My opinion about a cliche problem: size of asian tools

[exib]

I see a lot of penises in the locker/shower room. Most men are small when flaccid. Like 99%.

xnxx had a bunch of Chinese porn for a while, a lot of the men had good sized erections.

 

[Waldeinsamkeit]

I see a lot of penises in the locker/shower room. Most men are small when flaccid. Like 99%.

xnxx had a bunch of Chinese porn for a while, a lot of the men had good sized erections.

there is actually an anatomical perspective to understand this matter,
The largest part of the penis is two corpora cavernosa lie next to each other on the dorsal side and one corpus spongiosum lies between them on the ventral side. The Cavernous tissue on both sides is attached to the ischial tubercle, Which makes it actually very susceptible to sedentary lifestyles. Long-term sedentary will weaken the cavernous body, which will lead to collagen conversion, which is also a problem worth talking about.
These three cavernous bodies actually have a large number of blood vessels, Therefore, they can have obvious volumetric changes due to blood. If the blood vessels are constantly converted into collagen due to the influence of hypoxia by something like continuous pressing from a sedentary lifestyle, they will be weakened the ability to maintain normal erectile function. In fact, a considerable part of erectile dysfunction in the elderly is caused by the change of blood vessels, The vacuum pump actually works the same way. Appropriate vacuum pressure will reverse the conversion of collagen into blood vessels, thus making erectile function better.
For some reason, In Caucasians and Asians, especially in penises, there are also such differences, Asians have a higher proportion of blood vessels, and Caucasian people have a higher proportion of collagen, though this difference in proportion in the whole penis tissue is only a few percentiles like more of 3% or 5%, no more than 10%, which explains why white people have more showers and Asians have more (almost all) extreme growers.
Because of this organizational difference, Asians' completely erect and flaccid penises are completely different, but for Caucasian people, it is not necessarily, and sometimes the difference is not particularly clear.

 

[Anton565]

Are you saying younger asian generation have bigger dicks?

Bigger over all, not just dicks.

 

[Anton565]

tl; dr
in one word: genetics

A classic "Yes, and... ". You *ARE* right.

Genetics set the parameters.... ex. Adult height of 180cm. Nutrition is the largest single factor in determining whether the 180cm height is reached.

 

[yandrsupreme]

I dated a guy from Taiwan, he did not have a small penis, it was a nice, average 6 incher. Physical appearance, though... he did not look Asian at all, he TOTALLY looked pacific islander, you'd have sworn he was Hawaiian just looking at him.

 

[Waldeinsamkeit]

I dated a guy from Taiwan, he did not have a small penis, it was a nice, average 6 incher. Physical appearance, though... he did not look Asian at all, he TOTALLY looked pacific islander, you'd have sworn he was Hawaiian just looking at him.

, In fact, Hawaiians today are basically little different from Asians, given that there is a large Asian population, and Pacific Islanders are people who went out from Asian lands and branched out in near history, Having a close blood relationship with Asians and a further blood relationship with white and black.
,The concept of Pacific Islander is more of a cultural concept than a biological concept..
Hawaii Added More Than 94,000 People Since 2010

 

[Waldeinsamkeit]

1. I served in the military and deployed numerous times. So my sample size of seeing flaccid dicks is probably higher than the average guy, lol.

2. I cannot judge dick size by "nationality", nor can I make specific statements about people from any Asian country. However, when it comes to my "Asian American" friends within my age bracket (millennial) and perhaps slightly younger, from the ones I've seen in the showers both in boot camp and while deployed (and I'm bisexual...so yeah, I do look) - they usually tend to be noticeably smaller. We all eat at the same chow hall and they grew up in the same country so I doubt nutrition has any impact on this. I really think it's just genetics.

3. I've never seen anyone with a boner in the locker room or the showers, so I can't speak to how they all average out in the end. Flaccid size has nothing to do with erect size, so for all I know they could all be average or even large. All I know is when I see soft dicks, usually on the guys of Asian ethnicity it looks like a nub surrounded by pubic hair. Not trying to be offensive or anything, that's just what they've looked like in my experience.

4. One of my closest friends "Danny" is half Filipino and half Chinese. He was my roommate, so we've seen each other naked even more times than most of the other deployed guys. Unlike someone from Asia, as an American military guy, he's pretty open and not particularly embarrassed by his dick (which is in both of our opinion below average). But he's also a rather cute guy (good looking, clean-cut, athletic, etc) and has a charming personality so his dick size has certainly not stopped him from hooking up whenever he wants.

5. While I do not think that all Asian guys have small dicks (I've seen a couple of large ones in porn before), I do think that on average they tend to be smaller. But I also think on average they tend to be shorter too. Sometimes body sizes and shapes are just a matter of genetics. Asian people tend to have epicanthic folds on their eyes. Black people tend to have kinked or coiled hair. Scandinavian people tend to have blonde hair. Jewish people tend to have longer noses. Native Americans have thinner (or lacking) facial and body hair. It seems logical that penis size is just another body aspect programmed by genetics. It doesn't apply to every member of that ethnicity. But it most likely affects how the majority of the population looks compared to the majority of another population.

6. One of the things that perpetuates the stereotype is on the rare occasions when people see Asian men nude in a non-sexual context. Take the World Naked Bike Ride for example. You can see a lot of different men, and a lot of different kinds of penises on display for people to see and compare next to each other. Generally speaking, it seems that males of Asian ethnicity have smaller penises than men of European or African descent. I did a search for naked men at this event, and while there are a couple of Asian guys who I'd classify as "average", most of them I would say are what I'd describe as very small. I could not find a single one that I'd put in the above average category. At least, that's judging by the flaccid state (which again does not speak to erect state).

• You have repeatedly stressed that you have no prejudice, but you have repeatedly proved that this prejudice is true. What you're doing is stronger than what you're saying.
• 1. I served in the military and deployed numerous times. So my sample size of seeing flaccid dicks is probably higher than the average guy, lol.
  • In fact, I have already mentioned the approximate sample size required, 30 and 100, and it is better to exceed 100 to decrease error margin to 22.10%(take average as 13cm or so from British research, so error is 2.83cm. It is still way too much).
  • Sample Size Calculator
  • I don't know what your sample size is. If you can, please give me a specific sample size number, so that you can easily estimate how much the error can be, if you want to discuss this matter objectively instead.
  • Do you want to say that you have seen more than 100 people and can reach a sample of 3,000 people? If you can't, please read the report I sent before, instead of proving something wrong through your own personal experience here.
• 2. I cannot judge dick size by "nationality", nor can I make specific statements about people from any Asian country. However, when it comes to my "Asian American" friends within my age bracket (millennial) and perhaps slightly younger, from the ones I've seen in the showers both in boot camp and while deployed (and I'm bisexual...so yeah, I do look) - they usually tend to be noticeably smaller. We all eat at the same chow hall and they grew up in the same country so I doubt nutrition has any impact on this. I really think it's just genetics.
  • ? But isn't your final conclusion talking about race, In a way with simply insufficent samples, Or do you want to say that you are talking about race, not the country or nationality.
  • If you want to talk about Asian-Americans, shouldn't you collect data instead of proving something through your little example?
  • ,And does you take into account whether people who join the military are completely random(The foundation of statistics is randomness, and even randomness is not guaranteed. What's the meaning of your point and supports? )and not influenced by certain factors, such as their family background or other aspects? If you want to get a conclusion from a sample, shouldn't you consider not only the number of samples, but also sample representativeness ? ,Even biased researchers will know not to make this lowest scientific mistake. You have to choose a family with a history of hereditary disease to investigate the health status of a certain area, but you end up with the poor health status of the whole area through this family. Isn't it funny?
  • .The situation of insufficent and unscientific samples does not reflect the situation of the whole generation , unless a report with sufficient sample size can be found. ,Especially when you are talking about a relatively sensitive topic, you should pay more attention to your statement with a more serious attitude instead..
  • Unfortunately, we are talking about a very large population base, so it will need a very large sample size, and I don't believe that a person can easily reach a sample size of more than 10,000 people, just through his own experience.. ,If the sample size is not large enough, even if your experience is not influenced by your bias, there will be obvious systematic deviation. Just compare the three pictures about error levels.
  • Please do not try to use your own empirical evidence to prove how reasonable something is, It sounds hilarious itself. 10000 samples is the threshold for absolute credibility, at least about 3000, if your experience can not reach the margin credibility number don't use them to base your point, that's not solid.

 

[Waldeinsamkeit]

• 1. I served in the military and deployed numerous times. So my sample size of seeing flaccid dicks is probably higher than the average guy, lol.
  
  2. I cannot judge dick size by "nationality", nor can I make specific statements about people from any Asian country. However, when it comes to my "Asian American" friends within my age bracket (millennial) and perhaps slightly younger, from the ones I've seen in the showers both in boot camp and while deployed (and I'm bisexual...so yeah, I do look) - they usually tend to be noticeably smaller. We all eat at the same chow hall and they grew up in the same country so I doubt nutrition has any impact on this. I really think it's just genetics.
  
