Factory or artisanally hand-stretched?
The numbers don't allow for "growers vs. showers". The erect length of my penis is probably roughly average (I haven't measured it); flaccid, it's a lot shorter 9 cm. and much experience of shared bathing facilities in my youth suggests that the same is true for a lot of people.
People must be willing to pull way too hard on the "hand stretched" thing.
I'm kind of surprised by the claimed lack of strong correlation with the size of other body parts. Anecdotally, and in what direct experience I have, there's a reasonably strong correlation with height/body-size generally. Are the studies not finding correlation with, e.g., foot-size, discounting a correlation with body size generally (that is, not correlated with foot size means, 'not correlated with differences between foot-size and what we'd predict foot-size to be from height')?
5 on the heels of yesterday's explicit mention here of Buck's being a tall drink of water.
That would be violating the sanctity of off-blog interaction, as well as the marital privilege, and I think probably also the Law of the Sea Treaty.
The U.S. government isn't a party to at least one of those and probably two.
Only a dirty liberal like LB would comply with treaties the US isn't signatory to.
The almost identical distance between flaccid and erect sizes is striking. But it could just be that that the growing/showing variation is identical(ish) across almost all the normal sizes. I suppose that wouldn't be surprising but it is notable.
Average length of flaccid penis stretched out by researchers (yes, that's a thing they do sometimes): 5.21 inches
I can just imagine the pre-study meeting to assign this responsibility. How hard? Until the subject winces?
Are the studies not finding correlation with, e.g., foot-size, discounting a correlation with body size generally (that is, not correlated with foot size means, 'not correlated with differences between foot-size and what we'd predict foot-size to be from height')?
That would be a standard regression analysis, so yes that is what I would expect they are doing. I.e., they are asking: "holding constant all other variables in the equation (including height), how do variations in foot size correlate with variations in penis size?" and they are finding that there is little or no correlation.
11: The objective scientific standard is "until they beg for death".
It is standard. I put penis size in every model.
I hope you don't use self-reported numbers.
He uses the difference between self-reported and actual shoe sizes as a control. Easy-peasy.
Regardless, isn't the more important question whether regular artisanal hand stretching actually increases erect length, as its proponents claim? The near perfect correlation between hand-stretched length and erect length seems to give that claim some frankly unexpected credibility.
Either that or it really, really, hurts to stretch your penis too far.
Regardless, isn't the more important question whether regularly wearing longer pants increases leg length, as its proponents claim? The near perfect correlation between pants length and leg length seems to give that claim some frankly unexpected credibility.
I considered the criticism that I assume is being implied by the banned analogy in 20. I assume that something like the criticism that I assume is being implied by the banned analogy in 20 is actually in fact the case. But it's still a fairly striking correlation, and it seems surprising in ways that the correlation described in the banned analogy in 20 isn't at all surprising.
You could go buy a penis pump and report back.
22: I don't think those operate on the same principle as artisanal hand stretching, but honestly I haven't researched this issue so maybe I'm wrong. (I don't feel like googling from work. Clicking the link in the OP was bad enough.)
a new literature review of penis-size studies in BJU International
I see what they did there.
Assuming they work by creating a partial vacuum around a penis, I don't see how it wouldn't be the same as artisanal hand stretching, except better because it isn't just a unidirectional pull.
Assuming they work
That's like assuming a can opener.
"Work" was maybe the wrong word there. "Assuming they are intended to function by creating..." is a better start.
I'm sure they don't use a can opener.
My point is that if pulling on your junk makes it bigger, then a penis pump should work because what it does is pull on your junk.
The full paper is available for free. The choices are: PDF, View Full Article, Enhanced Article. I'm currently reading the enhanced one.
You should find out for urple how they enhanced it.
"Flaccid stretched length was measured as above while maximally extending the penis"
"Measurements made from cadavers" excluded. (Although I'm sure you could maximally extend the fuck out those.)
The numbers don't allow for "growers vs. showers".
Can one expound on the relevance of this distinction for the study? Without knowing the length of your flaccid-but-stretched penis, I can't tell what the point of comment 2 is supposed to be.
32.2. Can you not donate your dick to science in your will?
Why we need a calibrated penis stretching machine for real science, urologists are too kind.
This was found by Chen et al. who reported that a minimal tension force of ≈450 g during stretching of the penis was required to reach a full potential erection length and that the stretching forces exerted by a urologist in their clinical setting were experimentally shown to be significantly less than the pressure required. This may account for a discrepancy observed in three out four of our present studies in Table 1, which measured stretched and erect length simultaneously and found that the erect length was longer than the stretched flaccid length.
