rule out either at this point but there is something pretty off about the American study unless there is a large unseen population of dwarves in our midst volunteering for medical studies.

Reading the two papers it looks like the Italian study was a much more modern and better designed one and it would be very interesting to see one conducted using the same methodology on other populations.

All this is to point out that there is a pretty wide variance in the results of efforts to study human penis size academically and it's probably important not to take any of these studies too seriously, but to be guided more by our own observations as they accumulate throughout our lives. We rarely know what the real quality of the study is or the expertise of those conducting it and we also don't usually know if the organization or individuals publishing the study have an un-stated agenda unrelated to shedding light on human morphology.

For what it's worth both of these studies do report a positive correlation between the man's height and the erect length of his penis with taller men having on average longer penises, though obviously there are plenty of exceptions to this as can be readily observed.

Self-reported data is absolutely useless though. And both of those studies you quoted did use this methodology. Studies with correct measurements pretty much show the same average for nbpel and bpel in several countries. And it's far from the 6.6".

 

[Required2020]

Wow what a read. And very well communicated. I’m deeply entrenched in the Chinese and Japanese gay porn world on Twitter and from what I’ve seen, young Chinese guys are not only getting incredibly taller but have very sexy larger dicks than Japanese and definitely Korean men. I’m starting to think Chinese young men average penis sizes may be equal to any other country. I’ve seen hundreds of videos and most do not seem below average. I’m thinking 6 to 7 inches in young Chinese men

 

[halcyondays]

As a ninety-nine percent top I don't care about cock size. Asian? I just want to get deep into that cute ass - preferably twink.

My personal experience with mostly college age Asians is that cock size is about average like everyone else.

 

[Waldeinsamkeit]

A very interesting and informative post that provides plenty of food for further thought and consideration and the author speaks with the authority of having lived in and closely observed the conditions of life in the largest Asian country over multiple decades.

I think it is indisputable that very restricted access to nutrition over large populations and multiple generations does indeed result in smaller physical stature in those populations over time and a significant part of this effect is developmental: lack of adequate nutrition during the key phases of growth and body development such that the individual's genetic potential stature is not reached.

But I think it should also be considered that part of this effect can also be genetic in the sense that an environment with poor nutrition availability will tend to select for genetics that favor survival in this situation - in particular genetically smaller individuals may have a survival advantage in times of severe food scarcity and so would reproduce more successfully and spread their genes more widely in the population over time.

To the extent that this is true alleviating nutritional deficiency may take longer than we expect to result in an increase in bodily stature. Yes the young will almost immediately start to achieve their genetic potential stature once the scarcity is eliminated, but the genetic component will take multiple generations in the new abundance regime to change.

A further consideration to keep in mind is that small stature is not necessarily a survival advantage in all situations of food scarcity. In hunter/gatherer or herding societies such as those that used to exist in the uplands of East Africa the ability to cover large distances on foot can be a major factor in obtaining food and this tends to favor taller, longer legged people. For this reason famine in these societies does not provide the same evolutionary advantage to smaller stature, unless an alternative way of obtaining food is available that does not require so much mobility.

Settled agriculture and survival mainly on grain crops, as would be the case in southern China for much of it's history, however, would be a situation where tall stature would be less of a survival advantage and more of a penalty, so perhaps that is why we see shorter average stature in the south of China in particular.

