Do women love big cocks more?

[Poetryinmotionxo]

Girth is more important. Feeling stretched and full.

 

[SlutAddicted]

I have only cited the things that I have observed from purely anecdotal observation. I haven't claimed it to be scientific or statistically significant. And to the extent that I have observed correlation I have not claimed that to be causation.

Although there is quite a bit of statistical data that does note moderate differences between ethnic groups. And that is taken directly from the studies themselves with proper methodologies and no further distortion (such as the subjectivity and confirmation bias introduced by the aggregation of data by a website intent on assuaging male insecurity).

In any event, nobody needs to mansplain the use of a measuring tape to me. I am quite adept at their usage and can well tell the difference between 6" and 9". So I have made the point that assuming the dataset is accurate for the population as a whole and recognizing that I know my own experience then there must be a difference in the datasets. That stands to reason. I know of no woman whose dating pool is men randomly selected from the entire population.

All I have done is observe some of the differences between my dataset and the population as a whole in a very unscientific and anecdotal way. There may be many other things that I am missing. And the relevance of the things that I have observed may be overstated or understated. But the difference is real (and yes I have actually measured enough according to the supposed proper procedure to have actual reference points). That doesn't go away because some men want to believe that an 8" penis is rarer than unicorn semen for whatever reason.

I find the statistical argument a bit strained.

First you have to assess the validity of the data. There are established methodologies to gathering and analyzing data and standards as to whether or not it is truly objective and representative. Many studies do not achieve the standard of being truly objective and representative. But even if they do, no source beyond the original source can be trusted to actually represent that data accurately. Our world is full of people drawing conclusions from statistically significant data and implying (incorrectly) that their conclusion is just as valid as the underlying data.

Obviously in this context a question would be whether or not CalcSD is itself a source that can be trusted. Claiming to be based upon other credible sources is not adequate. The efficacy of those sources does not mean that they have interpreted and expressed those sources properly. Sorry but the raison d'être seems to be to advance a particular point of view that is to not only dispel myths but also to create a particular narrative.

Sorry guys but if you are out here trying to tell people that you have big dick because it is 6.5", you are full of shit and you aren't kidding anybody except the women with modest expectations. You are slightly above average.

From where I sit porn obviously creates a false perception. But the notion that a 7" cock is super rare and will hurt every woman's cervix is a ridiculous premise concocted to make some men feel good. Reality won't change by finding a stat to support your narrative.

 

[jays78]

Girth is more important. Feeling stretched and full.

I’m thick

 

[LMWM321]

First you have to assess the validity of the data. There are established methodologies to gathering and analyzing data and standards as to whether or not it is truly objective and representative. Many studies do not achieve the standard of being truly objective and representative. But even if they do, no source beyond the original source can be trusted to actually represent that data accurately. Our world is full of people drawing conclusions from statistically significant data and implying (incorrectly) that their conclusion is just as valid as the underlying data.

Wait a minute…..

So, instead of believing the conclusions from a published, scientific, peer-reviewed study of >15,000 participants, we are to instead believe the anecdotal accounts of people on a kink website?

And why? Because the male researchers involved in the study are naturally inclined to fudge the numbers just a bit to ease their egos? Sorry, that seems ridiculous. For one, it ignores the fact that several of the credited researchers were women. Are you suggesting they would wittingly sign their names to an erroneous study JUST BECAUSE they know that men are sensitive about dick length? ..I work in Pharma and know many women involved with clinical research. ..Trust me, not one of them would sign their name to a bad study just to be nice to men. Please.

The FAR more likely explanation for the discrepancy b/w the studies and anecdotal accounts is that most people - women too! - over-estimate penis size. My guess is there are 3 reasons for this. 1) They DON’T have actual rulers with them. 2) When they do measure, they tend to measure from the angle that maximizes the result - e.g., from side or bottom instead of the top of the shaft. 3) They are inclined to overstate by rounding up. To wit: Have you noticed that nearly every penis described here on literotica - by men and women - seems to conveniently measure to the whole or half-inch? ...Not 1/16, 1/8, or even 1/4 - but 1/2"? That alone tells you people aren't interested in measuring carefully.

The other assertion being made is that some women - perhaps because of their powerfully alluring pheromones - ATTRACT guys with bigger dicks, so that is why the average cock in their world tends to be much longer than the 5.1"."

Sorry, but that too seems utterly redic.

