So what is a small penis and why does it matter?

[TheDane]

2 hours ago, Klingsor said:

I had forgotten that but it’s good it know. 
 

The hysteria is being pushed to the max to disrupt commerce and seed the idea of how precarious a supply chain/globalized economy is. It’s just another push toward decentralization and syndicalism. At least that’s what I think. 

a quite conservative take on the situation,  yes?

[Wayless]

On 3/11/2020 at 10:39 AM, Klingsor said:

Stretched flaccid length does not statistically correlate with erect length, and the studies I've read make that clear. Mine gets bigger when it's rock hard (rarely achieve it) than I can actually stretch it soft. However, all of this is moot because it's the appearance that matters.

You can't say it doesn't correlate if there is any correlation at all.  I am very small flaccid, often retracted to practically nothing.  Stretching when I'm anxious about an examination would understate my erection a lot.  3.5 instead of almost 4.5 is my guess.

[Wayless]

On 3/11/2020 at 12:38 PM, YOTH said:

Well, I know guys from here who actively avoid going to the doctor at all because of their size, so I still stand by that. And how the fuck, on god's green hell do you covertly measure a guys junk? Of course you'd have to ask. If a doctor was messing about with my old boy I'd be watching the cunt like a hawk. I'm telling you right now, guys with micropenises are not popping in for regular checkups, covert or otherwise. 

Admittedly, you only go to a urologist if you have urinary tract or genital issues.  Even small guys have to go when they have issues.  So, it's not random in that sense.  When you go to a urologist, you expect him to examine your junk.

[YOTH]

1 hour ago, uptight outasight said:

Admittedly, you only go to a urologist if you have urinary tract or genital issues.  Even small guys have to go when they have issues.  So, it's not random in that sense.  When you go to a urologist, you expect him to examine your junk.

Still doesn't make sense in terms of flaccid to erect size. The whole process of stretch measuring is flawed, but I still agree that the average would come out around 5 inches or there about. And it's still considered small, so it's a pointless argument anyway, I shouldn't have been such a condescending prick about it. 

[Klingsor]

3 hours ago, TheDane said:

a quite conservative take on the situation,  yes?

No. To be clear: I was not understating the seriousness of the virus, only that the media (both social and legacy) enthusiastically amplifies normal concern into hysteria.

 

3 hours ago, uptight outasight said:

You can't say it doesn't correlate if there is any correlation at all.  I am very small flaccid, often retracted to practically nothing.  Stretching when I'm anxious about an examination would understate my erection a lot.  3.5 instead of almost 4.5 is my guess.

That's true. However, a regression model built using variables that are only weakly correlated is so inaccurate that it's useless. So in practice (which is usually the only thing people want to know) they do not correlate. In this case, the studies say they are significantly correlated. But I tend to agree, I do not think my stretched penis extends to the same length that it does fully erected. But like I said, all this nattering about fractions of an inch is a psychological exercise.

I made this point once before many years ago: adding equal increments of length to the penis in units of 1 inch and calculating the percentage change in total length, and then plotting it results in a harmonic sequence. By the time 6 inches is reached, the percent change in total length is already only 20%. From 6 to 7 it's 16%. From 8 to 9 it's barely over 10%. Visually (the only thing that matters) it's not noticeable. That's why the world usually classifies men into the "hung" and "not hung".

[Reality]

3 hours ago, uptight outasight said:

Admittedly, you only go to a urologist if you have urinary tract or genital issues.  Even small guys have to go when they have issues.  So, it's not random in that sense.  When you go to a urologist, you expect him to examine your junk.

Unfortunately, this is not necessarily what happens though. The problem of "Low rates of men actually seeing a urologist when they have issues" was discussed even within the first semester of medicine (depending on your choice of specialization in that course). 

Generally, people are highly influenced by what they expect to happen. People who are afraid of dentists might loose all of their teeth to avoid it. Men afraid to get a finger up their ass die due to prostatate cancer, just to avoid... well... I don't even know what they think would happen... "becoming gay" or some other weird irrational stuff, I don't know. 