  3. I've never seen anyone with a boner in the locker room or the showers, so I can't speak to how they all average out in the end. Flaccid size has nothing to do with erect size, so for all I know they could all be average or even large. All I know is when I see soft dicks, usually on the guys of Asian ethnicity it looks like a nub surrounded by pubic hair. Not trying to be offensive or anything, that's just what they've looked like in my experience.
  
  4. One of my closest friends "Danny" is half Filipino and half Chinese. He was my roommate, so we've seen each other naked even more times than most of the other deployed guys. Unlike someone from Asia, as an American military guy, he's pretty open and not particularly embarrassed by his dick (which is in both of our opinion below average). But he's also a rather cute guy (good looking, clean-cut, athletic, etc) and has a charming personality so his dick size has certainly not stopped him from hooking up whenever he wants.
  
  5. While I do not think that all Asian guys have small dicks (I've seen a couple of large ones in porn before), I do think that on average they tend to be smaller. But I also think on average they tend to be shorter too. Sometimes body sizes and shapes are just a matter of genetics. Asian people tend to have epicanthic folds on their eyes. Black people tend to have kinked or coiled hair. Scandinavian people tend to have blonde hair. Jewish people tend to have longer noses. Native Americans have thinner (or lacking) facial and body hair. It seems logical that penis size is just another body aspect programmed by genetics. It doesn't apply to every member of that ethnicity. But it most likely affects how the majority of the population looks compared to the majority of another population.
  
  6. One of the things that perpetuates the stereotype is on the rare occasions when people see Asian men nude in a non-sexual context. Take the World Naked Bike Ride for example. You can see a lot of different men, and a lot of different kinds of penises on display for people to see and compare next to each other. Generally speaking, it seems that males of Asian ethnicity have smaller penises than men of European or African descent. I did a search for naked men at this event, and while there are a couple of Asian guys who I'd classify as "average", most of them I would say are what I'd describe as very small. I could not find a single one that I'd put in the above average category. At least, that's judging by the flaccid state (which again does not speak to erect state).

  
  
• I really hope that people who come to discuss genetics with me in the future have studied genetics and understand epigenetics well And understand how the surroundings affect people's gene expression, rather than making some personal points behind the "genetics" shield. Read the reports here and before and think, do not just say something for their "personal" experience, when you say some personal staff in public, that's no longer personal anymore.
  
  • 1. Tanner's report about puberty, who set the ground theory of puberty. Point out how malnutrition affects puberty growth and development.
    • Variations in the Pattern of Pubertal Changes in Boys
    • some screenshots for the malnutrition parts
    • 1
      2
    • 3
      4
    • 5
      6
    • 7
      8
  • 2. Insulin-Like Growth Factor-I is a Marker for the Nutritional State,IGF-I concentration is sensitive to short-term and chronic alterations in the nutritional state
    • Insulin-Like Growth Factor-I is a Marker for the Nutritional State.
    • abstract: Measurement of the serum concentration of insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-I) is generally used as a screening investigation for disorders of the growth hormone (GH)/IGF-I axis in children and adolescents with short stature. IGF-I concentration is sensitive to short-term and chronic alterations in the nutritional state, and the interpretation of IGF-I measurements requires knowledge of the child’s nutritional status. In this review, we summarize the effects of nutrition on the GH/IGF-I axis, and review the clinical implications of these interactions throughout childhood, both in under-nutrition and over-nutrition.
    • "Food availability can be a significant issue for many families, and may not be immediately apparent during a clinical visit. The worldwide prevalence of undernourishment is estimated at 11.3% (49), and an estimated 50 million people in the United States are uncertain of having enough food (50). This may affect the type and quantity of food available in the household (51,52). As will be discussed later in this section, even a transient 50% reduction in calorie or 33% reduction in protein availability can result in a reversible reduction in IGF-I concentrations (Figure 3) (53). This may be relevant in families where the next paycheck is required before food can be purchased. Dietary intake may be decreased despite adequate food availability due to certain feeding behaviors and/or diminished appetite. Sometimes the dietary intake is inadvertently over-restricted by the parent(s) and/or child due to fear of obesity (54–56) or hypercholesterolemia (56) to the extent that nutritional growth stunting ensues. Unstructured mealtimes, particularly those with distractions, as well as food aversions and dysfunctional parent-child interactions related to eating can all lead to failure to thrive, a topic extensively reviewed elsewhere (57). Reduced caloric intake can also result from decreased appetite, which may be endogenous (such as from delayed gastric emptying) or induced by medications. Attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) affects approximately 7% of children (58) and methylphenidate or dexamphetamine are commonly used to treat this disorder. These medications can be associated with appetite suppression and subsequent weight loss (59). In a small study that included healthy children treated with methylphenidate, reduced weight and BMI were seen within 4 months of treatment and an associated reduction in IGF-I concentration was observed (60)."
  • 3. the importance of GH/igf-1(that promoted by GH) for genital growth.(As the negetive contrast that how losing all igf-1 effect the growth of genital)
    • I. Why Do Normal Children Have Acromegalic Levels of IGF-I During Puberty? Gene-Knockout
      • Abstract
      • Context
      • The rapid pubertal height growth is unique to humans, but why do we have it? Although the spurt contributes 13% to 15% to the final adult height, we hypothesized that the biological significance of the high acromegalic levels of GH and IGF-I, which are behind the pubertal growth spurt, might primarily occur to stimulate the reproductive organs.
      • Evidence Synthesis
      • Animal data have demonstrated that adult Igf1 and Igf2 gene knockout mice that survive show a dramatic reduction in the size of the reproductive organs and are infertile. In humans, case reports of mutations in the genes affecting the GH–IGF axis and growth (GH, GHRH, GH-R, STAT5b, IGF-I, IGF-II, IGF-1R, PAPPA2) are also characterized by delayed pubertal onset and micropenis. Furthermore, GH treatment will tend to normalize the penile size in patients with GH deficiency. Thus, the endocrine effects of high IGF-I levels might be needed for the transition of the sexual organs, including the secondary sex characteristics, from the “dormant” stages of childhood into fully functioning reproductive systems. The peak IGF-I levels, on average, occur 2 years after the peak height growth velocity, suggesting reasons other than longitudinal growth for the high IGF-I levels, and remain high in the years after the height spurt, when the reproductive systems become fully functional.
      • Conclusion
      • We suggest that the serum levels of IGF-I should be monitored in children with poor development of sexual organs, although it remains to be investigated whether GH should be added to sex steroids in the management of hypogonadism for some pubertal children (e.g., boys with micropenis).
    • II. Role of the GH-IGF1 axis on the hypothalamus–pituitary–testicular axis function: lessons from Laron syndrome Laren's syndrome reviews
      • Laron syndrome is a condition characterized by resistance to GH caused by mutations in its receptor. This results in a disease characterized by high levels of structurally normal GH, with low levels of IGF1. Phenotypically, these patients are characterized by dwarfism, obesity, severe hypoglycemia, typical head configuration with a small face and bulging forehead resulting in a saddle nose. Their voice is high-pitched and they have thinning hair. Finally, another feature common to male patients with Laron syndrome is poor genital development, which strengthens the correlation between IGF1 and the HPT axis function (8).
      • The presence of micropenis in patients with Laron syndrome might be firstly ascribable to the effects of the GH-IGF1 axis on the HPT one. In fact, low IGF1 levels might affect the GnRH neuron secretion and function, inducing hypogonadism (6). However, the direct effects of IGF1 on the penis may also be involved in pathogenesis. IGF1 indeed enhances penile smooth muscle cell proliferation (31), their relaxation (32), and fibroblast proliferation (33). Consequently, IGF1 has been speculated to be needed to achieve normal penile growth (33).
      • The results of this study showed that a complete restoration of penile length was achieved only with the combined therapy, whereas GH or testosterone alone were not effective (52).
  • 4. Penis growth by igf-1 injection(As positive contrast that how igf-1 affect the growth of genital)
    • https://www.researchgate.net/public...on_syndrome_primary_growth_hormone_resistance
    • In the very young boys(0-5) no change in serum gonadotrophins, androgens, gonads or genitals was registered. In the two older boys(10 and 14.5) and the adult(28) patient, there was a progressive rise in luteinizing hormone, follicle-stimulating hormone and testosterone. Concomitantly, there was an increase in size of the testes and penile length. The two boys started puberty.
    • The adult patient who started treatment at age 28 with full sexual development showed a further increase in testicular size (Fig. 1) from 13 to 18 ml and his stretched penile length increased from 12 to 13.5 cm.
• Over the years, the academic attitude toward genes has gradually changed from a blueprint to a toolbox. Who else would really think that genes are really what sets everything except for people who actually didn't major in biology, didn't finish a book named genetics, even don't know how genes work and change and so on, Ignoring the results of so many years of genetic development, refusing scientific new ideas, but only clinging to his own "genetic" hat. Please stop talking about genetics every day without knowing it, , If you do finish reading a book named Genetics and are willing to discuss it rationally, you can send out your academic views instead.
  