"It is acknowledged that some of the volunteers across different studies may have taken part in a study because they were more confident with their penis size than the general male population. "
I htink I've seen this stat quoted (here?) before:
An important observation also comes from Lever et al. who found in a large internet survey of 52 031 heterosexual men and women, 85% of women were satisfied with their partner's penis size, but only 55% of the men were satisfied with their own penis size.
I've heard that length is not the sole or even most significant dimension of concern to the said women.
37: One can then conclude that the number of partners is correlated with penis size.
38: Penes of short duration are right out.
Relevant. About using Google queries to general social science type data. The charts are cute. Apparently, nine of ten penis related queries assumed to be from men are about size.
85% of women were satisfied with their partner's penis size
In this context, "satisfied with" is really quite an impressively ambiguous phrase.
The graph allows to confirm part of girl27's conjecture, OBJECTIVELY.
38: Indeed. Next sentence in the OP-referenced article: only 15% of women say that erect penis size is important and erect girth is generally more important than length.
erect girth is generally more important than length
Of course, anything can be taken too far, as an old boss of Buck's who used to describe himself as 'hung like a tuna can' would say.
Tuna is now available in foil pouches, if that helps.
I have limited in-person experience with penises, but of the three I've seen the most pitiable belonged to the tallest guy. About 5 inches long and half the width of a normal penis. So LB's theory is anecdatally flawed.
LB's first BF, when he was in college, was being followed around semi-creepily by some [older] guy. I don't recall how the conversation went, but the gist of it was that the guy was scoping the BF due to his large calves, allegedly correlated with penis size.
Anecdatally, I am informed this is true (n=1).
I believe the first letter of the prior comment to be a typographical error.
My point is that if pulling on your junk makes it bigger, then a penis pump should work because what it does is pull on your junk.
Ah, but perhaps artisanal hand-pulling works by sacrificing girth for length, in which case uniform junk-pulling is futile.
I can't verify that 53 is true, except to say that I did, indeed, intend to type an A.
52.2: That's a fact about a single creep and an opinion about calf/penis size.
The word "me" should occur between the words "allows" and "to" in comment 44.
OT: Somebody on my floor puked. It's really becoming awful.
I think they went-off in the bathroom, but still.
I believe 54 is correct. If I'm not mistaken the term of art is 'jelqing.' Not that I've extensively researched penis enlargement techniques or anything. It might be interesting to see if one could reverse the process, sacrificing length for girth. Maybe get a boner and then bang on the end with a mallet or something.
Also everybody should watch the documentary Unhung Hero. If you care about cocks, which you do.
That hyphen was needed by the facts of grammar.
It might be interesting to see if one could reverse the process, sacrificing length for girth. Maybe get a boner and then bang on the end with a mallet or something.
You just need to get a penis pump and reverse the polarity.
If I'm not mistaken the term of art is 'jelqing.'
My Alter Ego once linked to a video of a guy who had enlarged his penis a ridiculous amount. It was crazy awesome.
But then the video got taken down. Apo was able to find it again, but then that one came down too.
Found it. He'd been injecting his penis with silicone.
NSFW
From the article:
The authors also found that the "strongest significant correlation was between flaccid stretched or erect length and height."
So to LB's question, height is correlated as you might expect, but none of the body-part correlations.
was "The long and short of it" too on the nose for the title, ogged?
too on the nose
Whoah there, Pinocchio.
Actually looking at the study, I think 13 may be wrong. They are just reporting correlations, not the results of regressions.
Where can I go to have my penis professionally measured? I'm not sure I'm doing it right.
70: The original paper included very specific instructions. Phrases like "flexible tape measure" and "fat pad."
Right, but it still seems like I need a double-blind measurement. There's just too much room for experimenter bias.
Nobody clicked on the link in 65?
I have a long held fear of injecting things into penises.
73: Sure I did. And then I heard my wife coming in and decided to avoid the inevitable discussion that would result.
So to LB's question, height is correlated as you might expect, but none of the body-part correlations.
Which reminds me of the story about the West Indian cricketer Joel Garner, who stands, or stood in his youth, 6' 8". He was approached at a reception by some up market official woman who said, "Mr Garner, is it true, as they say, that you're built in proportion?"
Beat while Garner processes what's going.
"Madam, if I was built in proportion I'd be nine feet tall!"
73: You said that "apo found it" which makes it fall under the "Don't click on any link of apo's" rule.