[Wayless]

9 hours ago, Reality said:

Unfortunately, this is not necessarily what happens though. The problem of "Low rates of men actually seeing a urologist when they have issues" was discussed even within the first semester of medicine (depending on your choice of specialization in that course). 

Generally, people are highly influenced by what they expect to happen. People who are afraid of dentists might loose all of their teeth to avoid it. Men afraid to get a finger up their ass die due to prostatate cancer, just to avoid... well... I don't even know what they think would happen... "becoming gay" or some other weird irrational stuff, I don't know. 

There was an interesting exercise at lpsg.com (Large Penis Support Group) in which a number of guys stretched in photos ample flaccids to near their erect lengthls.  Like 4 or 5 hanging to  6.5, 7 or 8 inches, etc.  Too small a sample to draw a lot of conclusions, but stretching seemed pretty accurate.  At the small end where I am, I know for certain the correlation is poor.

Self selecting surveys almost always come-out 6" average or better, just like the Knsey surveys did.   Stretched flaccid is the only other source of info, but probably does understate average size, especially for men who are ACTIVE sexually, meaning in the pick-up, hook-up, on line dating scene.  Smaller guys may find a mate, but they aren't out competing much in recreational sex.

There can be no doubt that when determining size status among men, flaccid is what counts.  When men see me retracted in the locker room, no doubt they can't help but think I have a micro penis and/or perhaps totally incapable of sex.

In bed with a woman, there is a definite handicap, but not that extreme.

[Wayless]

9 hours ago, Reality said:

Unfortunately, this is not necessarily what happens though. The problem of "Low rates of men actually seeing a urologist when they have issues" was discussed even within the first semester of medicine (depending on your choice of specialization in that course). 

Generally, people are highly influenced by what they expect to happen. People who are afraid of dentists might loose all of their teeth to avoid it. Men afraid to get a finger up their ass die due to prostatate cancer, just to avoid... well... I don't even know what they think would happen... "becoming gay" or some other weird irrational stuff, I don't know. 

Ha ha!  I feared when young I might get an embarrassing erection.  Didn't happen.  I was rational enough to fear cancer more than temporary humiliation.

[Wayless]

9 hours ago, Reality said:

Unfortunately, this is not necessarily what happens though. The problem of "Low rates of men actually seeing a urologist when they have issues" was discussed even within the first semester of medicine (depending on your choice of specialization in that course).  

So would that under or over state a urologist size survey?  I think it would over-state size as the small would be less likely to seek medical help due to embarrassment.  Yet, the urologist studies come-up with quite a low average around 5" instead of the mythical 6". 

[Reality]

3 hours ago, uptight outasight said:

So would that under or over state a urologist size survey?  I think it would over-state size as the small would be less likely to seek medical help due to embarrassment.  Yet, the urologist studies come-up with quite a low average around 5" instead of the mythical 6". 

It overstates them for multiple reasons. 

First, even though you don't want to hear it, the stretched length average overstated the erect one in the biggest study to date. BUT in the studies where they measured both, erect length was in fact longer. 

Second, studies with 6" are often not only self-selected (as are all legal studies) but also self-measured. That's complete garbage by default. 

By the way, the study clearly states that around 10,000 out of the 15,000 men were not urology patients asked if they want to take part, but rather volunteers who took part just to get measured. Very accurate...

And even then:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/bju.13010

Quote

None of the studies describe details on how they recruited their samples, e.g. how many refused to participate, in order to determine whether or not they were representative of the population recruited.

And now a big one:

Quote

Exclusion criteria: samples with a congenital or acquired penile abnormality, previous surgery, complaint of small penis size or erectile dysfunction.