 

[luvclassics]

The same goes for guys 3 identical women standing naked side by side I bet the biggest boobs are picked

There aren’t many that I would turn down but If I had to choose, a B or C cup would set my world on fire.

 

[SlutAddicted]

Wait a minute…..

So, instead of believing the conclusions from a published, scientific, peer-reviewed study of >15,000 participants, we are to instead believe the anecdotal accounts of people on a kink website?

And why? Because the male researchers involved in the study are naturally inclined to fudge the numbers just a bit to ease their egos? Sorry, that seems ridiculous. For one, it ignores the fact that several of the credited researchers were women. Are you suggesting they would wittingly sign their names to an erroneous study JUST BECAUSE they know that men are sensitive about dick length? ..I work in Pharma and know many women involved with clinical research. ..Trust me, not one of them would sign their name to a bad study just to be nice to men. Please.

The FAR more likely explanation for the discrepancy b/w the studies and anecdotal accounts is that most people - women too! - over-estimate penis size. My guess is there are 3 reasons for this. 1) They DON’T have actual rulers with them. 2) When they do measure, they tend to measure from the angle that maximizes the result - e.g., from side or bottom instead of the top of the shaft. 3) They are inclined to overstate by rounding up. To wit: Have you noticed that nearly every penis described here on literotica - by men and women - seems to conveniently measure to the whole or half-inch? ...Not 1/16, 1/8, or even 1/4 - but 1/2"? That alone tells you people aren't interested in measuring carefully.

The other assertion being made is that some women - perhaps because of their powerfully alluring pheromones - ATTRACT guys with bigger dicks, so that is why the average cock in their world tends to be much longer than the 5.1"."

Sorry, but that too seems utterly redic.

Nice try but CalcSD didn’t do any peer reviewed studies of its own. By its own admission it is a “lightweight” website that has drawn selectively from studies done by others claiming to know which were biased and which were not. Exactly as I described falsely ascribing the same efficacy to their selection criteria as might be ascribed to any given peer reviewed study of which there are many that result in a range of different conclusions. But you go right on believing that anybody who has a different experience than what you choose to believe must be incapable of using a measuring tape. Just how much insecurity had to be involved to try to create a website to regurgitate a version of someone else’s research that will make men feel less insecure about their penis size? Oh I guess you see it in the mirror.

 

[ParkerSteve66]

Dear you can see my breasts but I don’t enjoy them much unless they’re played with , they are more than just visual adds for new boyfriends lol

You definitely have very nice breasts. I would thoroughly enjoy playing with them.

 

[LMWM321]

Nice try but CalcSD didn’t do any peer reviewed studies of its own.

Yes, of course CalcSD didn't do peer reviews - it's not a clinical study. ..It's a website that contains a percentile calculator that polls data sources which ARE peer-reviewed and respected clinical studies.

Look, if you want to believe that a 6.5" (properly measured!) dick is just average, fine... that's your perorgative. ..But you'd be taking the position that all those who've empirically studied the question are to be doubted. And why? ..You suggested it's because they are part of some large conspiracy to assuage men's delicate egos.

As for your last remark, it's a shame you're making this personal. Just to remind you, I'm not someone with a small penis trying to convince the world it's not. On the contrary, as I stated early in the thread, I'm someone with a HUGE penis telling people having a big dick does more to interfere with sexual enjoyment than enhance it.

 

[whenagain]

yes it absolutely is!! for me, thicker the better!!

Now you need to start commenting on all the size matters and Sph threads. . .

 

[SlutAddicted]

Yes, of course CalcSD didn't do peer reviews - it's not a clinical study! ..It's merely a website that contains a percentile calculator that draws on data sources which ARE peer-reviewed and respected clinical studies.

Look, if you want to believe that a 6.5" (properly measured!) dick is just average, fine... that's your perorgative. ..But you'd be taking the position that all those who've empirically studied the question are to be doubted. And why? ..You suggested it's because they are part of some large conspiracy to assuage men's delicate egos.

As for your last remark, it's a shame you're making this personal. Just to remind you, I'm not someone with a small penis trying to convince the world it's not. On the contrary, as I stated early in the thread, I'm someone with a HUGE penis telling people having a big dick does more to interfere with sexual enjoyment than enhance it.

I didn't say I think a 6.5" penis is average. Everything that I have seen or read suggests it is somewhere around 5.25" +/- which is pretty consistent with what that website indicates. But most of the studies I have seen also suggest a wider normal distribution and differences across sample regions (which in many of those regions by definition involve ethnic differences). That includes peer reviewed studies and less rigorous studies.

