10-22-2004
|
#16 (permalink)
| | | the last part ment that there were more 4" ones out there then any other size. | | | |
| |
10-22-2004
|
#17 (permalink)
| | | Quote: Originally posted by jonb@Oct 22 2004, 01:36 AM FOUR? Damn, it's getting smaller all the time. |
true i read somewhere before that now instead of the normal range being 5-7 inches its now considered 4-7 | | | |
| |
10-22-2004
|
#18 (permalink)
| | | Karen: Hard to believe some of these averages.
In UK the Durex company work on an average of 6.75". Since they have no axe to grind other than making money, there seems no reason to dispute that.
6.5 to 7 seems about average in my experience as well, and my friends bear that out (well, the ones I talk to about that kind of thing!)
I think there is a deal of massaging undersized men's egos in an Agony Aunt kind of way.
No need for that here thank goodness!! | | | |
| |
10-22-2004
|
#19 (permalink)
| | | Quote: Originally posted by madame_zora@Oct 21 2004, 08:12 PM wow, even Kinsey gave the whits guys 5.1! | 6, actually. And 6.1 for black guys. Big fucking diff. | | | |
| |
10-22-2004
|
#20 (permalink)
| | | Okay, I googled on the kinsey report, but can't seem to find the actual report, just a lot of commentary. Do you have a link to it? Also, do you know if it was erect sizes or the flaccid/stretched method? Lastly, self reported or staff? thanks! | | | |
| |
10-22-2004
|
#21 (permalink)
| | | Quote: Originally posted by madame_zora@Oct 23 2004, 01:11 AM Okay, I googled on the kinsey report, but can't seem to find the actual report, just a lot of commentary. Do you have a link to it? Also, do you know if it was erect sizes or the flaccid/stretched method? Lastly, self reported or staff? thanks! |
IMHO, I would have to think the "method" was just plain ole measuring it erect.
The "flaccid / stretch" method is not commonly used as such for official documentation purposes that is, and many of us around here find that approach "deceptive". Some of us have noted a difference of as much as 1/2 inch "off" in measuring the stretched-flaccid. Granted it's "supposed" to be "the same" as the true erect, but we're claiming we can be cheated by 1/2 inch that way!
(btw--the jury is still out as to "why" this is the case!) Hmmm. (?)
Forgive us.
You now how we can be Madame Zora! That 1/2 inch can make or break us! :D | | | |
| |
10-22-2004
|
#22 (permalink)
| | | Hapi Papi: Quote: Originally posted by benderten2001+Oct 22 2004, 11:20 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(benderten2001 @ Oct 22 2004, 11:20 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-madame_zora@Oct 23 2004, 01:11 AM Okay, I googled on the kinsey report, but can't seem to find the actual report, just a lot of commentary. Do you have a link to it? Also, do you know if it was erect sizes or the flaccid/stretched method? Lastly, self reported or staff? thanks! |
IMHO, I would have to think the "method" was just plain ole measuring it erect.
The "flaccid / stretch" method is not commonly used as such for official documentation purposes that is, and many of us around here find that approach "deceptive". Some of us have noted a difference of as much as 1/2 inch "off" in measuring the stretched-flaccid. Granted it's "supposed" to be "the same" as the true erect, but we're claiming we can be cheated by 1/2 inch that way!
(btw--the jury is still out as to "why" this is the case!) Hmmm. (?)
Forgive us.
You now how we can be Madame Zora! That 1/2 inch can make or break us! :D [/b][/quote]
So this would be a hung jury? | | | |
| |
10-23-2004
|
#23 (permalink)
| | | Quote: Originally posted by Karen@Oct 22 2004, 10:57 PM Hard to believe some of these averages.
In UK the Durex company work on an average of 6.75". Since they have no axe to grind other than making money, there seems no reason to dispute that.
6.5 to 7 seems about average in my experience as well, and my friends bear that out (well, the ones I talk to about that kind of thing!)
I think there is a deal of massaging undersized men's egos in an Agony Aunt kind of way.
No need for that here thank goodness!! |
umm don't follow condom company "research" because well basically from what a friend told me..... she's a sexologist (or is it call sex therapist...whatever) a regular condom will fit the average 5-6 and sometimes 7 inch man. condom companies usually see what’s the max size that its regular sized condom can fit then claim that’s the average...this is basically what she told me about it anyway.
lol true benderten2001 1/2 makes and breaks us guys but actually madam z your pretty much right it is said now that 5.1 in the average now.... someone made a book which said this book it was reviewed in women.com I tried to find it but could not....... it's somewhere in the achieves of that site
but basically all the high percentages are in the 5-6 catagory in kinsey insitute research | | | |
| |
10-23-2004
|
#24 (permalink)
| | | Quote: Originally posted by madame_zora@Oct 22 2004, 05:11 PM Okay, I googled on the kinsey report, but can't seem to find the actual report, just a lot of commentary. Do you have a link to it? Also, do you know if it was erect sizes or the flaccid/stretched method? Lastly, self reported or staff? thanks! | You might be able to find it at the library. Sexual Behavior in the Human Male and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female are classics. Strange methodology. He had them draw an outline of their genitalia.
There is another point in Sexual Behavior in the Human Male where Kinsey wasn't at his most scientific. He didn't study pre-ejaculatory orgasm himself, but instead got the data on tables 31-34 from the journal of a pedophile who started thirty years before Kinsey began his study. (Ay, there's the rub, no pun intended: In order to get data for tables 31-34 Kinsey had to be either pseudoscientific or molest boys.) | | | |
| |
10-24-2004
|
#25 (permalink)
| | | I actually did a bit more searching today and here's what I found: Kinsey's study used self-reporting! Amoung three that were conducted by professionals who's staff measered, the erect penis came in at 5.1, 5.6 and 5.7. I don't know how to post links to sites, but would be glad to if someone will tell me how. | | | |
| |
10-24-2004
|
#26 (permalink)
| | | Quote: Originally posted by madame_zora@Oct 24 2004, 09:52 AM I actually did a bit more searching today and here's what I found: Kinsey's study used self-reporting! Amoung three that were conducted by professionals who's staff measered, the erect penis came in at 5.1, 5.6 and 5.7. I don't know how to post links to sites, but would be glad to if someone will tell me how. |
when you click on reply you will see a square button that says http:// click on that then insert the site press ok then it will ask you to insert name....just insert the site address again and thats it | | | |
| |
10-24-2004
|
#28 (permalink)
| | | Karen: Quote: Originally posted by blar@Oct 23 2004, 05:18 AM
umm don't follow condom company "research" because well basically from what a friend told me..... she's a sexologist (or is it call sex therapist...whatever) a | Uuh, I covered the Agony Aunt view ;)
But seriously the 6.75" average is an internally used average at Durex.
They don't want their products to make guys feel small blar!
Incidentally their small size, slimfits or whatever they are politely called are the ones sized as you quote. | | | |
| |
10-26-2004
|
#29 (permalink)
| | | Personally, having seen over 1000 hard dicks, I find that average absurdly high! If the medical studies are all wrong and Durex is right, well I guess that answers itself. | | | |
| |
10-26-2004
|
#30 (permalink)
| | | the sac: Statisitcally speaking I learned 3 years ago in high school sex class that the national average for all men was 5.5 inches long by 3.5 inches around +or- .1. And from my experience on the football team, rugby team, and P.E. classes at an all guy school I have probably seen over 800 dicks in the showers and if flaccid demonstrates a similar growth pattern it is probably dead on. | | | |
| | All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:27 AM. | |
Latest Threads | | |
Latest Posts | | |
Latest Blogs | | | |