Originally Posted by srvy:
What is the specs for measuring a dick? That may be whats throwing all. Being a land surveyor we are experts in measurements but we need some guidelines.
Oh and by the way surveyors do measure up!
Shrug. I go from the top of the base. 5"x3" seems pretty small. If you measure from the nutsack, then you probably end up with an extra inch or two. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Detoxing:
Im a small dude in stature (5-9") and even my dick is bigger than that. .
Physical size doesn't correlate to dick size. Nor does big hands or feet mean your packing large.
Originally Posted by Detoxing:
I don't think the poll is inaccurate. Maybe some are lying, but i doubt most are.
5"...that's a small dick...
It's a scientific study. The people participating don't lie. They are measured by scientists or their assistants in the study. They don't take peoples word. There have been other studies that basically show the same average size.
if they did take peoples word for it you'd get results like the Chiefs Planet poll. Even though its private, people are not honest. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Detoxing:
Im honestly not surprised most here are reporting higher than 5". No, i don't believe the majority are lying. 5" seems really fucking small.
This "study" is damn near quackery:
The study participants were men aged 17 to 91 who had their penises measured in 20 previously published studies conducted in Europe, Asia, Africa, and the United States.
The team found no evidence for penis size differences linked to race, though most of the study participants were of European and Middle Eastern descent and a full comparison could thus not be made.
So basically, this isn't a "new" study, nor is it comprehensive. If the scientists didn't actually create this study from the ground up, didn't measure in South America, Australia and didn't specify which countries in Asia, their conclusions are likely to be extremely skewed and inaccurate. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud:
This "study" is damn near quackery:
The study participants were men aged 17 to 91 who had their penises measured in 20 previously published studies conducted in Europe, Asia, Africa, and the United States.
The team found no evidence for penis size differences linked to race, though most of the study participants were of European and Middle Eastern descent and a full comparison could thus not be made.
So basically, this isn't a "new" study, nor is it comprehensive. If the scientists didn't actually create this study from the ground up, didn't measure in South America, Australia and didn't specify which countries in Asia, their conclusions are likely to be extremely skewed and inaccurate.
This is being published in a old school scientific medical journal.
Official journal of the British Association of Urological Surgeons, the Urological Society of Australia and New Zealand, the Hong Kong Urological Association, the Caribbean Urological Association and the Irish Society of Urology, and affiliated journal of the Urological Society of India
Doesn't look like a bunch of quacks to me.:-) [Reply]
Originally Posted by BigRedChief:
This is being published in a old school scientific medical journal.
Official journal of the British Association of Urological Surgeons, the Urological Society of Australia and New Zealand, the Hong Kong Urological Association, the Caribbean Urological Association and the Irish Society of Urology, and affiliated journal of the Urological Society of India
It's incomplete. If they're outright admitting that most of the men were European and Middle Eastern, it's not representative of all men everywhere and should not be used as any type of standard.
It's not a true average when the majority is from two races. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud:
This "study" is damn near quackery:
The study participants were men aged 17 to 91 who had their penises measured in 20 previously published studies conducted in Europe, Asia, Africa, and the United States.
The team found no evidence for penis size differences linked to race, though most of the study participants were of European and Middle Eastern descent and a full comparison could thus not be made.
So basically, this isn't a "new" study, nor is it comprehensive. If the scientists didn't actually create this study from the ground up, didn't measure in South America, Australia and didn't specify which countries in Asia, their conclusions are likely to be extremely skewed and inaccurate.
Africa could even everything out. That has to be considered as ramping up the results. Well unless they only traveled to pigmie lands. [Reply]
Originally Posted by srvy:
Africa could even everything out. That has to be considered as ramping up the results. Well unless they only traveled to pigmie lands.
