Kinsley Penis Size Stats

[toulouse_lautrec]

I think they stats say it all.

At 4.25 inches, I'm at the 0.2% mark, 99% of adults have a larger erect penis than me.

Just shoot me now.

http://wwwu.edu.uni-klu.ac.at/amiklaut/dr_nick/answer19.htm

Edited October 4, 2011 by toulouse_lautrec

[Notdoneyet]

Just about all of us who are labeled "complainers" on this board fall below the bottom 5% in penile attributes.

One is left to wonder what sort of voodoo was used by a more recent study to label the average as being 5.1 inches.

I guess as long as a guy has "anything" at all to use when urinating, he will

be labeled ad "normal" by those who insist on political correctness.

[Karamazov]

Toulouse,

Do a little homework man. It is widely known that Kinsey's reasearch method's were less than adequate. When initially published his work was the first of its kind and was taken at its face value. However years later reputible scientists started looking closely at his findings.

What they found was unacceptable. One third of his samples were convicted sexual criminals in prison, while the majority were volunteers. Now you know that most guys who think they have a smaller member (like you and I) would not volunteer for a study like that. Moreover, almost all of these measurments listed WERE SENT IN ON A QUESTIONNAIRE!!! These guys weren't even physically measured. Come on man.

Additionally, scientists have tried to duplicate Kinsey's findings and failed. Perhaps his most famous statistic is that between 10 percent and 36 percent of men are homosexual. Subsequent studies have found the actual number to be between 1 percent and 3 percent. And some of the studies came from groups friendly to Kinsey, like the "pro-choice" Alan Guttmacher Institute.

In turn it did not take long for media and scientists to turn on Kinsey. His funder, the Rockefeller Foundation, kept pressuring him to get a professional statistician on his team, but he refused and eventually lost funding. Even they knew that his methods could not be called credible.

There are many reasons why Kinsey's findings became so popular but they manily have to do with popular culture and where are country was at during that era.

I'm sure your penis is below average, as is mine. But I have been able to overcome it and so can you if you believe you can.

[Karamazov]

No replies to this information. Only choosing to hear what fits our beliefs huh?

It's so obvious.

[gone]

Gotta agree with Karamazov.

The more I hear and read about Kinsey, the more I personally think he was a damn nut. His research, study subjects and findings were anything but pure and unflawed.

About the Kinsey Institute......I live in Southern Indiana. A friend at work has a son who goes to I.U. He was hired by the institute to work there as an 'on campus' job. My friend has toured there and said some of the things he seen were "really different".

He said his boy told him the slang for the institute was "the jack shack".

John

Edited October 15, 2011 by retr0john
Still can't spell

[Karamazov]

Yeah, I went to school at I.U. so we knew all about the Kinsey Institute. Actually had some classes in the building. It is said to hold the worlds second largest collection of pornography. Crazy.

[wirelan]

Really cool link. I really enjoyed it.

These are my results

Kinsey institute --- higher than average length, higher than average girth

UC San Francisco --- much higher than average length, slightly higher than average girth

Brazilian Urologist --- higher than average length, fairly higher than average girth

Verdict --- Definitely bigger than normal

Why am I here ---->

Because I have acute SPS. For some this may be due to comparison with the average. In my case it is due to comparison with larger individuals.

NOTE: My measurement of girth is based on girth at the base. This is as described by men's health magazine. There is a possible justification for this. A girl's vagina is most sensitive near the entrance, hence the penis is shaped in a rocket shape with girth highest at base and lowest at the tip. This is to facilitate easy penetration. Once you are totally inside, the base can then act to apply pressure at the opening when you go completely inside.

[Esruc]

I don't even register on the scale. How pathetic.

[Guest Klingsor]

I don't even register on the scale. How pathetic.

[Guest Klingsor]

Just about all of us who are labeled "complainers" on this board fall below the bottom 5% in penile attributes.

One is left to wonder what sort of voodoo was used by a more recent study to label the average as being 5.1 inches.