  • Epigenetics - Wikipedia wiki about epigenetics
    • Memory formation and maintenance are due to epigenetic alterations that cause the required dynamic changes in gene transcription that create and renew memory in neurons.
    • Epigenetics play a major role in brain aging and age-related cognitive decline, with relevance to life extension.[156][157][158][159][160]
    • Nutrients could interact with the epigenome to "protect or boost cognitive processes across the lifespan".[165][166]
    • A review suggests neurobiological effects of physical exercise via epigenetics seem "central to building an 'epigenetic memory' to influence long-term brain function and behavior" and may even be heritable.[167]
    • Epigenetic mechanisms were a necessary part of the evolutionary origin of cell differentiation.[[183]] Although epigenetics in multicellular organisms is generally thought to be a mechanism involved in differentiation, with epigenetic patterns "reset" when organisms reproduce, there have been some observations of transgenerational epigenetic inheritance (e.g., the phenomenon of paramutation observed in maize). Although most of these multigenerational epigenetic traits are gradually lost over several generations, the possibility remains that multigenerational epigenetics could be another aspect to evolution and adaptation. As mentioned above, some define epigenetics as heritable.
  • Epigenetics: The Science of Change Epigenetics: The Science of Change
    • "Michael Skinner, a professor of molecular biosciences and director of the Center for Reproductive Biology at Washington State University, and his team described in the 3 June 2005 issue of Science how they briefly exposed pregnant rats to individual relatively high levels of the insecticide methoxychlor and the fungicide vinclozolin, and documented effects such as decreased sperm production and increased male infertility in the male pups. Digging for more information, they found altered DNA methylation of two genes. As they continued the experiment, they discovered the adverse effects lasted in about 90% of the males in all four subsequent generations they followed, with no additional pesticide exposures."
    • "Substances aren’t the only sources of epigenetic changes. The licking, grooming, and nursing methods that mother rats use with their pups can affect the long-term behavior of their offspring, and those results can be tied to changes in DNA methylation and histone acetylation at a glucocorticoid receptor gene promoter in the pup’s hippocampus. "
  • Advances in epigenetics link genetics to the environment and disease - Nature Advances in epigenetics link genetics to the environment and disease

 

[Waldeinsamkeit]

1. I served in the military and deployed numerous times. So my sample size of seeing flaccid dicks is probably higher than the average guy, lol.

2. I cannot judge dick size by "nationality", nor can I make specific statements about people from any Asian country. However, when it comes to my "Asian American" friends within my age bracket (millennial) and perhaps slightly younger, from the ones I've seen in the showers both in boot camp and while deployed (and I'm bisexual...so yeah, I do look) - they usually tend to be noticeably smaller. We all eat at the same chow hall and they grew up in the same country so I doubt nutrition has any impact on this. I really think it's just genetics.

3. I've never seen anyone with a boner in the locker room or the showers, so I can't speak to how they all average out in the end. Flaccid size has nothing to do with erect size, so for all I know they could all be average or even large. All I know is when I see soft dicks, usually on the guys of Asian ethnicity it looks like a nub surrounded by pubic hair. Not trying to be offensive or anything, that's just what they've looked like in my experience.

4. One of my closest friends "Danny" is half Filipino and half Chinese. He was my roommate, so we've seen each other naked even more times than most of the other deployed guys. Unlike someone from Asia, as an American military guy, he's pretty open and not particularly embarrassed by his dick (which is in both of our opinion below average). But he's also a rather cute guy (good looking, clean-cut, athletic, etc) and has a charming personality so his dick size has certainly not stopped him from hooking up whenever he wants.

5. While I do not think that all Asian guys have small dicks (I've seen a couple of large ones in porn before), I do think that on average they tend to be smaller. But I also think on average they tend to be shorter too. Sometimes body sizes and shapes are just a matter of genetics. Asian people tend to have epicanthic folds on their eyes. Black people tend to have kinked or coiled hair. Scandinavian people tend to have blonde hair. Jewish people tend to have longer noses. Native Americans have thinner (or lacking) facial and body hair. It seems logical that penis size is just another body aspect programmed by genetics. It doesn't apply to every member of that ethnicity. But it most likely affects how the majority of the population looks compared to the majority of another population.

6. One of the things that perpetuates the stereotype is on the rare occasions when people see Asian men nude in a non-sexual context. Take the World Naked Bike Ride for example. You can see a lot of different men, and a lot of different kinds of penises on display for people to see and compare next to each other. Generally speaking, it seems that males of Asian ethnicity have smaller penises than men of European or African descent. I did a search for naked men at this event, and while there are a couple of Asian guys who I'd classify as "average", most of them I would say are what I'd describe as very small. I could not find a single one that I'd put in the above average category. At least, that's judging by the flaccid state (which again does not speak to erect state).

• 3. I've never seen anyone with a boner in the locker room or the showers, so I can't speak to how they all average out in the end. Flaccid size has nothing to do with erect size, so for all I know they could all be average or even large. All I know is when I see soft dicks, usually on the guys of Asian ethnicity it looks like a nub surrounded by pubic hair. Not trying to be offensive or anything, that's just what they've looked like in my experience.
  • Since you haven't seen anyone else's erection, why do you have to address a big long story here to try to imply your prejudice that Asians are smaller(It's not) is right, The obvious logic error doesn't occur to you whether you are playing dumb or you don't think others can find it
  • .If you admit that erection length has nothing to do with flaccid length, why do you want to talk about it later and end up with the wrong conclusion that Asians are smaller with it, It's not
  • "usually on the guys of Asian ethnicity it looks like a nub surrounded by pubic hair. Not trying to be offensive or anything, that's just what they've looked like in my experience."You can put the same description on whites or blacks who are also growers.
  • If there are two whites or two blacks or one white or one black, their erections are similar, but the flaccid length is different, for example, one is shower, one is grower, So you're saying that if you were that grower, you'd really think you were smaller than another person, right, with a "cute" comment for your nub surrounded by pubic hair. If you feel uncomfortable, then you should understand why there is something wrong with this statement.
  • This assertion sounds very strange and weird, just like you use flaccid length to prove whether Asians "tend to be" smaller. It is not.
  • If you need erection datas, I not only sent them before, but also I can send you a new one.
    
    • http://222.198.130.40:81/Qikan/Article/Detail?id=1101283
    • There are no racial differences, stop fooling around.
  • If you want to further explore the scientific nature of stretched length and erectile length, please read this paper first and then discuss it with me.
    
    • Predicting penile size during erection - PubMed
• 4. One of my closest friends "Danny" is half Filipino and half Chinese. He was my roommate, so we've seen each other naked even more times than most of the other deployed guys. Unlike someone from Asia, as an American military guy, he's pretty open and not particularly embarrassed by his dick (which is in both of our opinion below average). But he's also a rather cute guy (good-looking, clean-cut, athletic, etc) and has a charming personality so his dick size has certainly not stopped him from hooking up whenever he wants.
  • I don't know your friend, but Your comments about him and your appreciation of his attitude towards life can't be applied directly to all Asians, because he can't stand for all Asians, but you use him standing for all asians and boldly think through, You inappropriately assume that ALL Asians have bad talents through his situation. but you never prove it and you can't, **Because you can't deduce the whole from parts, and you can't deduce the whole group from one person. You want to shield yourself with your appreciation of the good attitude of others in even bad states to cover up the wrong assumption for your deduction(which is actually racial prejudice) behind you? You can not.
  • As I said earlier, don't disturb others' understanding of themselves through some strange personal experiences Whether unintentionally or intentionally, without reasonable argumentation and thinking.
• 5. While I do not think that all Asian guys have small dicks (I've seen a couple of large ones in porn before), I do think that on average they tend to be smaller. But I also think on average they tend to be shorter too. Sometimes body sizes and shapes are just a matter of genetics. Asian people tend to have epicanthic folds on their eyes. Black people tend to have kinked or coiled hair. Scandinavian people tend to have blonde hair. Jewish people tend to have longer noses. Native Americans have thinner (or lacking) facial and body hair. It seems logical that penis size is just another body aspect programmed by genetics. It doesn't apply to every member of that ethnicity. But it most likely affects how the majority of the population looks compared to the majority of another population.
  • ,You have repeatedly stressed that you have no prejudice, but you have repeatedly proved that this prejudice is true. What you're doing is stronger than what you're saying.
  • You are also wrong about height. The average height in America is actually similar to the average height in northern China.
    • Average human height by country - Wikipedia
    • https://www.researchgate.net/public... to a national survey,in southern China [27] .
      • According to a national survey, the average male height of northern China was 175.31 ± 6.09 cm in Shandong Province and 174.97 ± 6.76 cm in Beijing,
  • , And do you realize that epicanthic folds on their eyes are actually part of racial discrimination? You can see a lot of big eyes in Southwest(or Southern) China like Guizhou.
• Different ethnic groups are all human beings and have far more similarities than differences, Natural differences actually are smaller than the difference in political views between the North and the South in the USA, although even today, the South may be more conservative and the North more open. You can't just reasonably infer that the South is conservative and the North is open, just like you can't tag people of different races with some "tend to be" characteristics without knowing them. In modern life, people are more shaped by culture and living environment. Shouldn't the way to know a person be to know him the person first, and then pay attention to his other characteristics like race, instead of imposing a bunch of stereotypes by race, culture, etc. on him even though you didn't really know about him?