What I have said is that the website you reference has taken it upon themselves to decide which peer reviewed studies are the most valid and accordingly asserted several more conclusions beyond simply what is average.

That is generally not the way science works. Even rigorous peer reviewed studies will sometimes come to different conclusions than other rigorous peer reviewed studies because neither rigorous testing methods nor peer review equal perfection or even perfectly representative. But each new study adds to the body of knowledge. We don't just throw out what came before.

The differences also give rise to legitimate inquiry as to why results differed - such as measurement technique. But until those factors can be studied and proven they are just speculation and not sufficient grounds to conclude that this one study is more valid than all of the others.

So, let's excavate that rationale a bit further. If the studies referenced by this website consistently arrived at a shorter length than earlier studies which were assumed to have less rigorous measurement methodologies that would seem to be a likely conclusion (not proven nor scientifically valid, but logical). But unless I missed something that isn't what happened. The noted studies came up with an average very similar to previous studies so on average presumably they all used a roughly comparable measurement methodology. However, the previous studies noted a wider distribution of cock sizes and a low but not insignificant correlation with ethnicity. So, was it only the XL, XS and outlier ethnicities that measured incorrectly?

So, what you really have is a range of studies that came to modestly different conclusions with primary differences as near as I can see being in how tight the distribution of cock sizes is and the correlation with ethnicity. The people who carried out this study have some thoughts on why their conclusions were modestly different than past studies, but no scientific evidence.

If this were global warming and a new study came out that said it isn't real and we don't know why we came to a different conclusion than the previous studies, but here are a couple of thoughts would we say oh well never mind all that carbon reduction stuff? No we wouldn't be willing to readily jettison earlier studies. And we certainly wouldn't be relying upon amateur statisticians to decide which study to heed. And we would damn sure be looking into who did the study and who is advocating its pre-eminence including any underlying motivation they might have. We would look at all f those factors and add it to the body of knowledge.

Is this as important as global warming? No of course not. But sensitivity about penis size is a thing that affects both men and women. And in many ways it affects women more. Men deal with their (largely self-imposed) insecurity, but women deal with the consequences of sensitive insecure men.

What has occurred here is a classic example of moderately knowledgeable people distorting scientific results. They misconstrue the core results as being perfect when even the most rigorous methods are not perfect unless we we are dealing with isolated chemicals in a laboratory as opposed to human beings. The, more importantly, we take everything that scientists and others extrapolate or conclude from those test results to be just as scientifically rigorous as the results themselves which is entirely inappropriate.

As near as I can tell all sources agree that the average is 5.25" +/- and all sources agree that a penis over 7" is comparatively rare (some say 3%, some say <1%). Likewise we have some studies that suggest that ethnicity has a minor correlation with penis size while others say there is none. Nobody is saying every black man has a 12" cock or even that 6.5" is the average for all men. All the data fits within a fairly narrow band, which leads to a useful body of knowledge. But creating a website to distort things just enough so that a dude with a 6.5" cock can tell the world how huge he is? That would merely be sad if it didn't help enable insecure guys to channel that insecurity into negative emotions towards women.

 

[policywank]

For some guys it is never enough. I have consistently said that the porn representation of black guys is obviously overdone and at most there appears to be a very modest difference in size - no not good enough we must find the one study that says there is no difference whatsoever and make that the gold standard. I have consistently said that larger guys are far more rare than many people would like to believe but yet they are out there and no they are not as rare as unicorns - no not good enough, we must find a study that anything over 8" is all but non-existent and guys with 6.5" can now claim to be XL. I have consistently said that size doesn't matter anywhere near as much as guys worry but yes it can be different - no not good enough I had some guys try to mansplain to me how a vagina works and why the only nerves that matter are in the clitoris or characterize the vagina as a fixed 3" deep box (against all scientific knowledge). And I have consistently said that the stated average in the low 5"s seems about right but no woman draws her dates randomly from the worldwide pool of men and that some women do seek larger men and that some larger men do seek certain women and it is no great mystery that we manage to find each other - not not good enough that is some fairy tale driven by imaginary pheromones because presumably against all logic every date for a woman is a purely random role of the dice.