• select for genetics that favor survival in this situation - in particular genetically smaller individuals may have a survival advantage in times of severe food scarcity and so would reproduce more successfully and spread their genes more widely in the population over time.
  • It's a good guess, but natural selection doesn't really happen completely undirected, Of course, changes in natural conditions are not directed, but the actual natural selection that takes place in animals actually follows the logic that formed many years before in creatures. For a relatively simple thing like anti-virus, animals and plants adopt different strategies. The plant's strategy is to use microRNA to interfere, and they are more likely to be in this direction. At the same time, animals are more inclined to use interferon to deal with viruses, although they have the same microRNA system. We are unlikely to assume whether a sudden evolution of a species using MicroRNA for virus treatment, It is too difficult, because, in fact, the small system we are talking about may have thousands of genes behind it as support.
  • The inability to obtain sufficient food freely and stably Is the most basic background for the evolution of all species. In the case of animals and even mammals, a series of neural mechanisms have been evolved to promote satiety and less hunger. There are various ways to save energy and use energy more effectively in the body, the result is that starvation is still the main factor of animals' deaths, and animals that can't get food will be eliminated in evolution. A series of very complicated growth inhibition mechanisms are developed to prevent animals from starving to death because of excessive energy consumption due to growth. So if we want our bodies to grow, the more important thing is not to promote growth hormones, but to reduce the amount of growth inhibitors such as somatostatin or Myostatin. The mechanism of growth inhibition has an absolutely overwhelming advantage over the mechanism of promoting biological growth.
  • , In fact, there is a theoretical premise that many people may not expect, that is, the laws of physical thermodynamics. , Animals get energy when they get food, and there is actually a theoretical limit to the acquisition and utilization of energy. If people get 400 calories from food, maybe the food itself contains more than 2,000 calories of energy. , However, due to various restrictions,, The maximum utilization rate that can be achieved may be only 20%. , This is the limiting factor that is why animals can't evolve to adapt to starvation. In fact, it is not that animals have not evolved to this theoretical limit, It's that animals have already evolved to the theoretical limit, and there is no way for them to grow anymore.. There is a theory that the birth of animals or cells can be traced back to some seabed rocks, These seabed rocks, due to the porous structure in his book, can break down the violent acid-base comprehensive reaction into small steps, So that there is an opportunity to Improve the energy utilization rate for this violent acid-base comprehensive reaction. Yes, this is the primitive prototype of the cell membrane. , This also explains why not the growth mechanism is the main factor in actual growth and why the growth inhibition mechanism has come to this extreme situation, and still causes animals to die of hunger, and this is inevitable.
  • , The other one is a more common one that everyone can think of, but I will put it here and point it out at the end, The growth of the body has a minimum energy requirement. When animals have actually evolved to a position close to the theoretical upper limit in nature(In fact, when life appeared, it was already very close to the limit, The energy needed for growth is growing much faster(maybe Cubic power since the volume is cubic) than animals can use genes or Related mechanisms evolved to adapt to The situation(linear, the first power), and there is not much room for energy utilization, and they have to meet their minimum energy needs,. the only thing they can do is get enough food. There is no other choice, Yes, the animals eventually evolved a series of mechanisms, but they still couldn't resist such an absolute dominant trend, limited to thermodynamics the second law.
  • , So, to sum up, this evolutionary trend is not only impossible in practice but also impossible in theory. If this trend is possible one day, we can already imagine a time machine, because the second law has been broken
  • Since these evolutionary trends do not exist, there is no need to talk about the spreading of these genes since they do not exist.
  • .
  • Last, It takes millions of years for genes to evolve, and the time scale of human history(10000 years) is simply not enough.
• Yes, the young will almost immediately start to achieve their genetic potential stature once the scarcity is eliminated, but the genetic component will take multiple generations in the new abundance regime to change.
  • ,I also mentioned above that the first evolution speed is actually very slow, The more convenient mechanism for creatures to adapt to environmental changes is epigenetics, rather than real genetic changes. , This epigenetic change is much faster than people think. , It can make a fundamental change in the final expression of the genes in a week or two and even a day or two, but it is also likely to be reversed within these two hours, as long as under the right conditions. You don't even need to be in your formative years.
• Settled agriculture and survival mainly on grain crops, as would be the case in southern China for much of its history, however, would be a situation where tall stature would be less of a survival advantage and more of a penalty, so perhaps that is why we see shorter average stature in the south of China in particular.\
  • , This is really an explanation, But I think the bigger trend is the incomprehensible relationship with latitude(actually Climate and Temperature). However, it is worth mentioning that this way of working and living makes people in southern China have longer and thicker waists.
  • another thing worth mentioning is the problem of dairy intake that I mentioned in my post at the beginning of the thread, In fact, the intake of dairy products is essentially the intake of calcium, and since the agricultural society, the intake of calcium is seriously lower than the demand. At the same time, there is indeed a lack of dairy intake habits in southern China even the whole of China. And everyone knows that the bones need calcium deposition.