 

[Waldeinsamkeit]

• 1. I served in the military and deployed numerous times. So my sample size of seeing flaccid dicks is probably higher than the average guy, lol.
  
  2. I cannot judge dick size by "nationality", nor can I make specific statements about people from any Asian country. However, when it comes to my "Asian American" friends within my age bracket (millennial) and perhaps slightly younger, from the ones I've seen in the showers both in boot camp and while deployed (and I'm bisexual...so yeah, I do look) - they usually tend to be noticeably smaller. We all eat at the same chow hall and they grew up in the same country so I doubt nutrition has any impact on this. I really think it's just genetics.
  
  3. I've never seen anyone with a boner in the locker room or the showers, so I can't speak to how they all average out in the end. Flaccid size has nothing to do with erect size, so for all I know they could all be average or even large. All I know is when I see soft dicks, usually on the guys of Asian ethnicity it looks like a nub surrounded by pubic hair. Not trying to be offensive or anything, that's just what they've looked like in my experience.
  
  4. One of my closest friends "Danny" is half Filipino and half Chinese. He was my roommate, so we've seen each other naked even more times than most of the other deployed guys. Unlike someone from Asia, as an American military guy, he's pretty open and not particularly embarrassed by his dick (which is in both of our opinion below average). But he's also a rather cute guy (good looking, clean-cut, athletic, etc) and has a charming personality so his dick size has certainly not stopped him from hooking up whenever he wants.
  
  5. While I do not think that all Asian guys have small dicks (I've seen a couple of large ones in porn before), I do think that on average they tend to be smaller. But I also think on average they tend to be shorter too. Sometimes body sizes and shapes are just a matter of genetics. Asian people tend to have epicanthic folds on their eyes. Black people tend to have kinked or coiled hair. Scandinavian people tend to have blonde hair. Jewish people tend to have longer noses. Native Americans have thinner (or lacking) facial and body hair. It seems logical that penis size is just another body aspect programmed by genetics. It doesn't apply to every member of that ethnicity. But it most likely affects how the majority of the population looks compared to the majority of another population.
  
  6. One of the things that perpetuates the stereotype is on the rare occasions when people see Asian men nude in a non-sexual context. Take the World Naked Bike Ride for example. You can see a lot of different men, and a lot of different kinds of penises on display for people to see and compare next to each other. Generally speaking, it seems that males of Asian ethnicity have smaller penises than men of European or African descent. I did a search for naked men at this event, and while there are a couple of Asian guys who I'd classify as "average", most of them I would say are what I'd describe as very small. I could not find a single one that I'd put in the above average category. At least, that's judging by the flaccid state (which again does not speak to erect state).

  
  
  
• 6. "One of the things that ...... to erect state)."
  • ,Shouldn't you take diversity into account when posting your those public nudity "flaccid" pictures?
    By posting more pictures about non-Asians, will make your "personal experiences"(As you stressed a lot of times to show your "unbiased attitude") seem less biased, Right? Hmm?

 

[Waldeinsamkeit]

Of course, really.

Wow...really?

1) First of all, I didn't "repeatedly" do anything because that was my first response on this thread. Note: I had no intention of engaging on this point beyond my initial response. But your replies are so absurd that they (collectively) deserve a follow-up – and I hope other people who’ve been on this thread read this as well.

2) I never “stressed” that I have no prejudice. I may indeed have prejudices, despite my goal to recognize and eliminate them whenever I can. But I didn’t express anything prejudiced here. You've crafted an elaborate straw man argument - possibly copied and pasted from arguments you’ve had with others on this topic (as you’ve spent a lot of unnecessary time on this response). But you're not even using the word "prejudice" correctly. There's nothing about my opinion that indicates that I'm prejudging anyone. At best you might say that I'm reinforcing a stereotype (which is different), and that's fair because I never denied that. But that doesn't mean I'm prejudging anyone. Prejudice would be if I said that any random Asian guy will have a small dick because he is Asian. Clearly I didn't say or suggest anything like that. In fact, the reason I stated that flaccid size does not indicate erect size wasn't to appear to be without prejudice. It was to point out the futility of that type of assumption, but you completely ignored that because you'd rather do the straw man argument instead. The purpose was to explain the stereotype from a personal perspective, not advocate for prejudice.

3) How many penises have I seen? I honestly don't know. Probably about 400-500. How many of them were Asian? Maybe 50 or so. How many of that 50 would I personally classify as "small" (flaccid)? The majority. How many would I classify as “large” (flaccid)? None that I can recall. I wasn’t keep score or anything, it’s just something that is easily noticed because anything that is visually significantly above or below average tends to stand out. Is this completely anecdotal evidence? Yes. Is any of this empirical data? No. Should it inform anyone else’s perspective on Asian dick size? No. Did I ever claim that it should? No! What you’ve done was attempt to invalidate my experience because it is unaccompanied by scientific research which is frankly ludicrous! Do I need to collect biographical data on the background of everyone in the military I seen naked? No, I don’t! Because their background isn’t remotely relevant to my observation, which is the only thing that I’m reporting. I know about Danny’s background (he’s from a middle class family and grew up in Waco, Texas). What relevance does that have? None.

4) You can talk about “sample size” all you want but it’s completely irrelevant to anything I said because I never claimed to be providing data from a scientific research paper! I’m providing a personal opinion based on what I’ve seen. I have a bachelor’s degree in psychology and a master's degree in business! I’m very well educated on critical thinking, statistics, research methods, and quantitative data. I understand how sample size works. You don't need to passively aggressively try to “educate” anyone here because I already have that. Your problem is that you're barking up the wrong tree! The fact that I’m making my personal opinion public by sharing it is irrelevant. I don’t need to produce empirical evidence of anything because my goal wasn’t to publish a research paper in a scientific journal, hence I do not require scientific credibility. I gave a perspective based on my subjective experiences which is what informs my beliefs (and apparently the beliefs of many others) in the absence of empirical data, which do you not have!

5) You don’t need to talk to me about how malnutrition affects puberty because I’m already aware of that, yet it’s entirely irrelevant to my point. You are the one attempting to reduce dick size to nutrition, which means you are the one who needs to produce empirical data supporting your hypothesis. But you can’t do that because neither of us knows the nutritional background of any of the people I’ve seen naked. So, it’s is an insanely stupid and pointless argument that you’re trying to make. Is it possible that penis size is related to nutrition? Sure! Is it proven that this is why people perceive Asians to have smaller penises? No. That’s something that YOU would have to demonstrate since that is apparent YOUR argument. The simpler explanation is that there is a genetic component to body shapes and sizes. If you want people to believe that penises are unique and more likely to be driven by nutrition relative to other physical attributes affected by ethnicity, then you need to provide data which supports that. (Maybe you did that in some of your responses; I didn't read all of them to find out). But frankly, I don’t care because I don’t have a dog in that fight. It doesn’t matter to me WHY some penises are small - that's not relevant to my point.

6) To address your question: “Shouldn't you take diversity into account when posting your those public nudity "flaccid" pictures? By posting more pictures about non-Asians”. The answer is NO. The reason is because you’re missing the point (I suspect intentionally at this point). The point here wasn’t to suggest that white people or black people can’t also have small penises. That is another straw man argument! The point was to address the Asian stereotype, which means that to dispel it we should be able to show an equally common diversity of penises sizes within the Asian community. The fact of the matter is most of the ones I see at nude events are small in their flaccid state. Some are average, and very few are large. If you can find images from the WNBR, or the Folsom Street Festival, or nude beaches, or locker rooms of Asians with large flaccid penises – then by all means do so. Things like that are what affect perceptions in reality; not statistical data published in scientific journals. But I can’t ever find that in anything other than porn - can you? I don’t need to search for "large" flaccid black or white dicks at these events in order to see them regularly. The fact that I also happen to see small ones of every race is completely besides the point. The point is I generally do not see large ones among Asian men, and neither does anyone else apparently! Yes, I can type in “small white dick” and find images like the ones you have. You can do that for any race. But I don’t have to type “small Asian dick” to find them. Just do a neutral search for naked men in locker rooms. Avoid porn stars and selfies; focus on the candids. What do you tend to see when they happen to be Asian? Is that a coincidence? Maybe. Is it by design? Possibly (although you have to prove that). But coincidences like that inform perspectives. I was able to find one that I'd call above average flaccid (which I attached for your convenience).

7) To address your comment: “You are also wrong about height. The average height in America is actually similar to the average height in northern China.” – No, I’m actually NOT wrong about height. According to your own link, the average height of an American man is two inches taller than a Chinese man. But the United States is much more ethnically diverse than China, and that stat doesn’t take into consideration race/ethnicity. The average height for a Swedish or German man is 5’11”. People of European descent are taller than people of Asian descent. When it breaks out the US population by race, white people are taller, then black people are next, followed by Asian people. That’s according to your own link, so pay attention before telling other people that they’re “wrong”!