I used to think of the penis size discussion as primarily a matter of male insecurity. In that context my attitude was that it was best to be compassionate and supportive as long as men didn't try to compel me to lie to them. But more and more I see it as going beyond insecurity. It is one of the many areas where guys confuse no longer being able to compel women to comply with having something taken away from them - technically losing the ability to control others is losing something, but something you didn't deserve to have in the first place. Meanwhile lots of men don't just want to feel adequate, they want to find a means of presenting themselves as better than other men or the object of female desire. I suppose that on some level insecurity underlies all of that behaviour, but it can quickly turn from seeking reassurance and validation to being negative and narcissistic.

Reality is that some of us like bigger dicks and we find them. And all of us have a preferred size even if it is modest. No study will change those realities.

 

[LMWM321]

As near as I can tell all sources agree that the average is 5.25" +/- and all sources agree that a penis over 7" is comparatively rare (some say 3%, some say <1%). Likewise we have some studies that suggest that ethnicity has a minor correlation with penis size while others say there is none. Nobody is saying every black man has a 12" cock or even that 6.5" is the average for all men. All the data fits within a fairly narrow band, which leads to a useful body of knowledge. But creating a website to distort things just enough so that a dude with a 6.5" cock can tell the world how huge he is? That would merely be sad if it didn't help enable insecure guys to channel that insecurity into negative emotions towards women.

I largely agree with the above part of your post; the rest, I have trouble following - sorry. So let's at least be happy about what we agree on.

But I don't believe, as you seem to suggest, that CalcSD was motivated by a desire to boost the delicate egos of men . I think he's a data geek who enjoyed devising a very clever meta-analysis calculator. ..Simple as that.

For what's it worth, my own board-certified Urologist (65 yrs. old, so he's seen thousands of penises) has said that differences in penis size b/w racial groups is not supported by his own experience or available studies. He said that Asians have very slightly smaller penis because they tend to also be shorter people. And penis length DOES correlate with body length, but only slightly. Something like 1/10" of penis length for every add'l 3" of body height. But a group of 5'10" asian men will tend to have the same average penis size as a group of 5'10" black men.

He's summed it up by saying, "If black men had longer penises wouldn't black women have deeper vaginas? ..They would, but they don't." (sorry, i've edited this last comment few times as I've tried to recall more precisely what he said.)

 

[LMWM321]

For some guys it is never enough.

You're trying to debunk actual empirical studies by citing your own anecdotal experience. I'm sorry but that's not how science works. ..And accusing men of mansplaining isn't a very compelling response, nor is it very fair. As for your continued insistence that black men have "modestly" bigger dicks, see the above remark from my Urologist. ...No matter how many penises you've seen in your life, I doubt it compares w/ a 65 yr. old Urologist.

No one is criticizing you for preferring big dicks. ...That's is as much your right as it is my right to prefer woman with small feet, big breasts, or a big butt. It is what it is.

But saying that you attract men w/ big dicks or that you have a way of knowing from a man's vibe whether or not they are bigger than average is, well, hard to believe.

And no one said an 8" dick is as rare as a unicorn, they are definitely out there. ..Just take a look at porn set or a Chippendales cast (male strippers). But that is a self-selected group b/c a big dick is a key differentiator of who does/ does not pursue that line of work, or gets the job. If there are 90,000,000 men in America b/w 25-60, and an 8" penis occurs 1/1000, that's 90,000 men w/ 8" or longer penis. So YES, they exist. and outnumber unicorns 90,000 - to - 0.

And as I've said, I have one - though I wish I didn't.

 

[policywank]

You're trying to debunk actual empirical studies by citing your own anecdotal experience. I'm sorry but that's not how science works. ..And accusing men of mansplaining isn't a very compelling response, nor is it very fair. As for your continued insistence that black men have "modestly" bigger dicks, see the above remark from my Urologist. ...No matter how many penises you've seen in your life, I doubt it compares w/ a 65 yr. old Urologist.

No one is criticizing you for preferring big dicks. ...That's is as much your right as it is my right to prefer woman with small feet, big breasts, or a big butt. It is what it is.

But saying that you attract men w/ big dicks or that you have a way of knowing from a man's vibe whether or not they are bigger than average is, well, hard to believe.

And no one said an 8" dick is as rare as a unicorn, they are definitely out there. ..Just take a look at porn set or a Chippendales cast (male strippers). But that is a self-selected group b/c a big dick is a key differentiator of who does/ does not pursue that line of work, or gets the job. If there are 90,000,000 men in America b/w 25-60, and an 8" penis occurs 1/1000, that's 90,000 men w/ 8" or longer penis. So YES, they exist. and outnumber unicorns 90,000 - to - 0.