 

This is freaking massive. All of you around here would've been excluded. Not only that. Penile abnormalities include stuff like micropenises. Erectile dysfunction excludes people with low T, which can lead to a smaller size. They included 20 studies in their meta-analysis. They excluded 9 for samples with small penis clomplaints, 14 for samples containing men with erectile dysfunction and 5 for samples containing men with penile abnormalities. Thats almost double the amount of studies they even analyzed in the end!

They pretty much only included studies that excluded at least some small men. And they still came up with 5". 

The real average will be below 5", that's almost certain. 6" is completely unrealistic.

[Klingsor]

5 hours ago, uptight outasight said:

 Stretched flaccid is the only other source of info, but probably does understate average size, especially for men who are ACTIVE sexually, meaning in the pick-up, hook-up, on line dating scene.  Smaller guys may find a mate, but they aren't out competing much in recreational sex.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_distribution

empirical observation has found the 80-20 distribution to fit a wide range of cases, including natural phenomena^[3] and human activities.^[4]"

https://medium.com/@worstonlinedater/tinder-experiments-ii-guys-unless-you-are-really-hot-you-are-probably-better-off-not-wasting-your-2ddf370a6e9a

In reality, the bottom 80% of men are fighting over the bottom 22% of women and the top 78% of women are fighting over the top 20% of men.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/68–95–99.7_rule

Compare the % of men within +1.5 to 2 standard deviations away from whatever mean you choose from whatever study and that normally puts the recreational penis in the 7"+ range.

 

5 hours ago, uptight outasight said:

There can be no doubt that when determining size status among men, flaccid is what counts.  When men see me retracted in the locker room, no doubt they can't help but think I have a micro penis and/or perhaps totally incapable of sex.

In bed with a woman, there is a definite handicap, but not that extreme.

Look out! You're running a real risk of being taken for a "damn kweer". Men don't care about such things.

 

1 hour ago, Reality said:

They pretty much only included studies that excluded at least some small men. And they still came up with 5". 

The real average will be below 5", that's almost certain. 6" is completely unrealistic.

Even if this is true (and I don't think it is because of the sample sets they habitually use - that's where the error creeps in) it's still nothing more than a psychological exercise of ego preservation for the reasons I've listed above. The resentment felt among the vast majority of average and below average men is what created the incel community and the broader manosphere in general.

[Klingsor]

A collection of all the major penis size studies on one webpage. I'm trying to get access to the Ponchietti paper; the abstract said it found significant correlations between penis size and height/weight.

https://penissizestudies.wordpress.com/studies/

[Reality]

2 hours ago, Klingsor said:

and that normally puts the recreational penis in the 7"+ range.

Yeah, that's pretty far from reality. Women's preferences average out at around 6" even with 3D models. Which is still above average, but even with 5" you are good to go with the vast majority if you set it up right. The shaming is a problem but overestimating everything doesn't make it better.

2 hours ago, Klingsor said:

the abstract said it found significant correlations between penis size and height/weight.

Yes. In the meta-analysis you will find at least one study for every correlation you can dream of. Almost . I don't see how that would change anything though.

3 hours ago, Klingsor said:

Even if this is true (and I don't think it is because of the sample sets they habitually use - that's where the error creeps in)

You're free to believe whatever you want. Nonetheless, getting confident is a big step in the right direction and for many accepting the facts would be more comforting than desperately trying to make up evidence for ridiculous size preference claims. 

 

 

[Klingsor]

1 hour ago, Reality said:

Yeah, that's pretty far from reality.

Based on what? 
 

1 hour ago, Reality said:

Yes. In the meta-analysis you will find at least one study for every correlation you can dream of.

In other words these studies are useless. What I’ve said all along.

 

1 hour ago, Reality said:

Nonetheless, getting confident is a big step in the right direction

TOP DEFINITION

 

big dick energy

confidence without cockiness. it is never misplaced and it cannot be simulated. it is the sexual equivalent of writing a check for $10k knowing you got it in the bank account.
 