I guess as long as a guy has "anything" at all to use when urinating, he will

be labeled ad "normal" by those who insist on political correctness.

[Jessie]

I have explained in another thread why the Kinsey technique is the most reliable and trusted.

You must consider BP vs NBP

ALL studies have flaws

Your choice is nurse measurement, erector injections, self measurement, anonymous reporting, surveys, BP, NBP, stretching flaccid penises etc

They all carry potential errors.

For whites (so far the most studied) I think the AVE BP is 6.4x5 fully erect.

This is as a result of my own meta-analysis adjusting for flaws and techniques in those studies that do bother to report the details of their measurement choice.

I'm not saying one should not do a study on, for example, stretched flaccid penises- as long as you accept it will give a significantly lower value than the 'reality'

ps try it now- get a full erection and measure it BP then wait a few hours and measure if flaccid but stretched- see if they match.

For one or two of you it WILL match, but for most of you it will be noticeably shorter.

Kinsey had huge subject numbers, anonymity, a clever technique that involved marking a card and allowed for a full erection under strict instructions for measurement protocol.

The results gave a plausible distribution and matches many other surveys like the large Lifstyle condom survey where business interests dictate they need accuracy.

It annoys when people peddle false hope- Kinsey is probably the most reliable source to date- and remember his data is BP! not NBP

[Guest Klingsor]

.

[Guest Klingsor]

.

[Jessie]

Well, we've been through this before, and we're obviously not going to agree - which is cool.

(But Kinsley really is not taken seriously by many people anymore - certainly not in the light of newer and more reliable studies. Honestly Jessie, try contacting urologists, army doctors, etc - folks who have seen lots of penises in their time; see how many of them would agree with his figures...)

Edit:

This isn't just about penis size, either. Kinsley was behind all sorts of weird things like the laughable assertion that 1 in 10 men are homosexual.

On the contrary many uk urologists and indeed our NHS quote Kinsey all time.

There have been NEWER studies sure but they are more UNRELIABLE for the reasons I have mentioned above.

Hell, I read one article from just 10 years ago that used to calculate erect averages based on a regression equation applied to FLACCID measurements.

Ludicrously unreliable.

You think he was weird?- I dunno- maybe he was or maybe not, but either way that doesnt mean his methodology or maths was wrong.

If you can isolate an actual FLAW in the method, the data or the conclusions then fine- but to date no-one has.

As to homosexuality, 1 in 10 seems perfectly plausible- I have I heard 1 in 20 and also heard 1in 5.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/dollars-and-sex/201310/homosexuality-is-more-prevalent-we-might-have-thought

[Jessie]

Another important point about the reliability (or otherwise) of Kinsley is that his results weren't replicated in other independent studies. On the other hand, the results of the more recent studies do broadly agree.

Didnt you read my bit about his results agreeing with the Lifestyle condoms research?

Even official meta analysis published in journals say 6 x 5

which is only 0.4 inch shorter than his.

Its true SOME put it at 5.1or 5.6 but they are the lower end of the estimates and often publish sketchy details of protocol or none at all ( and when they do its under circumstances where erection quality is compromised.)

And critically some skim over the issue of whether the measurements are BP or NBP.

[Jessie]

Kinsley certainly is not taken as official wisdom by (heaven help us!) the NHS. Just isn't true, Jessie. I simply don't agree that the newer studies are unreliable - but we aren't going to agree about that. Cool.

I think this whole 'bone-pressed' versus 'non bone-pressed' is muddying the waters a lot. I think we are often referring to rather different real terms values, because (as I've said before) I would regard bone-pressed as being an artificially enhanced measurement. So 8" for you might be 7" (or less?) on my scale. I really don't know.

Let's not get into homosexuality - different topic entirely. (I personally regard 1 in 10 as a laughably inflated figure, but hey, whatever.)

Well they are. Some of the nhsdirect help articles refer to his data.