And as I've said, I have one - though I wish I didn't.

I am not trying to debunk empirical studies. I am making much the same point as SlutAddicted, which is that the site your refer to is making selective use of statistics. I have observed studies (yes statistically significant and peer reviewed) that indicate that about 3% of men worldwide have a penis over 7" and about 1% are over 8" - rare but not as rare as what you or that site are saying. There are also studies that do indicate statistically significant differences in size by region including regions which are overwhelmingly ethnically homogenous and the differences do not all seem to correlate to height or other body dimensions (see there I am making an assumption which I cannot say for sure is supported by the statistics so I am expressing it as such rather than confusing the efficacy of hard data with my or anyone else's subjective interpretation of it).

Further to what SlutAddicted noted all scientific study is based upon large and evolving bodies of work from multiple sources. You and the site you cite seem to be picking one study or group of studies then offering up non-scientific and unproven speculation as to why it has greater efficacy and therefore should supersede all others - sorry but that is not how science works.

As for your urologist now you are deviating from supposed scientific rigour. He/she is a person who's patients are all or virtually all men with problems with their reproductive organs (very few people go to a specialist just for the hell of it) - so not a representative sample - and he/she is citing anecdotal observation not scientifically derived evidence. Meanwhile he/she is a medical professional being asked by a man who is himself experiencing some issue with his reproductive organs. That is like asking a sex therapist if size matters. They will immediately say no, but they don't mean that literally. They know damn well that a micro penis or a giant penis will have an impact on pleasure from vaginal penetration, but they are conditioned to say no because that is what their patient needs to hear.

Frankly, the idea that a 65 year old urologist has insight into the lived sexual experience of an attractive woman is far more ridiculous than the notion that I can identify a man with a big dick. And on that topic I did not say it was only about his vibe. I don't claim to have ESP. What I said was that there are a number of different markers, none of which are compelling or predictive on their own but which taken together seem to have a very moderate predictive efficacy. That is how sophisticated statistics work by the way - one can run a regression on multiple factors and determine that even if no one factor has a statistically significant correlation several taken together do. More importantly I stated that nobody I know of dates on the basis of just taking random chance. When we find what we like we return to him/her.

In no way and at no time have I suggested that my anecdotal observations should be taken as more valid than scientific research. What I have said is: 1) you are being selective with references to scientific research thereby asserting an artificially low frequency; and 2) while there are no good "clothes on" predictors of large cocks it isn't completely and utterly random so there are some things that a woman can look for which will help her increase her chances even a little bit; and 3) nobody dates randomly from the dating pool of all members of the opposite sex.

There is a great saying about lies attributed to Mark Twain. "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies and statistics." It refers to the notion that statistics have persuasive powers even when used inappropriately. Sometimes that involves selective use of statistics - citing the only the ones that fit most favourably to one's point of view. Sometimes it involves overlooking the margin of error that exists in all such analysis. Sometimes it involves confusing the efficacy of a given set of data with subjective inference one might take from the data and trying to ascribe the same efficacy to the inference as to the data. And sometimes it involves inaccurately conflating the data set used for the statistical analysis with the data set relevant to a given situation and inappropriately assuming the normal distribution for the first data set applies to the second data set. I'm sure I can think of some more ways that people misuse statistics, but those are just the ones that are clearly evident here.

 

[ParkerSteve66]

I am not trying to debunk empirical studies. I am making much the same point as SlutAddicted, which is that the site your refer to is making selective use of statistics. I have observed studies (yes statistically significant and peer reviewed) that indicate that about 3% of men worldwide have a penis over 7" and about 1% are over 8" - rare but not as rare as what you or that site are saying. There are also studies that do indicate statistically significant differences in size by region including regions which are overwhelmingly ethnically homogenous and the differences do not all seem to correlate to height or other body dimensions (see there I am making an assumption which I cannot say for sure is supported by the statistics so I am expressing it as such rather than confusing the efficacy of hard data with my or anyone else's subjective interpretation of it).

Further to what SlutAddicted noted all scientific study is based upon large and evolving bodies of work from multiple sources. You and the site you cite seem to be picking one study or group of studies then offering up non-scientific and unproven speculation as to why it has greater efficacy and therefore should supersede all others - sorry but that is not how science works.