8) All of this is in regards to something that doesn't even really matter that much. In all honesty, I only skimmed though your original post (as it was a bit TL;DR). As a result, I didn't have the full context of what you were trying to do, and I didn't see the original thread you were referencing either (so I still lack that context). But I just went back scrolled through some of the previous comments to get some background and the fact that you're this triggered because anyone else here has an opinion that's different from yours says much more about you than anyone else here. Clearly, you are personally affected by this stereotype but that is a personal insecurity that you are lashing out at us for. If you don't fit the stereotype, then you shouldn't feel emasculated. If you do fit the stereotype, then you also shouldn't feel emasculated because dick size has nothing to do with masculinity. If you had any self confidence at all, this topic (and the existence of the stereotype) shouldn't bother you at all, much less differing opinions about it. It wasn’t my intention to hurt your feelings by expressing my observations about penis size. But because of your arrogance and condescending attitude in your responses, I’m not sorry. If you want to engage honestly (in a good faith discussion) maybe try to remove your emotions from the equation first and respect that other people have different experiences than you do. We can talk about the origins, causes, and effects of stereotypes in a broader discussion, but we can’t do that when you just decide to take a shit on anyone else who offers a perspective which you don’t like.

• , So you have a degree in psychology, but you don't know if you express yourself as biased and then emotional, and you have to force the distinction between bad stereotypes and prejudices, when they are the same
• ,So if you have a basic background training in statistics, you should understand how critical sample size is to credibility, which is even more important if you want to understand what the world really is like, After all, experience is only a part of knowing the world. As a psychology student, you should know something about the most basic history of philosophy and the arguments between rationalism and empiricism, shouldn't you?
• Isn't your final result that you want to express such a prejudice? Even if you try to describe it as a bad stereotype, your distinction like this doesn't make much sense, and this is what I say, you are what you do, which is much stronger than what you say., Especially when you are no longer afraid that you do have such prejudice, and speak out loud.
• ,You haven't even read a few of my replies, and then you're here accusing me of being absurd. Can you suggest how it is absurd by rationality instead of hysterical emotion Or is it just that you want to say with "free speech" , You are ridiculous in this matter. .
• ,As a person with a background in humanities and social sciences, do you even have to argue with me about whether social background should be considered in social investigation? ??,I have the impression that your psychology degree requires not only knowledge of humanities and social sciences but also knowledge of science.
• ,My post was meant to solve this problem with science, not with experience because experience leads to more opinions and arguments than anything else, but it doesn't prove anything. , Do you need to review to , Francis Bacon and the Four Idols of the Mind, , his theory profoundly influenced psychology, and so did he himself The founder of empiricism and scientism..
  • Francis Bacon and the Four Idols of the Mind
  • Idols of the Tribe
  • The Idols of the Tribe made the false assumption that our most natural and basic sense of things was the *correct *one. He called our natural impressions a “false mirror” which distorted the true nature of things.
  • Idols of the Cave
  • The Idols of the Cave were the problems of individuals, their passions and enthusiasms, their devotions and ideologies, all of which led to misunderstandings of the true nature of things.
  • Idols of the Marketplace
  • You might call the Idols of the Marketplace a problem of political discourse: The use of words to mislead. (Nearly half a century later, Garrett Hardin would argue similarly that good thinkers need a literary filter to suss out sense from nonsense.)
  • Idols of the Theater
  • The final idol, of the Theater, is how Bacon referred to long-received wisdom, the ancient systems of philosophy, the arbitrary divisions of knowledge and classification systems held onto like dogma. Without emptying one’s mind of the old ways, no new progress could be made. This would be an important lasting value of the Baconian view of science. Truth must be reasoned from first principles.
• ,When you express your personal experience in public, there will always be more people who mistake what your experience is, especially when some racist people lurk in this thread, waiting for someone to refute it with their personal experience at any time, especially when they can't understand the theories, the arguments and the researches I purposed at all. Whether or not you intentionally or unintentionally contribute to the so-called prejudice, although in fact you have done it, , Your final effect is to reinforce this false prejudice.
• ,And you should also find out that your basic logic is actually to use the flaccid length to prove size? ? Are you flaccid when you have sex??, You simply ignored this logic error, originally I thought you were playing dumb, ,And then began to say I made a strawman, wasn't I refuting the mistake of the core of your arguments? So what you call a sincere talking attitude is that you can be emotional, but others should not be emotional, and even you can speak logic in an illogical way?
• ,You should save your hot temper for the army, instead of going crazy when discussing the facts. Bachelor/Master
• ,I did prove how nutrition affects all this in the previous posts, and I also talked about calorie restriction and so on in the original thread at the beginning. It is your own problem, not mine if you don't read it.
• If you really want to talk about the stereotyped roots of racial discrimination, shouldn't you think about the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act and the previous yellow peril theory? Shouldn't you think about the Asian figure shift that took place during the 1930s and 1940s by the US government and media?
• , Well, as for the height report, my data is on that page, and it's a report from 2022 with young adults, not from chronic disease patients or from 2012, are you going to choose the chronic disease report, or are you going to choose the report from 2012, when the data for Americans comes from 2022? , Because there are so many races in the United States, we should look at the overall average, not be influenced by this thing, right? Here comes the funniest part. In my report on adolescence, he also talked about the relationship between height and latitude. Do you want to use race to prove this? Why don't you take a look at what pictures I sent first? When you are here calling out that people should communicate effectively, , Shouldn't you play a leading role, read what I sent, and then reply rationally
• ., Does your kind discussion mean that you don't finish reading my replies, but you emphasize your personal experience and opinions? Are you sincere? ?
• , Please don't talk to me about insecurity. I don't feel insecure. I just don't like others using prejudice to understand the world, and then I feel that their experience is the best in the world. I talk about facts, I focus on the whole, and I don't pay special attention to one person's personal experience more than others'.

 

[captainbryce1]

Of course, really.

• , So you have a degree in psychology, but you don't know if you express yourself as biased and then emotional, and you have to force the distinction between bad stereotypes and prejudices, when they are the same
• ,So if you have a basic background training in statistics, you should understand how critical sample size is to credibility, which is even more important if you want to understand what the world really is like, After all, experience is only a part of knowing the world. As a psychology student, you should know something about the most basic history of philosophy and the arguments between rationalism and empiricism, shouldn't you?
• Isn't your final result that you want to express such a prejudice? Even if you try to describe it as a bad stereotype, your distinction like this doesn't make much sense, and this is what I say, you are what you do, which is much stronger than what you say., Especially when you are no longer afraid that you do have such prejudice, and speak out loud.
• ,You haven't even read a few of my replies, and then you're here accusing me of being absurd. Can you suggest how it is absurd by rationality instead of hysterical emotion Or is it just that you want to say with "free speech" , You are ridiculous in this matter. .
• ,As a person with a background in humanities and social sciences, do you even have to argue with me about whether social background should be considered in social investigation? ??,I have the impression that your psychology degree requires not only knowledge of humanities and social sciences but also knowledge of science.
• ,My post was meant to solve this problem with science, not with experience because experience leads to more opinions and arguments than anything else, but it doesn't prove anything. , Do you need to review to , Francis Bacon and the Four Idols of the Mind, , his theory profoundly influenced psychology, and so did he himself The founder of empiricism and scientism..
  • Francis Bacon and the Four Idols of the Mind
  • Idols of the Tribe
  • The Idols of the Tribe made the false assumption that our most natural and basic sense of things was the *correct *one. He called our natural impressions a “false mirror” which distorted the true nature of things.
  • Idols of the Cave
  • The Idols of the Cave were the problems of individuals, their passions and enthusiasms, their devotions and ideologies, all of which led to misunderstandings of the true nature of things.
  • Idols of the Marketplace
  • You might call the Idols of the Marketplace a problem of political discourse: The use of words to mislead. (Nearly half a century later, Garrett Hardin would argue similarly that good thinkers need a literary filter to suss out sense from nonsense.)
  • Idols of the Theater
  • The final idol, of the Theater, is how Bacon referred to long-received wisdom, the ancient systems of philosophy, the arbitrary divisions of knowledge and classification systems held onto like dogma. Without emptying one’s mind of the old ways, no new progress could be made. This would be an important lasting value of the Baconian view of science. Truth must be reasoned from first principles.
• ,When you express your personal experience in public, there will always be more people who mistake what your experience is, especially when some racist people lurk in this thread, waiting for someone to refute it with their personal experience at any time, especially when they can't understand the theories, the arguments and the researches I purposed at all. Whether or not you intentionally or unintentionally contribute to the so-called prejudice, although in fact you have done it, , Your final effect is to reinforce this false prejudice.
• ,And you should also find out that your basic logic is actually to use the flaccid length to prove size? ? Are you flaccid when you have sex??, You simply ignored this logic error, originally I thought you were playing dumb, ,And then began to say I made a strawman, wasn't I refuting the mistake of the core of your arguments? So what you call a sincere talking attitude is that you can be emotional, but others should not be emotional, and even you can speak logic in an illogical way?
• ,You should save your hot temper for the army, instead of going crazy when discussing the facts. Bachelor/Master
• ,I did prove how nutrition affects all this in the previous posts, and I also talked about calorie restriction and so on in the original thread at the beginning. It is your own problem, not mine if you don't read it.
• If you really want to talk about the stereotyped roots of racial discrimination, shouldn't you think about the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act and the previous yellow peril theory? Shouldn't you think about the Asian figure shift that took place during the 1930s and 1940s by the US government and media?
• , Well, as for the height report, my data is on that page, and it's a report from 2022 with young adults, not from chronic disease patients or from 2012, are you going to choose the chronic disease report, or are you going to choose the report from 2012, when the data for Americans comes from 2022? , Because there are so many races in the United States, we should look at the overall average, not be influenced by this thing, right? Here comes the funniest part. In my report on adolescence, he also talked about the relationship between height and latitude. Do you want to use race to prove this? Why don't you take a look at what pictures I sent first? When you are here calling out that people should communicate effectively, , Shouldn't you play a leading role, read what I sent, and then reply rationally
• ., Does your kind discussion mean that you don't finish reading my replies, but you emphasize your personal experience and opinions? Are you sincere? ?
• , Please don't talk to me about insecurity. I don't feel insecure. I just don't like others using prejudice to understand the world, and then I feel that their experience is the best in the world. I talk about facts, I focus on the whole, and I don't pay special attention to one person's personal experience more than others'.
• View attachment 117460881