And the Kinsey institute is still one of the largest sex education sources in the world and they still use the original data.

This hyperbole of guys exaggerating when self measuring for surveys has not a shred of evidence behind it and the nurse measured or extrapolation or stretched surveys are laughable.

Are you honestly saying you can achieve MAXIMUM erection when a doctor or nurse is holding a ruler next to your cock?- is that SERIOUSLY what you are suggesting?

Nurse measured surveys are on non maximum erect penises and are NBP so of COURSE they will be under the true mean.

Its bizarre you regard BP as 'artificially enhanced' as that is the MEDICAL STANDARD for measuring size.

Its the maximum inserted length when the fat pad is scrunched up.

Its the standard that Kinsey used. This issue is side stepped when certain studies are announced so they can make a certain % of men feel better about themselves.

But its BS- its non scientific and ultimatley "muddies the waters" - which is ironic given thats what you accuse me of.

But look… happy to be proved wrong… why dont you set up a survey here asking guys to compare their erect length to their stretched flaccid length?

And if turns out that 10 of 10 guys have the same size with the 2 techniques then you will have vindicated at least 2 of the 'newer surveys' you think are so superior.

You may think 1 in 10 is laughable but I hope you accept the evidence I posted above does somewhat suggest you are mistaken.

And there is no shame in being wrong of course.

But there is shame in blinding insisting on something when there is abundant and reliable evidence to the contrary.

[Resolute]

jessie and roger,

i think none of the methods are reliable to be honest.

i mean stretched flaccid length is obviously unreliable. self reporting also unreliable, even if subjects are "tricked" into thinking it's not a survey about size.

and nurse measurements will also have problems in achieving maximum erect size.

[Jessie]

resolute you are right- there is POTENTIAL for error in all of these studies.

But I would venture the following:

the error with nurse or stretching is guaranteed to underestimate the average.

Given the 4000 men in Kinsey's had to simply mark a card and were posting an anonymous envelope its POSSIBLE they exaggerated but I suggest very unlikely.

In addition- and this is just my own observation- its not science- I have heard so many women say "5 is way too small" or 'the average is only 5 to 6? Really?" etc etc

Go onto you tube when they ask girls what the average is and lots say 6 or 7 apart from a handful who say they 'read somewhere' its 5 to 6.

They cannot all be right- there is smoke and mirrors going on.

Another example is the UCLA study showing 84% of women to be happy with their partners size- and then HUNDREDS of sites wordwide then idiotically saying this PROVES SIZE DOES NOT MATTER! (even the NHS does this!)

Jeez its like they are trying to be stupid…

[Resolute]

resolute you are right- there is POTENTIAL for error in all of these studies.

But I would venture the following:

the error with nurse or stretching is guaranteed to underestimate the average.

Given the 4000 men in Kinsey's had to simply mark a card and were posting an anonymous envelope its POSSIBLE they exaggerated but I suggest very unlikely.

In addition- and this is just my own observation- its not science- I have heard so many women say "5 is way too small" or 'the average is only 5 to 6? Really?" etc etc

Go onto you tube when they ask girls what the average is and lots say 6 or 7 apart from a handful who say they 'read somewhere' its 5 to 6.

They cannot all be right- there is smoke and mirrors going on.

Another example is the UCLA study showing 84% of women to be happy with their partners size- and then HUNDREDS of sites wordwide then idiotically saying this PROVES SIZE DOES NOT MATTER! (even the NHS does this!)

Jeez its like they are trying to be stupid…

you can't put too much weight on what women say jessie, most of them don't know what a 5" penis or 6,7,8 etc. is, let alone bp, nbp and so on. and don't even think of using that dollar bill example or anything of the sort, they "prove" nothing.

don't forget that we both agree that women prefer above average, regardless of what average actually is; so taking that into consideration, and the fact (or presumption) that bigger guys get around way more than average or small guys, we may be able to conclude that many of these women might confuse their ideal size with what is average, while still maintaining that most of them don't actually know what their ideal size is in numbers,figures,measurements etc., and is more of an estimation than actual data, and very inaccurate estimations at that.