As for your urologist now you are deviating from supposed scientific rigour. He/she is a person who's patients are all or virtually all men with problems with their reproductive organs (very few people go to a specialist just for the hell of it) - so not a representative sample - and he/she is citing anecdotal observation not scientifically derived evidence. Meanwhile he/she is a medical professional being asked by a man who is himself experiencing some issue with his reproductive organs. That is like asking a sex therapist if size matters. They will immediately say no, but they don't mean that literally. They know damn well that a micro penis or a giant penis will have an impact on pleasure from vaginal penetration, but they are conditioned to say no because that is what their patient needs to hear.

Frankly, the idea that a 65 year old urologist has insight into the lived sexual experience of an attractive woman is far more ridiculous than the notion that I can identify a man with a big dick. And on that topic I did not say it was only about his vibe. I don't claim to have ESP. What I said was that there are a number of different markers, none of which are compelling or predictive on their own but which taken together seem to have a very moderate predictive efficacy. That is how sophisticated statistics work by the way - one can run a regression on multiple factors and determine that even if no one factor has a statistically significant correlation several taken together do. More importantly I stated that nobody I know of dates on the basis of just taking random chance. When we find what we like we return to him/her.

In no way and at no time have I suggested that my anecdotal observations should be taken as more valid than scientific research. What I have said is: 1) you are being selective with references to scientific research thereby asserting an artificially low frequency; and 2) while there are no good "clothes on" predictors of large cocks it isn't completely and utterly random so there are some things that a woman can look for which will help her increase her chances even a little bit; and 3) nobody dates randomly from the dating pool of all members of the opposite sex.

There is a great saying about lies attributed to Mark Twain. "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies and statistics." It refers to the notion that statistics have persuasive powers even when used inappropriately. Sometimes that involves selective use of statistics - citing the only the ones that fit most favourably to one's point of view. Sometimes it involves overlooking the margin of error that exists in all such analysis. Sometimes it involves confusing the efficacy of a given set of data with subjective inference one might take from the data and trying to ascribe the same efficacy to the inference as to the data. And sometimes it involves inaccurately conflating the data set used for the statistical analysis with the data set relevant to a given situation and inappropriately assuming the normal distribution for the first data set applies to the second data set. I'm sure I can think of some more ways that people misuse statistics, but those are just the ones that are clearly evident here.

PolicyWank, reading your posts (so thorough and logically constructed) always make me want to Wank Off thinking about the sexual intelligent being you are.

 

[LMWM321]

Frankly, the idea that a 65 year old urologist has insight into the lived sexual experience of an attractive woman is far more ridiculous than the notion that I can identify a man with a big dick.

What does being an "attractive woman" have to do with anything, or the fact that the doctor is 65? Seems like you're projecting a bit of sexism and agism.

And to suggest he's going to lie to me about whether black men have bigger penises just to spare my ego is ridiculous, especially since MY particular problem w/ size - which we've discussed at length - is that I'm way too big for my partner's comfort.

He's a serious doctor answering a question seriously. Any good doctor will speak frankly and truthfully about how certain diseases disproportionately impact different races, such as: BPH, Prostate Cancer, T2 Diabetes, Hyperlipidemia, Hypertension, Kidney stones, etc.. And although the question at hand isn't about a disease, I'm pretty sure he wouldn't hesitate to say, "Yeah, black men tend to have bigger penises" if he thought it was indeed true. I've known him for years - he shoots straight. And he's is the Head of Urology at a major Urban teaching institution, so he sees a tremendous number of patients - of all races.

In no way and at no time have I suggested that my anecdotal observations should be taken as more valid than scientific research. What I have said is: 1) you are being selective with references to scientific research thereby asserting an artificially low frequency; and 2) while there are no good "clothes on" predictors of large cocks it isn't completely and utterly random so there are some things that a woman can look for which will help her increase her chances even a little bit; and 3) nobody dates randomly from the dating pool of all members of the opposite sex.

The CalcSD site pulls in studies from different countries and allows the user to chose a region OR choose Worldwide which will aggregate regional data. You say he's being selective as to which studies. Well... Yes.. of course he is. The studies need to have data that can be compared. For example, a set of measurements of stretched flaccid penises, can't be reliably compared w/ the lengths of erect penises.