"So you have a degree in psychology, but you don't know if you express yourself as biased and then emotional, and you have to force the distinction between bad stereotypes and prejudices, when they are the same"

That's an interesting opinion, but no. I reject your premise and therefore also your conclusion. I'm saying that everyone has biases, but that you came off as emotional. Nothing is definitionally forced here - prejudice has a specific meaning in common parlance. A stereotype is a widely held belief about a particular thing. Prejudice is when you have a preconception about people absent of reason or evidence. Prejudice can exist independently of stereotypes, and not all stereotypes inspire prejudice. The words are related, but not synonymous.

"So if you have a basic background training in statistics, you should understand how critical sample size is to credibility, which is even more important if you want to understand what the world really is like, After all, experience is only a part of knowing the world. As a psychology student, you should know something about the most basic history of philosophy and the arguments between rationalism and empiricism, shouldn't you?"

Yes, and I in fact do - which is why I explained to you very clearly the necessity of establishing credibility when the goal is to make an argument concerning objective facts which appeal to empirical data. As I've already explained to you, I'm not doing that because that wasn't the point! I'm expressing my belief on why this stereotype has proliferated so long. And that has to do with what people experience. The difference between rationalism and empiricism are not relevant to this discussion.

"Isn't your final result that you want to express such a prejudice? Even if you try to describe it as a bad stereotype, your distinction like this doesn't make much sense, and this is what I say, you are what you do, which is much stronger than what you say., Especially when you are no longer afraid that you do have such prejudice, and speak out loud."

The short answer to you long question is NO. My goal is not one of prejudice. And I didn't say that this was a bad stereotype either; that is the premise YOU are operating under because of how you personally feel. I'm dealing in facts, not feelings. In any case you still haven't grasped the distinction between stereotypes and prejudice, and until you do you're going to continue dying on this straw man argument.

"You haven't even read a few of my replies, and then you're here accusing me of being absurd. Can you suggest how it is absurd by rationality instead of hysterical emotion Or is it just that you want to say with "free speech" , You are ridiculous in this matter.

The reason it's absurd is because every one of your replies to me are "rants" which go into unnecessary rabbit holes which have little to no relevance to my argument. Copying and pasting entire articles on "Variations in the Pattern of Pubertal Changes in Boys" or Wikipedia pages on epigenetics (as if that has anything to do with my argument). I have no reason to read any of that because that's not relevant to the topic here. Your replies are also fallacious in the sense that you seem to be simultaneously attempting to A) dispel the stereotype, B) make excuses for why the stereotype could be true, and C) attack me for giving a reason why people have it. You need to decide first whether you think the stereotype generally holds true, and THEN make an argument for why or why not. Your argument about how "malnutrition causes "X" is self-defeating because it essentially provides an excuse for why Asians might have smaller penises, which defeats your main goal because that is the very stereotype you are trying to dispel. EITHER there is data to support the fact that Asians generally have smaller penises, OR there isn't. You cannot argue that there's no data to support this belief while simultaneously arguing that there's other data which explains why it is the case. That is an internally incoherent argument! Ergo - absurd.

"As a person with a background in humanities and social sciences, do you even have to argue with me about whether social background should be considered in social investigation? ??,I have the impression that your psychology degree requires not only knowledge of humanities and social sciences but also knowledge of science."

What you are saying is as true as it is IRRELEVANT. Again, I am not making a scientific argument here. I'm not making "truth claims" about objective reality. I'm not publishing a goddamn academic research paper about penis size. What you're saying would all be valid IF my goal was to convince you that Asians have smaller PPs. It isn't! All I'm doing is providing anecdotes about my experiences in order to contextualize the existing stereotype. That's it!

"My post was meant to solve this problem with science, not with experience because experience leads to more opinions and arguments than anything else, but it doesn't prove anything. , Do you need to review to , Francis Bacon and the Four Idols of the Mind, , his theory profoundly influenced psychology, and so did he himself The founder of empiricism and scientism.."

I don't know which problem with science that you are referring to, so I can't comment on that. My response was only meant to provide a perspective based on personal experience. The title of this thread is "MY OPINION about a cliche problem: size of Asian tools". I responded with my own opinion; you are free to take it or leave it. It wasn't meant to "prove" anything. And yes, I am familiar with Sir Francis Bacon, and no, I don't need a review...thank you. Again, this is another rabbit hole that I'm not interested in.

"When you express your personal experience in public, there will always be more people who mistake what your experience is, especially when some racist people lurk in this thread, waiting for someone to refute it with their personal experience at any time, especially when they can't understand the theories, the arguments and the researches I purposed at all. Whether or not you intentionally or unintentionally contribute to the so-called prejudice, although in fact you have done it, , Your final effect is to reinforce this false prejudice."

Let me give you a nickel's worth of advice: If your goal is to dispel stereotypes in general (or a specific stereotype), you should probably be giving a lecture in an academic setting or at the very least writing a blog or using your social media platform in such a way as to attract an audience. Going to the "Large Penis Support Group", a place for open-minded people to explore and enjoy themselves, probably isn't the place to mold society by boring them with articles about epigenetics and puberty. There are racist people EVERYWHERE, but my mission isn't to deconvert every racist on the internet, nor to try to reason with them to become non-racist. I spend enough time doing that on my normal social media. I came here to look at dick! Sorry.

"And you should also find out that your basic logic is actually to use the flaccid length to prove size? ? Are you flaccid when you have sex??, You simply ignored this logic error, originally I thought you were playing dumb, ,And then began to say I made a strawman, wasn't I refuting the mistake of the core of your arguments? So what you call a sincere talking attitude is that you can be emotional, but others should not be emotional, and even you can speak logic in an illogical way?"

Yes, you are still dying on this straw man argument. You are not refuting my core argument at all. You don’t even seem to know what my core argument is. All you’re doing is accusing me of making an argument that I’m not making, so you can refute THAT instead of my actual argument. This is the third (and last) time now I’m going to say this. Flaccid size is not an indicator of erect size. The next time you pretend that I’m making an argument about erect size, then you’re just being intellectually dishonest. I’m not going to waste my time addressing counterarguments to assertions that I didn’t make.

"You should save your hot temper for the army, instead of going crazy when discussing the facts. Bachelor/Master"

Ad hominem!

"I did prove how nutrition affects all this in the previous posts..."

I don't care because I never denied that in the first place. What you didn't prove is that nutrition has affected the people who I happened to see naked, who happened to be Asian. You have no data on that whatsoever, so it's pointless to even bring that up. Also, and not to be pedantic or anything, but you don't even have a data that supports your argument that nutrition affects penis size at all. You have a hypothesis (which would still need to be tested). You have no statistics that correlate penis size specifically with nutrition, and you have no experimental data which establishes causation. So you don't even have a theory yet, just a belief! The only data you have is that nutrition affects puberty, and growth and development in general. And nobody ever disputed that in the first place.

"If you really want to talk about the stereotyped roots of racial discrimination, shouldn't you think about the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act and the previous yellow peril theory? Shouldn't you think about the Asian figure shift that took place during the 1930s and 1940s by the US government and media?"

Frankly, no. Because I didn't come here to talk about that. I mean, it's okay if that's what you came here to talk about. But I came here to look at dick! I'm not interested in getting into a discussion of critical race theory with some stranger in a dick group who got triggered by my opinion!