 

[Waldeinsamkeit]

Okay a quick look around for recent studies on the penis sizes of men revealed the following two sources, one from the USA and one from Italy. The Italian one is a much bigger study but both are statistically large sample sizes.

Erect Penile Length and Circumference Dimensions of 1,661 Sexually Active Men in the United States​

Reported in 2013
Paper can be read at
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/jsm.12244

Results​

For this sample of 1,661 men, the mean erect penile length was 14.15 cm (SD = 2.66; range = 4 to 26 cm), and the mean erect penile circumference was 12.23 cm (SD = 2.23; range = 3 to 19)

The average length was a surprisingly (to me anyway) short 14.15 cm or about 5.6 inches in length. I personally have rarely encountered erect penises this short among young white, latino or men of color in the united states.

Note that the shortest erect penis measured in this study was 4 cm (less than 2 inches, something I have certainly never seen, nor anything close to it, and the longest was 26 cm (about 10.2 inches, something I have never seen either but much nearer to the size of the longest one I HAVE seen than was the case at the short end of the range.


Here is the Italian Study:

Penile length and circumference dimensions: A large study in young Italian men (4685 men)​

Data collected between January 2019 and January 2020 in every major region of Italy
Paper can be read at:
Penile length and circumference dimensions: A large study in young Italian men

This seems to be a far more sophisticated study and reports markedly different results and ones much closer to what I would expect in a mainly caucasian population based on personal observation.

mean (SD) erect penis length was 16.78 (2.55) and mean (SD) erect penis circumference was 12.03 (3.82)

a mean ERECT penis length of 16.78 cm (or roughly 6.6 inches) is probably far closer to what you have actually observed among your friends during your frat years at US colleges and universities or what you can see pretty much anytime you want on sites like Chaturbate or Cam4.

Are modern Italian men on average a full inch longer when hard than American men were six years earlier or is the earlier study of American men pretty much garbage with a very much inferior methodology and sampling method? Can't rule out either at this point but there is something pretty off about the American study unless there is a large unseen population of dwarves in our midst volunteering for medical studies.

Reading the two papers it looks like the Italian study was a much more modern and better designed one and it would be very interesting to see one conducted using the same methodology on other populations.

All this is to point out that there is a pretty wide variance in the results of efforts to study human penis size academically and it's probably important not to take any of these studies too seriously, but to be guided more by our own observations as they accumulate throughout our lives. We rarely know what the real quality of the study is or the expertise of those conducting it and we also don't usually know if the organization or individuals publishing the study have an un-stated agenda unrelated to shedding light on human morphology.

For what it's worth both of these studies do report a positive correlation between the man's height and the erect length of his penis with taller men having on average longer penises, though obviously there are plenty of exceptions to this as can be readily observed.

I have to point out that the Italian study is a self-reported study. People will greatly exaggerate their size.

In the Kinsey report, Americans considered themselves to be over 16cm on average, but if we look at the Britishs' large-scale reports in 2015, the difference has reached more than an inch (around 3cm), that is how much an error could be made by self-reporting.

Another report was also operated skillfully, except for some kind of semi-self-report. , to put it simply, we all know that average-sized people are unlikely to have a more active sex life, right? And people with larger penises tend to be more sexually active. I have read this report before, but I hesitated to post it because I thought it was too biased. , especially when more people are reported, this bias will be more obvious, because a person may be of average size, but he is good in bed. Not all people of average size are like this, so the larger the sample size, the more it can reflect the probabilistic nature of this data. , research on penis size preferences isn't particularly difficult to find. maybe not all but most people tend to prefer larger penises.