Now, if you're suggesting he intentionally excluded quality studies that COULD be compared/ aggregated simply b/c they showed larger average penis size or bigger racial differences - well, I don't know how to respond to that other than, Why?? If he's going to do that then why would he even bother putting CalcSD together in the first place? That seems like an awful lot of work just to self-delude.. And it's not like a Pharmaceutical company willfully misrepresenting data to the FDA so they can get a drug approval to make lots of money. Indeed, there is NO profit motive for the CalcSD creator.. It's a free on-line tool.

Again, here's what I believe:

1. Most people over-estimate penis size - yes, women too! ..They tend to NOT have rulers with them and IF they do measure, they're measuring only the larger dicks they encounter and probably from an angle that maximizes the result rather than the correct way, the only way that allows for comparison w/ existing studies.

2. The myth of black men having bigger penises has deeply sinister origins with little or no quality data supporting it. Nonetheless, it has sadly taken up permanent residence in our culture - especially in Porn where big dicks are fetishized. You may think it's White or Asian men who are hurt most by this stereotype, but I think you would be wrong. From what I've read in sex columns and heard in sex podcasts it triggers far greater anxiety and self-consciousness in young Black men who who fear their partners will be disappointed when they discover they don't have a big dick.

3. Apart from maybe looking for a big crotch bulge, there is no way to reliably tell from outward appearance whether or not a man has a big dick - not weight, height, hand or foot size. Now, if a person is inclined to date only porn actors or male strippers, then yes.. they probably ARE encountering larger dicks. ..But that's more about statistical self-selection than a woman having some sort of Big-Dick Radar.

Lastly, I too am a fan of Mark Twain; and while his quip is of course quite witty, it's hardly a convincing indictment of statistics. If you think the world of critical analysis WITH statistics is murky, just imagine what it would be WITHOUT statistics.

 

[policywank]

What does being an "attractive woman" have to do with anything, or the fact that the doctor is 65? Seems like you're projecting a bit of sexism and agism.

And to suggest he's going to lie to me about whether black men have bigger penises just to spare my ego is ridiculous, especially since MY particular problem w/ size - which we've discussed at length - is that I'm way too big for my partner's comfort.

He's a serious doctor answering a question seriously. Any good doctor will speak frankly and truthfully about how certain diseases disproportionately impact different races, such as: BPH, Prostate Cancer, T2 Diabetes, Hyperlipidemia, Hypertension, Kidney stones, etc.. And although the question at hand isn't about a disease, I'm pretty sure he wouldn't hesitate to say, "Yeah, black men tend to have bigger penises" if he thought it was indeed true. I've known him for years - he shoots straight. And he's is the Head of Urology at a major Urban teaching institution, so he sees a tremendous number of patients - of all races.



The CalcSD site pulls in studies from different countries and allows the user to chose a region OR choose Worldwide which will aggregate regional data. You say he's being selective as to which studies. Well... Yes.. of course he is. The studies need to have data that can be compared. For example, a set of measurements of stretched flaccid penises, can't be reliably compared w/ the lengths of erect penises.

Now, if you're suggesting he intentionally excluded quality studies that COULD be compared/ aggregated simply b/c they showed larger average penis size or bigger racial differences - well, I don't know how to respond to that other than, Why?? If he's going to do that then why would he even bother putting CalcSD together in the first place? That seems like an awful lot of work just to self-delude.. And it's not like a Pharmaceutical company willfully misrepresenting data to the FDA so they can get a drug approval to make lots of money. Indeed, there is NO profit motive for the CalcSD creator.. It's a free on-line tool.

Again, here's what I believe:

1. Most people over-estimate penis size - yes, women too! ..They tend to NOT have rulers with them and IF they do measure, they're measuring only the larger dicks they encounter and probably from an angle that maximizes the result rather than the correct way, the only way that allows for comparison w/ existing studies.

2. The myth of black men having bigger penises has deeply sinister origins with little or no quality data supporting it. Nonetheless, it has sadly taken up permanent residence in our culture - especially in Porn where big dicks are fetishized. You may think it's White or Asian men who are hurt most by this stereotype, but I think you would be wrong. From what I've read in sex columns and heard in sex podcasts it triggers far greater anxiety and self-consciousness in young Black men who who fear their partners will be disappointed when they discover they don't have a big dick.

3. Apart from maybe looking for a big crotch bulge, there is no way to reliably tell from outward appearance whether or not a man has a big dick - not weight, height, hand or foot size. Now, if a person is inclined to date only porn actors or male strippers, then yes.. they probably ARE encountering larger dicks. ..But that's more about statistical self-selection than a woman having some sort of Big-Dick Radar.