"Well, as for the height report, my data is on that page, and it's a report from 2022 with young adults, not from chronic disease patients or from 2012, are you going to choose the chronic disease report, or are you going to choose the report from 2012, when the data for Americans comes from 2022? ,"

I went to the Wikipedia entry you linked me to, and compared the data from the most recent articles. I didn't actually go in and read any of the articles. If you wanted to appeal to specific articles which help your argument and avoid articles which damage your argument, then you should have just linked me directly to that article instead of the Wikipedia page.

"When you are here calling out that people should communicate effectively, , Shouldn't you play a leading role, read what I sent, and then reply rationally"

I read that you called me "wrong" for asserting that Asian people are shorter than white people. Do you have a link to a specific article that refutes THAT claim with statistics? If you do, post it here now. Otherwise, I'm not wrong. I'm not interested in discussing the "reasons" or "causes" or "factors" that affect height of races, ethnicities, or nationalities because none of that is relevant to whether my statement was correct or not. I'm only interested in the actual statistical data!

"Does your kind discussion mean that you don't finish reading my replies, but you emphasize your personal experience and opinions? Are you sincere? ?"

As you can see by the way I've composed this response...I've read THIS entire reply. Did I read your entire book on epigenetics or puberty? No - because I'm not interested and it has no bearing on any position I've taken here.

"Please don't talk to me about insecurity. I don't feel insecure. I just don't like others using prejudice to understand the world, and then I feel that their experience is the best in the world. I talk about facts, I focus on the whole, and I don't pay special attention to one person's personal experience more than others'.

I don't know you well enough to assess your mental state; I'm judging you only by what you write (including the textual tone, the content, the volume of material, and your penchant for distorting my argument). And all of that points to someone who is "reacting" because they are insecure. Maybe you're just uber passionate about this topic (for whatever reason). But then for some people that would also raise the question of why? I don't really care to be honest. The thing I'm trying to leave you with is that experiences are factual as well, and that's what guide perceptions. You don't have to focus on anyone else's personal experience but that completely misses the point. People focus on their own experiences, and if your goal is to change perspectives then you can't just dismiss their experiences. That's essentially dismissing them, which is not going to convince them that they are wrong. You haven't come with any objective, scientific data about penis size by race because there are no such studies! There are unscientific surveys, which all generally yield similar results that correlate to the stereotypes. I am not appealing to that at all because they are unscientific. But that's what you'd need in order to help dispel the stereotype. Trying to invalidate someone else's observations by pointing out that they don't have a large sample size isn't going to convince people that the stereotype isn't true. And offering up excuses as to why the stereotype might be true (just in case it is) is also unconvincing.

 

[LosTomatoes]

This thread is one of the reasons why I hate being an Asian dude, sometimes...

 

[Snakebyte]

I really don't get why all that anecdotal (and thus useless) evidence is posted after all.
For example Korea:
Chung (1971): avg erect length 12.7 cm
Choi et al. (1999): avg erect length 12.66 cm

Both translate to roughly an average of 5". Wait a second. Isn't the nbpel average in western countries supposed to be about the same? (it is). And don't even let me start on the few studies made in Africa.

What lots of people don't get:
"There is a much wider range of size in men's penises when flaccid, with the average ranging from 1 to 4 inches. In general, smaller, flaccid penises lengthen at erection by a greater percentage than larger, flaccid penises, with most men reaching an average size of 5 to 7 inches. This means the flaccid size of a penis is not a good predictor of erect size."

 

[captainbryce1]

I really don't get why all that anecdotal (and thus useless) evidence is posted after all.
For example Korea:
Chung (1971): avg erect length 12.7 cm
Choi et al. (1999): avg erect length 12.66 cm

Both translate to roughly an average of 5". Wait a second. Isn't the nbpel average in western countries supposed to be about the same? (it is). And don't even let me start on the few studies made in Africa.

What lots of people don't get:
"There is a much wider range of size in men's penises when flaccid, with the average ranging from 1 to 4 inches. In general, smaller, flaccid penises lengthen at erection by a greater percentage than larger, flaccid penises, with most men reaching an average size of 5 to 7 inches. This means the flaccid size of a penis is not a good predictor of erect size."

There is a reason why stereotypes exist, and it's usually not malicious. They are beliefs people have based on perceptions. Whether it is "useless" or "useful", anecdotal evidence is ultimately what influences the perceptions of most people. That's just a psychological fact. The question isn't, "should we rely on anecdotal evidence to inform our beliefs?", but rather "to what extent are common perceptions built upon anecdotal evidence?" The reason why anecdotal evidence is posted is to inform upon why people have the perceptions they do, not to justify the perception as having an empirical basis or being scientifically credible.

At the end of the day, there are no reliable scientific studies that examine variations in penis sizes by "ethnicity", at least not that I could find published in any scientific or medical journal. Most of the studies that you do find aren't actually studies at all, but rather surveys based on self-reporting. The few scientific studies you do find tend to be 25-50 years old, limited in scope, flawed in methodology in some way, and likewise not necessarily accounting for ethnicity but rather nationality. So they are generally also "useless" when it comes to addressing the stereotype about "Asian men".

For example (according to your first source from 1971 Korea Med), the average non-erect penis length for a Korean man is 8.0cm, while the average erect length is 12.7 cm. The sample size was 702 which is sufficient. However the study has problems as there was no exclusion criteria listed in the methods. Any "patients" with congenital defects, penile abnormality, surgery, erectile dysfunction, etc may have been included among those patients, which could obviously taint the mean outcome. Alternatively, another similar study (done by the British Journal of Urology International in 2014 BJUI) found that for British men, average non-erect length was 9.1 cm, while the average erect length is 13.1 cm. Both measurements are one cm longer than what the Korean study found, which a layperson might infer just by looking at the results that Asian men are smaller than white men. However, this study also had problems. While it was more exact in its selection criteria, it suffered from a very sample size only 50, which is statistically insignificant. As far as I can see, all such studies suffer from similar types of issues, not to mention the fact that not all "Asian men" are Korean, not all "white men" are British, not all "British men" are white, and so on and so forth. So these studies really don't do much to address the question that you're ultimately trying to resolve "Is there is any biological validity to the ethnic stereotype about Asian men?"

Results gathered through meta-studies might be more useful, as they examine the data from multiple sources, with many selection criteria over the course of a longer period of time. But they still include studies with flaws which means you still have to take them with a grain of salt. Most of them (like this: World Data) focus on "nationality" rather than ethnicity. And then you have sites like this which also present as being based on a meta-study, (WorldPopulationReview), which only examines "erect length" (not flaccid length), and reports that race has "only a marginal impact upon penis size" and "the difference in average penis size among White, Black, Asian, Native American, and Pacific Islander/Hawaiian men in the US varied by less than an inch", which is really just another way of saying they did in fact vary. It goes on to list the nationalities with the largest and smallest penises. The bottom ten countries all happen to be in Asia, while six of the top ten countries are in Africa, the rest are in South America. What is a layperson reading this likely to conclude? That's the question you need to be asking.

Some of the studies it references admit their own faults in relying on self-reporting. But the reader doesn't see that unless they go in and read every study cited. On the surface, the collective data from all of these studies all point to "Asians have smaller penises than non-Asians" as an axiom, even when they are trying not to. And the average person reading and comparing data from all of these empirical data sets, would most likely only have that stereotype reinforced, not dispelled! This includes your second source (the 1999 study Informit) which concludes with quote: "These Korean men's penises on average had a more or less cylindrical shape which was narrower in the middle and they were smaller by all parameters than published samples of Caucasian men." I'm sorry, but were you attempting to use this study in a way to dispel the stereotype about Asian men? Because if you were, you probably failed!

That's the problem with these studies, and the population's ability to take advantage of the data in a way that results in the outcome you want. They all have problems, and you really have to cherry pick which results help your argument more (or hurt your argument less). At the end of the day, there is an insufficient body of empirical data with which to reasonably conclude statistical differences in penis size by ethnicity. There is no recent scientific study, devoid of the flaws and pitfalls mentioned, with a proper exclusion criteria, with a statistically significant sample size, which are not based on self-reporting, that actually examine differences in mean penis size (flaccid and erect) of various ethnic backgrounds. That simply doesn't exist yet!

Even if you did want to consider the data from these previous studies reliable, relevant, veracious, and arriving at the conclusion you want, most people haven't read them! Hence, they are going to go off of what they've seen and/or heard by testimonial, and the stereotype will still exist. It's not on the people who's minds you are trying to change to produce empirical evidence on your behalf. They are the ones with the belief; they are not the ones trying to convince you. If your goal is to dispel this stereotype, then it's your job to produce only empirical evidence which is strong enough to overcome their perception and change mindsets. That's how that works!

But your last paragraph about flaccid vs erect size is correct. It's also something everyone here pretty much agrees with already.

 

[Snakebyte]

There is a reason why stereotypes exist, and it's usually not malicious. They are beliefs people have based on perceptions. Whether it is "useless" or "useful", anecdotal evidence is ultimately what influences the perceptions of most people. That's just a psychological fact. The question isn't, "should we rely on anecdotal evidence to inform our beliefs?", but rather "to what extent are common perceptions built upon anecdotal evidence?" The reason why anecdotal evidence is posted is to inform upon why people have the perceptions they do, not to justify the perception as having an empirical basis or being scientifically credible.