[Jessie]

@Jessie

As regards getting a maximum erection with a doctor or nurse present, sure, when I was 18-21 I reckon I could almost certainly have done it! At that age I only needed to THINK the word "pussy" to go totally CRAZY down there! (Aren't all guys like that when they are young?) And it was precisely young guys - college students - who took part in the Lifestyle study.

But there is another problem with studies where the measurement is done by medical staff: guys who are above average are possibly disproportionately more likely to volunteer for something like this; while guys who are significantly below average are...well...are even 10% of them going to volunteer? Honestly? Result: the average is almost certainly artificially boosted to some degree.

That's why the most compelling study is the most recent one where guys self-measured, but did so under the blind of piloting custom fit condoms.

Still, I see that it is very important to you (for some reason) to assume the highest possible average...so...well...okay...

Have a nice evening! :-)

An abstract thought of a pretty nurse touching your penis…yeah I get why that might APPEAR arousing… but in the cold reality of a matronly nurse with surgical gloves in a crappy tent somewhere - handling your equipment… quite another matter.

This is why HALF of the guys who did a well known nurse measured survey could not get erect despite using magazines and masturbation.

Of the half that DID mange to be erect what % was MAXIMUM? 50% 25% 1% ?

We will never know- I would be astonished if it was above 10%.

Im not sure if it was female nurses or male nurses and where they measured and what protocols were in place.

Poor science- sorry- but there it is.

- Self selection theory? nope- the guys were approached though there was a different survey about guys who has opted for enlargement surgery- they were self selecting and had an average BP of 5.4 inches - most of which experienced ridicule and rejection from women

- the condom survey came up with 5.9 x 5 if I recall (but I dont think it specified BP or NBP)

-Its not about me wanting there to be the HIGHEST value- I just want the most REALISTIC value.

[Resolute]

the best methodology would be hot undercover nurses (tens of thousands) having sex with many random guys and "casually" taking accurate measurements at very specific moments.

very unlikely and difficult, but hey, it's the only way.

[Jessie]

@Jessie

I think the point about self selection, is not so much on the plus side as on the minus side of average.

Is someone who is insecure about penis size really going to volunteer to be measured for a penis size survey? Or at least, is he going to be as likely to do so as guys who are average or above? Well, we don't know, but it does seem rather unlikely...

As regards enlargement surgery, you just need to email some reputable urologists, Jessie. They will quickly tell you that 9 out of 10 people wanting these dangerous (and not very effective procedures) are entirely and completely normal - in some cases even above average size to begin with!

I've said it before, but I think there need to be separate areas to help/support guys with SPS and then guys with 'actual small penis'. It's hard to help people who have a purely psychological problem without inadvertently causing pain to guys who are struggling with an actual physical disability, IMO.

1. Yes thats a possible dynamic- but we can't judge because the details of the protocol are so vague or scarce.

2. Yes I know, but the study I mentioned had a survey response from the men and although their average was 5.4 the majority had experienced rejection over size and were the smallest of their peers to the best of their knowledge

3. I agree with the SP/SPS and therefore I think its important we have a fair idea of where that divide is!

The UCLA study is pretty clear -14% (the EXACT number who are 1sd under average) have partners unsatisfied with their size.

THATS the science- so you need to know where the average is.

[Guest Klingsor]

.

[Resolute]

The point here is that the qualitative determination has been made before any measurement is taken which most closely matches the real world - as some are so fond of pointing out, nobody has a ruler to measure a dick when they see one in the bedroom or locker room. And as I have averred numerous times, I am convinced it's the visual impact of size that matters more than the actual size.

This seems so ludicrously obvious that I often wonder if I'm missing something by design.

most guys aren't rejected because their penis "looks" small, usually because it feels small during intercourse; but you'd have to ask jessie for more info.

[Guest Klingsor]

.