Lastly, I too am a fan of Mark Twain; and while his quip is of course quite witty, it's hardly a convincing indictment of statistics. If you think the world of critical analysis WITH statistics is murky, just imagine what it would be WITHOUT statistics.

All that comes down to what you choose to believe, which is fine. It just isn't scientific.

I don't think it is a matter of a urologist lying so much as it how one expresses things. Like I said if you ask a sex therapist whether cock size matters or not their knee jerk reaction will be to say no. But they don't mean that literally. They mean in the broadest sense it matters relatively little and even less so within the range of what most people consider normal or average size. They don't literally mean it doesn't matter one iota to any woman ever even if your dick is the size of a thimble. If you ask them that pointed question you will get a different answer. Just like if you ask a oroligist the more pointed question "can you say with a high degree of confidence that there is no difference among races whatsoever?" you may get a different answer.

To the extent that some women find larger men more desirable that makes them "higher value" men in the sexual sense. They will naturally pursue more attractive women because they can. That isn't sexist. It may not be fair but that is the way it is. Of course it isn't all about size. Having a big dick is not unto itself enough. But a tall handsome guy's "value" will increase if he has a big dick.

It is very easy to imagine that someone intent upon proving a particular point of view would be selective in the studies they choose. Whether or not the person who created that site feels that way or not I do not know. But there is no basis to presume that they are simply a data geek with no bias. The why is pretty damn easy. Have you never been around insecure men looking for a reason to interpret data to suit their purpose. Like I said, I don't know if that is the case but out is damn easy to imagine.

Mark Twain's quip wasn't an indictment of stats in my view. It was a recognition of how people will distort them for their own purposes.

 

[LMWM321]

@policywank
Let's just keep the peace by agreeing to disagree. Having read your profile statement and some of your posts on other threads, you seem quite likable and a positive and knowledgeable presence here on Lit. ..No need for us to battle endlessly about this. I look forward to reading your contributions to other threads, I'm sure I'll learn a lot. Be well!!

 

[Purple_Fronds]

I’m still waiting for the association of Korean Mathematicians to respond . They’ve got a ton of data proving there’s a very strong correlation between penis size and how strong you are in multi variable calculus.

 

[SlutAddicted]

Now, if you're suggesting he intentionally excluded quality studies that COULD be compared/ aggregated simply b/c they showed larger average penis size or bigger racial differences - well, I don't know how to respond to that other than, Why?? If he's going to do that then why would he even bother putting CalcSD together in the first place? That seems like an awful lot of work just to self-delude..

Unfortunately, the internet is full of people with an agenda or bias. And many invest a great deal of energy into trying to convince other people or simply seeking like minded people with whom to share their self delusion. Sometimes the lack of objectivity is intentional. I think that more often it is not, but that doesn't necessarily change the outcome. The absence of intent to mislead or indulge in conformation bias doesn't keep it from happening.

 

[policywank]

I’m still waiting for the association of Korean Mathematicians to respond . They’ve got a ton of data proving there’s a very strong correlation between penis size and how strong you are in multi variable calculus.

Lol. Yes but which way does the correlation go?

 

[Purple_Fronds]

Lol. Yes but which way does the correlation go?

The only way is up!

 

[HottieOlwen]

Can women explain to me, is bigger generally better? What's the minimum size you need to be satisfied?
I am asking because since we started swinging my wife doesn't have sex with me (5 in) anymore, and the men she chooses always seem to be at least twice my size.

This is almost a replica of our experience! We started swinging, I got hooked on real man sized cock, whilst Richard almost always made a fool of himself with his 3" cock and his prem. ej. It lead to us being excluded from swinging parties eventually, but on the bright side, it also turned me into a HotWife and made Richard a cuckold. Every cloud... etc!

 

[SlutAddicted]

This is almost a replica of our experience! We started swinging, I got hooked on real man sized cock, whilst Richard almost always made a fool of himself with his 3" cock and his prem. ej. It lead to us being excluded from swinging parties eventually, but on the bright side, it also turned me into a HotWife and made Richard a cuckold. Every cloud... etc!

It can be sobering as a man in this situation to realize that our reality does not come close to our fantasy, while our wife is finding a whole new world of opportunity.

 

[AsianFusion]

I’m still waiting for the association of Korean Mathematicians to respond . They’ve got a ton of data proving there’s a very strong correlation between penis size and how strong you are in multi variable calculus.

But is the correlation +ve or -ve?