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=big+dick+energy

 

 

 

@Reality Are you a female by any chance? I am strongly getting that vibration (vibe).

[Reality]

3 hours ago, Klingsor said:

Based on what? 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4558040/

Some of their claims are absolute BS due to Methology (e.g. if women can remeber the size). The preference seems kind of legit tho. Note that it doesn't say 6.3+. 

Additionally, you did not provide any evidence that the 80-20 rule could be applied to penis size.

3 hours ago, Klingsor said:

In other words these studies are useless. What I’ve said all along.

Don't know why you would try to get access to one of these useless studies then though. There does not seem to be any notable and reproducable correlation. And if there was. If you look at the visualization of correlation you see that it would still be of no real use, far too inaccurate. 

3 hours ago, Klingsor said:

Are you a female by any chance? I am strongly getting that vibration (vibe).

Last time I got that vibe was before i lost weight and got DHT, as I could finger my penis into my fatpad like a vagina. 

No, I am actually not female, but you probably won't believe me as long as I don't agree with you. 

May it be possible that not everyone who doesn't agree with you does so just because he doesn't understand you?

 

[Klingsor]

.

[Klingsor]

@Reality

You’re right, I’m sorry for being disputatious. My life is complete and utter shit so I get on here and spat with people because it can all be traced back to my shortcomings as a man. Like victim once said I’m on the shit side of the curve on everything. 

Anyway I apologize no genuine offense was intended.
 

 

[Wayless]

On 3/13/2020 at 8:40 AM, Reality said:

It overstates them for multiple reasons. 

First, even though you don't want to hear it, the stretched length average overstated the erect one in the biggest study to date. BUT in the studies where they measured both, erect length was in fact longer. 

Second, studies with 6" are often not only self-selected (as are all legal studies) but also self-measured. That's complete garbage by default. 

By the way, the study clearly states that around 10,000 out of the 15,000 men were not urology patients asked if they want to take part, but rather volunteers who took part just to get measured. Very accurate...

I've already said I'm significantly larger erect than stretched flaccid: as a % a lot!  Large guys, if larger erect, certainly can't be the same enormous % larger.  For instance, stretching to 7" and then turning out to be 7.5 or 8" erect is not a big % difference.  I don't mind hearing anything, BTW!

The survey I find most persuasive is the one I made as a sophmore (15 years old) in high school during mandatory showering for gym and swimming.  Swimming was most revealing as you had to stand in line for cleanliness inspection, nude with flimsy tank suit in hand.  There were about 60 males.  Almost all had dramatically larger flaccids than I ever developed except for a few like me who had delayed puberty and still looked like little boys. 

No, I cannot credit the idea that the average erection is under 5", though it could be 5-5.5". Those with semi's were clearly over that without being actually erect.  I didn't see any actual nude erections though.  A few were clearly visible under the cotton swim suits later when there were lines for diving and/or proving you could swim and looked enormous.

 

[Wayless]

23 hours ago, Klingsor said:

Look out! You're running a real risk of being taken for a "damn kweer". Men don't care about such things.

You are taken for a sub par man, or queer in the vernacular, if you display a small flaccid and/or are concerned.  Doesn't matter if you "look out" or not.  I've found that since you can't always avoid being seen, it is best to at least pretend you are not concerned. 

Can anyone not be concerned about being categorized in male peer groups as a low status male, maybe almost a female?

[Klingsor]

24 minutes ago, uptight outasight said:

You are taken for a sub par man, or queer in the vernacular, if you display a small flaccid and/or are concerned.  Doesn't matter if you "look out" or not.  I've found that since you can't always avoid being seen, it is best to at least pretend you are not concerned. 

Can anyone not be concerned about being categorized in male peer groups as a low status male, maybe almost a female?