At the end of the day, there are no reliable scientific studies that examine variations in penis sizes by "ethnicity", at least not that I could find published in any scientific or medical journal. Most of the studies that you do find aren't actually studies at all, but rather surveys based on self-reporting. The few scientific studies you do find tend to be 25-50 years old, limited in scope, flawed in methodology in some way, and likewise not necessarily accounting for ethnicity but rather nationality. So they are generally also "useless" when it comes to addressing the stereotype about "Asian men".

For example (according to your first source from 1971 Korea Med), the average non-erect penis length for a Korean man is 8.0cm, while the average erect length is 12.7 cm. The sample size was 702 which is sufficient. However the study has problems as there was no exclusion criteria listed in the methods. Any "patients" with congenital defects, penile abnormality, surgery, erectile dysfunction, etc may have been included among those patients, which could obviously taint the mean outcome. Alternatively, another similar study (done by the British Journal of Urology International in 2014 BJUI) found that for British men, average non-erect length was 9.1 cm, while the average erect length is 13.1 cm. Both measurements are one cm longer than what the Korean study found, which a layperson might infer just by looking at the results that Asian men are smaller than white men. However, this study also had problems. While it was more exact in its selection criteria, it suffered from a very sample size only 50, which is statistically insignificant. As far as I can see, all such studies suffer from similar types of issues, not to mention the fact that not all "Asian men" are Korean, not all "white men" are British, not all "British men" are white, and so on and so forth. So these studies really don't do much to address the question that you're ultimately trying to resolve "Is there is any biological validity to the ethnic stereotype about Asian men?"

Results gathered through meta-studies might be more useful, as they examine the data from multiple sources, with many selection criteria over the course of a longer period of time. But they still include studies with flaws which means you still have to take them with a grain of salt. Most of them (like this: World Data) focus on "nationality" rather than ethnicity. And then you have sites like this which also present as being based on a meta-study, (WorldPopulationReview), which only examines "erect length" (not flaccid length), and reports that race has "only a marginal impact upon penis size" and "the difference in average penis size among White, Black, Asian, Native American, and Pacific Islander/Hawaiian men in the US varied by less than an inch", which is really just another way of saying they did in fact vary. It goes on to list the nationalities with the largest and smallest penises. The bottom ten countries all happen to be in Asia, while six of the top ten countries are in Africa, the rest are in South America. What is a layperson reading this likely to conclude? That's the question you need to be asking.

Some of the studies it references admit their own faults in relying on self-reporting. But the reader doesn't see that unless they go in and read every study cited. On the surface, the collective data from all of these studies all point to "Asians have smaller penises than non-Asians" as an axiom, even when they are trying not to. And the average person reading and comparing data from all of these empirical data sets, would most likely only have that stereotype reinforced, not dispelled! This includes your second source (the 1999 study Informit) which concludes with quote: "These Korean men's penises on average had a more or less cylindrical shape which was narrower in the middle and they were smaller by all parameters than published samples of Caucasian men." I'm sorry, but were you attempting to use this study in a way to dispel the stereotype about Asian men? Because if you were, you probably failed!

That's the problem with these studies, and the population's ability to take advantage of the data in a way that results in the outcome you want. They all have problems, and you really have to cherry pick which results help your argument more (or hurt your argument less). At the end of the day, there is an insufficient body of empirical data with which to reasonably conclude statistical differences in penis size by ethnicity. There is no recent scientific study, devoid of the flaws and pitfalls mentioned, with a proper exclusion criteria, with a statistically significant sample size, which are not based on self-reporting, that actually examine differences in mean penis size (flaccid and erect) of various ethnic backgrounds. That simply doesn't exist yet!

Even if you did want to consider the data from these previous studies reliable, relevant, veracious, and arriving at the conclusion you want, most people haven't read them! Hence, they are going to go off of what they've seen and/or heard by testimonial, and the stereotype will still exist. It's not on the people who's minds you are trying to change to produce empirical evidence on your behalf. They are the ones with the belief; they are not the ones trying to convince you. If your goal is to dispel this stereotype, then it's your job to produce only empirical evidence which is strong enough to overcome their perception and change mindsets. That's how that works!

But your last paragraph about flaccid vs erect size is correct. It's also something everyone here pretty much agrees with already.

Sorry to say, but the moment you quoted Worlddata and Worldpopulationreview you kinda disqualified yourself. We don't talk about made up numbers around here. Feel free to provide real studies that show such big sizes. Just a little hint though: they don't exist.
It's cool that you quote Choi when he says that Koreans are smaller. Thing is. In recent studies (not Kinsey and nonsense like that, rather Wessels or Schneider) western men were not bigger at all. And why would you compare Veale's meta analysis, which has immense flaws (like using bpel as nbpel or even using studies with flawed methodology), to the korean study?
And you really wanna talk about stereotypes? And that they are not based on reality in 99.9% of the cases?

 

[MASSIVEPKGO_CHUCK]

1. I served in the military and deployed numerous times. So my sample size of seeing flaccid dicks is probably higher than the average guy, lol.

2. I cannot judge dick size by "nationality", nor can I make specific statements about people from any Asian country. However, when it comes to my "Asian American" friends within my age bracket (millennial) and perhaps slightly younger, from the ones I've seen in the showers both in boot camp and while deployed (and I'm bisexual...so yeah, I do look) - they usually tend to be noticeably smaller. We all eat at the same chow hall and they grew up in the same country so I doubt nutrition has any impact on this. I really think it's just genetics.

3. I've never seen anyone with a boner in the locker room or the showers, so I can't speak to how they all average out in the end. Flaccid size has nothing to do with erect size, so for all I know they could all be average or even large. All I know is when I see soft dicks, usually on the guys of Asian ethnicity it looks like a nub surrounded by pubic hair. Not trying to be offensive or anything, that's just what they've looked like in my experience.

4. One of my closest friends "Danny" is half Filipino and half Chinese. He was my roommate, so we've seen each other naked even more times than most of the other deployed guys. Unlike someone from Asia, as an American military guy, he's pretty open and not particularly embarrassed by his dick (which is in both of our opinion below average). But he's also a rather cute guy (good looking, clean-cut, athletic, etc) and has a charming personality so his dick size has certainly not stopped him from hooking up whenever he wants.

5. While I do not think that all Asian guys have small dicks (I've seen a couple of large ones in porn before), I do think that on average they tend to be smaller. But I also think on average they tend to be shorter too. Sometimes body sizes and shapes are just a matter of genetics. Asian people tend to have epicanthic folds on their eyes. Black people tend to have kinked or coiled hair. Scandinavian people tend to have blonde hair. Jewish people tend to have longer noses. Native Americans have thinner (or lacking) facial and body hair. It seems logical that penis size is just another body aspect programmed by genetics. It doesn't apply to every member of that ethnicity. But it most likely affects how the majority of the population looks compared to the majority of another population.

6. One of the things that perpetuates the stereotype is on the rare occasions when people see Asian men nude in a non-sexual context. Take the World Naked Bike Ride for example. You can see a lot of different men, and a lot of different kinds of penises on display for people to see and compare next to each other. Generally speaking, it seems that males of Asian ethnicity have smaller penises than men of European or African descent. I did a search for naked men at this event, and while there are a couple of Asian guys who I'd classify as "average", most of them I would say are what I'd describe as very small. I could not find a single one that I'd put in the above average category. At least, that's judging by the flaccid state (which again does not speak to erect state).

A fair percentage of those guys and those attachments you left.
Could take advantage of landscaping and get rid of that bush

 

[1119457]

Asian guys have beautiful mushroom heads

 

[MASSIVEPKGO_CHUCK]

Again going off of purely anecdotal evidence, it seems that most Asian guys don't landscape. I suspect that this is probably a cultural thing.

All i'm saying is minus that hair could have hidden inches

 

[Dansrun]

There’s no way a forum like this can address the complexities as demonstrated by the OP opening aND VERY lengthy post. I didn’t even finish it and this stuff is interesting to me. “Academically” I found the presentation very slanted and aggressive. His frustration comes through.

To deny that genetics place developmental stopping points is crazy to me. I can’t have darker skin, have green eyes change the way my pecs innervate (for development - yes it matters) or my height. YES nutrition will aid in expressing some of those genes but genes form development boundaries that cannot be denied. Simply put genetic maximal expression is not the same as socio-political mobility.

With that said and as discussed by others I had a Chinese girl friend IN China and she said I was a little larger than her last boyfriend (also about 6’ tall) who was Chinese. I’ve also had several Chinese women only want to see and hold my junk and said they would never service it. Every Chinese girl that I have had is smaller and tighter by a lot.

Also while living there, there were far many taller Chinese in the Shanghai delta area than anywhere else I traveled or lived. I think nutrition was better but there were what seemed genetics at play as features were different than those in southern China. Perhaps more “pure Han” genetics near Shanghai and Chongqing than Guangdong.

Now my post is too long. Lol Like I said too complicated. so I’ll end here