I was being sarcastic. The usual response to concerns about flaccid size from men who want to deny or belittle the issue is “only homosexuals care about that”...”I’m not trying to have sex with a man”...”women can’t see your flaccid penis so it shouldn’t matter”....etc etc etc

[Wayless]

7 hours ago, Klingsor said:

I was being sarcastic. The usual response to concerns about flaccid size from men who want to deny or belittle the issue is “only homosexuals care about that”...”I’m not trying to have sex with a man”...”women can’t see your flaccid penis so it shouldn’t matter”....etc etc etc

And, in a sense, they are right.  If you feel inferior enough you might be submissive to men.

[Wayless]

On 3/14/2020 at 9:04 AM, uptight outasight said:

I've already said I'm significantly larger erect than stretched flaccid: as a % a lot!  Large guys, if larger erect, certainly can't be the same enormous % larger.  For instance, stretching to 7" and then turning out to be 7.5 or 8" erect is not a big % difference.  I don't mind hearing anything, BTW!

The survey I find most persuasive is the one I made as a sophmore (15 years old) in high school during mandatory showering for gym and swimming.  Swimming was most revealing as you had to stand in line for cleanliness inspection, nude with flimsy tank suit in hand.  There were about 60 males.  Almost all had dramatically larger flaccids than I ever developed except for a few like me who had delayed puberty and still looked like little boys. 

No, I cannot credit the idea that the average erection is under 5", though it could be 5-5.5". Those with semi's were clearly over that without being actually erect.  I didn't see any actual nude erections though, except for some of those still boyish.  A few were clearly visible under the cotton swim suits later when there were lines for diving and/or proving you could swim and looked enormous.

 

Another survey of mine was around a wild girl friend who had sex with old friends while I was there.  They were approx. 7-8" judging from their members in  her hand.  Also in a flea bag hotel when I indulged prostitution for a time.  The "girls" would lead the guys down the hall to the shared lavatory to wash.  Looked 6-7" by same method.  Another time, I was in a shower with a guy getting ready for a xxx massage.  He was 7"+ erect by the same method anticipating his massage?  I was in line after him.  Girls were giggling still about him when it was my turn.

[Klingsor]

1 hour ago, uptight outasight said:

And, in a sense, they are right.  If you feel inferior enough you might be submissive to men.

Ok.

[Klingsor]

On 3/14/2020 at 8:04 AM, uptight outasight said:

The survey I find most persuasive is the one I made as a sophmore (15 years old) in high school during mandatory showering for gym and swimming.  Swimming was most revealing as you had to stand in line for cleanliness inspection, nude with flimsy tank suit in hand.  There were about 60 males.  Almost all had dramatically larger flaccids than I ever developed except for a few like me who had delayed puberty and still looked like little boys. 

Can you provide a summary of the general composition of this group? Ethnic background, general location, socio-economic class, somatotypes, etc. Anything you recall.

 

On 3/14/2020 at 8:04 AM, uptight outasight said:

No, I cannot credit the idea that the average erection is under 5", though it could be 5-5.5". Those with semi's were clearly over that without being actually erect.  I didn't see any actual nude erections though.  A few were clearly visible under the cotton swim suits later when there were lines for diving and/or proving you could swim and looked enormous.

What caused them to have semi’s and erections do you think? That is normally considered a heretical accusation within the existing dogma of male sociality, an accusation of homosexuality. Were they homosexual?

[Wayless]

40 minutes ago, Klingsor said:

What caused them to have semi’s and erections do you think? That is normally considered a heretical accusation within the existing dogma of male sociality, an accusation of homosexuality. Were they homosexual?

It would just be a guess, but I think they were feeling superior and proud, though there were girls at the other end of the pool in tank suits which were very revealing.  At a primitive level, dominant homosexual feelings are not considered being gay or a sissy.

I had already learned to control my own arousal from earlier swimming pool experiences, but some of the other underdeveloped guy displayed tiny erections, I recall, and drew ridicule upon themselves to their consternation.  None of the normally developed  guys did except apparently under their suits.  Happened to me several years earlier during a middle school swimming outing--not pleasant.